Conquer Club

hmsps wrote:Seems like the mods might just note this as a similar event took place in a CC game http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9&t=183520

betiko wrote:

hmsps wrote:Seems like the mods might just note this as a similar event took place in a CC game viewtopic.php?f=239&t=183520

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

Gillipig wrote:

betiko wrote:

hmsps wrote:Seems like the mods might just note this as a similar event took place in a CC game viewtopic.php?f=239&t=183520

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

GeneralRisk wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

betiko wrote:

hmsps wrote:Seems like the mods might just note this as a similar event took place in a CC game viewtopic.php?f=239&t=183520

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

What is wrong with the Gestapo?........Suicide is common in 3 player games. Usually done against the lower rank. This guy didnt care about points.

betiko wrote:

GeneralRisk wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

betiko wrote:

hmsps wrote:Seems like the mods might just note this as a similar event took place in a CC game viewtopic.php?f=239&t=183520

it's something i deeply hate and that is against the rules although never enforced. So basically deadbeating is bad, but randomly suiciding on someone when you get bored is ok? I see no problem with deadbeating when you had enough.

On the other hand we don't want gestapo enforcement. One time is no time when it comes to a minor offence like this.

What is wrong with the Gestapo?........Suicide is common in 3 player games. Usually done against the lower rank. This guy didnt care about points.

the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

Gillipig wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

Funkyterrance wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:the etiquette is deadbeating if someone has offended you systematically attacking and/or you're getting in verbal arguments in the chat with that player. what is wrong with deadbeating if you are done playing??? why f*ck someone up (or every other players) who hasn't done anything to you? we had all 3 played in a manner that didn't piss each other off, and one player had to leave in 10 minutes. How is that a behaviour we are going to let go? how is that not as bad as point dumping/ secret diplomacy/rating abuse/freemium multi??

I think it's interesting how passionate you seem to feel about rules when it involves you personally. All that aside, how do you know he wasn't just hoping for great dice and trying to take you out?

2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

Ok from the chat it looks to me like he could have "made a move" just like he said he was going to and failed. The chat doesn't prove one way or another, just that he made a decision to break a stalemate.

Gillipig wrote:
2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Gillipig wrote:
2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.
If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

MrOpolo wrote:WOW is all i can say .......

betiko wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Gillipig wrote:
2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.
If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

funky, go somewhere else you're a troll. just because i did the report you are going to disagree with me. If you are going to comment, at least read the comment on my report or just do the fucking math. troops were 750+ even for all 3 players and trades 125. not even a cook would think he has a chance.

regarding your other idiotic comment, allow me to have my own opinion and to be against "game throwing" and have no problem with people sitting turns in case of absence.

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Gillipig wrote:
2013-01-05 19:45:06 - MrOpolo: come on someone must make a play , well if it means to be foed so be it , it was great playing with y guys...
2013-01-05 19:53:35 - saintslayer: u 2
2013-01-05 19:56:18 - betiko: congrats for losing more points
2013-01-05 19:56:34 - betiko: you couldv e ballanced the attack
2013-01-05 19:57:00 - betiko: thanks for making me lose my time
2013-01-05 19:57:29 - MrOpolo: hes having a party ... points not the worry ,, good game guys it was fun
2013-01-05 19:57:52 - betiko: they are for me thanks for being a dick
2013-01-05 19:58:32 - MrOpolo: wow ok so i can expect to be foed then...

The parts marked in bold tells us that he was aware of what he did was foe worthy, and that he did it (suicided) so that saintslayer could go to his party. Although I suspect it was more because he was tired of the game himself.

He may have been tired of the game but there's insufficient evidence that he threw it.
If it's a stalemate and you are going to take the chance of taking one other player out, you have to choose one or the other. The person who gets "chosen" is likely to be pissed off and foe you for it. I'm pretty sure breaking a stalemate isn't against the rules. While this method may not be the most practical way of doing so, it's not evidence of deliberately throwing the game. Again, there is the small chance he could have gotten amazing dice and taken out both players.

funky, go somewhere else you're a troll. just because i did the report you are going to disagree with me. If you are going to comment, at least read the comment on my report or just do the fucking math. troops were 750+ even for all 3 players and trades 125. not even a cook would think he has a chance.

regarding your other idiotic comment, allow me to have my own opinion and to be against "game throwing" and have no problem with people sitting turns in case of absence.

Chill out betiko.
I've seen some players do some pretty irrational things when they are just fed up with a stalemate. Aside from ranting, do you have any actual new evidence that shows that he threw the game because as it stands it doesn't look like there is any? With 750 troop stacks there can be a lot of variation in results.

bouncy wrote:It's only a game.

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

betiko wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Again, that's your strategy. You can't just impose your style of play on every other player on the site or even assume they care as much as you do. The bottom line is you can't prove one way or the other.

Gillipig wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

betiko wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:So no one is allowed to take a "risk" when taking their turn, no matter how slim? Yes, he admitted to not caring about points and he admitted to wanting to speed up the game. This still doesn't prove he deliberately threw the game. You can't demand that someone play the game exactly the same way you would. If it weren't a stalemate situation you might have a stronger case but it was so you don't.

humm let me laugh at your face. In those cases you slim down both players so that one is tempted to go for a kill that matches somehow the value of the trade; let's say the value of the trades is twice lower the troop count; maybe you have a slim chance there; but x7 times more troops than the value of the trades of both opponents is suicide, and by no way did he think he could win that game by doing so, he isn't a clueless player. Stop insulting everybody's intellignece saying that 0,036% odds is not throwing a game.

Again, that's your strategy. You can't just impose your style of play on every other player on the site or even assume they care as much as you do. The bottom line is you can't prove one way or the other.

Can both of you stop posting now? You're arguing over nothing, and only spam the thread right now. Just let the mod make his verdict.