Conquer Club

Accused:

TheFlashPoint


The accused are suspected of:


Other: July Challenge Abuse



Game number(s):

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?g ... &mode=find


Comments: The Flashpoint was ahead on the scoreboard going into the final days of the month when he joined roughly 26 ( not 31 ) of my waiting games with the intent to "protect" his lead on the scoreboard. In all 26 games TheFlashpoint has attacked me and only me 95% of his turns.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=206100&start=75&p=4537779&view=show#p4537779

He states " I expect to win some of these". Well no shit, you join that many you are going to win some. So will players 2, 3, and 4. He has won 3 games of the 26.

He states, "My lead is not decreasing". Again no shit. How can I catch you when you only attack my troops in every game?

TheFlashPoint has ruined a monthly challenge with his abuse and poor sportsmanship.

If your accusation is correct it seems that TheFlashPoint was willing to lose to make sure that you lost as well thereby purposely reducing his own points and your points.So if TheFlashPoint intentionally joined your games to make sure that you did not win would that be a case of point dumping or holding a player hostage?

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Accused:

TheFlashPoint


The accused are suspected of:


Other: July Challenge Abuse

Hello pot!

JR, I think it will be tough to prove this without an admission of guilt. To me, this sounds a bit like sour grapes.

I don't think there are any rules for this tournament where a player should not be joining anyone's games in particular. The best that you can try to prove is if he is suiciding into you or throwing games to make sure you do not win. Can you provide specific game numbers where he suicided on you?

Sounds like solid strategy for the event / challenge / tournaments.
Hasn't it cone up before in tournaments were if it benefits the player in the grand scheme it's not punished?
I don't see how this would be treated differently.

I vaguely remember cases where the accused used some strategy in order for him to preserve his position in a tournament. Like making sure player X would not win in a game because they are tied in some standing. We let the tournament organizer handle cases that fall into that.

king achilles wrote:I vaguely remember cases where the accused used some strategy in order for him to preserve his position in a tournament. Like making sure player X would not win in a game because they are tied in some standing. We let the tournament organizer handle cases that fall into that.

Yeah this is similar to a tournament, and that's the type of scenario I was trying to remember in past cases

If this is the same scenario, then JR24 should contact the tournament organizer and see if TheFlashPoint did, as JR implies, is in violation of the tournament rules or guidelines (if there is any). If there are games where there is an obvious violation of the rules, we can apply the corresponding repercussion.

king achilles wrote:If this is the same scenario, then JR24 should contact the tournament organizer and see if TheFlashPoint did, as JR implies, is in violation of the tournament rules or guidelines (if there is any).

The only difference is it's a monthly challenge as opposed to a tournament, but it's a similar framework based on a larger scale official contest

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=206100&view=unread#unread

Since the accusation is mainly that he joined JR's games, maybe to monitor him and to keep his lead over him in the tournament, then this is a tournament issue. It could have also backfired on him if he lost and JR won many of these games. If the TO does not see any violation here, then, as he says, "it's final".

jackal31 wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Accused:

TheFlashPoint


The accused are suspected of:


Other: July Challenge Abuse

Hello pot!

JR, I think it will be tough to prove this without an admission of guilt. To me, this sounds a bit like sour grapes.

+1111

While I won't call it a "valid" strategy, it is a "legal" strategy. Most of the rules we have in the monthly challenges are to prevent players from screwing over the system, not screwing over each other. It is a FAMO issue. If you don't want to foe, meet in the street and have Dices at Dawn! Right now, the problem is isolated to the 5-10 people at the top of the scoreboard going cut-throat at each other. If the problem spreads, things may change... but I cannot support this case right now (although it does bug me, it sets a dangerous precedent were it to be outlawed).

DoomYoshi wrote:although it does bug me, it sets a dangerous precedent were it to be outlawed.

Why? Just have everyone foe the both (or all who do it) so they cant join anymore challenge games. Noone will join them and they wont be able to fill their own for playing like d-bags.

500 games in a month?!?! There are only a few people that can do that. I 'unfortunately', have a life and cannot. I just thinks it's funny they are attacking each other.

jackal31 wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:although it does bug me, it sets a dangerous precedent were it to be outlawed.

Why? Just have everyone foe the both (or all who do it) so they cant join anymore challenge games. Noone will join them and they wont be able to fill their own for playing like d-bags.

500 games in a month?!?! There are only a few people that can do that. I 'unfortunately', have a life and cannot. I just thinks it's funny they are attacking each other.

I agree with jackal, again.

Also, if that kind of play is going to be "outlawed" then you should also outlaw foeing any half decent player like b0060 does, stopping people joining games while he joins every available one.

DoomYoshi wrote:While I won't call it a "valid" strategy, it is a "legal" strategy. Most of the rules we have in the monthly challenges are to prevent players from screwing over the system, not screwing over each other. It is a FAMO issue. If you don't want to foe, meet in the street and have Dices at Dawn! Right now, the problem is isolated to the 5-10 people at the top of the scoreboard going cut-throat at each other. If the problem spreads, things may change... but I cannot support this case right now (although it does bug me, it sets a dangerous precedent were it to be outlawed).

I agree with DoomYoshi. Next time, try to foe the player if you suspect he is going to try a tactic like this in the tournament for whatever reasons, if it is indeed what he has done. Expect the unexpected, and that goes for everyone. It's a big tournament and sometimes, some people will do what it takes to be on top or to stay on top even if it is a questionable tactic.