AndyDufresne wrote:
alstergren wrote:Hmmm... well, perhaps achilles is more subtle than you give him credit for.
I read his post as:
1. Fine, stalemate/deadlocked games could be resolved through a tie-breaker. One, two games aren't a problem, people throw games all the time. Just a problem if it escalates.
2. But don't expect a mod to step in if the bargain is not held.
3. Here, the bargain was not held. An account-sitter steps into the shoes of the account-holder and he broke the bargain on behalf of the holder. Up until here, maybe there's no problem.
4. It is a problem when this broken bargain is being mended with ten 1v.1 games that are obviously thrown. The intent may be fine, but it still cannot be sanctioned.
Or is that reading too much into it?
This is pretty much spot on, I think.
Isolated stalemate games are find---it's a common sense approach. If everyone consents, and that game is actually a stalemate game and has been going on for quite some time, such things are fine.
However, if there is suspicious play---if the game really isn't that long and drawn out, or many multiple games occur, then those are things that move toward breaking the rules.
--Andy
Us I understand...conclusion is that game 4986654 is not a problem....so ....would you?
But I truly don't belive you have undrestand it that way........the way everybody else did.
It seems to me that you are those kind of guys who is always opposite....from everything.
So no need to do anything wizh my score.....and............
THANKS, mate