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

[Bones2484]

Not that I'm defending him... but we did get that option around round 60.

[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.

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.

It's a direct violation however of the unwritten rules. Thus could I not set up a tournament that also allows for the breaking of unwritten rules? Personally - I disagree very much with the ruling - but it's a personal belief I have (site rules should always trump player made rules).

[Optimus Prime]

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.

It's a direct violation however of the unwritten rules. Thus could I not set up a tournament that also allows for the breaking of unwritten rules? Personally - I disagree very much with the ruling - but it's a personal belief I have (site rules should always trump player made rules).

It isn't an abuse of unwritten rules. It's common sense that when you enter a tournament, you attempt to win the tournament. Tournaments are not open to any sort of tactic forbidden, and never will be. Protecting your place in the standings of a tournament is not a forbidden tactic.

[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.

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.

It's a direct violation however of the unwritten rules. Thus could I not set up a tournament that also allows for the breaking of unwritten rules? Personally - I disagree very much with the ruling - but it's a personal belief I have (site rules should always trump player made rules).

It isn't an abuse of unwritten rules. It's common sense that when you enter a tournament, you attempt to win the tournament. Tournaments are not open to any sort of tactic forbidden, and never will be. Protecting your place in the standings of a tournament is not a forbidden tactic.

It is throwing the game. What if I make a tournament that says you can use diplomacy not in game chat? He THREW the game - for the TOURNAMENT rules - he directly went against what the site says. Thus the tournament rules trumped the site rules, there is NO debating that.

[Optimus Prime]

You clearly aren't paying attention.

And given that you are likely to never show up in a tournament game because of your precious "rank", it isn't worth arguing with you about something that 99.9% of tournament regulars see as perfectly acceptable given tournament circumstances.

[gdeangel]

I think you have to chill out about the "throwing the game" part. It's one thing to throw to bring down the leader and advance yourself. You can expect this type of thing in advance and plan accordingly when you prioritize your threats. The question is whether or not it's done in a way that is collusive... was there any horse-trading going on with the person who benefits in terms of points and getting the win by this guy trowing of the game.

I mean, the smoking gun would be a PM between two players saying: hey, I want to win the tournament, but as long as X doesn't win, the outcome of the game doesn't matter to me, so let's go and team up to kill X first, then I'll deadbeat you you get the W. IMHO, that would be a pretty clear cut case of a private, impermissible alliance. I'm not even sure you could get away with that if you announced it in the chat to everyone: "hey X, let's kill off Y and whoever joins me I promise to help you win the game and you'll get all the points. "

Also, I seem to think when DRS had public bounties on people in multi-player games, it was deemed a conduct unbecoming of the site. In my example in the preceding paragraph - and I'm not saying that happened here - that would be analogous to a bounty on one player.

[FabledIntegral]

You clearly aren't paying attention.

And given that you are likely to never show up in a tournament game because of your precious "rank", it isn't worth arguing with you about something that 99.9% of tournament regulars see as perfectly acceptable given tournament circumstances.

Nice condescending tone for a mod.

1. I wouldn't be participating in this thread if I wasn't paying attention - clearly in your own ignorance you fail to see it, not mine.
2. Who the hell are you to talk as if I give any sort of care to my rank. If you weren't so arrogant as to speak where you know nothing, you would know I care little for my actual rank. I have deranked on one occasion before - loading up doodle assassins and such, as well as dropped over 1000 points since July in a mere 3 weeks because I'm sick of idiots suiciding me... you know, the low ranking lieutenants and such that don't know how to play?
3. Amusing how you find it not worth arguing when a new precedent was just set - and you are the starter of numerous tournaments, are you not? Absolutely hilarious you can dismiss my points by stating that the TOURNAMENT players are those who care. Obviously you show your lack of knowledge on my point - it's saying tournament rules trump site rules, IF the point being made is that it is legal BECAUSE it was the guidelines of the tournament. If it was not hte guidelines of the tournament - he would have thrown the game so that someone else could win, THUS it would be against hte unwritten rules. Now BECAUSE it's part of the tournament, tournament rules TRUMP that of the website.

I'd say I'm sorry for being redundant, but I didn't realize it was such a complicated matter for you to understand.

[Night Strike]

No Fabled, you weren't paying attention because you obviously didn't read MY post. I clearly stated that tournaments that are created to go against the site's rules are NOT allowed to be created. There is absolutely no way that tournament rules trump the site rules.

[FabledIntegral]

No Fabled, you weren't paying attention because you obviously didn't read MY post. I clearly stated that tournaments that are created to go against the site's rules are NOT allowed to be created. There is absolutely no way that tournament rules trump the site rules.

Then the VERDICT of this case is CONTRADICTING the site rules.

[Night Strike]

No Fabled, you weren't paying attention because you obviously didn't read MY post. I clearly stated that tournaments that are created to go against the site's rules are NOT allowed to be created. There is absolutely no way that tournament rules trump the site rules.

Then the VERDICT of this case is CONTRADICTING the site rules.

I don't think you understand how tournaments work. The purpose of score-based tournaments is to earn as many points as you can in order to move to the next round. Typically, winning every game is not necessary; many times second place finishes and keeping those ahead of you in points from winning games will advance you. The goal is to win the tournament, not every single game.

[FabledIntegral]

No Fabled, you weren't paying attention because you obviously didn't read MY post. I clearly stated that tournaments that are created to go against the site's rules are NOT allowed to be created. There is absolutely no way that tournament rules trump the site rules.

Then the VERDICT of this case is CONTRADICTING the site rules.

I don't think you understand how tournaments work. The purpose of score-based tournaments is to earn as many points as you can in order to move to the next round. Typically, winning every game is not necessary; many times second place finishes and keeping those ahead of you in points from winning games will advance you. The goal is to win the tournament, not every single game.

Ugh - you guys are hopeless. You're not looking at what I'm saying. To create such a tournament in the first place that ALLOWS for the throwing of games - aka making it so someone else purposely does win and not try to win yourself, IS against the unwritten rules. It's very possible I've been confused by PRIOR rulings as you guys contradict yourself in cases all over... You're saying that the throwing of games no long becomes part of the unwritten rules because it's part of the tournament objective. Thus tournament objective >>>> site rules.

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.

Twill

Attempting to throw the game in order to lose less points can be really unfair and very unsportsmanlike. It is right to give him the appropriate ratings and this report is noted of him. This is not the first time that some players do break some unwritten rules that destroys the essence of the game or of the site. If it is just a case of unsportsmanlike conduct, it will reflect on himself. There have been warnings, permanent and/or temporary bans, depending on the weight of the offense. Regardless, when it comes to that, the case is thoroughly investigated and consulted with the other moderators before a judgment can be handed down. As much as possible, we do not want to go to that path and hopefully, the player in question abides the rules and policies implemented by the site.

EDIT: I should start a tournament where IF I win the game - whoever is in second place gets a bonus +10 points in the standings, whereas coming in first place is only +3.

[lancehoch]

Ugh - you guys are hopeless. You're not looking at what I'm saying. To create such a tournament in the first place that ALLOWS for the throwing of games - aka making it so someone else purposely does win and not try to win yourself, IS against the unwritten rules. It's very possible I've been confused by PRIOR rulings as you guys contradict yourself in cases all over... You're saying that the throwing of games no long becomes part of the unwritten rules because it's part of the tournament objective. Thus tournament objective >>>> site rules.

Fabled, killmanic was not trying to come in second. There was no way for him to win the game. If you are playing a triples game against me and scott-land (just using the example since he is the conqueror at the moment) and you are down to one or two territories, I am sure that you would rather see scott win than me. Does that mean that you would be throwing the game if you attacked me more than you attacked scott? No, it would mean you are using a strategy to minimize your losses. This technique happens all the time and is essentially what happened in the game with killmanic. If killmanic could not win, he did not want the person who could gain the most winning the game. I guess we should do away with the scoreboard since that may cause people to "throw" games to lose less points.

[FabledIntegral]

Ugh - you guys are hopeless. You're not looking at what I'm saying. To create such a tournament in the first place that ALLOWS for the throwing of games - aka making it so someone else purposely does win and not try to win yourself, IS against the unwritten rules. It's very possible I've been confused by PRIOR rulings as you guys contradict yourself in cases all over... You're saying that the throwing of games no long becomes part of the unwritten rules because it's part of the tournament objective. Thus tournament objective >>>> site rules.

Fabled, killmanic was not trying to come in second. There was no way for him to win the game. If you are playing a triples game against me and scott-land (just using the example since he is the conqueror at the moment) and you are down to one or two territories, I am sure that you would rather see scott win than me. Does that mean that you would be throwing the game if you attacked me more than you attacked scott? No, it would mean you are using a strategy to minimize your losses. This technique happens all the time and is essentially what happened in the game with killmanic. If killmanic could not win, he did not want the person who could gain the most winning the game. I guess we should do away with the scoreboard since that may cause people to "throw" games to lose less points.

YES IT WOULD. Are you friggin' kidding me? Do you want me to show examples where I've attacked a major back because he played like trash so that he could win 100 points? Are you KIDDING? Whoever plays the best deserves to win - King Achilles already made it apparent in the quote I JUST gave you that you can't try to THROW the game to lose the least amount of points. That's friggin' insane - I can't believe mods would even endorse that bullshit. It just puts the high ranks even higher and the low ranks even lower if people did that crap. With that mentality - if a cook legitimately outplayed a lieutenant but everyone else wants to lose the least amount of points - they should all suicide the cook and let hte lieutenant win. How is the cook ever going to get out of bein ga cook? It's adownward spiral.

By no means would I attack you more than SL - I'd be entirely neutral. You try pulling any of that crap in a speed game with high ranks - they'll all foe you and let hte cook win (except poo-maker maybe). Absolute BS - it's the definition of throwing games. Throwing games to lose less points IS still throwing games - trash... absolute trash... I'd never play with someone who did that...

[Optimus Prime]

You do realize that killmanic didn't do what he did to protect his actual score, right? This conversation seems to be drifting into an argument over whether or not it is appropriate to throw a game to protect your score. That isn't what it is about. It's about killmanic making a move against another player to keep himself in first place within the tournament scoring system. That is something entirely different.

He was using a strategy that goes beyond the solitary game that the action took place in. That is the key to the argument here. FabledIntegral, I will grant you that you probably know a lot more about playing this game on a game by game basis, but in return I ask that you grant me the same consideration that I know a hell of a lot more about the ins and outs of running a tournament and how they operate than you do, or likely ever will.

Now, I'm not saying that shooting for second place in a tournament game is a great approach, of course it isn't. Every tournament out there is structured so that winning a game will always get you closer to bringing home the tournament title than anything else will. However, it isn't necessarily the only way to go about it.

Some tournaments only advance the winner of a game into the next round. That works just fine and dandy. Other tournaments are structured to reward the player with the most consistent play over the course of multiple games.

This is the situation we've run into here with the accusations made against killmanic. He is operating on a strategy that encompasses multiple games, not just one, which is perfectly acceptable in the tournament he is playing. Part of the appeal that tournaments have to those who play them regularly is the additional avenues for strategy that they employ. They make you think a little harder, play a little differently, and plan in a completely different manner.

You make the argument that someone should always play to win. Sure, that's true, but always playing to win in every single game in a tournament sometimes prevents you from playing to win the tournament overall. Let's say we are playing 5 games in the first round of a tournament, you get a certain number of points for where you place in each game, and I win the first 2 games. I've got a nice lead in the standings, go into the third game and get hammered, finishing dead last. Now I'm not doing so hot in the standings standings for that group, so I know I need to finish 3rd or better in each of the remaining two games to advance into the next round. So, I go into those games thinking to myself "I want to win these if at all possible, but if need be I need to watch my back to make sure I can make it to the next round of the tournament."

That is what happened with killmanic, and in the tournaments on Conquer Club it is a well understood and perfectly acceptable practice. Does everyone like it? No. Should a player involved in a tournament know it might happen to them? Yes.

It's a different kind of strategy in a completely different part of the site. I understand your apparent frustration with what you perceive to be some type of injustice done, but what you are not taking into account is your own degree of ignorance on how things are done in places you've never stepped foot in. You are only looking at the situation as a "thrown game" that you so adamantly profess to be nothing but a clear breach of the rules.

In actuality, killmanic did nothing more than secure his finishing order in the game in order to try and advance himself into the next round of the tournament. Players who join tournaments should pay attention to the fact that more often than not a tournament involves more than just the results of a solitary game, and if they choose to ignore that, then they are doing themselves a disservice, and should not blame others for their misfortune.

Now, if there was secret collusion via a private message or other format to attack certain players and so on, then yes, you would be correct that a rule was broken. However, the act of attempting to make sure you finish ahead of someone in order to gain a better hold in a tournament standings is not.

[Bones2484]

I've done this many times in tournaments to secure a spot in the next round. It has also been done to me numerous times to keep me OUT of the next round.

I don't mind. In fact, the strategy is the main reason I pretty much ONLY play tournaments.

[lord voldemort]

i agree with wat david did only from a tourny perspective....
however z shouldnt have offered us the second game early if we all agreed. thats wat pissed me off
but wat kill did was acceptable WITHIN TOURNIES ONLY

[FabledIntegral]

You do realize that killmanic didn't do what he did to protect his actual score, right? This conversation seems to be drifting into an argument over whether or not it is appropriate to throw a game to protect your score. That isn't what it is about. It's about killmanic making a move against another player to keep himself in first place within the tournament scoring system. That is something entirely different.

I will argue against this point - although I'd like to point out at the same time Twill/Night Strike both used a comparison to the point system - saying it was the same concept. Since YOU in particular haven't done that - I don't need to address why that's wrong in this post. However I'd just like to make it clear that nonetheless it's still wrong to throw the game to try to save more points - it just keeps the high ranks even higher in a win they might not have deserved and keeps the lower ranks even lower in a game they might have played the best, however rarely that might happen.

He was using a strategy that goes beyond the solitary game that the action took place in. That is the key to the argument here. FabledIntegral, I will grant you that you probably know a lot more about playing this game on a game by game basis, but in return I ask that you grant me the same consideration that I know a hell of a lot more about the ins and outs of running a tournament and how they operate than you do, or likely ever will.

Now, I'm not saying that shooting for second place in a tournament game is a great approach, of course it isn't. Every tournament out there is structured so that winning a game will always get you closer to bringing home the tournament title than anything else will. However, it isn't necessarily the only way to go about it.

Some tournaments only advance the winner of a game into the next round. That works just fine and dandy. Other tournaments are structured to reward the player with the most consistent play over the course of multiple games.

Exactly - the tournament suggests the most consistent play over the course of multiple games - I don't know why this is being explained to me the fourth time when I said I understood the first time. You're telling me what the tournament parameters are. So you're telling me that BECAUSE it was a tournament game - it was OK to THROW the individual game, because it was his strategy for the overall tournament. Which I understand fully why he did it - to try to win the tournament. However this strategy to WIN the tournament is at conflict with the site rules - no throwing games. And the verdict said he was clear, thus the tournament parameters TRUMP the site rules of throwing games. However you want to look at it, he THREW the game. There's no getting around that. He THREW the game. For whatever reasons WOULD be irrelevant IF the site rules were held the highest.

It doesn't matter WHAT reason you give me - if Jesus descended from the sky and told him to/if it was to advance himself in the tournament - it doesn't matter. My point is that the site rules were NOT enforced because of tournament parameters. I don't care WHAT the goal of the tournament is. IF any sort of rule from the tournament can somehow VALIDATE throwing a game, then that Tournament just trumped the site rules. That's basic logic.

This is the situation we've run into here with the accusations made against killmanic. He is operating on a strategy that encompasses multiple games, not just one, which is perfectly acceptable in the tournament he is playing. Part of the appeal that tournaments have to those who play them regularly is the additional avenues for strategy that they employ. They make you think a little harder, play a little differently, and plan in a completely different manner.

Once again the same argument is made - it's legitimate because it's acceptable in the tournament he is playing. You're using the tournament to invalidate the site rules. That is my point. Are saying it wouldn't be against the rules to have a tournament where ANY sort of secret diplomacy is allowed? Or to further, it wouldn't be against the rules to have a tournament where a player could use multis - only in the tournament he is playing?.

You make the argument that someone should always play to win. Sure, that's true, but always playing to win in every single game in a tournament sometimes prevents you from playing to win the tournament overall. Let's say we are playing 5 games in the first round of a tournament, you get a certain number of points for where you place in each game, and I win the first 2 games. I've got a nice lead in the standings, go into the third game and get hammered, finishing dead last. Now I'm not doing so hot in the standings standings for that group, so I know I need to finish 3rd or better in each of the remaining two games to advance into the next round. So, I go into those games thinking to myself "I want to win these if at all possible, but if need be I need to watch my back to make sure I can make it to the next round of the tournament."

I understand your point - you're saying that you should use the tournament to throw individual games to certain people to improve your own standings. It's STILL throwing games.

That is what happened with killmanic, and in the tournaments on Conquer Club it is a well understood and perfectly acceptable practice. Does everyone like it? No. Should a player involved in a tournament know it might happen to them? Yes.

Which is fine - as long as it's admitted tournament parameters trump site rules. That's the entire reason I posted this in the first place. I'm absolutely fine with this being the ruling - as long as it's accepted that this new precedence shows that breaking site rules is fine as long as it's within the strategy of winning a tournament.

It's a different kind of strategy in a completely different part of the site. I understand your apparent frustration with what you perceive to be some type of injustice done, but what you are not taking into account is your own degree of ignorance on how things are done in places you've never stepped foot in. You are only looking at the situation as a "thrown game" that you so adamantly profess to be nothing but a clear breach of the rules.

I only began to use a condescending tone once you began to use one with me - I don't need to take that from anyone - thus the reason for me calling you out on your ignorance as well as arrogance on the subject. It doesn't matter if I have any experience in the subject because you're missing the point. It's like medical marijuana in California. It's legalized for those who have permits in California by California law. However - it's a federal law that marijuana itself is illegal to possess. Therefore, I can have absolutely ZERO knowledge about how marijuana works, under what conditions it's legal (aka if you have a permit or not, etc.), what type of marijuana you can get, what prices it runs for, what quantities you're allowed to possess, etc. because overall - it's still ILLEGAL to possess. I know this because although it's legal to possess in "California" law - if a cop wants to take it to the federal courts - the federal courts ALWAYS over rule the California law that says it's legal and deems the possessor of marijuana GUILTY.

Doesn't matter how much knowledge you know about the legal specifications within California - whether or not you're within those guidelines or being able to only possess less than a gram or not - whether or not you are within those guidelines, once again, is irrelevant - if the FEDERAL law, which trumps STATE law, says it's illegal to possess.

It's the exact same situation here - it doesn't matter WHAT reason killmaniac threw the game for - if site rules trumped WHATEVER conditions the tournament parameters held, then he would have been found guilty.

In actuality, killmanic did nothing more than secure his finishing order in the game in order to try and advance himself into the next round of the tournament. Players who join tournaments should pay attention to the fact that more often than not a tournament involves more than just the results of a solitary game, and if they choose to ignore that, then they are doing themselves a disservice, and should not blame others for their misfortune.

Now, if there was secret collusion via a private message or other format to attack certain players and so on, then yes, you would be correct that a rule was broken. However, the act of attempting to make sure you finish ahead of someone in order to gain a better hold in a tournament standings is not.

As said earlier - it doesn't matter.

[Twill]

Guys, chill. This is getting way way out of hand.

You're all arguing the wrong things here. You're arguing over if throwing a game is a violation or not when you should be arguing if what killmanic did was a "gross violation".

but it's a personal belief I have (site rules should always trump player made rules).

100% agree Fabled.

The question here is not if a user rule trumped a site rule, but if the "gross abuse" rule even applied here.

I would not call what happened a gross abuse - it was an attempt to win the tournament under conditions which everyone agreed to.

The example of throwing games given in the unwritten rules applies when it's systematic and designed to mess with the scoreboard or cheat players out of their points. This however, seems to have been a legitimate, and announced, way to move to the next level.

I don't agree with the sportsmanship of it...but that's my personal opinion. I'd leave bad ratings for it, but I don't think it's a "gross abuse" and thus not against any rule.

Tournaments can set certain win conditions - if the goal was to come second, then sure, that's fine...odd, but fine. You're playing for a different purpose and to show off different skills.

The difference between "gross abuse" and "kingmaker" is the same as making or breaking an alliance - it can be seen as an underhanded stab in the back and crap sportsmanship, but then, that's what ratings are for, it's not against the rules to break an alliance, but don't expect many people to play you after.
Trying to throw games to the lease-loss player isn't against the rules, but it's crap sportsmanship and ratings will reveal that in the long run and you'll end up with a reputation.


Let me be clear here:

• Tournament rules never trump site rules.
• The case here seems to be one of underhanded tactics to win the tournament, but not a violation of the rules.
• The discussion should be about if it was a "gross violation" of the spirit of the game (which in my opinion this was not) and not if tournaments can over-rule site rules (which they can't)
• If this happens in the future, by Killmanic or anyone else, and it becomes a systematic tactic which is greatly affecting other players' ability to enjoy the game, then further action would be taken against anyone who is doing it.
• Part of the reason this was seen as not being a gross violation affecting others' ability to enjoy the game is that it was in a tournament context which changed the ultimate goal for those games and players entered knowing that. At the same time, the tournament did not directly challenge any rules of the site.

I'm going to lock this thread because the discussion is only going to get more heated and degrade. Fabled, please PM me if you would like to continue the discussion and I'll post a summary here later with any changes that may need to be made to the ruling or overall precedent that this may be setting

Twill