boow, intentional deadbeating [ka]

[tokle]

Accused:

boow


The accused are suspected of:

Intentional deadbeating


Game number(s):

Game 17423317


Comments: In a zombie spoils game boow is intentionally letting time run out to avoid picking up a fifth card. He has a stack on a territory he has a card for and it would ruin his position to get another card. At the time of me writing this he has ran out of time four times in a row. (In my opinion a player should be kicked out of the game if time runs out three times in a row.)

[Donelladan]

Intentional deadbeating = missing 3 turns in a row and getting kicked out.

So boow isn't deadbeating.

He is running out of time to avoid taking a card.
This is not forbidden by the site rule.

You may rate him accordingly and foe him but that's all you can do.

[tokle]

Intentional deadbeating = missing 3 turns in a row and getting kicked out.

So boow isn't deadbeating.

He is running out of time to avoid taking a card.
This is not forbidden by the site rule.

You may rate him accordingly and foe him but that's all you can do.

Why is it not against the rules, then?

[iAmCaffeine]

If he did it over a large number of games to gain an advantage I supposed it could fall under "gross abuse of the game". Take a look if you care enough. Otherwise, try making a suggestion for this to be against the rules.

[Donelladan]

If he did it over a large number of games to gain an advantage I supposed it could fall under "gross abuse of the game".

I am quite sure it wouldn't.

@tokle, I am not sure of the exact reason why it is not against the rule. Not sure if there is even a good reason.
Originally, it was supposed to be a disadvantage in escalating game. Then nuclear spoils were implemented, and the rule didn't change.
Then people start doing it on purpose, and at the time it was decided to accept it ( I wasn't there, didn't read the arguments why so can't tell you).
Since then it is accepted than running out of time in nuclear / zombie spoils is OK ( in escalating game as well).
It is disapproved by many people but it was never changed.

Here is a link about similar discussion

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... g#p4852078

[PurpleViper]

If he did it over a large number of games to gain an advantage I supposed it could fall under "gross abuse of the game". Take a look if you care enough. Otherwise, try making a suggestion for this to be against the rules.

If it is there should be looked into all Great Royale tourney games, CC11 BR games, St. Paddy's day BR's, etc etc, cause everybody did it (including me)

[iAmCaffeine]

If he did it over a large number of games to gain an advantage I supposed it could fall under "gross abuse of the game". Take a look if you care enough. Otherwise, try making a suggestion for this to be against the rules.

If it is there should be looked into all Great Royale tourney games, CC11 BR games, St. Paddy's day BR's, etc etc, cause everybody did it (including me)

Um, way to take a random tangent there. I said that if boow did this repeatedly in his casual games then it could be looked into and perhaps question whether it's abuse. You're bringing up a different circumstance that is much harder to moderate and, most likely, futile to attempt.

If suddenly timing out in nuclear / zombie games did become illegal, it wouldn't be punished retrospectively.

[Jurasu]

Why is it not a rule? Probably because it is too hard to police and very situational. The mods already get enough spurious reports that they have to spend time looking into before they can make a ruling judgement on the case. I doubt they would even want to have another that would clearly spark a lot of debate. Some people consider this to be a breach of game etiquette, but you can't force someone to follow etiquette. If you don't like the way they play, you can foe them and play with other people instead. That's likely going to be the official response you get.

I remember the thread that Donelladan linked and its discussion. The original purpose of timing out on a turn resulting in not receiving a card was meant as a small punishment that would encourage players to make sure they finish their turns once started. Not carding in an escalating game could easily cause a player to lose. However, some players have also developed strategies with not carding. A lot of times, you don't want to try to eliminate a player unless you can use their cards to cash again mid-turn, so a strategy to survive as a weaker player was to keep a low card count by not carding and try to snipe a player someone barely failed to eliminate. When nuclear/zombie card settings were introduced, there came about the obvious strategy of not carding for fear of being forced to hit yourself with your cards. This could be beneficial, or still potentially hurt you. Sure, you're avoiding nuking/zombifying one or more of your own territories, but you also aren't grabbing that card that may let you hit an opponent's stack. There's a trade off to be had regardless of what a player chooses to do. You have the option to avoid that player, or even avoid that setting entirely if you don't want to see people using that strategy.

I'm also curious as to how you KNOW he has a card for where his stack is? You could potentially deduce this, but looking at the linked game, there's nothing in chat about who has what cards. At the time I looked (beginning of round 17), the reported player in question has even carded and played a set as well without "ruining his position."

[riskllama]

well said, jurasu.

[Thorthoth]

Tres llame... and golly, even Purple tapeworm does it!

[king achilles]

I believe everything needed to be said has been posted. We do not condone questionable plays but perhaps you can classify this as something like when someone reveals info on a fog of war game. Feel free to rate him accordingly and put him on your Foe list. This is closed.