DagGump Suiciding [closed] BG

[_sabotage_]

DagGump

is accused of Point dumping via suicide in Game 12127395.

While playing in a three player game, the accused continually suicided into me, making it clear that he had no intention of playing but had the sole purpose of helping red, the other player win.

[_sabotage_]

The accused is now entering comments in chat for my other games which he isn't in:

Game 12129946

[scoobyzx10r]

so will you also be reporting richochetuk for throwing that game (in your favour)?

[_sabotage_]

Actually richochetuk should complain about green throwing the game in my favor, but since he is the one that took green out, my target in the assassin game, it would be difficult for him do so.

The simple fact is, red had destroyed my borders and then DagGump went on to use his troops on Dakar to bring down my other two borders, madrid and istanbul and in the process, brought down his own border to 4. This gave red 46 troops, me 19 and green 21. He then proceeded to attack me the next turns until red had double the troops of green and me combined, at which point the game was beyond recovery. He was attacking me while red was holding Asia and Australia, and I had no bonus. He had no chance of eliminating me and had I not had cards, red would have finished me off and swept the board. He has then come into a few of my other games to leave comments.

He was not trying to win himself, and was just attacking me for no other reason than he decided he wanted to. He showed no respect for the game and such play is unfortunate and shouldn't go unchecked.

[Gillipig]

Foe and move on, or since he was hitting on you, slap and move on .
Unless you can prove that he has done this repeatedly, you don't need to bother filing a cheat and abuse claim.

[Symmetry]

Foe and move on, or since he was hitting on you, slap and move on .
Unless you can prove that he has done this repeatedly, you don't need to bother filing a cheat and abuse claim.

Aye- I'm not sure suiciding is even really an offence. It's unsportsmanlike gameplay, but that's where the ratings system comes in. Not every bad tactic is cheating or abuse.

[Gillipig]

Foe and move on, or since he was hitting on you, slap and move on .
Unless you can prove that he has done this repeatedly, you don't need to bother filing a cheat and abuse claim.

Aye- I'm not sure suiciding is even really an offence. It's unsportsmanlike gameplay, but that's where the ratings system comes in. Not every bad tactic is cheating or abuse.

Ironically, if you're doing them systematically, almost everyone are! Not taking turns, suiciding, losing, bad ratings, if you do it excessively, it almost always warrants a cheat and abuse claim. Thing is DagGump really hasn't done anything out of the ordinary.

[Symmetry]

Foe and move on, or since he was hitting on you, slap and move on .
Unless you can prove that he has done this repeatedly, you don't need to bother filing a cheat and abuse claim.

Aye- I'm not sure suiciding is even really an offence. It's unsportsmanlike gameplay, but that's where the ratings system comes in. Not every bad tactic is cheating or abuse.

Ironically, if you're doing them systematically, almost everyone are! Not taking turns, suiciding, losing, bad ratings, if you do it excessively, it almost always warrants a cheat and abuse claim. Thing is DagGump really hasn't done anything out of the ordinary.

I'm holding off on that point, Sabotage certainly needs to be clearer on what he's accusing. But yeah, if it's just suiciding, I'd go with use the ratings system to deal with the game, then, as you suggest, foe as an option if he really considers the player someone he doesn't want to play against.

[_sabotage_]

Thanks for the comments.

In this game, red took aus first round, and forted to 8 on jakarta. As such i felt i should make it easy for green to take SA, so it wouldnt be a runaway game. I took red out of SA and Africa and forted away from green giving him an easy bonus. After a few turns I took europe, was broken by green two goes in a row and then green writes:

2012-12-27 09:42:25 - DagGump: feel free lord
2012-12-27 09:42:45 - DagGump: anytime
2012-12-27 09:42:59 - _sabotage_: why should he bother, your doing it for him?
2012-12-27 09:43:06 - DagGump: that a boy

This comment was when red broke through europe from NA, left four in Reyk, two in Stolk and brought my other northern border to one troop.

Green had nine on Dakar and tapped down my southern borders, both at nine, to two and one and took a few territories from me in NA. In the process, he brought me down to 19 troops, himself to 21 and left red with 46 troops.

I then made the comment: 2012-12-27 09:45:14 - _sabotage_: you were a bit slower than the other kids at school, eh green?

Since to me, attacking me, when both green and I were in danger from red made no sense.

He continued to attack me each turn even after red took Asia and was clearly going to trounce us. It is nice to foe someone. It is nice to give them a deserved rating, but it isnt nice to have to play out a game, round after round, knowing that you can do nothing to change the outcome since one player has decided that the game doesnt matter as much as ensuring someone's loss. If i had to put up with it for a round or two, I wouldnt really care and I am not in the habit of reporting game abuse, since I feel nothing is actually done about it. But several rounds into these antics with the knowledge that there were several to go, got me upset enough to write up a report. His further comments, in a few of my other games, I just showed one, further bothered me to continue to post.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the comments.

In this game, red took aus first round, and forted to 8 on jakarta. As such i felt i should make it easy for green to take SA, so it wouldnt be a runaway game. I took red out of SA and Africa and forted away from green giving him an easy bonus. After a few turns I took europe, was broken by green two goes in a row and then green writes:

2012-12-27 09:42:25 - DagGump: feel free lord
2012-12-27 09:42:45 - DagGump: anytime
2012-12-27 09:42:59 - _sabotage_: why should he bother, your doing it for him?
2012-12-27 09:43:06 - DagGump: that a boy

This comment was when red broke through europe from NA, left four in Reyk, two in Stolk and brought my other northern border to one troop.

Green had nine on Dakar and tapped down my southern borders, both at nine, to two and one and took a few territories from me in NA. In the process, he brought me down to 19 troops, himself to 21 and left red with 46 troops.

I then made the comment: 2012-12-27 09:45:14 - _sabotage_: you were a bit slower than the other kids at school, eh green?

Since to me, attacking me, when both green and I were in danger from red made no sense.

He continued to attack me each turn even after red took Asia and was clearly going to trounce us. It is nice to foe someone. It is nice to give them a deserved rating, but it isnt nice to have to play out a game, round after round, knowing that you can do nothing to change the outcome since one player has decided that the game doesnt matter as much as ensuring someone's loss. If i had to put up with it for a round or two, I wouldnt really care and I am not in the habit of reporting game abuse, since I feel nothing is actually done about it. But several rounds into these antics with the knowledge that there were several to go, got me upset enough to write up a report. His further comments, in a few of my other games, I just showed one, further bothered me to continue to post.

I can't say that I agree or disagree with that take, but nothing there seems like cheating or abuse. It seems like playing a game. It's not a nice way to play a game, but it's not breaking any rules.

I think the key part here is "got me upset enough to write up a report". I'm not sure what you wanted from this, but bar a surprise multi-bust, it sort of looks like you just played against a player who used either bad tactics or tactics you don't like.

[_sabotage_]

So it is a reasonable tactic to forfeit a game for yourself and other players?

[Symmetry]

So it is a reasonable tactic to forfeit a game for yourself and other players?

I think it depends on how you view the game and the obligations you hold to other players. There's obviously a reward for winning, and there's a punishment for losing if you take the big picture in to account. That would be points. So yes- suiciding is a good option if it means you lose less points if the points are what you're going for. In that case, forfeiting a game is generally a case where you're making the best of several bad options.

In an individual game, without regards to points, you're playing against people, not robots. Unfortunately, people will suicide if they have nothing else to do and you piss them off. Occasionally it's actually a good tactic, but given that the only other tactic is wait and see (other than intentionally deadbeating- which is considered abuse), suiciding is a fair choice, it's certainly not cheating.

For me, forfeiting a game would involve cheating. I just don't see that here.

[_sabotage_]

Forgive me, I am a bit slow at times and am just trying to see if I have you right:

In a flat rate game, with three people, it is a reasonable and fair tactic to attack the highest rank player regardless of who is winning?

He lost more points in doing so and guaranteed I would lose as well.

When one party ensures his own loss as well as that of another player, and thereby helps a third party win, this isn't cheating, but tactics in your book?

Care to play a few games? Maybe I can learn more about tactics from you.

At the point where he attacked me i had 37 troops to reds 46 and he had 34 troops. I had no bonus and was receiving three troops on my go, red was getting seven. So he was doing what exactly by bringing us down to 21 and 19 respectively? He was reacting to a comment I made, which was... Why should he attack me, you have been doing it for him?

He then took a disliking to me and proceeded to attack only me until he couldn't anymore, red had boxed him in and so he finally attacked red.

I can't think of many three player games to make a comparison to, but if three people were playing hide and seek, he was the guy showing himself to the seeker to point out where I was, and just like the comparison, he was found first.

And suiciding, BTW, is cheating. So is intentional point dumping and acting as a multi. All of his actions reflect all of those infractions. If you are not playing to win, or even lose less, then why play? Why intentionally try to take sides and gang up on a third party?

[Symmetry]

Accused:

DagGump

The accused are suspected of:
Other: Suiciding

Game number(s):

Game 12127395

Comments:

While playing in a three player game, the accused continually suicided into me, making it clear that he had no intention of playing but had the sole purpose of helping red, the other player win.

Ok- the formy fixy thing should have been done a while ago, and I apologise for not having fixed it earlier.

[Symmetry]

Forgive me, I am a bit slow at times and am just trying to see if I have you right:

In a flat rate game, with three people, it is a reasonable and fair tactic to attack the highest rank player regardless of who is winning?

He lost more points in doing so and guaranteed I would lose as well.

When one party ensures his own loss as well as that of another player, and thereby helps a third party win, this isn't cheating, but tactics in your book?

Care to play a few games? Maybe I can learn more about tactics from you.

At the point where he attacked me i had 37 troops to reds 46 and he had 34 troops. I had no bonus and was receiving three troops on my go, red was getting seven. So he was doing what exactly by bringing us down to 21 and 19 respectively? He was reacting to a comment I made, which was... Why should he attack me, you have been doing it for him?

He then took a disliking to me and proceeded to attack only me until he couldn't anymore, red had boxed him in and so he finally attacked red.

I can't think of many three player games to make a comparison to, but if three people were playing hide and seek, he was the guy showing himself to the seeker to point out where I was, and just like the comparison, he was found first.

And suiciding, BTW, is cheating. So is intentional point dumping and acting as a multi. All of his actions reflect all of those infractions. If you are not playing to win, or even lose less, then why play? Why intentionally try to take sides and gang up on a third party?

If you want to add intentional point dumping and multi abuse to your claim, feel free to do so. Personally, I'm going with the "he then took a personal disliking to me" part of your post, which really doesn't mean he's guilty of being a multi, or whatever combination of accusations you're currently going for.

[_sabotage_]

Thanks for the input.

Anyways, I wish to withdraw the accusation for the following reasons:

My signature itself is supposed to serve as a reminder of these kinds of people and to encourage me to say nothing in chat except GL and GG.

A C&A is like asking a toothless man to dine, as the mods gum over the food, it would be wasted along with my appetite. I expect no action or satisfaction and hating on fools is no better than placing myself before this Kafkian door.

Finally, I prefer Symmetry's discourse on other topics over this one, especially those on which he has some actual expertise.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the input.

Anyways, I wish to withdraw the accusation for the following reasons:

My signature itself is supposed to serve as a reminder of these kinds of people and to encourage me to say nothing in chat except GL and GG.

A C&A is like asking a toothless man to dine, as the mods gum over the food, it would be wasted along with my appetite. I expect no action or satisfaction and hating on fools is no better than placing myself before this Kafkian door.

Finally, I prefer Symmetry's discourse on other topics over this one, especially those on which he has some actual expertise.

Erm... well this is baffling. Bye, I guess.

[BGtheBrain]

Anyways, I wish to withdraw the accusation