cheating and abuse discussion

[shoop76]

I see that the C&A team have locked another thread without really answering any questions.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=233591

Can we please get some parameters of what is allowed and what is not. Right now we are seeing a lot of similar cases and no one tells us what is cheating and what is not.

In the past tournament issues were handled by the tournament department (who also have not reacted to anything). This has changed, but without guidelines this is turning into a mess and causing friction between a lot of players.

We can open a discussion here, as was requested of us, but a discussion without input from the C&A team and/or tournament department will be fruitless.

[Mad777]

different case but same thought process here and giving you a reason why it has been closed as such.

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=233556&p=5158213#p5158213

[iAmCaffeine]

1 game > 1 tournament

[rockfist]

1 game > 1 tournament

That may be the current ruling but it is not a good one. That is my opinion.

[Mad777]

it should be an “in-between”, CC can’t have single rule for every single situation, not only at the gaming level but at the abusing level. Implemented a rule to enable one side would inevitably screw the other, and vice and versas. I think it should be an initial ruling where it open to variation that must be approved upfront, and for that event only, and of course specified into the event OP.

The most complex part is when and where to draw a line, each game could have its own scenario and each player would have its own view while engaging into such a game, therefore it is quiet difficult to adhere to one action while it could have harm others and be seen as abusing.

Most of experienced players would hopefully come with common sense as to where and when to conduct such a game tactic, again, tough to judge from an outside point of view. Ruling each player vision is just impossible.

[mookiemcgee]

First I think the specific example linked is kind of a bad one. Can you really claim someone is throwing a game in round 10 of a 20 round trench game?

I don't think you can stop people from using strategy to try and win tournaments. All you can do it force them to try and hide their actions, and I'm not sure you should do that given that enforcement is predicated on someone giving a written complaint. It just gives an advantage to those who make spurious and frequent claims that everyone else is cheating.

To the degree that I have done this, it's only because i learned it from watching the success of other very high ranked folks like Josko(but certainly not only him) do it over the course of many years. I do think you guys run the risk of legislating this games to death.

[Shannon Apple]

It began with this: viewtopic.php?f=239&t=233584

aad0906 first made a baseless accusation against Josko. I looked at the game, and Josko had already complained in the game chat about aad attacking him 3 turns in a row with no benefit. So then he's like "fine, I'll break your bonus in Europe." I would call that a much deserved retaliation and not at all game throwing.

So, when the ridiculous thread goes up, Josko is like "wait a minute, what you are accusing me of, you were actually doing in this other game" and reported aad for that. Pretty sure it was something that Josko wouldn't have bothered reporting if it wasn't for the other thread.

I think that's why they closed it. And, I doubt Josko would care to be honest. He just made the counter-complaint to make a point.

[mookiemcgee]

Yeah that's sort of my point. It just turns into to a he said /she said situation and the ones determining rules enforcement have to guess at the intentions of players which is impossible. I think the examples where two people of the same tribe are doing a 1-2 punch where one player is playing to lose/sabotage and allow their tribe mate to win is much worse that two players who are doing what they have to do to gain a tourney edge over each other. But that's just my opinion, and I guess those are like assholes... everyone has one.

[YukFoo]

Re-Editing a "Mod Edit" is considered a Gross Abuse of the Forums (Razorvich)

[iAmCaffeine]

1 game > 1 tournament

That may be the current ruling but it is not a good one. That is my opinion.

Agreed.

You should always start every game you play trying to win. However, let's say it's round 48 in a 50 round game and I'm 50 troops behind you. I'm in first place of the tournament, you're in 2nd. This is the last game with 2 rounds remaining and you're in position to win. However if I suicide you, neither of us win the game and that guarantees I win the tournament, you can guarantee I'm doing it every damn time. You'd be an idiot not to.

I copied most of that from a comment in C&A.

Even if against the rules, I would still do that and take the tournament win. You'd be stupid not to. In what fictional reality is any half decent player going to prioritise one game over a tournament?

They're not, and they shouldn't be forced to. Setting precedent that 1 game > 1 tournament will not fly with most people who play tournaments, and this rule will be broken.

On another note, it's cute to see people who have me foed still can't post without saying my name.

[shoop76]

1 game > 1 tournament

That may be the current ruling but it is not a good one. That is my opinion.

Agreed.

You should always start every game you play trying to win. However, let's say it's round 48 in a 50 round game and I'm 50 troops behind you. I'm in first place of the tournament, you're in 2nd. This is the last game with 2 rounds remaining and you're in position to win. However if I suicide you, neither of us win the game and that guarantees I win the tournament, you can guarantee I'm doing it every damn time. You'd be an idiot not to.

I copied most of that from a comment in C&A.

Even if against the rules, I would still do that and take the tournament win. You'd be stupid not to. In what fictional reality is any half decent player going to prioritise one game over a tournament?

They're not, and they shouldn't be forced to. Setting precedent that 1 game > 1 tournament will not fly with most people who play tournaments, and this rule will be broken.

On another note, it's cute to see people who have me foed still can't post without saying my name.

I agree with you. Its a silly ruling from someone that may not have played many tournaments. Tournaments are run and played to be won. Finishing 2nd doesn´t mean a thing. To me its a big surprise that the tournament department doesn´t make rulings in tournament issues.

Let me throw another possible case out there. 1 player attacks me early and in all likelihood ruins my chances for winning. I play the game out to the round limit hoping I might get lucky and win. In the final round I realize I can´t, but I don´t want the player to win that cost me the game so I hit him in the final round to take the win from him. I take it this will not be allowed either.

There is still so much gray area and I also think that cases are handled differently depending on who the accused is.

[iAmCaffeine]

I also think that cases are handled differently depending on who the accused is.

nothing new there

[Nut Shot Scott]

Let me throw another possible case out there. 1 player attacks me early and in all likelihood ruins my chances for winning. I play the game out to the round limit hoping I might get lucky and win. In the final round I realize I can´t, but I don´t want the player to win that cost me the game so I hit him in the final round to take the win from him. I take it this will not be allowed either.

I agree and I can't see how anyone could take issue with your example here. The whole "let's tell everyone when and why they can attack another player" thing is ridiculous. Your example above is exactly how playing a game against real people goes. We all begin each game with a single motivation - to win the game. Over the course of a game, that motivation changes depending upon your circumstances. Telling someone that their motivation is invalid is absurd, no matter how dumb it may sound to you. In this case, the motivation started out as winning the battle, when that was no longer a possibility the motivation became to win the war regardless of the outcome of the battle. As Mr Caffeine said, you'd be an idiot not to prioritize in that way, especially once the game was clearly lost. For those who don't like the human variable, maybe stick to bots.

[Shannon Apple]

Yeah that's sort of my point. It just turns into to a he said /she said situation and the ones determining rules enforcement have to guess at the intentions of players which is impossible. I think the examples where two people of the same tribe are doing a 1-2 punch where one player is playing to lose/sabotage and allow their tribe mate to win is much worse that two players who are doing what they have to do to gain a tourney edge over each other. But that's just my opinion, and I guess those are like assholes... everyone has one.

Yep.

But, in the game where Josko was accused of doing this, he wasn't. That's what made it so funny. Aad(randomnumbers) was in a much better position to break Josko's tribe mate's bonuses because he was/is bordering him, but he never did that. Instead, he went after Josko who was further behind and not in a position to break the tribe mate bonus. So when Josko attacks back, he's like "CHEATER!" That was a very weird report. lol.

Part of me thinks the report happened simply because of a previous report where josko admitted wrong doing and got warned. He also said that if a precedent was set where no one was allowed to throw games, he would hold up his end and not do that, which seemed pretty chill to me.

Someone trying to sabotage someone by getting them suspended after a warning is pretty dirty tactics. I can't prove that's what this was, but looked mighty suspicious.

Ah CC drama, it never gets old.


Serious question: Why the hell aren't tribe tournaments set to play team, 1v1 and polymorphic games only? Would that not only make sense? It's pretty crazy that there is room for these kind of arguments in the first place.

[mookiemcgee]

Yeah that's sort of my point. It just turns into to a he said /she said situation and the ones determining rules enforcement have to guess at the intentions of players which is impossible. I think the examples where two people of the same tribe are doing a 1-2 punch where one player is playing to lose/sabotage and allow their tribe mate to win is much worse that two players who are doing what they have to do to gain a tourney edge over each other. But that's just my opinion, and I guess those are like assholes... everyone has one.

Serious question: Why the hell aren't tribe tournaments set to play team, 1v1 and polymorphic games only? Would that not only make sense? It's pretty crazy that there is room for these kind of arguments in the first place.

Pixar suggest something along those lines in one of the complaint threads and it makes perfect sense to me. If it's a big free for all tourney then limit the signups from any tribe to one per iteration, or do all 1v1/poly games only. Then you avoid these perverse incentives to lose so a teammate can win.

I haven't gone through the exact details of what happened and don't claim to know/argue the finer points of this instance. But if aad's felt the was a problem where a 2 v 1 in a situation was occurring and there was a recent ruling on something similar but the rules were still unclear... I can't really fault him for making a report. It's not a strategy to win as much as testing what the rules are in a situation where they actually mattered. Kinda like trying to get a case looked at by the supreme court more than trying to get someone banned. in other words, Aad can't ban anyone himself, he used the tools that were available to 'test' what the rules are.

[ZaBeast]

You should always start every game you play trying to win. However, let's say it's round 48 in a 50 round game and I'm 50 troops behind you. I'm in first place of the tournament, you're in 2nd. This is the last game with 2 rounds remaining and you're in position to win. However if I suicide you, neither of us win the game and that guarantees I win the tournament, you can guarantee I'm doing it every damn time. You'd be an idiot not to.

Even if against the rules, I would still do that and take the tournament win. You'd be stupid not to. In what fictional reality is any half decent player going to prioritise one game over a tournament?

You're always taking this extreme exemple to prove your point. Yes it makes sense in that context, at least from the standpoint you'd be in. However, it would also make sense in the earlier rounds to throw the games you're losing to less skilled players who have no real chance to win the tournament. And in the later rounds, to the people with the least wins because they couldn't catch up with you. You'd be losing the games anyways so why not? The only thing that differs is the points you lose after all, and by doing that you could prevent people from catching up to you or leaders from increasing their lead. And your opponents could also throw games in favor of a winner they think would benefit them. You have to set a line somewhere because tournaments should aim at crowning the best player, not the best at getting wins early and deciding who wins the others or some similar bs.

But anyways, let's assume no game throwing is allowed unless it guarantees you'll win the tournament or at least that the rest of the tournament was played fair and square. In your example you're basically saying you should be allowed to win the tournament over someone else because they couldn't get the deciding win before the last games. I get it, a win is a win, but winning the tournament that way hardly seems fair, does it? Your example is actually closer to 1 game> 1 tournament than the ruling because you're artificially making the game that put you in the lead more important than the game you threw, in the sense that it's worth no point for the player that should have won it, while the ruling basically means that tournaments should be played all the way and the winner decided at the end of it based on the results, not midway through. I'm not saying people won't find creative ways to throw games, but I believe forbidding all instances of game throwing is a worthy goal.

[iAmCaffeine]

you talk like a tournament consists of 1 game. not even worth my effort to type out 2 more lines of text.

[Kotaro]

This post was made in response to game throwing for Tournaments:

From this point on, all games, no matter what it is, unless specified, shall be subject to all CC rules. This includes tournament and tribe games.

Since then, game throwing has been met with only warnings or closed without any research done. Seems like C&A/Admin are split on how to deal with this.

I think tournaments, auto or otherwise, need to have points taken out of them, much like scenarios, so that they effectively become meaningless outside of the actual tournament/tribe event; the rules state one thing, but tournaments are treated like they've got their own special rules, yet it is stated nowhere.

When a forum thread with the label tournament actually dictates the rules more than the actual rules, there needs to be a change.

Edit: Oh, and that thread needed to be closed. Everytime IAm and Josko are involved in the same thread, it becomes nothing but spam; and since IAm posts in every C&A thread, it was going to become those 2 trolling each other back and forth, contributing nothing to the conversation and neither one changing their opinions.

[iAmCaffeine]

Oh, and that thread needed to be closed. Everytime IAm and Josko are involved in the same thread, it becomes nothing but spam; and since IAm posts in every C&A thread, it was going to become those 2 trolling each other back and forth, contributing nothing to the conversation and neither one changing their opinions.

Completely true, except I don't post in every thread, plus josko and I weren't trolling each other in the last thread. Apart from that you're spot on though, good job.

[riskllama]

more cheating & abuse, pls.

[Mad777]

more cheating & abuse, pls.

as always your comments are full of sense and useful

[riskllama]

llama = helping

[Mad777]

Mods Edit

llama = trolling

[JPlo64]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

[Shannon Apple]

I think the current ruling standard is wrong.

Tournaments are not mandatory. If you don't want to play subject to tournament strategies, than don't play tournaments that entice those strategies.

C&A Taking this ruling over is stupid. If this kind of thing is to be policed, it should be done by the Tournament or event organizer and the standard should be stated in the rules.

As stated before. You can't stop biases. You just force players to try to be subtle and then police them on how subtle they were. If the current standard is ever widely understood, have fun with the flood of complaints and investigations.

Tournament > Game

Again, there should be no opportunity for this in a TRIBE tournament where there are tribe medals. The simplest way to do that is to exclude all games that are not 1v1, polymorphic and team games. Or, for tournies that contain multiplayer games with more than 2 players, limit the tournie to 1 person per tribe with reserves. No two tribe members should end up in a position where they are playing against each other if there is going to be a medal for their tribe at the end. How do you even police that? Do they expect all people not to have biases in a situation that is designed for them to want each other to win.

I'm not saying that it is right to throw a game for your tribe mate to win. I don't particularly like the idea of this strategy. But it's not the fault of the players. It's the fault of the people creating the tournaments. More thought needs to go into this. You leave something open to be abused, and it will be. More and more people will get wise to it due to the reports, and more people will find sneakier ways of doing it. They need to fix the system.