Is using second, or third game as decider against the rules

[Hatchman]

Ok but why red? Is it fair for all to gang up on one player? Who makes such a decision?

[alster]

but we do need to come with a solution that most can agree upon, so let us focus on the solution rather than the problem.

A pretty obvious solution to this problem seems to be to have me play in any games that risk deteriorating into stalemates. Not only would the games come with a guarantee that a few people will be knocked out before round 10 ends (but most likely the game will be over as well), there’s also a pretty good chance that the game chat will be friendly and cozy.

Game 3157878
Game 3157887
Game 3157894
Game 4485695

God. I do suck at standard, especially escalating, games. My apologies to those who I haven’t already apologized to. I’m just incapable of even getting close to a stalemate…

[comic boy]

I would suggest comic boy, poo-maker, joecoolfrog, maniacmath17, scott-land, etc. post a reasonable solution, they have tons of experience in this type of game play and are the very best at this game type, with that said, I support rl_orange, he is a very honorable player and also solid in this game play, and I have played with him and against him many times and he made a choice that sounds reasonable and fair to me, but we do need to come with a solution that most can agree upon, so let us focus on the solution rather than the problem.

The problem is that this situation only develops because nobody has made a bad mistake and the cards have not dropped in such a way to make a winning move viable, less good players tend to make rash moves which usually hand the game to somebody else. The point is that 'stalemate' games are actually no big problem, its not as if they happen every other game, elite players get far more upset by stupid play and hangings . If you think about it what makes more sense,setting up a tiebreak that within say 2 weeks will resolve 2 games , deploying for a year in the hope that either somebody will lose patience or that all yout opponents will leave the site/go blind/die.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I got an idea

lets change the name from RISK to LETS MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. Since everyone is more worried about what the other players think of their game play and who wins and loses.

well im not attacking that because he might retaliate against me
well im not attacking that because he might lose than
well im not attacking that because he dint attack me
well im not attacking that because he needs a card to stay in the game

jesus guys. play the game and quit whinning

[Hatchman]

JR, you started this. Thus, you're the whiner. Most of us who play escalating singles don't have an issue with tie-breakers. Hence we agree to participate in them.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

JR, you started this. Thus, you're the whiner. Most of us who play escalating singles don't have an issue with tie-breakers. Hence we agree to participate in them.

reread the author. I did not start this or the thread that busted RL Orange and Karlo. Just tired of hearing excuses.

also, im going out for lunch. be back whenever

[Hatchman]

That is true, but you certainly seem to be championing the cause of outlawing tie-breakers more vocally than anyone around here. This thread was started in direct response to you I believe. Why you gettin up in other people's business? Play what you enjoy and leave others to do likewise.

[comic boy]

I got an idea

lets change the name from RISK to LETS MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. Since everyone is more worried about what the other players think of their game play and who wins and loses.

well im not attacking that because he might retaliate against me
well im not attacking that because he might lose than
well im not attacking that because he dint attack me
well im not attacking that because he needs a card to stay in the game

jesus guys. play the game and quit whinning

Thats the point,we play these games,you dont, so why do you think your ignorant ranting has any value ?

[comic boy]

I got an idea

lets change the name from RISK to LETS MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. Since everyone is more worried about what the other players think of their game play and who wins and loses.

well im not attacking that because he might retaliate against me
well im not attacking that because he might lose than
well im not attacking that because he dint attack me
well im not attacking that because he needs a card to stay in the game

jesus guys. play the game and quit whinning

And keep losing,remind me again about your elite escalating record

[ahunda]

taking 1 country from a player is not hanging a person or making a bad move. its called slowly eliminating a player without making 1 massive death blow to the board. If other players were smart, they would begin to do the same as well but they dont. Everyone continues to deploy and end turn or take the same country between 2 or more players to obtain a card instead of trying to figure out how to win the game.

form alliances

begin to isoloate a color for elimination.

do something except complain that the game is boring and nobody is doing anything.

Teaming up against one player ? You sure, that´s in the spirit of the game and within the rules & guidelines ?

And who will be the lucky one to complete the kill, get the poor sods cards and then win the game ?

Maybe you should really stick to your preferred game types (1v1 & team games, I believe), where you are not faced with stalemate problems ...

[AAFitz]

This seems to be the general answer...

If you all agree to make a deciding game over another game that you think is already deadlocked, be sure your actions, whatever the outcome may be, will still be within the rules and guidelines.

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?

I like this interpretation, and it seems to be accurate to me.

Obviously, multiple 1v1s cannot be used.... If theres one game that is used as a tie breaker...its not point dumping...its one thrown game, which, would realistically been technically thrown in the first place and is in no way a violation of the point dumping rule or thrown games rule, which are more about multiple games, and always have been.

I assumed this is how it would turn out, and wanted to make sure it was steered towards this obvious solution. It was this way before and it remains the same really.

too bad though, all those guys on that list are jerks and the site would be better off without them

[comic boy]

Nice to see this resolved quickly.
Now we know that tiebreak games are sanctioned, and more importantly that they annoy JR, I shall welcome them with a vigour that I never had before

[AAFitz]

Nice to see this resolved quickly.
Now we know that tiebreak games are sanctioned, and more importantly that they annoy JR, I shall welcome them with a vigour that I never had before

Well, I think the key here is to be very careful. Any overuse could very well be considered abuse, is I believe the main point which we must all remember.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Nice to see this resolved quickly.
Now we know that tiebreak games are sanctioned, and more importantly that they annoy JR, I shall welcome them with a vigour that I never had before

you already screwed me in 3 of these games. I dint want to play another game ( point dumping ) and you convinced the others to tag team me. thats right, 5 vs 1. Now I know to report it next time as cheating.

[ahunda]

The final word:

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

[lancehoch]

Moving to Q&A from C&A.

[comic boy]

Nice to see this resolved quickly.
Now we know that tiebreak games are sanctioned, and more importantly that they annoy JR, I shall welcome them with a vigour that I never had before

you already screwed me in 3 of these games. I dint want to play another game ( point dumping ) and you convinced the others to tag team me. thats right, 5 vs 1. Now I know to report it next time as cheating.

Sorry I only play elite games so you are hardly likely to get a look in