Idea for a new club feature and/or Forum : court of inquiry

trimunch · Post by **trimunch** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:02 pm

I've been in a few games where truces were called, the terms not agreed to with specificity, with ensuing bickering amongst the opponents.

I've even got a neg that fits this scenario.

It is important that we know who is an honorable player, and who is not -- the idea that someone can obfuscate thier own choice to go back on thier word and convince others that they were really the victim or that someone can impune another player who has lived up to the letter of a truce and get away with it makes my skin crawl.

I propose that a court of inquiry be formed for such disputes. A thread could be assigned to a given dispute in a special forum. A jury of 3 could be formed from a pool of volunteers. The thread would be closed once the jury issued thier decision.

To give the whole thing teeth I further propose that an informal process be implemented where the mods leave an automatic, stock negative to a party guilty of having actually violated the letter of a truce and remove any feedback given by the guilty party based on that game.

If there is any interest in this idea I will start a poll

Thank you for your time

edwinissweet · Post by **edwinissweet** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:06 pm

not a bad idea i guess

cena-rules · Post by **cena-rules** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:08 pm

good idea

oh this should be in suggestions and bug reports. Ill get a mod to move it

trimunch · Post by **trimunch** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:11 pm

thx, sorry about the misplace

cena-rules · Post by **cena-rules** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:12 pm

trimunch wrote:thx, sorry about the misplace

np

billy07 · Post by **billy07** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:16 pm

don`t go for truces, good players don`t even ask.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:18 pm

billy07 wrote:don`t go for truces, good players don`t even ask.

good players know when to ask . . .

assuming someone knows your intentions is not a good call to make. People ARE stupid

trimunch · Post by **trimunch** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:24 pm

gimil : I agree with you 100%
billy7 : I respect your opinion. please note that as I envision this it would not effect anyone not a party to a truce. If you never ask for or accept them, the proposed new forum would not apply to you.

edwinissweet · Post by **edwinissweet** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:25 pm

gimil wrote:
billy07 wrote:don`t go for truces, good players don`t even ask.
good players know when to ask . . .

assuming someone knows your intentions is not a good call to make. People ARE stupid

the best ranked players are also the best at mind games

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:28 pm

edwinissweet wrote:
gimil wrote:
billy07 wrote:don`t go for truces, good players don`t even ask.
good players know when to ask . . .

assuming someone knows your intentions is not a good call to make. People ARE stupid

the best ranked players are also the best at mind games

Well thats an asset for them to use to there advanatge.

But to assume that someone will notice the same things you have is never a good idea. Much better to have a formal agreement.

azdragon · Post by **azdragon** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:22 pm

I think you would have to weight this with all the games a user has played. If they had 80 games where they kept the truce, but 3 where they had to break it because situations changed they should not have something on their record for that. If someone does it at least, say 20% of the time, then I think a neg is in order.

trimunch · Post by **trimunch** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:38 pm

azdragon wrote: ... where they kept the truce, but 3 where they had to break it because situations changed ...

I understand your idea in the context of a truce with no conditions. I've never seen one of those. The most end conditions I've commonly seen involve numbers of turns or a triggering event such as an elimination. If these conditions are set, and someone breaks the truce before the condition occurs then they have not kept thier word. This offense, is, in my opinion, excacerbated by the fact that this usually happens with no notice. Of course, I do see the merit in an idea for an exception such as "preventing an obvious win" ... although that is a slippery slope and would cause many people to test it, and unless applied very sparingly would render the whole proposed system almost moot.

This actually raises a good point : for a court to set precedent it requires statutes ... but I am getting ahead of myself ... if this thread picks up in popularity I'll start a poll and if the poll is a plurality I'll float some more in-depth ideas.

Godd · Post by **Godd** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:47 pm

sorry but maybe I should keep my opinion to myself......

Ok nevermind that, I for one do not agree with making truces/alliances and such. Common efforts to help weaken the strongest player is fine and on common terms. In games where someone wants to have a truce it seems unfair to the rest of the players talents, sorta like a 2 on 1 play. This game is you against the rest of the players in a game and Gangs ganging up on others is not true talent. I feel they should be only used in a 1 on 1 match (I like that idea) or kept to the dbls and triplet games

Ok all in all this is Just my opinion and each is entiltlied to thier own opinion

trimunch · Post by **trimunch** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:14 pm

Godd wrote:sorry but maybe I should keep my opinion to myself......

Ok nevermind that, I for one do not agree with making truces/alliances and such. Common efforts to help weaken the strongest player is fine and on common terms. In games where someone wants to have a truce it seems unfair to the rest of the players talents, sorta like a 2 on 1 play. This game is you against the rest of the players in a game and Gangs ganging up on others is not true talent. I feel they should be only used in a 1 on 1 match (I like that idea) or kept to the dbls and triplet games

Ok all in all this is Just my opinion and each is entiltlied to thier own opinion

Thank you for your input.

I would like to point out that for those who do not like or use truces or alliances as a tactic, that this idea will not effect you.

For anyone who DOES use the tactic of a truce on a regular basis, it would be helpful to have a way to gauge the trustworthiness of your opponent : negative feedback is imperfect as my guess is that most are reluctant to give it in the situation of breaking ones word.

Something did occur to me since my original post : It could be viewed as a perfectly valid strategy to enter into a truce with the INTENTION of breaking it ... while this is not honorable, it could be very effective. Since this is really just a game and noone really gets hurt by such despicable play, the court would have to specifically differentiate between a formal truce and and informal truce, the latter really not falling under jurisdiction.

enterprise47 · Post by **enterprise47** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:25 pm

I think that sounds fair for the most part, especially removing any retaliatory negative feedback from the treacherous dog! If someone finds a need to break a treaty due to circumstance changes, they should consult whoever they made the treaty with to ask to back out of it (the assumption here is that the circumstance changes are so obvious that the other player would consider letting you out)...just to be honorable and fair.

Nomadic · Post by **Nomadic** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:19 am

I agree with trimunch on this one.

I think there should be an "international court of justice" ...of sorts. If truces are a legitimate part of gameplay on Conquer Club then people should be bound by that agreement.

I have recently came from the experience of being burned by someone who did not keep a truce which was in play. I would think this would be a good step to take to insure that there would be consequences for those who break such a clearly defined treaty.

Some possible punishments could include: rank reduction, game limiting, temporary suspension of their account, a replay of the game, etc.

Thanks for the idea trimunch. Good luck.

-Nomadic