Conquer Club

<DELETE ME>
PLACE THE NAME OF THE ACCUSED IN THE SUBJECT LINE!!!

Replace or delete any xxxxxxx with the appropriate information.
Delete any accusations or entries which do not apply.

Be sure before you accuse someone!
</DELETE ME>

Accused:

ncbilly123




The accused are suspected of:

Deliberate suicide in a tight 8 man dubs



Game number(s):

Game 5056576




Comments: While my team is going to sweep the win, I am appalled at his move against team 3...who were working their way towards the win. Roughly, manwiththeplan had a good 130 sitting on the africa border against ncbilly's defensive Africa force, team 3 were gaining the NA/SA + asian territories bonus (and overall ahead in troops by quite a margin) while team 4 were really on the backfoot due to, mainly, throwing their advantage away on eliminations.. spoongod was sitting pretty in Europe, but pretty much unable to move, and I had assumed that team 3 would, slowly, defeat team 4 before working on my partner. Of course we were waiting for an opening, but, in all probability, this should have been a (much deserved) win for team 3.

If someone could post a screenshot of the game as it currently stands I would be grateful..I can't from my own computer and in a few hours I'll have to play it out. It looks absolutely damning as it stands at the moment, it'll just look like a win once we've played it.

While I will of course take any win I can get , I find this kind of play distasteful in the extreme, also I am at a loss to explain the motive.

Of course I am aware that the response will be to merely foe and move on, but ncbilly123 is a long-time opponent of mine, and one I have respected through that time...I feel he deserves to have his name in lights for this abomination of a play.

my only thought is if he suicided into the other teams, like you say. it is because he doesnt want to lose maximum points, if he lost already, he is doing this to minimize losses.

i have seen assholes do this, and i foe, and move along.

although, in a situation like this, i am glad you put this into c and a. i like to remember why that guy is on my foe list. it also brings this type of gameplay to the attention of others.

ronc8649 wrote:my only thought is if he suicided into the other teams, like you say. it is because he doesnt want to lose maximum points, if he lost already, he is doing this to minimize losses.

i have seen assholes do this, and i foe, and move along.

although, in a situation like this, i am glad you put this into c and a. i like to remember why that guy is on my foe list. it also brings this type of gameplay to the attention of others.

Actually, in this case I don't think it is points-related.

I can understand why a player in his position (which was second-placed team in a tough, but not impossible position) might decide to expedite the process and suicide at spoongod..the chap stacking in Europe. That makes some sense to me. What I can't get is suiciding against the game leaders to hand the game over to the single player. Was it because cyan was encroaching into asia? Did that piss him off?

Intentional suiciding is against the rules, and in a case like this where it completely perverted the outcome of the game I believe ncbilly123 should be warned, and if he has done it before (and been written up in c and a) have a harsher punishment.

We see absolute, nonsensical crap being posted here daily; accusations of secret alliances by player who don't understand the dynamics of standard flat, multi accusations based on little more than the fact that both players come from the freakin' US..never mind the litany of garbage that is posted in here due to 'forum abuse'. Yet here is a cast-iron example of actual abuse ruining a game.

Or is suiciding not seen as 'abuse' anymore?

Thanks for raising this Mr C.

I was going to, but didn't want ot give ncb the satisfaction that he thought I might be riled (which I'm btw, it' only a game afterall!)

Your synopsis of the game was spot on and we were looking good, though spoon was also so could have gone either way. My take is that ncbilly just got increasingly p1ssed per turn at my incursion into asia and strong forts of the positions to gain the extra armies at 12 and 15 territories.

Toys came out of the pram obviously and he is foed as a result.

Anyone want my take on this?

First off if someone had askd I would tell. Sorry to say there were no hidden agendas here at all. If you check the record, light blue had been attacking my partner and I all along. I responded. I am sorry you think I was out to get you. That was not the case.

Secondly, I am involved in 5 games right now that are epics. My conquer club membership has ended thus I can only play 4 games at a time. If you look at my other games, you will see I am giving up my position in those as well. With only be able to play 4 games. I don't want to be involved in 100 plus turn epics. I would have re-upped my conquer club membership but because of financial issues I do not find it a good use of money right now.

Hope this clears it up. If you still feel like I am throwing a game, please foe me.

Billy

Aright here's the deal.

First "Deliberate suicide" isn't against the rules but throwing a game is an unwritten rule, so that's the way I have addressed this case. As an accusation against ncbilly123 for deliberately throwing the game.

Now, going through this game log it appears for the majority of the game this thing was a troop build up one. Meaning most rounds it was deploy and fort and end turn. BritishDragon (teal) had North America and was trying to increase his territories by moving out into Asia. From the log for what I can tell was occupied by dorsettrob (silver) ncbilly123's partner.

From about round 44 till the end these 2 argued over territories A5, A10 and a few others in Asia until the demise of BritishDragon (teal's) team occurred.

I know this is not the answer that your going to want to hear, but sometimes this happens in games like this, that have gone on for a while and look like their is no means to an end. Its my opinion that the accused ncbilly123 attacked with everything he had against a player that was being aggressive towards him as well, and the end result was that it took both teams out of contention of the game.

Sometimes you will find yourself in a game with an annoying player. If you do not like their playing style, you can add that player to your foe list. Once on the list, they will not be able to join future games with you if you joined the game first. I would also advise that you have the opportunity to rate your opponent. Use the ratings and up to 4 tags to describe your opponent and warn/encourage future participants.

I provided the long insight to show to all parties involved that this case was reviewed, researched and not just blown off. The end result of this case is Cleared, but please foe & rate as you see fit.

King Sam

king sam, he used his considerable armies in Africa to deplete my teammate in South america. It was a suicide. There is no other word for it. Spoon won with 212 armies left. There was no way he would have that many armies left had he taken out my partner by himself in south america. The fact is, my partner was suicided against by ncb from africa purely because they were losing out in asia to me.

In fairness he has stated his reasoning that he doesn't want these long games. OK, no problem. The answer is to simply deadbeat, or attack other teams with equal measure to attempt to retain fairness for the rest of the players who do want to play.

I am going to ask Andy to review this case. You seem to be setting the rather disturbing precedent that if you are in a tough position and being beaten back by another team, that it is perfectly ok to SUICIDE yourself on the winning team to hand it to another party who were not in a position to win. I am frankly amazed that you saw Ncbilly123's move as anything other than a blatant suicide...he was left with only 1's...as demonfork's screenshot showed. This was not a 'fighting for position' move as your judgement seemed to suggest..he threw the game to my team. Added to the fact that he wrote 'How do you feel now green?' comment after his suicide..which just proves that he saw his move as a kind of victory..he had fucked up the team that was out-playing him, handed the game to a third party..."ha ha I win because you don't!"

I am well aware that escalating players or 2 on2/trips/quads players see these kinds of games as a useless waste of rounds. However, this game was moving (if slowly) and was being played properly within the limits of the game style. I take these kinds of games seriously and consider your judgement to be a 'this is a pointless game anyway so what does it matter???' kind of ruling. This style of game may not be the most popular, but it not exactly an uncommon style and your ruling effectively says that if your are being out-played, and are pissed off about it, then it is perfectly fine to SUICIDE on to your opposition and hand a win to the third party. A victory of sorts it may be (for the suicider), but it is cheap beyond belief.

I actually wish I hadn't even brought this up now, as you are effectively sanctioning petulant suicides on the basis 'that it is a slow stacking game...so what does it matter?' Hence my determination to challenge you on it; this is my key game style..and your ruling effectively sanctions players to suicide all over me because I am out-playing them. Your ruling suggests that players who actually advance in this game style (as I prefer to) are in danger of being suicided on...for if they push to far (which is the only way to win this game style) then it is perfectly fine to suicide on them in a petty 'if I can't win then neither can you' pique of anger. British Dragon and manwiththeplan had played the game perfectly...you see no movement because you don't understand the format (to be frank about it). I do, and you are happily sanctioning throwing the game on the basis that it was a slow one. Would you do the same for an escalating game???

I urge you to reconsider and will take this above your head to Andy as well (as is my right). Your ruling allows for players to suicide because they are losing. This is completely unacceptable.

I stand by my earlier comments, none of which Mr. C chose to talk about. I have learned one thing from this. Next time (which won't happen) I play a game with Mr. C I need to ask him if I am playing correctly to suit him. I am sorry he feels I do not play like he wants me to (scratching head). I guess if I gave up all of my games, why would I be ranked as I am? It is unfortunate he can not understand that my membership is gone, and I am done with playing epics. It is also unfortunate he can not understand that I went after the team that was continually attacking me. I am really confused as to how this is confusing to Mr. C. I would think as a good player which he is he could understand this. It is also sad that he chose to post derectly to this forum rather than asking me of my motives.

NcBilly

Please feel free to open an E-ticket to get another review on this case. I stand by the decision that ncbilly123 did not throw the game in one way or the other. I never stated that a "suicide" is a sanctioned play that should be done by all who want out of a game, rather I said it is a way some users choose to play. And I directed you with the best course of action when you come across players that play of this nature, use your right to Foe and Rate accordingly.

My ruling in no way suggests that it is in good nature to give up and all out suicide on others, however people get upset at things said in chat or the way the game is played and they so choose to do this from time to time. Their is a tag to use in this case in the ratings area its called "Suicider".

Once again my ruling is that on all accounts it is apparent to me that ncbilly123 and his partner did not throw the game, but made a series of bad moves that ultimately took his team and British Dragon's team out of the game. His strategy on it failed, and he wrecklessly attacked with everything he had to prevent British Dragon's teams expansion. His moves made it easy for the other teams (yours) to walk away with the victory. But based on the log and the aggressions towards one another I do not see irrefutable evidence to say he threw the game in one way. He chose a pattern of play style that I and most don't agree with. But that is what the rating/foe system's are used for.

I again in no way sanction or condone this sort of play, and ruling the case based on the evidence in no way suggests it either. Feel free to open an E-Ticket on the case and another hunter/mod will provide their judgment as well.

King Sam

To be frank I just cannot see how you can't look at that screenshot and see that he threw the game. I mean he destroyed about 200+ in one throw and left himself all 1's. He left spoon with 69% of the men. He left himself with 0% of the freakin' men.

He threw the game.

By not warning him you are sanctioning this kind of play...his motive is irrelevent... 'I'm getting out of my epic games...' So what? Deadbeat, or spread the love out equally. And he isn't throwing all of them...I'm in some of them with him.

Nonetheless, I will await Andy's judgement....

Team 1 (green) 310 troops left on the screen shot provided (64%)

Team 2 (orange & silver) 19 troops left on the screen shot provided (4%)

Team 3 (teal & pink) 154 troops left on the screen shot provided (32%)

I buy that the move he made was a suicide move and it was directed towards team 3, however suiciding on someone isn't against the rules. It is looked down upon and even has a tag that can be used in the rating of individuals to warn others of that sort of play.

To say he intentionally threw the game I think is inconclusive here. Sure the end result of the suicide move he made allowed team 1 (your team) to walk away with the easy victory. But the evidence in this case is not conclusive enough to warrant administrative action against him as it can be viewed that ncbilly123 suicided on Team 3 for many reasons, to include wanting out of the game, because Team 2 & Team 3 were continually at aggressions with each other and this was a revenge move of his to take as many troops as he could from them, or perhaps cause he didn't agree with a move or two that was made by Team 3.

With 2 players still in the game and 32% of the troop count Team 3 were down big but not out. Good Luck with the E-Ticket.

King Sam

king sam wrote:With 2 players still in the game and 32% of the troop count Team 3 were down big but not out.

King Sam

lol

MrC I too like large 8 man epic 2.1 or classic games, and am quite good at them. My take is this. People will suicide in this format, whether you like it or not. If you pressure someone enough there is a chance they will lash out at you. Is it good play? No. Is it fair? No. Is it in good taste? No. But shit happens, that team pissed him off by expanding and he had other motives you don't know about.
I'd have to say that it was bad play by the aggressive team that led to this. This format is psychological to a large extent. You maneouvre opponents into attacking each other, giving you an advantage - it's not just a maths and income equation, you manipulate other players, I'm sure you know this. Well, they fucked up and handed the game to you by pissing off ncb - bad diplomacy, pure and simple.
So, sorry about your little butt, suck it up cupcake.

xelabale wrote:MrC I too like large 8 man epic 2.1 or classic games, and am quite good at them. My take is this. People will suicide in this format, whether you like it or not. If you pressure someone enough there is a chance they will lash out at you. Is it good play? No. Is it fair? No. Is it in good taste? No. But shit happens, that team pissed him off by expanding and he had other motives you don't know about.
I'd have to say that it was bad play by the aggressive team that led to this. This format is psychological to a large extent. You maneouvre opponents into attacking each other, giving you an advantage - it's not just a maths and income equation, you manipulate other players, I'm sure you know this. Well, they fucked up and handed the game to you by pissing off ncb - bad diplomacy, pure and simple.
So, sorry about your little butt, suck it up cupcake.

Thanks for your comments and you, without question, wrote a lot of sense. Of course the aim of the game is often to swoop in from second place/deflect attentions etc etc. I quite agree on that point.

However, my e ticket is related to the rather technical point of whether ncbilly's play was a standard suicide (to kill yourself) or whether he deliberately threw the game to allow another team to win. The hunter believes it was the first, I believe it was the second...sadly as ncbilly123 claims he didn't throw it, and I (as well as others in the game) believe he did, then one is left, to an extent, with the maths and income equation...and whether ncbilly123 is an experienced enough player to realise the consequences of his play. I believe he is.

Finally, I believe the game style relies on, to an extent, a sense of honour. One has to judge whether one's team (or oneself in a standard of course) is in a position to win...sometimes the second place team has to 'suck it up' and accept that the flow of the game has gone against them. They can attempt to unite the board to their purpose, they can threaten a suicide to achieve their aims, they can take themselves to the brink in order to push a third party (spoon in this case) back into the game to achieve a new favourable balance. All good play and, believe me, just the kind of devious tactics I employ on a very regular basis. But they CAN'T simply throw it to allow a third party to gain an uncontested win. That is actually against the rules. Regardless of whether it goes on quite a lot doesn't change that fact, and having been playing these kinds of games continuously for a year and half on CC I have never seen one so absolutely blatant in a casual game...ever. Hence I've brought it up.

I see it as a bit of a test case and did so from the moment I made this thread. I'm aware of the grey areas but believe that such a blatant throw should entail a warning for the overall good of the site. It is nothing personal against ncbilly123 (though I am sure he doesn't see it that way) I just think this kind of play needs to be clarified.