Fyrdraca, JPlo64, groovysmurf - is this poor sportmanship?

[josko.ri]

I would like to vote “Who cares?”
Several times.
PS congratulations on losing.
PSS can the next poll be “is it poor sportspersonship to only take interest in the community’s opinion after having lost a game because of a loophole that you have known of for years but suddenly decide is important enough to bring up because you lost the game and your opponent doesn’t want a rematch?”
(And you probably already brought it to the attention of the TO and did not get the ruling you hoped for so you decide to try and get popular opinion on your side to try and get enough momentum to maybe change the ruling that you already failed to overturn)
PSSS congratulations on losing
PSSSS Please use this same loophole to win the next game against them so we can do this poll all over again but with the option to vote “Still don’t care”
Please.
Dziekuje.

By the way, Official ruling by the TO was that it is not against any written rules but it is poor sportmanship.

[IcePack]

Therefore, knowing that me and my team would never exploit this rule on this way, and my opponents did it, gave unfair additional strategical option to my opponents, which might be analogous to dope in sports because it artificially raises your abilities in the game.

So I haven’t really decided one way or another and haven’t voted yet. But I saw this and really gotta disagree with this bit.

How would they know that you and your team wouldn’t use this available tactic?

Also I find it really stretching saying this was UNFAIR to you. This strategy was available to both, something you could / would / should have considered in planning your strategy, and so to say it’s unfair is a bit disingenuous. You personally choose not to partake, that doesn’t mean it’s unfair to you. It means you felt it’s unfair to use, but still choose to participate in the event.

Again, this isn’t really impact my thoughts on sportsmanship or not, but saying it’s unfair is a little inaccurate. It was fair, the two groups just made strategic decisions that impacted what they could / would choose to do.

[josko.ri]

Therefore, knowing that me and my team would never exploit this rule on this way, and my opponents did it, gave unfair additional strategical option to my opponents, which might be analogous to dope in sports because it artificially raises your abilities in the game.

So I haven’t really decided one way or another and haven’t voted yet. But I saw this and really gotta disagree with this bit.

How would they know that you and your team wouldn’t use this available tactic?

Also I find it really stretching saying this was UNFAIR to you. This strategy was available to both, something you could / would / should have considered in planning your strategy, and so to say it’s unfair is a bit disingenuous. You personally choose not to partake, that doesn’t mean it’s unfair to you. It means you felt it’s unfair to use, but still choose to participate in the event.

Again, this isn’t really impact my thoughts on sportsmanship or not, but saying it’s unfair is a little inaccurate. It was fair, the two groups just made strategic decisions that impacted what they could / would choose to do.

Integrity of me saying that I consider this unfair is the fact that I claim that I have never used it by myself in more than 10.000 of my escalating games in past. Why? Because I consider using this strategy bad sportmanship. Therefore, I disagree that this strategical option was available to both teams, because for my team it was not available due to our fair play standards. My team would have never used this strategy. Whoever shows only one my past escalating spoils game where I used this strategy can prove that I am telling lie, if so. Do you really think that I never had chance to use this strategy in more than 10.000 escalating games played on this site? Of course I also had chance to use this strategy several times in past, but no single time I have used it because I did not want to show bad sportmanship to my opponnents.

[mookiemcgee]

I feel confident the OP would do the exact same thing given the chance.

wasn't there already an official ruling on this? Why now an poor attempt at public shaming?

This is wrong assumption by you.

I have played more than 10.000 escalating games and I have never exploited this loophole although I knew it exists and had a chance to exploit it many times.

If you can find only one my escalating game where I exploited this, then please post it here publicly and I will apologize for telling lie.

Otherwise, if you cannot find any case in past 12 years of my site activity where I exploited this rule, then it is really unfair to assume that I would also do the same if I had chance.

Therefore, knowing that me and my team would never exploit this rule on this way, and my opponents did it, gave unfair additional strategical option to my opponents, which might be analogous to dope in sports because it artificially raises your abilities in the game.

So you are saying they played by the rules, you knew they were playing by the rules, you don't want to play by the rules even though you are aware they are the rules, and it's unsportsmanlike of them to play by the rules you choose not to ignore?

Is using banned substances for doping against the rules?

[Keefie]

By the way, Official ruling by the TO was that it is not against any written rules but it is poor sportmanship.

That is one person's very subjective opinion, which has no bearing on the end result. Because they DIDN'T BREAK THE RULES.

Blame the system, blame the TO who didn't make this illegal in his tourney, but don't blame the opposition.

[BabySasuke]

its unsportmanlike to hand games to tribe members too, but you where all for that before you got your hand slapped?

[2dimes]

[Donelladan]

2017-11-06 18:11:12 - Ukey: If josko.ri is going to purposely not end his turn in order to avoid spoils, is there an appropriate group response?
2017-11-06 18:11:55 - Ukey: Seems gbd88 employs the same tactic.
2017-11-06 18:13:52 - Ukey: My intent isn't to revisit the standard debate about "cheap tactics" but to explore other ideas when players are not all using a uniform set of tactics.
2017-11-10 18:45:56 - josko.ri: I consider running out of time as additional strategy element which may or may not be used
2017-11-10 18:47:07 - josko.ri: I know not everyone agrees but that is just my opinion. In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

Game 17620851

Sure that was nuke, not escalating so it's totally different story.

[josko.ri]

:D

2017-11-06 18:11:12 - Ukey: If josko.ri is going to purposely not end his turn in order to avoid spoils, is there an appropriate group response?
2017-11-06 18:11:55 - Ukey: Seems gbd88 employs the same tactic.
2017-11-06 18:13:52 - Ukey: My intent isn't to revisit the standard debate about "cheap tactics" but to explore other ideas when players are not all using a uniform set of tactics.
2017-11-10 18:45:56 - josko.ri: I consider running out of time as additional strategy element which may or may not be used
2017-11-10 18:47:07 - josko.ri: I know not everyone agrees but that is just my opinion. In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

Game 17620851

Sure that was nuke, not escalating so it's totally different story.

You selectively highlight what i wrote just to undermine me but actually your post goes in my favor. Why didnt you highlight this:

josko.ri wrote:
In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

This is more relevant to the Fyrdraca case than the part which you bolded from multiplayer and from nuclear game.

[Extreme Ways]

Imo it's not feasible to expect others to know whether you would abuse or not abuse. For stuff that comes up often, like a fog rule in public games, you usually know if the opposition abides by it and if not, you can politely ask them to reveal the info or move on and make a mental note.

If you want to be aligned on whether this is allowed and how to move forward if it happens, you either need to ask round1 whether this will be a strategic option or ensure that it's written in the rules. The TO for championships didn't include it because he either not aware of such an (ab)use case, or didnt want to bother with extra rules on top of CC's rules, or (perhaps in conjunction with the latter) thought it was not abuse but only poor sportsmanship. Note that I can't find any 12h fog rule either for example.

[BabySasuke]

Josko talking is unsportsmanlike

[rockfist]

Its a cheap tactic. It should be banned, but it isn't.

[josko.ri]

This doings is already officially clarified in CCup to be against rules. So the precent to make it officially against rules was already set.

Lets say in some future official cc event the TO forgets to explicitly state that 12 hour fog rule is in effect. And then, Fyrdraca comes and play his turn without giving mechance to see the map and after I ask Fyrdraca to tell me what was in fog then Fyrdraca just replies "i will not tell you what was in fog and i didnt break any written rule with that".

Would the above example be bad sportmanship?

Notice, there is no any essential difference in analogy between what Fyrdaca indeed did in this baseball game and with the above hypothetical example of breaking 12 hour rule in future.

[Nut Shot Scott]

Fyrdraca just replies "i will not tell you what was in fog and i didnt break any written rule with that".

Would the above example be bad sportmanship?

what is the issue? that is the correct response.

[Swifte]

When other cases got changed.. it's just not a loophole any more, it's a CC approved play. Why they continue to have a different rule for one set of spoils or another, I do not understand, but it's clearly an understood and permitted part of the game at this point on this site. Sorry it worked against you this time.

[Extreme Ways]

One is a rule that comes into play every game. It also doesnt change the game state in the same way, it just unilaterally removes information for the opposite player/team. A card loophole changes the gamestate for both teams, because theres a card less in play. There are scenarios in which that is useful for the team deciding that this will happen, but it's not every game. One is easy to solve after the fact, 'oh sorry didn't know here's what information you lost'. One is not, because one might have set up a sequence of turns to set up for this and 'remaking' a game is very excessive.

The two practices are incomparable imo. If you want to change something, you should talk to TOs to include a general ruleset that tournaments can opt out of instead of opt in. Even in your 50th tournament, an opponent can 'strategically' decide to skip a card in Waterloo poly3 or the Hive 1v1 and this would be allowed.

PS: I couldnt find any info on this, but is 12h fog rule a common rule that shouldnt need to be mentioned in tournaments? Because that one is otherwise allowed in your tournament too.

[Donelladan]

You selectively highlight what i wrote just to undermine me but actually your post goes in my favor. Why didnt you highlight this:

josko.ri wrote:
In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

This is more relevant to the Fyrdraca case than the part which you bolded from multiplayer and from nuclear game.

Note that I left that extra line in my quote, I could have removed it.
But it is definitely not more relevant to the current case than the other part I mentionned. You think it is only because you want so much to be right.

The part I quoted, and highlighted cleary proves that you agree that running out of time to skip a card is a valid strategy.

You all thread here is therefore just a joke. You're claiming they ( Fyr, Jplo, Groovy) are unsportmanship and that you lost because you didn't expect them to run out of time, while you completely know this strategy existed beforehand, you used just the same many times and you even argued it was NOT poor sportmanship but just a regular strategy.
So you are only here complaining to try to get an unfair advantage by getting a replay.
And going there publicly trying to rally us to save your game is really poor sportmanship, but I guess at that point everyone already know you don't care about looking bad if you can win a game.

[Evil Semp]

Is it poor sportsmanship? I would say yes. The player is making the next person wait out the full 24 hours just so that they can avoid taking a card. I certainly wouldn't consider it good sportsmanship lol.

But would I get angry at a player for doing that? No. The site allows it, so it's just another tool for people to take advantage of. It's like the whole fog snap thing. You can't force players to let you take a snap, you just have to hope that they are cool enough to wait. The only way these things can be remedied is to make them a part of the code: autosnap and autocard. Until that happens, there will be people out there that will use any tool they can to win a game, even if it's not the nice thing to do. lol.

One you start your turn you have 1 hour. The wait would be a litttttlllleeee shorter.

[i-andrei]

* For the case you do not know this fact, this loophole in rules is already known to the site admins and was fixed for Nuclear and Zombie games but was not fixed for Escalating and Flat Rate games....

Doesn't this answer the question? The site clearly had the option to fix the "loophole" for all games but only changed for Nuclear and Zombie. That action means that the practice was condoned for Escalating and Flat Rate. Expressio unius, exclusio alterius: To express one is to exclude the other. In law and logic, when a rule is made that expressly addresses one scenario and excludes another, and the excluded scenario is known to the rule maker, there is a presumption the rule maker intended to exclude that scenario. They were acting clearly within rules that had specifically considered the scenario in that game, and any notion that by doing so they were exhibiting poor sportsmanship is unjustified.

mdhill

Well, i can understand the reasoning behind excluding Esc and Flat from the exsiting Nuclear/Zombie fix. In nuke/zombie it was a common practice for some people to run out of time so they wouldn;t get a card, while in Esc/Flat you generally want to card each round.

I think this kind of situation that josko prsented doesn't happen often. Not sure if it should justity changing the gameplay behaviour for it.

I kind of agree with Extreme ways' post above.
They played it so they could win. The fact that not even josko could find a better strategy prooves a point.

[Doc_Brown]

Well, i can understand the reasoning behind excluding Esc and Flat from the exsiting Nuclear/Zombie fix. In nuke/zombie it was a common practice for some people to run out of time so they wouldn;t get a card, while in Esc/Flat you generally want to card each round.

I agree with this. In the discussion about this change (automatically awarding spoils), the objections were that speed gamers should suffer a penalty (not receiving an Esc or FR card) when they run out of time (less critical but also somewhat applies to 24hour games). As I recall, the consensus was that timing out should penalize players in some way, and not reward them. In the vast majority of cases, failing to receive a card in a FR or Esc game is a negative, whereas it is much more likely to be a positive in a nuke or zombie spoils game.

[josko.ri]

josko.ri wrote:
In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

The part I quoted, and highlighted cleary proves that you agree that running out of time to skip a card is a valid strategy.

I agree that it is valid strategy but when the BUT part quoted above is included, not unconditionally.
So if you only quote part of my statement but exclude the BUT part which follows just in the next sentence, then you are putting my statements out of context, which was obviously your intention. My statements should be judged by full said context, which also included the BUT part.

BUT part means that in 1v1 and team games I always ask my opponents if they agree to use that strategy, otherwise I do not use that strategy because I consider it poor sportmanship. This means, I consider this strategy as valid, BUT only under circumstances that both teams agree to be allowed to use this strategy beforehand, not unconditionally.

If I ask opponents beforehand if they approve this strategy and they answer "yes" then at least both teams play by the same rules from the beginning and nobody is in advantage. However, without that my team thinks that this strategy is poor sportmanship and does not even consider to ever use it while Fyrdraca team thinks it is valid strategy and uses it. In such circumstances, Fyrdraca team definitely gets an unfair additional strategical option which my team does not get.

[josko.ri]

Also Donelladan, the fact that you searched for evidence to personally undermine me in a Nuclear Monster Royale 18-player multiplayer game shows enough how much was your intention to just undermine me and how much was your intention to contribute to this discussion. I have played so many 1v1 and team Escalating spoils games in my career which would be more relevant for this case than a Nuclear Monster Royale 18-player multiplayer game. More than 54% of my past games (more than 10.000 past games) that I have ever played in my lifetime are with escalating spoils. Then, why didnt you find at least one my past game which is 1v1 or team with escalating spoils and put it as an example to undermine me? Because, you cannot find any game because I have never and would never used such poor sportmanship. Rather than that, you searched for completely different game type where "everyone" was already using this strategy before it was fixed by rules and you tried to undermine me with such totally out-of-context example.

Go show one my past escalating 1v1 or team game (out of more than 10.000 played) and show it as the undermining evidence of my false statements, if you can. But I tell you openly, you cannot, because I am not poor sportmanship player.

[josko.ri]

Also Donelladan, I somehow understand your motivation to personally undermine me. While you probably have positive head-to-head record in 1v1, poly and team games versus every other player on the site, versus me you have negative head-to-head records of 28-32 in combined 1v1 and poly games and 12-23 in team games. Therefore, it must be hard for you to accept that you hardly beat me in games, so it must have been your satisfaction to try to undermine in forums instead, even with using out-of-context evidence.

And this is not the case only versus you, but I have positive head-to-head score versus everyone else on the site versus whom I played 25 or more combined 1v1, poly and teams games in lifetime (of course, this statement can be easily double checked versus every other player, in case that someone does not believe to my claim). Therefore, it is not wonder that people try to undermine my ideas and my suggestions (such as with negative results of the poll in this thread) because they rather want my ideas to be undermined just because they are my ideas rather than discuss about them using valid arguments. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this because several people in this thread, excluding Donelladan, have indeed discussed by presenting valid arguments.

P.S. This community dislike towards me is similar as community dislike to tennis player Novak Djokovic. Although Novak Djokovic has positive head-to-head score versus both Federer and Nadal and almost every other player that he ever faced in his lifetime, he is almost never considered to be the greatest player of all time because people and media are trying to undermine him in every possible way due to envy.

[Donelladan]

Then, why didnt you find at least one my past game which is 1v1 or team with escalating spoils and put it as an example to undermine me?

I don't have several hours of time to waste going through all your games.
I picked up a battle royale nuclear games because I knew you used to run out of time in those games, and they aren't that many that you played so it was pretty easy to find an example. I was lucky that I checked one where you even wrote you agree with the strategy, that's all.
I wouldn't waste time researching your escalating games because I don't know whether I'd find an example or not.

Rather than that, you searched for completely different game type where "everyone" was already using this strategy before it was fixed by rules and you tried to undermine me with such totally out-of-context example.

That's untrue. People used it, and some didn't, just like Ukey didn't already back then in the game I quoted for example. I'd say majority of people didn't used this strategy based on my personal experience, and it was already rather widely considered using a loophole back in the day.

While you probably have positive head-to-head record in 1v1, poly and team games versus every other player on the site, versus me you have negative head-to-head records of 28-32 in combined 1v1 and poly games and 12-23 in team games. Therefore, it must be hard for you to accept that you hardly beat me in games, so it must have been your satisfaction to try to undermine in forums instead, even with using out-of-context evidence.

Wow, what a bs.
I never check my head-to-head records against anyone, unless they mention it to me.
And hardly ever beat you ? 11 over 24 on Poly games, that's 1 game from being a 50% win rate. I'm fine with that record trust me, and I have way worse record against other players on this site, I couldn't care less and never said anything against them in public forum. But any time you want me to kick your ass I'll play you. I challenge you to a best of 61 one man clan war style anytime. You'll stfu once we're done.

The reasons why I am replying here isn't because of my head-to-head record, it's first because I appreciate Fyr, Jplo and groov, second because you claimed many times that you'd never used such a strategy and I knew you did run out of time in nuclear games at least, third because I think it's a shitty stuff to do to comes out here and try to shame three players out there, and fourth because I like to argue in general. I have taken parts in many discussions on this site and most of them you weren't prat of.

[josko.ri]

I challenge you to a best of 61 one man clan war style anytime. You'll stfu once we're done.

We already have framework for this challenge because both you and me are participating in IcePack's one man clan challenge which will have mega finale with top 2 players from each of four editions.

I already publicly claim here that mega finale of this event will be won by me, and you can publicliy use my claim later on to show that I lied in case that it wont be won by me.

So you will surely have that chance to beat me in best-of-61 clan war very soon, unless if someone else eliminates you before you reach me.