Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3
| Author | Ban ask for this player |
|---|
Hey, you started this thread. Why is it up to us to "propose something serious".
You wanted Mirz banned for his behaviour, then found that many agreed with his actions. Now the onus is on "us" to come up with a suggestion as to what can be done?
Very well, my suggestion is that "bad players" like you learn to read the challenge description and take heed. If not you may find that there are consequences you don't like. If you can't find a challenge that suits you then create your own.
And being anti-team for the whole battle *does* appear to be a solution. It certainly worked for Mirz - he got the result he wanted. You obviously don't like the result but it is nonetheless a viable solution. I have "some kind of intellect" and I recognise it as a solution that succeeded. Once again, if you don't like a solution like this perhaps you shouldn't create a situation where someone sees it as the only viable alternative. | Lol, this whole discussion is making me laugh.
Youre all appelling to a "good sense" from players, without being supported from the rules of the game. Its very funny.
But anyway, keep battling the windmills, you will surely change the game.
One day. Maybe.
Meanwhile read this, for refreshing the memory:
"3.16. Contractual combats leading one of the parties to losing a priori is prohibited. A contractual combat supposes that one of the parties intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game. Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden."
And notice : "....intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game."
"3.20. Any kind of payment for combat is forbidden. Rewarding a player for losing or promising such reward for losing, entering or quitting combat will be considered as contractual combat. Payment for assist in hunt is not considered violation. Make sure to add corresponding comments to the transfer. Such payments cannot exceed the total gold equivalent of looted gold and resources."
And notice: "....Rewarding a player for losing or promising such reward for losing, entering or quitting combat will be considered as contractual combat."
So in every way, right or not, good or bad, for the FACTS and the LAWS of the game Mirz should be punished.
I did not breake ANY game law, he did, so he is the villain here, whatever the reason he was having, and disregarding how many ppls give reason to him. | | There is a fine diffrence between having right and doing right. | I have to mention that I've been playing with DivinaDemon on half the existing strategy games, board and not, for about 10 years, before posting this.
Divinademon did not break the LETTER of the rules: he broke the SPIRIT of the rules, what the rules are there to obtain. Mirz, on the other side, did not break the SPIRIT of the rules, but did in fact break the LETTER of the rules.
If we were in a tournament or other important and official situation, I should have to support DivinaDemon's request - as it is, I value fair play far more than strict adherence to the rules, so I personally am AGAINST the ban.
It should be noted, though, that *unless and until* there are rules defining such requests as "no lv2 upgrades", DivinaDemon has all the rights to be a jerk...
And Mirz's actions are just as wrong: you don't like it, don't play - attacking your comrades is a bit too far on the "stating your point" line, as far as I'm concerned. And they are against the rules, although they are not what the staff thought when writing that rule, I assume.
Remember that as much as we players make the atmosphere of the game, we don't make the rules. We can ask them to be changed, but while they're in effect, we suffer them as they are ;)
P.S. - DivinaDemon is coming through as the personification of evil, which he often tries to be ;) I can guarantee that - while stretching the rules to their legal limit - he's mostly an extremely fair player. Hard as a brick, but
fair! | Side point: Being anti-team doesn't appear as much of a solution I think - it made Mirz lose a battle, DivinaDemon lose a battle, the others win a battle, all without any reason for it to be so.
It's the best that could be done then, but not a solution anyway - we should suggest the staff to implement rules on the subject.
Another option: A "resign" button could be presented to all players at their first turn after deployment - if all players on one side resign, then the challenge is dropped, no harm done, no xp gained, no effect. This might create other problems though. | And notice : 3.16 begins "Contractual combats...". In fact there is an *emphasis* on the word contractual. That is, combats where an agreement has been made, presumably as to the outcome. Otherwise most AFKs would probably fall under this category.
Unless you're suggesting that there was an arrangement with Mirz to lose to you? Which would make you just as liable for a penalty in my opinion.
No?
I don't imagine you bribed Mirz to lose to you either? Did you? Once again, making the offer would make you just as guilty. So how does 3.20 apply in this case?
I had read all of the relevant parts of the rules before I joined this discussion, I can assure you. I don't believe that Mirz's actions fall under either 3.16 or 3.20. There was neither a contract/agreement, nor was there any promise of reward for his loss(at least none that I can see after reviewing the logs).
People like you make *me* laugh. You ignore the whole of the document and concentrate only on those parts that you believe back your claim. Unfortunately others can also
So where are these "FACTS"? If there was a contract or agreement, it would make you just as guilty. Ditto if there was a bribe involved. So are you still innocent? If you are then I can't see how you can think Mirz is the villain.
Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose. | "A contractual combat supposes that one of the parties intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game. Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden."
Grunge: this part of the rule explains what is meant by the rule itself when speaking about contractual combat.. or that's how I read it.
Knowing the guy, maybe I can state what he seems hard put to explain.
DivinaDemon has taken the rules to their limit - and he lacked fair play. Not even HE denies that, we're all positive on this.
But his claim that the rules need an update in this sector is, I think, correct: he didn't do anything against the rules, although he surely stretched it and took advantage of an obvious hole in them, ignoring a direct request of another player.
Maybe we should ask the devs to implement some form of limitation, or to state it clearly in the rules.
Makes any sense? I'm not on either side (and if you force me to choose one I'm against the ban, as mentioned), just trying to see if anything constructive can come from this. | "Any kind of payment for combat is forbidden. Rewarding a player for losing...."
Mirz stated clearly at the beginning of the battle that would have refounded Shamas for having his arts used in a wasted combat.
So first, Mirz did alredy know the outcome at the beginning, he was already up to his mind to lose the battle, and second "Any kind of payment for combat is forbidden" and that makes in EVERY situation, for any reason, as good as it could be.
And "A contractual combat supposes that one of the parties intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game." Means that you cant make lose intentionally a side, whatever the reason is. And Mirz, offering to refound the arts of Shamas, fall right into this category.
I call these FACTS.
Its just a matter of words........but words are everything in law.
I did not know if Mirz was in agreement with the adversaries, i hope not. | To Calimar - The Admins continue to describe the penalty for a *Contractual Combat*. That is a combat where players have a contract or agreement as to the outcome. If this was not the intention then why do they describe it as a "Contractual Combat" instead of saying something like "Any combat where a player intentionally loses to another is forbidden.". Instead they quite deliberately named it a "Contractual Combat". Do I really have to explain this again?
In any case, since DivinaDemon seems to like the letter of the law so much - perhaps he should read the part that says "Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden.".
When DivinaDemon joined a battle described as "No 2nd Tier upgrades" he caused Mirz to act in such a way as to delivery victory to his opponents - to lose. Thus he *instigated* Mirz's actions (Instigate - to cause by incitement; to urge, provoke, or incite to some action). So in this instance if Mirz is guilty of breaking the rule then DivinaDemon is just as guilty. If you are determined live by the letter of the Law be prepared for it to be applied to you too.
To DivinaDemon - Are you seriously suggesting that Mirz was offering money to shamas to lose the combat? Is that what you are suggesting? Was the offer conditional on shamas trying to lose the combat? Did Mirz say that he wouldn't pay shamas if shamas won the combat?
In fact it was not a payment for *combat*. Mirz recognised that someone (guess who) was wasting everyone's time by joining a challenge where they (guess who) were not welcome. He was trying to offset the loss his teammate would suffer because a selfish individual (still can't guess?) chose to ignore the clear message that certain kinds of troops shouldn't be brought into the battle.
And once again an example of the letter of the law - as practiced by DivinaDemon.
Players pay to enter tournaments. Tournaments are combats. Ergo any player entering a tournament is paying for combat and therefore breaking rule 3.20.
Sticking to the letter of the law is a very dangerous thing. You will find that Police and the court system do not operate to the very letter of the Law. And you should be very glad that this is the case. | Yeah Grunge, i love your Butterfly effect theory such as:
" When DivinaDemon joined a battle described as "No 2nd Tier upgrades" he caused Mirz to act in such a way as to delivery victory to his opponents - to lose. Thus he *instigated* Mirz's actions (Instigate - to cause by incitement; to urge, provoke, or incite to some action). So in this instance if Mirz is guilty of breaking the rule then DivinaDemon is just as guilty."
Now read it carefully:
"3.16. A contractual combat supposes that one of the parties intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game."
It seems to me that ANY actions to lose intentionally a battle is named "contractual" and so falls under this paragraph. No exceptions, wherever the reason is.
And then "Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden."
Would i been aware of Mirz behaviour? There was written nowehere "No 2nd Tier upgrades penalty loss". I could have not anticipated this reaction from Mirz.
Besides, you cannot start from a point of view in which, if one disregard a DESCRIPTION (because it a description, a kindly suggestion, not a must or else it will be ruled by the game) expect to INSTIGATE a LOSS.
That was completely Mirz choice of course of actions. He could have told the adversaries to focus on me, to kill me first, without breaking any rule, just for example.
But he chose to follow another path, breaking rules to follow its personal judgement and justice.
"Players pay to enter tournaments. Tournaments are combats. Ergo any player entering a tournament is paying for combat and therefore breaking rule 3.20."
That was made from DEVs and Admins, and because theire the judges here, like it or not, whoever joined the Touraments will not be persecuted, as you would suggest.
"Mirz recognised that someone (guess who) was wasting everyone's time by joining a challenge where they (guess who) were not welcome. He was trying to offset the loss his teammate would suffer because a selfish individual (still can't guess?) chose to ignore the clear message that certain kinds of troops shouldn't be brought into the battle."
Actually youre wrong, i Maybe Would have wasted my enemies time, but we will never know it, because as a fact, Mirz did waste everything from everyone.
He should have warned me into the deployment phase, telling me something like, "im not happy you joined, dont use your tier2 or ill make you lose, or ill spike you" he did NOT warn, not a word. He started spiking and refusing to attack the enemies, and that is correct for you, Grunge?
As i said, he should have done many other things, as i demonostrate to be somewhat inclined to stick to his will by defending with my Tier2 units at the first turn; but he just wanted to lose the game with no other option. | Saying that joining a battle where you are not welcome is "instigating someone to lose" is a loooooong shot. I doubt you could really defend this opinion even in a court.
It's like saying that insulting someone is provoking him, so if he draws a gun and takes me down, I'm guilty of my own homicide, because I INSTIGATED him to commid murder.
Apart from this - I'm quite sure you're not advocating the opinion that as the rules stand, any player ignoring a game description is guilty of "contractual combat". Or do you?
You're taking it out on DivinaDemon because he's played the jerk - he did. Maybe he wanted it, maybe he didn't read or paid no attention to the description. I don't really care - let's ignore DivinaDemon for a second.
What do we do the next time someone joins a game were he's unwelcome? Whether by accident or no. We do have jerks in this community, you don't think DD is the only one right?
Do we pile up and destroy his tropps? That's a solution... wastes everyones time, brings xp where it is not due, and is all in all something I'd call inefficient.
Or do we clarify the rules, since many challenges have "rules" in the description, that one cannot enter such challenges if not compliant? Because nothing states it except fair play.. and fair play is not very common these days.
We can also keep arguing about the letter of the rules for another month, and I'm quite sure you'll be as confused then as I am now, since that sentence can be broken and splintered until it loses any of its original meaning. But I seriously doubt any good would come from _that_.
Grunge says:
>> The Admins continue to describe the penalty for a *Contractual Combat*.
>> That is a combat where players have a contract or agreement as to the
>> outcome. If this was not the intention then why do they describe it as
>> a "Contractual Combat" instead of saying something like "Any combat where >> a player intentionally loses to another is forbidden.". Instead they quite
>> deliberately named it a "Contractual Combat".
Well, as much as I read it, they first describe the penalty for contractual combat, and THEN proceed to describe what is meant by contractual combat: that is, losing a fight for any reason other than connection problems. Why mentioning this, if they meant *only* "having a contract or agreement about the outcome", instead of saying simply "any combat where the outcome is predetermined" or any other form of your choice?
And to quote you, "Do I really have to explain this again?" ;)
;) As you see, it can work both ways. But I'd rather discuss the real point. DD has had the doubt. I did, too - although it occured to me to just leave combat when some jerk decided he could insult me as he pleased.
Again I ask: what's wrong in clarifying the rule about challenge descriptions? That's the whole point in this, isn't it? It never occured to me to issue a "closed" challenge, but wouldn't you rather have a lever to beat people who act like jerks with?
Well, aside from intentionally losing battles and spending your money on your adversaries, that is. | ah hell, next time i just cut my powersupply and go afk, making the same side losing and wasting more time?
seems like a perfect solution for me, sticking to the law and all thou it might not make clear why and how, so i will have to do so more often i am afraid.
this is still, i am afraid, the most economical way to drive the point home.
this by the way was never contracual, or decided at the start of the battle, it was decided as soon as i saw the offending party on my team, i might gain with it, ppl will at least start to read descriptions when i am in a random.
and i do not have any problems with 2nd tier critters, nor full art games, as long as it is not prohibited by the game description.
it is all about having a fair chance, and not someone (and thus team) having an unfair advantage. | Oh please. Contractual means "Of, relating to, or having the nature of a contract." Contract means "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.". I take it you understand what a Combat means in this context or do I have to find that for you too?
So a Contractual Combat is obviously one where there is an agreement between two or more players as to the Combat's outcome, one way or the other. This was certainly not the case with Mirz.
And if you strictly stick to your definition, then anyone who makes even the smallest mistake in a battle may be guilty of intentionally losing to their opponent. After all you go on to say "No exceptions, whatever the reason is.". So if you make a small mistake and lose the combat, it could be claimed that you were intentionally losing to your opponents. Since there are "No exceptions" (your own words), unless you have performed perfectly in *all* of the combats you have lost you would then be guilty of 3.16. Do you really think you played perfectly in all your lost games? I know that I haven't. If not you're guilty of 3.16. Gee, I guess everyone that doesn't have a 100% win record or Omniscience is guilty of 3.16. Are you Omniscient DivinaDemon? (Just in case you need the definition - Omniscient = "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things"). I can see from your profile that you don't have a 100% win record. So which is it?
Further according to you the letter of the law is paramount. The rules don't seem to mention that Admins are exempt. So if I follow your arguement up to now, the Admins would still be subject to their own rules ("No exceptions", "Letter of the Law" DivinaDemon, your words again). Besides, it is the players joining the tournament, not the Developers or Admins. The players should be aware that they cannot join the tournament because they are not allowed to pay for combats. Nice try but I don't think so. Accordingly players would still be liable. Just because the Admins had set up a situation where players would break the rules does not exempt the players from the rules (letter of the Law, DivinaDemon).
As to whether you could anticipate that a particular player would react in this way, I think you would have to concede that it is likely that someone at some time would react in this way. If you have been gaming for 10 years, as Calimar suggests, you should be aware that there are people that will not act in rational ways when someone completely ignores what they say (as you did by joining a combat with proscribed creatures). As a gamer of at least 10 years experience, I cannot imagine how you could not foresee such an outcome at some time. Therefore I still say that you are guilty of *instigating a player to lose a combat*. Mirz chose his path - and so did you by joining a combat with a description that excluded Shrews. Just as Mirz had choices of other ways to handle you joining the game, *you* had the choice to not join the game in the first place. You made your choice and Mirz made his as a result of your actions (not Khaoz, akulho, Cune, or shamas but you). So I repeat that you instigated Mirz's action and according to the "letter of the Law" of 3.16 you are also guilty.
So yes, you could anticipate that someone would eventually react in this way. Perhaps you did not expect it to be that particular battle, but if you thought you could get away with such selfish behaviour forever you were only fooling yourself.
As to making comments during the Deployment phase....... Ummm, most people spend their time during the deployment phase..... deploying their units? Strange, I know, but some people insist on wasting valuable time that they could spend ranting about how they will destroy any player using 2nd tier upgrade units, and instead place their troops on the battlefield and perhaps scope o | Apologies Mirz. The above "rant" was aimed at DivinaDemon not yourself.
He seems to revel in his ability to be unreasonable. He also seems to make no apologies for ignoring the reasonable requests of others. Unfortunately he is in the company of an embarassing multitude. I would not be so proud of being in the ranks of any such a group. | Lets summarise this thread. In conclusion, we should:
1. Read game description before you [Join]
2. ...
Yeah, its that simple. Stop writing an essay about this and get on with the game. My eyes are in pain after reading some really twisted arguments. | | grudge, i allready finished my deployment then, it was easy to do you know :) | Yeah youre right, its a waste of time continue to write to people who dont read and listen.
And even if i had the courtesy to state tha Mirz was right for a part of his behaviour, it emerges that i was wrong from the beginning to the end.
Nothing new, i cant expect fanatics to reason; i just tought that maybe a spark of light pull of the darkness of your Mirz Worship.....but no good done.
So im the uber, all mighty, final, mega villain and Mirz the virtuous super hero that has winned alone, against the law (but for a good reason) the evil dude.
Thats ok, i will sleep anywayu tonight, because nothing has changed.
When i will create games i will simply put: No Mirz.
And because Description is the Law and you can put everything you wish in it, as many stated, i will surely have not people blaming or judging me unfair. | To Calimar - I'm not saying that DivinaDemon could it expect it to happen *in this particular case* but he had to expect something like it to happen eventually.
If you convince someone to kill you, I wouldn't call it Homocide, I'd call it Suicide.
As to the "Contractual Combat" (rule 3.16) I believe that there is a translation problem due the Developers having English as a second language.
I believe it can be translated to -
"3.16. Contractual combats resulting in one of the parties losing, a priori, is prohibited. A contractual combat is where one of the parties agrees to intentionally lose to another by any method other than from having technical problems with access to the game. Attempting to convince another player to lose a combat is also forbidden."
I imagine that the Technical Problems exception exists because it would be impossible to prove and there is an existing penalty for losing due to not having access.
I think that there should be a formal mechanism where players can define further parameters limiting the battle. Unfortunately this would be difficult to add due the wide range of limits people would want (no Necro, no Arts, no 2nd tier upgrades just to name a few).
If this is not feasible I think there should be a "Decline Combat" option. Unfortunately this also has problems. When should people be allowed to "decline"? Before placement when they haven't seen their opponents creatures? After placement when they see their opponents have placed in such a way as to destroy them (4 way game)? | DivinaDemon - By all means put "no Mirz" in your description and I will respect it.
In fact, please add "No Grunge" and I can guarantee you I will respect your wishes for that too. | Why should i do that? you were just talking with me, and i did not take it for your words.
But if you have taken it personally, that is a thing between yourself.
Mirz situation is different, that is the consequence of a combat, not from a forum post. |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3Back to topics list
|
