The Crown [closed]

[Metsfanmax]

I guess I'm confused as to how this is illegal. He doesn't seem to be farming or ranching. He also seems to be taking his turns within the time alotted. Obviously he will drop off conqueror in a matter of hours. It is more amusing than anything else I would say.

Also, none of the provided "hostage" games involve freemiums. So it is not like he was taking a game slot away.

If this is not illegal, and thecrown can keep his points and the monthly win, everybody will start doing this.

Everybody will start joining 700 games at a time and spending 18 hours per day tending to them? I doubt it.

Wow, are you really that ignorant. No, not everybody will start 700 games and spend 18 hours a day. But people will do this on a smaller scale, and once in a month a maniac with no live starts doing it again.
You can easily do this trick in many ways that takes less time. The point gain won't be +4000, but with only a few hours a day you can manage to get a +1000 pretty easy.

Should it be illegal to do this and earn 1000 points? What about 500 points? 200 points? Where would you draw the line?

At 4150 points and a 333 game win streak.

Answer the question. Should be it illegal to do this and earn 1000 points?

[frankiebee]

Answer the question. Should be it illegal to do this and earn 1000 points?

Yes.
It would be hard to draw a line what should be, and what shouldn't be allowed. In some cases it will be hard to prove that somebody deliberately stalled games.
Luckily, in the case of Thecrown, it is pretty obvious:

1. Games that where started on the same day with the same player all showed the same outcome. If thecrown won, it was on 1 december. If the opponent won, it was before 1 dec.
2. Winning 333 games in a row, on 1 day... do i need to elaborate this?
3. He deliberately delayed games by deploying large stacks of armies and did not attack while his opponent had only 1 territory.

[Metsfanmax]

Answer the question. Should be it illegal to do this and earn 1000 points?

Yes.
It would be hard to draw a line what should be, and what shouldn't be allowed. In some cases it will be hard to prove that somebody deliberately stalled games.

The original point you made is that we should make sure this is counted as illegal so that other people do not attempt to do it. But the fact that it is hard to draw the line, and hard to figure out what counts as holding a game hostage and what does not, is a reason against that line of thinking. If we make the general strategy illegal, then we face a potential plethora of cases where C&A mods have to make subjective judgments about whether the implementation of the strategy in that case is a rules violation (I am sure people already do this, just not on scales of 4000 points -- many people, myself included, have intentionally finished losing games first so that our won games are worth more, though I have only done this for simultaneous speed games).

I always am cautious to point out that just because drawing the line on rules violations is hard, is no excuse for picking a bad one. But in this case, we might be trying to fight an uphill battle. We might just have to say "TheCrown did something over the line," and not make general policy statements (if indeed C&A staff determine him to have violated the rules). If we set a line, people are just going to crowd right up against that line, defeating the original purpose.

[frankiebee]

Answer the question. Should be it illegal to do this and earn 1000 points?

Yes.
It would be hard to draw a line what should be, and what shouldn't be allowed. In some cases it will be hard to prove that somebody deliberately stalled games.

The original point you made is that we should make sure this is counted as illegal so that other people do not attempt to do it. But the fact that it is hard to draw the line, and hard to figure out what counts as holding a game hostage and what does not, is a reason against that line of thinking. If we make the general strategy illegal, then we face a potential plethora of cases where C&A mods have to make subjective judgments about whether the implementation of the strategy in that case is a rules violation (I am sure people already do this, just not on scales of 4000 points -- many people, myself included, have intentionally finished losing games first so that our won games are worth more, though I have only done this for simultaneous speed games).

I always am cautious to point out that just because drawing the line on rules violations is hard, is no excuse for picking a bad one. But in this case, we might be trying to fight an uphill battle. We might just have to say "TheCrown did something over the line," and not make general policy statements (if indeed C&A staff determine him to have violated the rules). If we set a line, people are just going to crowd right up against that line, defeating the original purpose.

Thecrown simply violated the rules.
I quote from rules:

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, holding players hostage, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts, systematically "farming" new recruits.

Game 13623278
Game 13623274
Game 13623269
Game 13630541
Game 13630540
Game 13630577
Game 13630574
Game 13630959
Game 13630971
Game 13630973

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

[Serbia]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

I cannot understand how anyone is arguing this point. Thanks frankiebee for pointing it out clearly. Let's hope this isn't above comprehension for some of Crown's defenders.

Bollocks.

[smegal69]

The Accused:

TheCrown
czar richard
River_City
DB4Christ
crasp
Ragot25
Cump Sherman
Killuminati19
phoenix4
qbert68
dwenell
stompie
AquilesGT
Gundula
archer3base
Mike1962
DougieGee
mtamburini
Suppurator
halashus
King Edward 3rd
puffball
sfcjohnnyj
jsmitty
Elsuper bano
jwiedlin
repjay
Mithridaties
gemini1512
SiriusCowKing
Akamiro
Bantam
TuffyLess
WOLFZ71
Suppurator
DougieGee
mtamburini
halashus

The accused are suspected of:

Game Throwing, manipulating the scoreboard, farming Clan members for unique kills to obtain medals

Comments:

TheCrown has invited them all to multiple private 1 Vs 1 games but also 1 Polymorphic game which he has won every single game

seen all of them are Members of the clan "Gladiators of Noxious" they must have been a worked out a plan to rig the Scoreboard, is there any way a Moderator can check there clan page?

will TheCrown be falling on his own sword ???

Postby Bruceswar on Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:58 am
But He did not do anything in public ... People did not complain about getting held up...

If you are that worried about points and such then damn 1 vs 1's are not for you.

Cheating the Monthly Leaders score board and Most Improved score board is cheating all members of CC, stealing prizes from other Members that have earn it is a gross abuse of the score board and should not be taken lightly

[Metsfanmax]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

[Gilligan]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

10 games is not gross abuse of the game. 333 is. I'm sure if frankie looked through more of those games, the number would be much higher than 10.

[Metsfanmax]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

10 games is not gross abuse of the game. 333 is. I'm sure if frankie looked through more of those games, the number would be much higher than 10.

OK, so thought experiment here. I start two 1v1 games every day for a year (assume my win rate is 50%). Assume a typical 1v1 game makes it to round 10. That means on a typical day, I'll be playing approximately 20 games at a time. For any of those 20 games, I look at which games I'm winning and which games I'm losing and play slower in the games I'm winning and faster in the games I'm losing, so that I cumulatively gain points as the year goes by. By the new year, I've made it to Conqueror by winning 365 of the 730 games in a clever order (assume this is possible). Is this a gross abuse of the game?

[Gilligan]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

10 games is not gross abuse of the game. 333 is. I'm sure if frankie looked through more of those games, the number would be much higher than 10.

OK, so thought experiment here. I start two 1v1 games every day for a year (assume my win rate is 50%). Assume a typical 1v1 game makes it to round 10. That means on a typical day, I'll be playing approximately 20 games at a time. For any of those 20 games, I look at which games I'm winning and which games I'm losing and play slower in the games I'm winning and faster in the games I'm losing, so that I cumulatively gain points as the year goes by. By the new year, I've made it to Conqueror by winning 365 of the 730 games in a clever order (assume this is possible). Is this a gross abuse of the game?

It would likely take a lot longer to achieve what you are doing here. You can't play low ranks in a model like this because you'll just lose all of the points you've gained. This is why TheCrown did it all in one day.

To work this has to be with high ranks. And playing so many games with high ranks it's much harder to have such a great win percentage.

[Metsfanmax]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

10 games is not gross abuse of the game. 333 is. I'm sure if frankie looked through more of those games, the number would be much higher than 10.

OK, so thought experiment here. I start two 1v1 games every day for a year (assume my win rate is 50%). Assume a typical 1v1 game makes it to round 10. That means on a typical day, I'll be playing approximately 20 games at a time. For any of those 20 games, I look at which games I'm winning and which games I'm losing and play slower in the games I'm winning and faster in the games I'm losing, so that I cumulatively gain points as the year goes by. By the new year, I've made it to Conqueror by winning 365 of the 730 games in a clever order (assume this is possible). Is this a gross abuse of the game?

It would likely take a lot longer to achieve what you are doing here. You can't play low ranks in a model like this because you'll just lose all of the points you've gained. This is why TheCrown did it all in one day.

To work this has to be with high ranks. And playing so many games with high ranks it's much harder to have such a great win percentage.

Yeah, to get to Conqueror you're correct (though you'd account for this by adjusting the ranks of the people you play against as the year goes by). But one could earn 1000 points this way, say, without too much trouble. Is this a legitimate strategy?

[Jippd]

He invited players that involved a lot of maps that players have not played before or do not understand. Is this any different from what GLG got in trouble for? I pulled a few examples from his ongoing games list:

Game 13623283 - he answers how to play a couple days after the player asks
2013-11-22 13:03:26 - gemini1512: absolutely no idea on this one
2013-11-22 21:08:15 - gemini1512: Not sure I understand this one honestly
2013-11-23 14:00:22 - TheCrown: What's your question?
2013-11-24 01:51:53 - gemini1512: The attack lines don't make sense, and I'm having a difficult time with the bonuses.
2013-11-24 01:52:10 - gemini1512: I'm not sure what I should be trying to do.
2013-11-26 12:37:25 - TheCrown: upper left, upper right and lower right all have their bonuses. Get at least 5 in the area, and you get bonus

Game 13623290
2013-11-20 22:51:51 - gemini1512: Wow, this map is insane

Game 13623295 - while this player may think it is "cool" so did GLG's opponents who were tricked into thinking that he was helping them "learn" maps. I guess thecrown played the aspect of "check out these cool maps you have never played".
2013-11-21 21:25:00 - gemini1512: One of the cool things about this tournament, is that I am playing a lot of maps that I've never seen before

Game 13630516
2013-11-22 19:38:05 - Bantam: you seem to have picked every map i've never played ......
2013-11-22 19:38:23 - Bantam: i might was well learn the hard way.
2013-11-23 12:29:38 - TheCrown: I picked my favorites... If it's super-complicated, I love em



IF this behavior is allowed. I could create 700 games with one of my buddies that was around the same rank. We will play them out and give them our all but once a game is decided we will not finish it out and instead drag out the ending until all games are decided. Say we each go 50/50. On one day I let him take all of his wins which we have been dragging out and he jumps up in points by at least 3500. Then the next day I take all my wins and he goes down and I go way up by at least 3500. This is pretty much exactly what thecrown did. If this behavior is allowed people will constantly be able to see saw to purposefully manipulate their position on the scoreboard by manipulating the game finishing dates which is an abuse of the point system and the scoreboard in general.

[frankiebee]

It took me 5 minutes to find 10 games in which he deliberately stalled the game and took a player hostage.

The rules say that ''Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden.'' When you finish a lost speed game first to cash in more points on your win for the next game, that is no gross abuse. This is.

But would this be a serious C&A case if those 10 games occurred over the span of a year? Or is it only coming up because it happened over a few days and therefore had significant consequences for the scoreboards? In other words, is the gross abuse of the game the fact that he held players hostage to earn extra points, or the fact that he did it cleverly to earn a lot of points all at once?

10 games is not gross abuse of the game. 333 is. I'm sure if frankie looked through more of those games, the number would be much higher than 10.

OK, so thought experiment here. I start two 1v1 games every day for a year (assume my win rate is 50%). Assume a typical 1v1 game makes it to round 10. That means on a typical day, I'll be playing approximately 20 games at a time. For any of those 20 games, I look at which games I'm winning and which games I'm losing and play slower in the games I'm winning and faster in the games I'm losing, so that I cumulatively gain points as the year goes by. By the new year, I've made it to Conqueror by winning 365 of the 730 games in a clever order (assume this is possible). Is this a gross abuse of the game?

It would likely take a lot longer to achieve what you are doing here. You can't play low ranks in a model like this because you'll just lose all of the points you've gained. This is why TheCrown did it all in one day.

To work this has to be with high ranks. And playing so many games with high ranks it's much harder to have such a great win percentage.

Yeah, to get to Conqueror you're correct (though you'd account for this by adjusting the ranks of the people you play against as the year goes by). But one could earn 1000 points this way, say, without too much trouble. Is this a legitimate strategy?

Flawed post.

This is entirely different than what Thecrown did.

With your model you won't make a win streak of 333, you would maybe make a winstreak of 30-40 unless you would intentionally stall games by deploying and not attacking for months.

If your model is a legitimate strategy is a whole other question. I would depend on how you stall your games. Are you going to deploy 30+ armies and don't attack your opponent for a few rounds (like thecrown did), than no, it's not legitimate.

[jltile1]

Even if you started 100 1v1 games and play the losers fast to drop points then stall the winning games to be finished at once is cheating the point system. Why would ever player that wants some extra points not do this. I don't understand any argument. He used a lot of clan mates so they would not report him.

POINT reset

[agentcom]

If we outlaw voluntary hostage holding, can we call it Stockholming or something like that? Please?

On a more serious note, to me this obviously constitutes at least a gross abuse of the game covered by the unwritten rules, as Jippd pointed out. I think you could also easily classify this as hostage holding as long as you are willing to extend the goals of that rule to this situation. In the past, the harm meant to be avoided by hostage holding was harm to the hostage, which is apparently not applicable here. I have no problem with such an extension, though.

For those of you who are saying "What's the big deal?" let me explain. Imagine you played him at one of the extremes during his run. At the low points, you would lose a lot of points from a loss and gain little from a win which would decrease your expected value of playing him. This is true for any level of player and means that you would be harmed by this action. On the opposite extreme, as his opponent you would benefit. So, this effects any player that he played against at this time. Furthermore, there are knock-on effects as the these first-degree opponents go on to play other opponents. In other words, his actions take points from everyone that he played early in his run (and all their subsequent opponents) and redistribute them to the players that he played later.

Though the effects on most players will be small, the effects on those in closest proximity will be large, as amply evidenced by the fact that the player in closest proximity, TheCrown, was able to jump to the top of the scoreboard in about a day.

Just like an economic system, lots of volatility is not good for the integrity of the system. This seems clearly a case where manipulation should be headed off by punishment.

I'm willing to give Crown the benefit of the doubt that he didn't realize exactly how crazy the point swing would be. But this doesn't change the fact that it was against the rules. I'm guessing TheCrown hasn't been in too much trouble before, so the punishment ladder will treat him lightly. Fine. But corrective action should probably also be taken. As has been noted, he will likely lose the bulk of these points soon. But he should also be DQ'd from consideration for the Conqueror medal and monthly leadership medals.

[jltile1]

If we outlaw voluntary hostage holding, can we call it Stockholming or something like that? Please?

On a more serious note, to me this obviously constitutes at least a gross abuse of the game covered by the unwritten rules, as Jippd pointed out. I think you could also easily classify this as hostage holding as long as you are willing to extend the goals of that rule to this situation. In the past, the harm meant to be avoided by hostage holding was harm to the hostage, which is apparently not applicable here. I have no problem with such an extension, though.

For those of you who are saying "What's the big deal?" let me explain. Imagine you played him at one of the extremes during his run. At the low points, you would lose a lot of points from a loss and gain little from a win which would decrease your expected value of playing him. This is true for any level of player and means that you would be harmed by this action. On the opposite extreme, as his opponent you would benefit. So, this effects any player that he played against at this time. Furthermore, there are knock-on effects as the these first-degree opponents go on to play other opponents. In other words, his actions take points from everyone that he played early in his run (and all their subsequent opponents) and redistribute them to the players that he played later.

Though the effects on most players will be small, the effects on those in closest proximity will be large, as amply evidenced by the fact that the player in closest proximity, TheCrown, was able to jump to the top of the scoreboard in about a day.

Just like an economic system, lots of volatility is not good for the integrity of the system. This seems clearly a case where manipulation should be headed off by punishment.

I'm willing to give Crown the benefit of the doubt that he didn't realize exactly how crazy the point swing would be. But this doesn't change the fact that it was against the rules. I'm guessing TheCrown hasn't been in too much trouble before, so the punishment ladder will treat him lightly. Fine. But corrective action should probably also be taken. As has been noted, he will likely lose the bulk of these points soon. But he should also be DQ'd from consideration for the Conqueror medal and monthly leadership medals.

He knew exactly what he would gain that is why he is conquer!

[agentcom]

Maybe he did. My point is that it doesn't really matter. The actions should be considered against the rules and he should be punished. But the punishment doesn't have to be harsh. Just the usual escalation up the ladder, as long as corrective action is taken. Maybe I should've said that his state of mind is immaterial, as I think that punishment is appropriate whether or not he knew what the magnitude of the result would be.

Not sure why that was the point you took away from my post, though ....

[jltile1]

Maybe he did. My point is that it doesn't really matter. The actions should be considered against the rules and he should be punished. But the punishment doesn't have to be harsh. Just the usual escalation up the ladder, as long as corrective action is taken. Maybe I should've said that his state of mind is immaterial, as I think that punishment is appropriate whether or not he knew what the magnitude of the result would be.

Not sure why that was the point you took away from my post, though ....

The only appropriate thing would be to loose the points and medals. And of course conquer. When you sit on the top it's cause you got there playing fair. Any player can do this and it does the players that fought hard to get there spot no good. More than ever the high ranker players should play this game fairly and not look for loop holes or easy ways to get to the top. That is my only point.

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, to get to Conqueror you're correct (though you'd account for this by adjusting the ranks of the people you play against as the year goes by). But one could earn 1000 points this way, say, without too much trouble. Is this a legitimate strategy?

Flawed post.

This is entirely different than what Thecrown did.

With your model you won't make a win streak of 333, you would maybe make a winstreak of 30-40 unless you would intentionally stall games by deploying and not attacking for months.

If your model is a legitimate strategy is a whole other question. I would depend on how you stall your games. Are you going to deploy 30+ armies and don't attack your opponent for a few rounds (like thecrown did), than no, it's not legitimate.

A win streak of 333 games is not against the rules. What is against the rules is hostage-holding and point dumping. My point is that the fact that he earned Conqueror doing this is irrelevant to whether or not he is guilty of holding people hostage, because all he did was take a strategy that many of us already employ, and take it to an extreme. If we want to simply call that "gross abuse of the game" because he didn't violate any particular rule but we just don't like that this is possible, so be it -- but let's be honest about that.

[demonfork]

Yeah, to get to Conqueror you're correct (though you'd account for this by adjusting the ranks of the people you play against as the year goes by). But one could earn 1000 points this way, say, without too much trouble. Is this a legitimate strategy?

Flawed post.

This is entirely different than what Thecrown did.

With your model you won't make a win streak of 333, you would maybe make a winstreak of 30-40 unless you would intentionally stall games by deploying and not attacking for months.

If your model is a legitimate strategy is a whole other question. I would depend on how you stall your games. Are you going to deploy 30+ armies and don't attack your opponent for a few rounds (like thecrown did), than no, it's not legitimate.

A win streak of 333 games is not against the rules. What is against the rules is hostage-holding and point dumping. My point is that the fact that he earned Conqueror doing this is irrelevant to whether or not he is guilty of holding people hostage, because all he did was take a strategy that many of us already employ, and take it to an extreme. If we want to simply call that "gross abuse of the game" because he didn't violate any particular rule but we just don't like that this is possible, so be it -- but let's be honest about that.

Bullshit, this isn't new, people have done it before and were warned not to do it again. It was against the rules then and against the rules now.

[JCR]

The Accused:

TheCrown
czar richard
River_City
DB4Christ
crasp
Ragot25
Cump Sherman
Killuminati19
phoenix4
qbert68
dwenell
stompie
AquilesGT
Gundula
archer3base
Mike1962
DougieGee
mtamburini
Suppurator
halashus
King Edward 3rd
puffball
sfcjohnnyj
jsmitty
Elsuper bano
jwiedlin
repjay
Mithridaties
gemini1512
SiriusCowKing
Akamiro
Bantam
TuffyLess
WOLFZ71
Suppurator
DougieGee
mtamburini
halashus

The accused are suspected of:

Game Throwing, manipulating the scoreboard, farming Clan members for unique kills to obtain medals

Comments:

TheCrown has invited them all to multiple private 1 Vs 1 games but also 1 Polymorphic game which he has won every single game

seen all of them are Members of the clan "Gladiators of Noxious" they must have been a worked out a plan to rig the Scoreboard, is there any way a Moderator can check there clan page?

will TheCrown be falling on his own sword ???

Postby Bruceswar on Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:58 am
But He did not do anything in public ... People did not complain about getting held up...

If you are that worried about points and such then damn 1 vs 1's are not for you.

Cheating the Monthly Leaders score board and Most Improved score board is cheating all members of CC, stealing prizes from other Members that have earn it is a gross abuse of the score board and should not be taken lightly

I am pretty sure you would find most of his clan are "in on it". I would imagine the thread would sound something like this. "we will push crown to conquerer then me then you. we will have a clan full of conquerers!" and all with free premium for a year. this will be great!"
anyone who has been on this site for any period of time knows the scoreboard is irrelevant. I have no doubt the higher tier of ranks are intelligent people and above average at the game but none of them would ever get there without some sort of manipulation of the scoring system.

To those in charge....You are losing paying members over this type of BS. You have made a lot of changes lately most good and/or interesting.
If you truly expect to retain your customer base I would strongly suggest you deal with this scoring system next!
That or send a strong signal on this one or you will have zero credibility left!

[Bantam]

So maybe put my point of view across.

Obviously my thoughts will carry little weight because I'm not in the "in" crowd of this mythical CC elite - where you all kiss each other and preen together - nor would I to be honest.

So lets roll back a few months, I joined CC and after the SoC academy (for which I thank the ideas i picked up) I wanted to play some team games or join a clan.
but oh no - who would want a "noob" on their clan - we're like the shit on someone's shoe - bloody impossible - lepers have more friends and i was about to give it up.

So then The Crown - approached me and lots more besides to join a new clan - so we did and we've had a whole lot more enjoyment from the game.
He's probably responsible for about 30/40 people actually becoming more involved in clan wars and via our forum.

There are also plenty of times I've been invited to a map by people and milked for points so don't get all sanctimonious

I went into this contest with open eyes - we agreed to send each other 12 maps each and cross out 2.
Actually I played a lot i didn't know and i know a lot more now - is learning maps now to be banned ?

So if TheCrown is guilty then we are guilty of the same - fine - have your secret society of preeners and chuck us all out - and there was I thinking you wanted more players and clans being involved in CC.
No-one was forced to play 1v1 - some of the clan didn't.

The Crown has done more for my enjoyment of CC than most of you will ever do - (SoC members excepted).

I don't pretend to read the rules and regulations - but in a team game - killing your team-0mates one could argue is a specific startegy to win/avoid losing - so were do you

[Jippd]

Bantam,

What was the reasoning the crown gave to you in this tournament for not finishing games he was clearly ahead in? 1 v 1 games are usually never finished with an excess of troops however there are a lot of games that the crown delayed his wins on til today where there were tons of excess troops he could have used to finish the game. Did he offer any reasoning in your clan forum of the purpose of that?

[Metsfanmax]

If we outlaw voluntary hostage holding, can we call it Stockholming or something like that? Please?

On a more serious note, to me this obviously constitutes at least a gross abuse of the game covered by the unwritten rules, as Jippd pointed out. I think you could also easily classify this as hostage holding as long as you are willing to extend the goals of that rule to this situation. In the past, the harm meant to be avoided by hostage holding was harm to the hostage, which is apparently not applicable here. I have no problem with such an extension, though.

I don't see it as gross abuse of the game. If none of the players that he played against were upset about having their games extended, and none of them were colluding with him to make this possible, then no one is hurt.

For those of you who are saying "What's the big deal?" let me explain. Imagine you played him at one of the extremes during his run. At the low points, you would lose a lot of points from a loss and gain little from a win which would decrease your expected value of playing him. This is true for any level of player and means that you would be harmed by this action. On the opposite extreme, as his opponent you would benefit. So, this effects any player that he played against at this time. Furthermore, there are knock-on effects as the these first-degree opponents go on to play other opponents. In other words, his actions take points from everyone that he played early in his run (and all their subsequent opponents) and redistribute them to the players that he played later.

Taking points from someone is not uniquely 'harming' them. If he joins a game starting at 2000 points and wins when he has 1000, or joins the game at 1000 and wins, the same result occurs for the points of his opponent. Sure, they may not have been expecting it -- but that doesn't matter as long as he played straight and tried to win in every game. Your point is tantamount to saying that if there is someone on CC who is so good that he or she can get from 1000 to 5000 in a week just from playing well (i.e. without employing this trick), that this should be against the rules and that person should play fewer games because that makes the points system more volatile.

This type of volatility is built into the nature of this points system, and will be as long as the only consideration in awarding points is what the scores are at the end of the game.

[Jippd]

@ Metsfan:

You are from the US so let me use an analogy you can understand.

Your reasoning is that what he did is not technically illegal so he shouldn't be punished.

Imagine driving with normal American laws.

It is not illegal to slam on the brakes or slam on the gas. While driving in a lane of traffic if someone slammed on the breaks or slammed on the gas once in a great while it would not be a big deal.

If someone was driving and slamming on the gas then slamming on the breaks for 500 miles straight on an expressway I would consider that to be cause for concern. It would also be something that I as an average minded citizen (CC user) would hope that the police (mods) would take care of the situation and show that this behavior is not condoned or appreciated. If they didn't show that the behavior was prohibited then people could start doing this all the time and what would that do for the community at large?

While what they are doing if viewed on a small scale isn't illegal, them doing it on a very large scale is not right and is not better for society as a whole. This is what constitutes his "gross abuse of the system".