Killmanic/Colson Cheap Tactics/Suicider/Collusion [Cleared]

[erikiscool]

Accused:
killmanic
colson
[

The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 2830349
Game 2830343



Comments:
Killmanic purposely suicided on me and threw this game to colson. He even
admitted it in the game comments: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2830349

Then, colson suicided on me in the next game!
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2830343

As I was the clear leader in 4 of the 5 tournament games these cheap tactics,
unfair and poor sportsmanlike conduct not only cost me the bracket, the
tournament but I also suspect collusion.

[gcwca_4_life]

wow..

[killmanic]

let me inform you it was a tournament and the key was how many kills people had, person with the most after 5 games wins, I had 6 at the time, colson, had 1 and you had 4, wonder who i will kill so he gets 2 and i dont lose any of my lead, I dont know why he did that though.

i ended up winning the tournament because of it and it would be in my sig but i have run ouut of space in it

[Night Strike]

If you suspect unsportsmanlike conduct within a tournament, I would advise discussing it with the tournament's organizer or a Tournament Director. That being said, the goal of a tournament is to win the tournament, which doesn't always require winning every game. A smart tournament player knows this and will occasionally sacrifice a win to guarantee a high finish for himself or a low finish for the person ahead of him.

[erikiscool]

I posted here on the advice of the tournament director.

[Sentinel XIV]

If there are special circumstances to the tournament, then you should know that going in. If what killmanic says is true, and the idea behind the tourney was to accrue the most kills, then he's playing within those parameters and I don't see any sort of violation.

[roadwarrior]

If you suspect unsportsmanlike conduct within a tournament, I would advise discussing it with the tournament's organizer or a Tournament Director. That being said, the goal of a tournament is to win the tournament, which doesn't always require winning every game. A smart tournament player knows this and will occasionally sacrifice a win to guarantee a high finish for himself or a low finish for the person ahead of him.

I don't like this personally although it is obviously the kind of tactics tournament players pay attention to. For instance, I experienced a situation where a leading team in my bracket tried this strategy of making my team lose (my team was catching up on them in the standings). That team attacked my team continously making both our teams very weak so that the game just got handed to the 3rd team in the game.

However they tried to justify by saying that they were in fact trying to win the game which was just a load of rubbish! (even they want to hide under some guise of respectability). At least kill was honest about it.

As it turned out, my team still toppled theirs from the group standings. I think that the issue is not so much whether it is a smart tactic or not but that these tactics are for weak players! In general, handing games over is at the extreme, an abuse but at the very least, unsportsmanlike.

[Natewolfman]

I never pretend to guise my tactics in tournament games, After reading all, killmanic seems to be in the right, ive done this many times, especially in 6-8 player games where possision is everything, take down the player ahead of you for an overall tournament win is definately the way to go

[Frop]

I never pretend to guise my tactics in tournament games, After reading all, killmanic seems to be in the right, ive done this many times, especially in 6-8 player games where possision is everything, take down the player ahead of you for an overall tournament win is definately the way to go

Dude, it's f-ing lame. And http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com.

[prismsaber]

This kind of "tactic" pisses me off to no end. Instead of aiming for a player because of his current standing in a tournament, try earning enough skill to win the way the game was meant to be played.

[erikiscool]

Click on rules you will see the following. This applies no less in tournament games.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

[alster]

Click on rules you will see the following. This applies no less in tournament games.

Unwritten Rules
Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

I have to disagree with your statement here.

Yes. To suicide a game etc. is generally such an abuse. But, it can't really be seen as an abuse in a tournament were the explicit rules of the tournament clearly provides for two ways to win; either winning games yourself or preventing others from winning games. And if you sign up for a tournament you need to accept the consequences of the tournament rules.

Rule # 1 and # 2 is non-negotiable. These unwritten rules which you quote cannot be absolute. They need to be applied with reason and according to their purpose. The purpose of discouraging people (or even punishing them) from throwing games, make a suicide attacks etc. is to promote fair play. In this case, you voluntarily accepted (by joining the tournament) a series of games were preventing you from winning was a way to win the overall series. When you voluntarily accepted that you waived any protection from the unwritten rules in this respect.

Look at it like a boxing match. If you voluntarily decide to fight a match, you cannot claim to have been assaulted afterwards.

[Fireside Poet]

Suspects:
killmanic
colson

Verdict: Cleared.

[FabledIntegral]

VERY interesting - now tournaments are open grounds for any sort of tactic forbidden... we'll see how this new precedent affects some new ones sprouting up.

[Fireside Poet]

VERY interesting - now tournaments are open grounds for any sort of tactic forbidden... we'll see how this new precedent affects some new ones sprouting up.

I think that all those involved in the tourney, especially a terminator style tourney, should be working on their overall tourney score. I don't think that this is unreasonable as the goal in tourneys differ from regular games, IMHO.

[AAFitz]

2008-07-17 11:09:37 - killmanic: hey everyone i am willing to just trade 1s with someone so we can get easy cards every turn if any of you are willing
2008-07-31 21:18:57 - killmanic: red prepair for a gift next turn
2008-08-01 12:53:49 - killmanic: green dont take it personally but this is a tourney and you are going to win the other one the 3 of us are in
2008-08-02 03:57:53 - erikiscool: I think that's poor sportsmanship ...
2008-08-02 15:45:20 - killmanic: its a tournament the point is to do what you can to win the whole thing
2008-08-03 11:01:04 - colson: hey i was going to do the same thing killmanic ... good move

that is not evidence of any kind of secret alliance...in fact its pretty clear kill decided to do it on his own, and posted it before he did it, to show you, and him

Now im not saying its cool on your end, but in a tourney, you have to expect people to play by the tourney rules too. theres no point playing them, if youre just going to let someone win, and get bumped.

Almost every game ends in someone attacking too much, and many end in suicide... at least in this case there was an actual goal and reason.. usually suicides just happen for the hell of it, or for retribution.

I wonder if you would have watched as one of them was going to easily sweep the tourney, and in the process get bumped yourself. In this kind of tourney, its kind of expected that this will happen. The only way its against CC rules, is if there was actual talking about the plan outside of the game chat, but in this case, thats unlikely since the action is posted one turn before it actually takes place, with no actual alliance of any kind...

I believe I could go into any of my games right now, and decide to suicide any given player for any reason I feel. As long as I dont plan it with someone else, theres absolutely nothing against the rules. Ill agree that its not sportsmanlike, but in this case its completely sportsmanlike... its competitive, with the main goal to remain in the tourney and possibly win. I think letting you win freely could be considered just as unsportsmanlike from the other points of view. If any of them had a chance to win, and they let you win it easily while having the power to stop you...the other players could have been annoyed.

When you join a tourney, you cant expect every game to just play out regularly and just hope to end up at the top. That should be a given.

[Fireside Poet]

In summary, the tourney becomes the game instead of an individual match.

[AAFitz]

you write poems, I write novels... to each his own

[Twill]

Fireside asked me to comment on this one because it might be a little controversial.

Yes, it sucks and is suspect that both players went on suicides against you.

However, in relation to the standings, the tactic (from killmanic at least) seems to have been a legitimate one.

The "gross abuse of the game" does not apply here because to play within the framework of the tournament standings is expected. Cheap tactics, frustrating, "f-ing lame" it may be, but "gross abuse" it is not.

As to opening up new forms of game play...I doubt it. If you do abuse the game, expect to get slapped up side the head. Throwing games is different from keeping someone from winning when the win is all that matters.

It's the Kingmaker complex - in any 3 player game, if you are in an unwinnable position, you have to choose who else takes the point. In a regular game, the person with the higher score will cost you less, in this tournament, having the player with 1 win cost less.

No, you cannot use that excuse for throwing games to a friend so don't get any ideas

Hope that makes sense.

have a good one
Twill

[Night Strike]

To add another note from the Tournament perspective, tournaments that openly allow things that go against the site's rules such as Secret Diplomacy and intentional teammate killing are not allowed to be filled. (So don't try to use this ruling as an excuse to try one. ) There is a large difference between these things and occasionally suiciding in games in order to better your own placement in a tournament.

[gdeangel]

I want to post a game here Game 2483130. It also involves Killmaniac and the deal is that if the game goes to 100, whoever is still in gets to go to a tie-break game. Killmaniac is in the weakest position, and there are 8 rounds to go, but the guy with position to take him out on the last turn (i.e., last in the rotation) won't "agree" to not attack him. So Kilmaniac suicides on the guy. That seems to be the epitome of poor sportsmanship to me. I would be wary of this guy...

[killmanic]

there is reason for that also as there is a second way to advance to the next round for everyone as if we all agree we can have an esc game made instead and chadwick was the 1 person who didnt agree and since there was no way I was going to make it to 100 alive without trying to force him to agree I followed the only path that i could in an attempt to make him agree to it, which was multiple warning that i would be attacking him if he didnt agree then to over the course of 3 turns do what i said i would giving him a new chance to agree each turn so that all 5 of us would end up being in the esc game but in the end he stood firm and i stood firm and what ended up happening was what i said would. This wasnt just a im going to lose i will attack a random person it was a I have only 1 way to make it to the next round and i am going to do everything possible to make it so its agreed upon and left the choice with him.

Edit: If you look at every game i have played (which you must have done to find this one) my intention has always been and will always be to advance to the next round of the tournament.

[gdeangel]

there is reason for that also as there is a second way to advance to the next round for everyone as if we all agree we can have an esc game made instead and chadwick was the 1 person who didnt agree and since there was no way I was going to make it to 100 alive without trying to force him to agree I followed the only path that i could in an attempt to make him agree to it, which was multiple warning that i would be attacking him if he didnt agree then to over the course of 3 turns do what i said i would giving him a new chance to agree each turn so that all 5 of us would end up being in the esc game but in the end he stood firm and i stood firm and what ended up happening was what i said would. This wasnt just a im going to lose i will attack a random person it was a I have only 1 way to make it to the next round and i am going to do everything possible to make it so its agreed upon and left the choice with him.

Edit: If you look at every game i have played (which you must have done to find this one) my intention has always been and will always be to advance to the next round of the tournament.

Actually, I'm waiting in the wings for the winner so I can get on with the next game of the tourney. I have been watching Amazzony's thread and read the chat and thought you went way over the top with trying to intimidate chadwick into guarantying you would go to the next round. Next time if you want a guaranty, don't have the short stack! He neither agreed nor refused to go along with your plan. And the tournment rule was that tie-break would be fixed after 100 rounds not 90, so believe me, you wouldn't want to play in a tournament I was running because I'd bounce you for that. It may not be technically "cheating" but it's arguably trying to circumvent the decision of the tournament organizer and, IMHO, un-sportsmanlike.

[killmanic]

Amazzony had given us the option to start an esc game instead if all 5 of us agreed to it so we wouldnt have to play till round 100.

[gdeangel]

Amazzony had given us the option to start an esc game instead if all 5 of us agreed to it so we wouldn't have to play till round 100.

If that's the case, I'm pretty sure her intention was not that the game would start early if four people agreed and managed to gang on the fifth or she would have said "4" not "5". Plus is was only 10 more rounds when you suicided, so it's not like you sped things up at all. If somehow you manage to survive to 100, I'll be pretty incredulous that none of the big stacks take you out...