Fyrdraca, JPlo64, groovysmurf - is this poor sportmanship?

[josko.ri]

* This post has included poll whether you think that the described actions are poor sportmanship or not, so please cast your vote on this matter if you wish.

I report what happened in The Championship - Teams Game 20864718, which I consider extremely poor sportmanship by Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf, where they exploited a loophole in rules which allows not getting card after intentionally running out of time in escalating games. 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 and therefore Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf exploited this loophole in rules in their way to achieve decisive win in the first set of our The Championship match (the set ended 3-2 in their favor).

In last round, green player intentionally run of time instead of ending turn, so that he does not get card. Situation on the map when green player run out of card was:
Red: 1 region with 9 troops, 4 cards with set
Green: 4 regions with 1,1,2 troops, 0 cards (ending the turn would make green have 1 card, which he avoided to happen)
Yellow: 1 regions with 12 troops, 3 cards without set
Cyan: 1 region with 10 troops, 4 cards without set (2 pairs)

If green player did not intentionally run out of card, then even with having 2 pairs cyan player would have very easy shot on win, by attacking 15v1,1,1,2 (98.5%) and 25v1,1,1,2,9 (94%), so their manipulating rules directly gifted them win in that game, which was apparently also be decisive game for our set in The Championship.

Some time after that game ended, I contacted Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf with proposal to replay the game in case that they agree with me that their sportmanship was poor. Note, I acknowledged that no official written rule was broken by them, but that my offer for replay is just in case that they agree that they showed poor sportmanship and in case that they agree that it was poor sportmanship from their side then I suggest replay of the game (which would otherwise be 94% won by my team). Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf replied that they do not think that their play in the Baseball game was unsportsmanlike and therefore rejected my offer to replay the game.

Important to tell is, I had already knew for this loophole in rules because nikola_milicki was also exploiting it in some previous war vs KORT but I would have never used this rule from my side even if I had the chance, because I think that exploiting this loophole is poor sportmanship. Indeed, if you search all my escalating games in my 12 years on this site, you will not find even a single game where I exploited this rule. Therefore, the fact that Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf exploited this rule in their way to win game them a very unfair strategical option advantage which ultimately decided winners of our first set in The Championships.

I am looking forward to hear opinions from the CC community on this matter.

[Nut Shot Scott]

don't hate the player, hate the game.

borderline? eh, maybe.
smart? definitely.
annoying? probably.
would i do it? absolutely.
am i a poor barometer of fair play and sportsmanship? yes.


different note, upon further review my post on your c & a thread was hasty and incorrect. apologies. cheers.

[keyborn]

I don't think this was poor sportsmanship, but rather taking advantage of a CC loop hole. Unfortunately in this case, it cost you the game. If the four of you were sitting around the kitchen table in one of your homes playing this same game, then the card could not have been refused.

The fix is simple...award cards automatically even if time runs out on a turn.

[riskllama]

[Keefie]

This is not a loophole, it's how the game works. Those players have done nothing wrong and they certainly shouldn't agree to your 'offer' of a rematch.

Go make a post in suggestions to get things changed.

[2dimes]

Go make a post in suggestions to get things changed.

Now THAT'S comedy!

[Extreme Ways]

Moving away from the situation at hand which is ultimately imo just a rant that can also spark discussion: I am missing a 'neutral' option in the poll.

When nuclear/zombie timeouts were changed, fs was left untouched. Of course, in fs abuse cases like the above could also happen but it wasn't changed. Did the bug become a feature? This is unclear, because in clan events such as CC11 (which I will assume to be an official CC-sanctioned event) the following rule is included:

Game abuse like purposely running out of time or throwing a game is prohibited. The first time a clan breaks this rule in CC11 the game must be re-made (unless other clan wants game to stand). Each subsequent violation during CC11 will result in a forfeit of the game.

.
This rule is obviously not mentioned in the Championships thread. Team JP/Fyr/smurf has no reason to accept the offer of a rematch because what they did is within the rules, even if it's not particularly great sportsmanship. With us not being able to judge the evolution of the gamestate, we also do not know if the prior turns were played with this idea in mind. Perhaps they would have played it differently had the practice not been allowed, so asking afterwards is moot.

The problem is that there is no catch-all solution. I could argue that CC should've differentiated between speed and 24h escalating in this loophole, and to always award a card in 24h games. However, in 24h fs esc games people can still stall their turns to the final minute, essentially the game becomes a speed game in which the participant is not punished for e.g. cashing too late and not having enough time to grab a new card and end the turn. Thus, with the decision of admin to never award a card after timeout for escalating, we are forced to either accept abuse of a loophole-become-feature or to specifically ban the practice.

TLDR: it's not good sportsmanship but not bad either imo. It's just neutral, and I likely would have done the same. I rate it 'not giving fog info after stalling the turn for 23h out of 10'

[Mad777]

This is not a loophole, it's how the game works. Those players have done nothing wrong and they certainly shouldn't agree to your 'offer' of a rematch.

Go make a post in suggestions to get things changed.

No it is not, take a territ, get a spoils, nothing else to add, that is purely using that known loophole that was rectified for Nuke and Zombie. Disregarding the type of setting, the pure RISK is what makes this game...you get a card if you attack and take a territory. If you don’t want a spoil then this game has a “No Spoils” setting.

Arguing all around it would never change the basic RISK rules.

[Keefie]

This is not a loophole, it's how the game works. Those players have done nothing wrong and they certainly shouldn't agree to your 'offer' of a rematch.

Go make a post in suggestions to get things changed.

No it is not, take a territ, get a spoils, nothing else to add, that is purely using that known loophole that was rectified for Nuke and Zombie. Disregarding the type of setting, the pure RISK is what makes this game...you get a card if you attack and take a territory. If you don’t want a spoil then this game has a “No Spoils” setting.

Arguing all around it would never change the basic RISK rules.

Then get the system changed. If it's allowed it's not a loophole - simples

[2dimes]

Keefie's right. Tell them to fix it.

[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?

[mdhill]

* 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

[mookiemcgee]

[Evil Semp]

I don't think it is poor sportsmanship. I think this situation falls into the same category as killing a team mate to get a bonus or getting their cards.

[HardAttack]

What happens in a nuclear-zombie game if i take a territ then run out of time ?

a- a report in CA section
b- .........

asking cos i do not know really.
please explain.

thank you

[Arama86n]

I don't think it is poor sportsmanship. I think this situation falls into the same category as killing a team mate to get a bonus or getting their cards.

That was an interesting addition to the discussion.
It has never crossed my mind that team-killing in escalating could be considered poor sportsmanship. I just figured it would be considered very poor play to not do so if the opportunity was there and the game depended on it.
I have never seen it brought up, or complained about either. Granted I do not play much escalating.

Are there people who consider that poor sportsmanship? Surely not in the clan environment anyway?

[Dukasaur]

What happens in a nuclear-zombie game if i take a territ then run out of time ?

In nukes or zombies, if you have a successful attack but run out of time, you still get the card.

In escalating or flat rate, you do not.

[HardAttack]

What happens in a nuclear-zombie game if i take a territ then run out of time ?

In nukes or zombies, if you have a successful attack but run out of time, you still get the card.

In escalating or flat rate, you do not.

[2dimes]

I don't think it is poor sportsmanship. I think this situation falls into the same category as killing a team mate to get a bonus or getting their cards.

Hmm, good clean fun/buggery?

[Shannon Apple]

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.

[general cod]

Playing to win within rules, end. Poor sportsmanship? of course but surely we are all guilty of that at times.

[Mad777]

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.

can’t say it better, hopefully webmaster will make our wish happening (autosnap and autocard)

[josko.ri]

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.

[hopalong]

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.

[josko.ri]

Moving away from the situation at hand which is ultimately imo just a rant that can also spark discussion: I am missing a 'neutral' option in the poll.

When nuclear/zombie timeouts were changed, fs was left untouched. Of course, in fs abuse cases like the above could also happen but it wasn't changed. Did the bug become a feature? This is unclear, because in clan events such as CC11 (which I will assume to be an official CC-sanctioned event) the following rule is included:

Game abuse like purposely running out of time or throwing a game is prohibited. The first time a clan breaks this rule in CC11 the game must be re-made (unless other clan wants game to stand). Each subsequent violation during CC11 will result in a forfeit of the game.

.
This rule is obviously not mentioned in the Championships thread. Team JP/Fyr/smurf has no reason to accept the offer of a rematch because what they did is within the rules, even if it's not particularly great sportsmanship. With us not being able to judge the evolution of the gamestate, we also do not know if the prior turns were played with this idea in mind. Perhaps they would have played it differently had the practice not been allowed, so asking afterwards is moot.

All finalists of The Championships tournament are also actively playing in the other the biggest team event on the site, which is CCup. This same rule is officially prohibited in CCup which existed before The Championships, so I would logically expect that it should be also officially prohibited in The Championships. My expectation is obviously wrong and Fyrdraca, JPlo64 and groovysmurf took unsportamnship advantage of the fact that TO slightly changed this rule between CCup and The Championships.