Conquer Club

Accused:

bamage
dahulius




The accused are suspected of:

Other: unfair play



Game number(s):

Game 11771779


Comments:These guys decide to play a seperate 1vs1 game to decide who is going to throw our game & determine a winner.

And they get what they deserve!

lol
The op won this game...

hahahahah even more entertaining are the words in bamage's signature "games with alliances and too much chat"etc etc ...
BR

Wow. Definitely against the rules.

Both players have been noted

How is this against the rules? It was all above board, in the chat?

I don't understand this verdict at all...

If you're in a deadlock game, you create a tiebreaker like the accused did to get out of it. I've done this about 5 times, and it's common in tourney games to get multiplayer no spoil/flat rate games to end. You should probably note every time this has happened then.

Exactly. My understanding is that the deal just has to be public in the game chat.

The second sentence on the Home page of this site is "Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader." That's all that happened here.

The best response in this thread is agentcom's "Wow, definitely against the rules." Okay... you're a global moderator. Which rule? You're so certain.

bamage wrote:The best response in this thread is agentcom's "Wow, definitely against the rules." Okay... you're a global moderator. Which rule? You're so certain.

I should clarify from the start that my primary "area" is Suggestions. I haven't done anything in C&A except express my opinion. So, what follows is my understanding of the rules.

Tiebreaker games are discouraged because they technically involve game-throwing. You play one game and then the loser(s) has (have) to throw the other game to the winner of the tiebreaker game. Thus, the rulings that I have seen have indicated that this is a very narrow exception where game throwing is allowed or at least overlooked. It is my understanding (and I think the right way to do things) that all of the players in the deadlocked game should agree to any tiebreaker games. I'm 80% sure that I've read all this in previous C&As, but I'm on vacation, so I'm not gonna go digging through cases to find precedent.

Anyway, in the instant case, there were some players in a deadlocked game that did not agree to (weren't even part of) the tiebreaker game. This would not be a case of secret diplomacy as one of the commentators seems to address:

bamage wrote:Exactly. My understanding is that the deal just has to be public in the game chat.

This would have been a case of game throwing. But here, the throwing was unsuccessful. Perhaps that is the reason that they have only been "noted" and not "warned." I do not claim to know the C&A protocol for this situation, as I do not recall ever seeing an "attempted game throwing" case.