Conquer Club

Accused:

Karlo Veliki
RL_Orange


The accused are suspected of:

Other: Point Dumping / Game Throwing



Game number(s):

Game 5167302
Game 5167297
Game 5167289
Game 5167097
Game 5167095
Game 5167094
Game 5167064
Game 5167063
Game 5167057
Game 5167055

Comments:

Stubled opon these games while checking up on Karlo Veiliki, after he wrote in the CC ALL TIME TOP SCORES thread. Wanted to see what types of games he was playing.

I noticed 10x 1v1 Doodle games between Karlo and Orange. All of which Karlo had won, within just a few rounds.
In all of these games, then RL_Orange have been taking a lot of neutrals and thereby throwing Karlo the games.

I think this is a easy case of Point Dumping/Game Throwing.

It's very unfortunate that this would happen and i hope it's something innocent, but i very much doubt that at this point.

can't be more obvious, lame

It looks like their actions have stopped, so I'm not going to give a website ban at this moment for active point dumping. It'll be up to the hunters/admins to decide what happens based on these games/actions.

I guarantee an honest answer to this...there are a lot of possibilities here

Here is the answer:

Game 4815289, a 6p Esc game ended in a stalemate of 5 players, and the remaining players decided to play a tie-breaker.

The tie-breaker, Game 4986654, ended in a stalemate too, and yet another tie-breaker was started, this time on another map: Game 5073804.

Then one of the players went away on holidays and obviously didn´t leave proper instructions for his account-sitter, who then went ahead & eliminated Karlo from Game 4815289.

Karlo then won the tie-breaker Game 5073804. At this point, the 2 stalemate games should have been handed to him. This was the initial agreement. Since this was not possible with the game, where he had been eliminated by mistake, RL_Orange went ahead to take this one & hand Karlo the points via 1v1s instead.

Check the Game Chat of Game 4815289.

Game 4815289

2009-06-26 19:15:15 - RL_Orange gained 129 points

Game chat:

2009-06-26 19:39:58 - Karlo Veliki: Martin and me will solve this out....I like Ahundas suggestion but RL_Orange should lose around 16 pts if I would have won

ahunda explain everything.....thanks

GUILTY~~~~!!!!


(imagine an icon with a thumbs down)!!!!!!!!!!!

ahunda wrote:Here is the answer:

Game 4815289, a 6p Esc game ended in a stalemate of 5 players, and the remaining players decided to play a tie-breaker.

The tie-breaker, Game 4986654, ended in a stalemate too, and yet another tie-breaker was started, this time on another map: Game 5073804.

Then one of the players went away on holidays and obviously didn´t leave proper instructions for his account-sitter, who then went ahead & eliminated Karlo from Game 4815289.

Karlo then won the tie-breaker Game 5073804. At this point, the 2 stalemate games should have been handed to him. This was the initial agreement. Since this was not possible with the game, where he had been eliminated by mistake, RL_Orange went ahead to take this one & hand Karlo the points via 1v1s instead.

Check the Game Chat of Game 4815289.

I pretty much expected something along those lines, no problem there.

I knew there was a valid explanation. RL is beyond reproach.

RL_Orange is an honest person in my books. However, I dont agree with stalemates and transfering points through games. No game is a stalemate. Its just players refusing to make moves and not attacking. A stalemate in chess is when you can not move. Stalemates in these games are players just not playing. The original game should have been carried out until completed.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:RL_Orange is an honest person in my books. However, I dont agree with stalemates and transfering points through games. No game is a stalemate. Its just players refusing to make moves and not attacking. A stalemate in chess is when you can not move. Stalemates in these games are players just not playing. The original game should have been carried out until completed.

so what are you saying JR:

that they should be disciplined/site banned for point dumping as Stalemate does not actually exist in Risk except in the minds of some?

or
Are you making the general point for the alternative viewpoint and feel that no action should in fact be taken?

win percentage, total wins, relative rank, and im sure a couple other things were increased besides points. Just to add to the thread.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:win percentage, total wins, relative rank, and im sure a couple other things were increased besides points. Just to add to the thread.

sure but we can argue forever about the reality or otherwise of the Stalemate .. i have done many times. The argument will always come down to a subjective judgement.

But all the players in the game at the heart of this agreed that it was a stalemate. They are pretty decent, experienced players and at least marginally smart; they all decided that they could not win given the current situation. In light of there being no official recourse for such a 'stalemate' situation (i have tried to get that too), isn't it right that the players are sanctioned to resolve the impasse themselves .. and without fear of being website banned?

JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

hatchman wrote:JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

chip away at a player. no need to totally elimate him. take 1 country per turn. if others are doing the same than players will eventullay be eliminated. Instead, everyone sits there and deploys and ends turn or takes the same country back and forth giving each player a card. Put 50 armies on that country not allowing them to get the card. Dont just sit there and yell "stalemate". its not. there are plenty of options to do but nobody does anthing.

Let me get this straight...

The account sitter screws up the game, obviously a bad choice in deciding who sits in a game, and in order to rectify 129 points that, in their view, should not have gone to KV, Orange makes 10 1vs1 games to hand over 129 points to Karlo in a "STALEMATE"? If it was a stalemate game, then how was it determined that the points should go to KV and not some other deserving player in the same game? The reasoning was that it was KV that was eliminated and therefore should have won? At BEST, I would see that he got his 29 points back from 4815289, however, the resolution to this "problem" should not have been to create 10 games and give him 129 points, it should have been "that's your mistake for having XXXXXXXX babysit ..." and take it in the shorts and take the point loss. I realize that when ranks and scores are that high that one can become protective, but seriously... this was the resolution? Seriously?

I've played and known Orange for a long time on here, but this compromise that ahunda came up with was flat out ... stupid, sorry. I know I'm not a multihunter anymore, but this was very disappointing... especially over a few measly points.

hatchman wrote:JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

Noooooooo don't ....doooooo it Hatch ....

Damn too late!


yeap we all know it partner, JR too. But what it always comes down to the judgement and we will never resolve that here. It can never be a true stalemate, in the sense of the Chess Stalemate, as a move can always physically be played .. However doing so would bring about either stagnation or suicide.
We enter into an argument upon Semantics.

What would be best is if JR could agree, taking this into consideration, that this is a matter of intellectual debate and the age-old judgement call should not be the basis of the call for a website ban as would come with point-dumping.

Fireside Poet wrote:Let me get this straight...

The account sitter screws up the game, obviously a bad choice in deciding who sits in a game, and in order to rectify 129 points that, in their view, should not have gone to KV, Orange makes 10 1vs1 games to hand over 129 points to Karlo in a "STALEMATE"? If it was a stalemate game, then how was it determined that the points should go to KV and not some other deserving player in the same game? The reasoning was that it was KV that was eliminated and therefore should have won? At BEST, I would see that he got his 29 points back from 4815289, however, the resolution to this "problem" should not have been to create 10 games and give him 129 points, it should have been "that's your mistake for having XXXXXXXX babysit ..." and take it in the shorts and take the point loss. I realize that when ranks and scores are that high that one can become protective, but seriously... this was the resolution? Seriously?

I've played and known Orange for a long time on here, but this compromise that ahunda came up with was flat out ... stupid, sorry. I know I'm not a multihunter anymore, but this was very disappointing... especially over a few measly points.

It was winner takes all and the babysitter cocked it up, it was not KV's fault that the agreement was broken.

It's a well known solution to this problem and the manner of the solution should not fall under the remit of site adjudication. Stalemate is a problem which the site will not get officially involved in (i have come up with and debated in many solution threads in Suggestions) so they should not be involved in this either.

You got this completely and in almost all details wrong, FP:

The first game went stale. Cash values were around 150, and everybody had 300-350+ armies. So we decided, that there was no point continuing the game and started a new one. The agreement was: The winner of the tie-breaker then gets the other game too.

Karlo then won the the new game, the tie-breaker game. So according to the agreement, he should have gotten the first game, the stalemate, too. This is how "it was determined that the points should go to Karlo". Not because he got eliminated in the stalemate, but because he won the tie-breaker, fair & square.

The problem was, that by then another player (JustCallMeStupid) had gone on holidays and his account-sitter had eliminated Karlo from the stalemate game. So we couldn´t give the game & the points to him, though they were rightfully his, according to our agreement.

So another player (RL_Orange) took the game and then handed the points to Karlo.

Comprende ?

Yep, much clearer now. ...I'm interested in the final outcome of this one in view of the dumping policy. Would it have been too much to just create another game with the same players though? People screw up in my games all the time.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

hatchman wrote:JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

chip away at a player. no need to totally elimate him. take 1 country per turn. if others are doing the same than players will eventullay be eliminated. Instead, everyone sits there and deploys and ends turn or takes the same country back and forth giving each player a card. Put 50 armies on that country not allowing them to get the card. Dont just sit there and yell "stalemate". its not. there are plenty of options to do but nobody does anthing.

What you suggest as a solution to an apparent "stalemate" requires a lot more co-ordination/co-operation/organization/discussion among the players than a straight-forward play-off game.

ahunda wrote:The first game went stale. Cash values were around 150, and everybody had 300-350+ armies. So we decided, that there was no point continuing the game and started a new one. The agreement was: The winner of the tie-breaker then gets the other game too.

Karlo then won the the new game, the tie-breaker game. So according to the agreement, he should have gotten the first game, the stalemate, too. This is how "it was determined that the points should go to Karlo". Not because he got eliminated in the stalemate, but because he won the tie-breaker, fair & square.

The problem was, that by then another player (JustCallMeStupid) had gone on holidays and his account-sitter had eliminated Karlo from the stalemate game. So we couldn´t give the game & the points to him, though they were rightfully his, according to our agreement.

So another player (RL_Orange) took the game and then handed the points to Karlo.

Comprende ?

That sounds like a fair and equitable solution in my book. Nothing that concerns other players nor anything that's against the spirit of the game. (Just putting down my support, nothing else to say than that.)

hatchman wrote:

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:

hatchman wrote:JR

I think those who regularly play escalating singles can attest to the fact that a lot of games stalemate. They get to the point where a single or double cash is not enough to eliminate anyone. Or, if such an elimination is attempted/accomplished, the player doing the eliminating will be left entirely killable himself...

chip away at a player. no need to totally elimate him. take 1 country per turn. if others are doing the same than players will eventullay be eliminated. Instead, everyone sits there and deploys and ends turn or takes the same country back and forth giving each player a card. Put 50 armies on that country not allowing them to get the card. Dont just sit there and yell "stalemate". its not. there are plenty of options to do but nobody does anthing.

What you suggest as a solution to an apparent "stalemate" requires a lot more co-ordination/co-operation/organization/discussion among the players than a straight-forward play-off game.

exactly, there are many ways to solve the stagnant game, some of them:

- attack below a certain number each go
- deciding game
- independent attacks as JR states *

the problem with JR's solution is that in the very ritualised form of high ranking Esc. the blatant attack and thinning of stacks, blocking card etc will likely cause a tit for tat. This will disproportionately weaken 1 or 2 players and certainly the attacker.
Without co-ordination, mutual suicide is often the path you chose.
Again, often determining the conclusion that Stalemate has arrived.



The problem we have here is that we are making this into a judgement call one way or t'other ... i hoped we could avoid it but JR asked for it and now you engage him

the problem is we are asking the site to adjudicate on this specific issue now.. and it could result in website bans if we are not on the winning side! careful please people!


in the longterm we could officially solve this by:

Freezing: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=52790&hilit=stalemate
Increasing Army Cash: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=50629&hilit=stalemate

Was hoping that this would turn out to be innocent. If i've understood the situation correctly, then it was exactly that.