Standard Games Rule Change

[Mr Changsha]

-1 billion for me.

I think this is a terrible idea, actually. How many users are here because their friends recommended the site to them? Maybe they have one friend they invited, or two, maybe three, maybe four. Maybe they don't want to play team games, or private two-person games. Are we really going to limit the user base like this?

If people abuse the system, go after 'em. But don't punish the majority of players who don't conduct secret diplomacy because of the minority of players who do.

And I like to play play 6-player Terminator Escalating on Classic settings. Does that mean I only get to play 2 games of that sort vs. the hundreds of other SoC grads and former students brought up on those settings?

Should we make sure that only one SoC grad is playing in one game at a time?

What about games I play against clan mates? Should we avoid joining games that another clan member is in?

Oh, there's a game versus former Team Student X. Guess I can't play that one. Oh, there's some games versus former Team Students Z, Gamma, and Aleph. Guess I can't play those ones. Oh, gee, my Escalating-loving clan mate started a bunch of games. I sure would like to take some of his points. Guess I can't.

Frankly, this will lead to less games, and less users overall. Is this really what we want? Is this going to ultimately benefit or harm the site's long-term health?

Why are we letting the violations and abuse perpetrated by a small minority undermine the enjoyment of the large number of paying customers who just want to kick back and throw a little dice, sometimes with people they enjoy playing against in a friendly game of world domination?

See, here's the thing. What makes this site so great is the community that's built up around it. When I was looking for a board-game-like strategy-lite game, I tried a couple of different sites, and CC won hands down for me because of the community established, the camaraderie that's here. I can't support any measure designed to fragment, ghettoize, or prevent friends from getting together to eliminate each other over a friendly game of Ri - uh, land-grabbing.

Frankly, I just don't get it. I think this policy will cost CC users, and not the rule-violating type, either, but the casual gamers who are looking to play their turns with their morning coffee or between classes. These folks exist, right? I think they do. I used to be one of them.

What on earth have SOC or clan members got to do with any of this? I am writing about real-life friends, the guy you live with maybe, playing together on foggy 8 man standards. This has got nothing to do with stopping you playing 1000 games with a clan mate, it is about you not playing 50 public standard games with your brother.

[macbone]

Frankly, what's the difference? Our society has completely transformed social relationships, and some people, especially here in Hong Kong, spend far more time interacting with people online than they do face-to-face. If someone can coordinate turns in a house, why not on Skype, What'sApp, or any number of other communications software?

What's the difference in helping my frat brother win and my clanmate win?

Again, this change will drive away many casual players who are just looking for a place to play Risk online, perhaps with one or two of their friends/co-workers/family members.

Punish those who break the established rules. Don't punish those who have not broken any rules.

[Funkyterrance]

Well, the fact that Kiron is back at the conqueror position after all this is pretty depressing. No kind of point reset basically is saying that rule-bending, as long as you don't get caught early on in your practices, is admissible here. If ever an incidence has made me consider dropping premium for reasons within the site itself, this one is it.
I see this whole business as a shift of the site away from honest players trying to maintain integrity in the community and towards the people who don't give a damn about the site beyond their own "accomplishments".
I'm suddenly over the past couple weeks feeling less comfortable playing CC.

[thegreekdog]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

That's a pretty poor retort.

As far as I can tell, I've never been accused of secrety diplomacy relative to my posts in the Off Topics Form and I've not been accused of trolling in a game.

[DoomYoshi]

Again, this change will drive away many casual players who are just looking for a place to play Risk online, perhaps with one or two of their friends/co-workers/family members.

This is the only valid criticism so far. It is a very good one though.

[Funkyterrance]

Again, this change will drive away many casual players who are just looking for a place to play Risk online, perhaps with one or two of their friends/co-workers/family members.

This is the only valid criticism so far. It is a very good one though.

Maybe it's valid and maybe it isn't. If these types of people exist, why aren't they making themselves heard? They may as well be imaginary. Further, are those types of people going to pay to play? If not, they really don't have a say in the matter.

[Mr Changsha]

Frankly, what's the difference? Our society has completely transformed social relationships, and some people, especially here in Hong Kong, spend far more time interacting with people online than they do face-to-face. If someone can coordinate turns in a house, why not on Skype, What'sApp, or any number of other communications software?

What's the difference in helping my frat brother win and my clanmate win?

Again, this change will drive away many casual players who are just looking for a place to play Risk online, perhaps with one or two of their friends/co-workers/family members.

Punish those who break the established rules. Don't punish those who have not broken any rules.

I suspect there still are, just about, some real differences between a friend and an online friend. So let's consider a few...

1. My friend here in Qing Dao asks to borrow 100 pounds. My answer? "No problem". On the other hand my clanmate asks to borrow 100 pounds. Hmm...

(though maybe for macbone things are different)

2. If my friend needed a place to stay my home would of course be open to him. However, if a clanmate contacted me needing a bed for a few days?

(though maybe for macbone the invisible people often don't stay that way)

3. Strangely enough if my friend needed me to look after their cat I would, but for a clanmate? In fact, has a clanmate ever made such a request in the history of CC?

(though I suppose it is possible our rather confused macbone does indeed operate a kennel service for his clan)

4. As sometimes actually happens my friend asks if I can put a good word in for him about a job, and of course I would do this. On the other hand, am I likely to write a letter of recommendation for a clanmate?

'Dear Sir,

BigBallinStalin has proved in our online engagements to be both....'

(though I suppose it is possible macbone here would indeed do such a thing and does so on a regular basis)

5. Now let's consider if my friend gets sick, his wife is away, and he needs me to nurse him in some unlikely fashion (for example by making soup, or ordering take out). Now I would do this, I would mop my friend's brow. However, I have yet to hear of clanmates looking after clanmates when they are sick. Certainly in the BpB this wasn't a common policy and I haven't noticed such a culture shift here in MM either.

(though I guess macbone quite often nurses his clanmates back to full fighting strength in the event of a flu outbreak...and can but be applauded for it)

6. Have I ever been for a meal with a clanmate, got drunk with one, had a fight with one, slept with the same woman, spilled my most innermost secrets, got so high I jabbered for 8 hours about madness with one? I can't say that I have.

[macbone]

Again, this change will drive away many casual players who are just looking for a place to play Risk online, perhaps with one or two of their friends/co-workers/family members.

This is the only valid criticism so far. It is a very good one though.

Maybe it's valid and maybe it isn't. If these types of people exist, why aren't they making themselves heard? They may as well be imaginary. Further, are those types of people going to pay to play? If not, they really don't have a say in the matter.

In general, I'd expect a casual player like this to seldom venture into the fora or join a clan. They might dip into Live Chat, maybe.

Oh, sure, Mr Changsha, a real-life friend is far different from a CC friend, there's no mistake. I don't know anyone on CC who would come help me change a busted tire in the rain early Sunday morning or loan me money to pay for three hours of grad work just so I can buy student football tickets for the season. But I'd be willing to bet that secret diplomacy is as common among people who know each other through CC as it is with real-life friends, though I have no data to back that up. My point was that if someone wants to coordinate turns in a standard game so that either that person or a friend wins the game, they're not limited by geographical location, though you're right, being in the same time zone makes that easier, and living in the same house as someone easier still.

And I'm still disappointed that Charle didn't come see me when he was in HK last year. =) All SoC instructors have a standing invitation to hang out if they ever come through. I've shared a few beers with the godfather, Chariot of Fire, though, and maybe we'll do it again sometime. I think we've only played against each other once on opposite sides in a quads game, though.

I think you'll find it fair to say that cheating in an online game has very little to do with nursing sick cats back to health or writing letters of recommendation, though. =)

[deuces wild]

Some changes should be made ...... But ? is what kind of changes should it be ... There should be no Secret Diplomacy. if u want to team up then play team games ...
I say this because off all cheating that goes on is to Dam funny ...it sems that most hi rake players are ones that have cheat in one way or another most are here play friends and family and meet new player ..
ANd if you are as good as you think you are you would agree the game is 80 % LUCK

[Mr Changsha]

Some changes should be made ...... But ? is what kind of changes should it be ... There should be no Secret Diplomacy. if u want to team up then play team games ...
I say this because off all cheating that goes on is to Dam funny ...it sems that most hi rake players are ones that have cheat in one way or another most are here play friends and family and meet new player ..
ANd if you are as good as you think you are you would agree the game is 80 % LUCK

*Checks chap's profile with the absolute certainty that he will be horribly addicted to 1vs1, comes away satisfied with the fact that his knowledge of CC remains undimmed....*

[Funkyterrance]

I would estimate, depending on the map/settings, that the game is probably around 20-40% luck, maybe less.

[rhp 1]

This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

I think Mr. Changsha is suggesting we go a step further because in reality as we know it, real-life friends and family will favor one another much more than they will a faceless online person. This is not to mention the very real possibility that supposed "flatmates" are actually the same person.
I know in my heart that I am super strict with myself about fair play. However, I play on here with a couple of people that I know in real life and I would never play against them except in a 1v1 game. Not only would it unfairly arouse suspicions with the other players in the game, I might subconsciously favor them in a situation that was close strategically. Why put yourself and your other opponents in this predicament? If you want to be "challenged" by playing against your real life friends, play a 1v1 freestyle speeder or break out the actual board game(gasp!).

not completely convinced about players "favoring" friends/family... I've played with friends.. and I'm more worried about stomping them than I am some random nerd I wouldn't know if he fell outta the sky and landed on my head.. now... you want to make the argument that in this situation they would ally long enough to get it down to 2 or 3 or however many there are? ok... I could see that... but I think the mods can handle that as long as someone is able to see the SD and is willing to file a C and A report...

[rhp 1]

Some changes should be made ...... But ? is what kind of changes should it be ... There should be no Secret Diplomacy. if u want to team up then play team games ...
I say this because off all cheating that goes on is to Dam funny ...it sems that most hi rake players are ones that have cheat in one way or another most are here play friends and family and meet new player ..
ANd if you are as good as you think you are you would agree the game is 80 % LUCK

How is it possible that English is your first language?

and 80%?

hardly... I'll be bold and say 30% on many map/settings

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, the fact that Kiron is back at the conqueror position after all this is pretty depressing. No kind of point reset basically is saying that rule-bending, as long as you don't get caught early on in your practices, is admissible here. If ever an incidence has made me consider dropping premium for reasons within the site itself, this one is it.
I see this whole business as a shift of the site away from honest players trying to maintain integrity in the community and towards the people who don't give a damn about the site beyond their own "accomplishments".
I'm suddenly over the past couple weeks feeling less comfortable playing CC.

Fully agree. Hello, "moral hazard"--thanks to CC policy.

[Funkyterrance]

Well, the fact that Kiron is back at the conqueror position after all this is pretty depressing. No kind of point reset basically is saying that rule-bending, as long as you don't get caught early on in your practices, is admissible here. If ever an incidence has made me consider dropping premium for reasons within the site itself, this one is it.
I see this whole business as a shift of the site away from honest players trying to maintain integrity in the community and towards the people who don't give a damn about the site beyond their own "accomplishments".
I'm suddenly over the past couple weeks feeling less comfortable playing CC.

Fully agree. Hello, "moral hazard"--thanks to CC policy.

Admin, in the past and now here, have allowed certain select players to rape this entity known as Conquer Club. It loses a good deal of dignity every time. And for what?

[Mr Changsha]

'Secret Diplomacy' means the discussion of a game outside of the in-game public chat. ANY discussion of a game outside of this area is considered to be secret diplomacy.

Now I believe that any two or more real-life friends who meet on any kind of a regular basis (for example colleagues, housemates, classmates) are going to discuss the game they are playing in. To do this is human nature.

Therefore, it should be against the rules for real-life friends to play in public standard games together because they WILL, without a shadow of a doubt, discuss the game and are therefore breaking the rules of the site.

[AAFitz]

Nah, real friends/cc friends doesnt matter. Cheaters are going to cheat and there are ten thousand ways(at least a few) people can conduct secret diplomacy, so all a rule change would do, is make non cheating friends not be able to play together, and mildly inconvenience the cheaters to finding another way to communicate with other 'friends'.

Can't let the cheaters f*ck it up for everyone.

[AAFitz]

'Secret Diplomacy' means the discussion of a game outside of the in-game public chat. ANY discussion of a game outside of this area is considered to be secret diplomacy.

Now I believe that any two or more real-life friends who meet on any kind of a regular basis (for example colleagues, housemates, classmates) are going to discuss the game they are playing in. To do this is human nature.

Therefore, it should be against the rules for real-life friends to play in public standard games together because they WILL, without a shadow of a doubt, discuss the game and are therefore breaking the rules of the site.

Your view of human nature is shortsighted, and far too cynical. Cheaters cheat, non-cheaters don't.

I think suggesting that all friends will cheat suggest you are a very untrustworthy person. How you cant even imagine friends not cheating, is beyond me. Im honestly saddened by it, because you are saying that you would absolutely cheat with a real life friend, and I would not have suspected that of you before now.

I do think that trying to inflict your weakness and lack of trust in people however, is beyond heavy handed, and given that you just suggested that even you would cheat, should be dismissed in its entirety since you dont understand what it means to be trustworthy, and not a cheater.

[Mr Changsha]

'Secret Diplomacy' means the discussion of a game outside of the in-game public chat. ANY discussion of a game outside of this area is considered to be secret diplomacy.

Now I believe that any two or more real-life friends who meet on any kind of a regular basis (for example colleagues, housemates, classmates) are going to discuss the game they are playing in. To do this is human nature.

Therefore, it should be against the rules for real-life friends to play in public standard games together because they WILL, without a shadow of a doubt, discuss the game and are therefore breaking the rules of the site.

Your view of human nature is shortsighted, and far too cynical. Cheaters cheat, non-cheaters don't.

I think suggesting that all friends will cheat suggest you are a very untrustworthy person. How you cant even imagine friends not cheating, is beyond me. Im honestly saddened by it, because you are saying that you would absolutely cheat with a real life friend, and I would not have suspected that of you before now.

I do think that trying to inflict your weakness and lack of trust in people however, is beyond heavy handed, and given that you just suggested that even you would cheat, should be dismissed in its entirety since you dont understand what it means to be trustworthy, and not a cheater.

I find it interesting that YOUR response to my post is to personally attack me.

May I remind you that secret diplomacy includes any form of conversation, no matter how innocent it may be, away from public chat. This would include such relatively minor comments as "I see blue is arming up heavily on your borders in the 2.1" while also more obviously horrendous statements like "Let's finish them all off and then resolve this game 1vs1". I didn't say that anyone who plays real-life friends in large standard public games is a CHEAT, I wrote that it is human nature to discuss the game. However, under current CC rules discussing the game outside of public chat is against the rules.

So let me be clear. I think that real-life friends who play in public standard games WILL discuss the game. That doesn't mean that their intentions are dishonourable, but it does mean that by doing so they are violating CC rules. Can we agree that discussing the state/position of a game privately is against the rules even if there is no determination to cheat? That the actual discussion itself is a violation? If we can (and I fail to see how we can't agree on that point) then this is a question of whether it is human nature for real-life friends to discuss the game. I think it IS human nature, and that belief has little to do with my own personal experience and much more to do with the fact that I am a very keen student of, surprisingly enough, human nature!

So how about engaging with me on the substantive issues? I mean, I'll trade insults with you all day (and next time I will eviscerate you), but I'd prefer to keep this thread clean.

[2dimes]

I thought I would adjust this sentence to reflect what I've noticed.

I find it interesting that YOUR the go to response to my post nearly anything written on the internet is to personally attack me the author.

Even though the original was probably also an accurate statement.

Now I think I'm agreeing with Mr Chagsha. Though I know AAFitz has a point that there are some people that would actually like to play with their friends and not cheat. I think as horrible and sad as it is, there are possibly more that would cheat. Maybe the amount that would cheat is very low but just is so annoying that it really stands out and seems like it is more.

[Funkyterrance]

My argument is that people will subconsciously favor a friend. Seems pretty natural to me. It takes a great deal of effort and concentration to "forget" in a game that the person is a real life friend. Most people cannot muster this kind of discipline so the best solution is to remove the possibility.

[rhp 1]

My argument is that people will subconsciously favor a friend. Seems pretty natural to me. It takes a great deal of effort and concentration to "forget" in a game that the person is a real life friend. Most people cannot muster this kind of discipline so the best solution is to remove the possibility.

I totally agree with this except for the part about automatically (subconsciously was the word you used) favoring a friend... my point was that that doesn't necessarily mean that you're gonna be on your "friend's side" so to speak...

I also agree with Fitz in regards to the "cheaters are gonna cheat" position... there's only so much legislating you can do... a lot of it is gonna have to come after the fact with rules enforcement.. unfortunate, but the way it's probably gonna be...

[Kaskavel]

I have not read the whole topic, but I ve stated again elsewhere, I do not play standard flats-no spoils-nuclear with friends, but I do play escalating games (and assasins). It is hard to cheat there...

[2dimes]

How do you tell who's a friend in real life vs. someone they've become sort of friends with online.

There's also some groups on here that like to play only with their friends to avoid the ocasional jerk that makes games less fun for them. What about that?

[Funkyterrance]

There's also some groups on here that like to play only with their friends to avoid the ocasional jerk that makes games less fun for them. What about that?

Private games.