Cleared k bar: intentional deadbeating [tg]

[mojo700]

Accused:

k bar


The accused are suspected of:

Other: Intentional deadbeating



Game number(s):

Game 15017725
Game 15253755
Game 15242573


Comments: Game 15017725 started to stalemate and k bar began intentionally deadbeating and lied about it when called out. During the times he was missing turns in 15017725, magically he was able to complete turns in all his other games. Just a couple of the numerous examples are in games 15253755 and 15242573 where he completed turns in those games during missed turns in the game in question on 2/11/15 and 2/14/15. This went on for months.

[Major.Bossman]

While it can be frustrating I do not believe missing turns is always deadbeating. In fact some players consider it a strategy to miss a turn or two to gain an edge. If I am correct there used to be a practice of attacking players who missed turns just to be safe.

[mojo700]

I completely disagree.

Let's review the "unwritten" rules from the rules page. "Unwritten 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..."

So just what exactly is intentional deadbeating? A fair definition of deadbeating is "numerous and frequent missed turns." The inclusion of the word "intentional" in the rule implies there can be both intentional and unintentional deadbeating. Unintentional deadbeating is certainly when a player is unable to login and take their turns because of some extenuating circumstance. Intentional deadbeating then is a player missing numerous and frequent turns on purpose.

Please take careful note that the rules say "intentional" and not something else like "non-strategic" or "troll-esque." The motive for the deadbeating is irrelevant. If a player is missing frequent turns on purpose, for whatever reason, it's intentional and it's deadbeating, period.

Unfortunately, many players believe, as you appear to, in the legitimacy of the strategic missing of turns. While one intentional missed turn might not meet the definition of deadbeating, this act represents a gross abuse of the game as described in the rules. The opportunity to use this illegitimate strategy only exists because of the online nature of the game. If the players were sitting across from one another at home, at a board, waiting for the police to arrive because of the domestic disturbance call from all the screaming, the way Parker Brothers intended, then this missed turns issue would not exist. Nor would the other issues of multiple accounts and secret diplomacy. These exploitations stemming from the online nature of the game are rightly prohibited.

I, for one, would love to see the gameplay tightened up in regards to missed turns. The current system is far too lenient.

In this particular instance, k bar continued to miss turns on purpose long after it was clear the other players weren't going to take the bait. It was simply because he didn't like stalemate games and therefore everybody should suffer even more.

[Donelladan]

While it can be frustrating I do not believe missing turns is always deadbeating. In fact some players consider it a strategy to miss a turn or two to gain an edge. If I am correct there used to be a practice of attacking players who missed turns just to be safe.

Missing a turn or two isn't, unfortunately, the same offence than deadbeating. Deadbeating = missing 3 turns in a row and getting kicked out.

Nevertheless intentionnally missing turn to gain strategical advantage shouldn't be allowed.
Because of the quite impossible way of proving that a player intentionnally missed a turn, this isn't enforced.

Still, note that there is at least one case of a player deliberately missing turns that has been judged guilty for it. It was a specific case in which it was very easy to prove the player was missing the turns in purpose and to gain a strategical advantage, and on a large scale ( numerous examples).

If the OP could provide more detailled evidence, time log of the missed turns and other games played at the same time for example, I believe this player could get a warning.
Missing turns shouldn't be a strategy, this is total abusing the system.

[Major.Bossman]

I did not voice my support for strategically missing turns, I merely stated that it was a tactic that has been used to gain an advantage. On a side note Donelladan do remember what case that was in which missing turns on a large scale was found to be guilty? So far I found that the accused missed turns in Game 15017725 on February 10-11,February 12-13, February 21-22, February 28-March 1, March 2-3, March 7-8, March 11-12, March 14-15, and March 15-16. Besides the previous games listed there is another which falls within the time period Game 15227158 which could be used to support intentionally missing on February 28, and March 14, 16. However I am not sure what is the scale is in this matter to show long term abuse.
Anyway mojo700 since you wanted to point out "intentional" I am going to point out "deadbeating". Which Donelladan graciously provided as missing three turns in a row and getting kicked out. While intentionally missing turns might be part of and become intentional deadbeating it is important to show the divide between the two. It is like that domestic disturbance call which might just be yelling over someone cheating becoming one of the players yelling "I am going to kill you you cheating SOB!" which would be something along the lines of terroristic threats or verbal assault.

[mojo700]

So, by your definition a player who only takes every third turn is not a deadbeat. To keep our domestic theme going, let's look at a deadbeat dad. If he only makes every third child support payment, he's a deadbeat. He doesn't have to miss them all to qualify.

I'm much more ok with a player missing three turns and getting kicked than one who is always missing turns but somehow manages to get back in time for that third turn. The guy who gets kicked is gone in a matter of days. This guy held the game hostage for weeks and weeks.

[Donelladan]

I understand you mojo, and the mistake is often made. I also thought first that missing few turns intentional deadbeating, but it isn't for the CC rule.

Intentional deadbeating is missing 3 turns in a row. That's it. You may try to accuse your guys of intentional missing turn to gain tactical advantage.

[waauw]

I hope this behaviour gets punished. Missing turns intentionally is one of the most despicable strategies there is.

[Souliote]

with this 'strategy' the game loses momentum, one doesn't know if they're still in or not. 5,6,7 players waiting for some jackass to play. days go by waiting for them.
it's selfish, inconsiderate and if it happened at a table they would be thrown out and never invited back.
i don't understand why you allow it. it should be miss any 2 turns and you're out.

[Major.Bossman]

Mojo it is not my definition but the definition of the site. A player needs to miss three turns in a row to be considered a deadbeat. In this regard your deadbeat dad analogy is not applicable to the situation because the term deadbeat has different meanings in regards to familial law for child support compared to the rules and regulations of this site. Also how did this player hold the game hostage for weeks and weeks? The accused missed 9 turns in a game that is over 100 rounds and had been going on for 5 to 6 months. Holding a game hostage is normally applied when the player in question could have ended the game a long time ago but has instead trapped the other player(s) who have to wait for the hostage holder to end the game. While the accused seems to have made you and the other player wait it does not appear that the game would have ended much earlier since you said the game stalemated.

[owenshooter]

Nevertheless intentionnally missing turn to gain strategical advantage shouldn't be allowed.

you would never be able to prove this happened, unless the member admitted it... this guy isn't breaking any rules, they are going to be told to foe and move on... until he misses
3 in a row and gets kicked, while taking turns in other games, he hasn't broken a rule...-Jésus noir

[mojo700]

I'd like to see an actual reference from the site that that is the definition of deadbeating, other than because you say it is. My definition certainly makes more sense, is more true to the common usage of the term, and would better benefit the game play on the site. But none of this even matters because whether or not it was deadbeating, k bar is still clearly guilty of a "gross abuse of the game." Whether it's 1 turn or 9, it's wrong.

You're incorrect in your statement that the nine missed turns were inconsequential to the duration of the game. While the number of rounds wont change, the time it takes to complete those rounds certainly will. 9 missed turns = 9 full days = 216 hours of wasted time I could have spent working on my CC Law degree instead of crying myself to sleep wondering if he was going to take his turn. Furthermore, these 9 turns were spread out over weeks, so the slow pace went on, as I said before, for weeks and weeks. As Souliote said above, the game loses momentum when this illegitimate strategy is used.

I'm not going to get into another definition argument over the use of hostage. His intentional actions added 9 days to the game. Just like when somebody wont end it when they have the ability to.

[Major.Bossman]

I am sorry you lost sleep over actions that occurred over a month ago but it is inappropriate to apply your slippery slope to this case. Nine missed turns does not necessarily equal nine days of wasted time when compared to nine turns being taken. For example the game in question allows a player to complete their turn within twenty-four hours which means the player could take it within a few seconds of the previous player to twenty-three plus hours later. This could lead to either the maximum nine days or less than one day. Also how many of the missed turns can be definitively called intentional turn missing compared to human error or poor time management?

[TeeGee]

As far as deadbeating is concerned. This does NOT fit into CC's current definition. As described earlier deadbeating is deliberately missing 3 turns in a row. While it may not be the best word to describe it, it is what it has been since 2006


Intentionally missing turns for any purpose is another kettle of fish and it is taking me time as the missed turns mainly happened from Early Feb to mid March and as you can imagine there are a significant number of logs to sift through to match times etc and there may also be other valid reasons for a miss.

[mojo700]

TeeGee,

Thanks for looking into it. I was hoping to have some satisfaction on this issue prior to the end of the game, but here we are. It would certainly be an improvement to the site if these definitions were included in the rule page.

[k bar]

Did I miss any more turns than mojo? (I am not sure.) It was difficult when we came down to three players, and I often delayed my moves. I would look at the map, but uncertain what to do, I would set it aside for awhile. I think this delay caused me sometimes to accidentally miss my turns. I am confused. Are you claiming that I gave up? I did win the game. I am surprised and confused.

[k bar]

I am not comfortable missing turns, especially when it comes down to 3 players. I can see how there might be a strategy, but it really makes the player vulnerable. That is how I managed to beat you Mojo. When you missed your turn, I launched a full attack against you, and won the game a few rounds later. Again, this was a very long game, and am surprised by the accusations.

[mojo700]

I think this delay caused me sometimes to accidentally miss my turns.

For all the "accidents" that happened twice in a row, it's amazing that there was never a third accident. The big giant clock that ticks down is easy to miss when you're in Central Command and taking your other turns.

That is how I managed to beat you Mojo. When you missed your turn, I launched a full attack against you, and won the game a few rounds later.

Oh, the irony is not lost on me, don't worry. It's actually really funny. I made some big mistakes, missing that turn being one of them, and you capitalized nicely with some well played moves.

[k bar]

Towards the end of the game csol4846 commented: "gg guys, fully marks to kbar."

I hate 3 player games, and the stalemate that happens. In most games, I have a good idea of my strategy, and will make fairly quick turns, but there are other times, when I will look at the map, and will hesitate, and not arrive at a decision...

Again, how many turns did you miss? You seem to have deadbeat on your final turn, did you not?

[Dukasaur]

I think this delay caused me sometimes to accidentally miss my turns.

For all the "accidents" that happened twice in a row, it's amazing that there was never a third accident. The big giant clock that ticks down is easy to miss when you're in Central Command and taking your other turns.

That is how I managed to beat you Mojo. When you missed your turn, I launched a full attack against you, and won the game a few rounds later.

Oh, the irony is not lost on me, don't worry. It's actually really funny. I made some big mistakes, missing that turn being one of them, and you capitalized nicely with some well played moves.

This is how absurd your argument is.

You claim he was missing turns in order to win, but then he won because you missed a turn. So, for you to miss a turn makes you lose, but if someone else misses a turn that means they win, is that it? This is the bottom line among all idiots who claim that someone is "strategically" missing turns. It seems it's always someone else who wins by missing a turn, it never seems to work for them.

[mojo700]

This is how absurd your argument is.

You claim he was missing turns in order to win, but then he won because you missed a turn. So, for you to miss a turn makes you lose, but if someone else misses a turn that means they win, is that it? This is the bottom line among all idiots who claim that someone is "strategically" missing turns. It seems it's always someone else who wins by missing a turn, it never seems to work for them.

Have you read any of the discussion? Or did you just blast in here to call people idiots. Up until your post, this had been a civil debate over an issue that is shared by many members.

You have failed to show in any way that my argument is absurd because you did not address a single point that I made. I never said that what he did helped lead to his victory or my defeat. My only contention was that what he did was against the rules. The outcome of the game is irrelevant. If secret diplomacy results in a loss, is it then ok?

Like I said, the irony of my losing in part because of a missed turn was not lost on me. Will strategically missing turns always work? No. Does it sometimes work? Yes. I've seen it happen. It's never worked for me because it's deplorable and I would never do it.

[Donelladan]

This is how absurd your argument is.

You claim he was missing turns in order to win, but then he won because you missed a turn. So, for you to miss a turn makes you lose, but if someone else misses a turn that means they win, is that it? This is the bottom line among all idiots who claim that someone is "strategically" missing turns. It seems it's always someone else who wins by missing a turn, it never seems to work for them.

Well, Dukasaur, I am in the vast majority of the case on the same line than you. Missing turn is not a good strategy, it doesn't give you advantage. People saying so are speaking absurdity.
There is few exceptions. 3 players game can be an exception, if one players misses 2 turns, and the 2 other remaining players go to war ignoring the one missing turn, then it might be an advantage. This is risky, ofc, most of the case you end up with broken bonus and the 2 other players waited for you to miss a 3rd turns before going to war, but it could work. I've seen it couple of times.
I didn't look at the game in the OP if that was the case here.


@mojo, as it has been said to you earlier, missing a turn isn't breaking a rule, even if it happens many times in a game. To be breaking a rule you'd need to prove, in my opinion, I am not mod and that may not work but, at least :
1) that he missed in purpose and this has to be proven with undeniable proof ( almost impossible)
2) show that he did it in several occasions ( helps confirming point 1)
3) show strategical advantage of missing.

But saying that he played some turns in other game while he missed isn't sufficient to prove that he missed in purpose.
This explanation that he played some turns but keep this one in your game for later because he needed more time to think on the move make totally sense and is smthg that a lot of players do. For a freemium with only 4 games it may not be your case, but as premium with 70-80 games I always do that.
So, there is basically no way you can prove he missed in purpose, except if you comes out with a history of dozens of games with strategical miss turns, then if you have so many examples in which he would be missing when the game is down to 3 players, then maybe because of the repetition you have a case.
But with one game, definitely won't be enough to prove he abused.

[Dukasaur]

This is how absurd your argument is.

You claim he was missing turns in order to win, but then he won because you missed a turn. So, for you to miss a turn makes you lose, but if someone else misses a turn that means they win, is that it? This is the bottom line among all idiots who claim that someone is "strategically" missing turns. It seems it's always someone else who wins by missing a turn, it never seems to work for them.

Have you read any of the discussion? Or did you just blast in here to call people idiots. Up until your post, this had been a civil debate over an issue that is shared by many members.

You have failed to show in any way that my argument is absurd because you did not address a single point that I made. I never said that what he did helped lead to his victory or my defeat. My only contention was that what he did was against the rules. The outcome of the game is irrelevant. If secret diplomacy results in a loss, is it then ok?

Like I said, the irony of my losing in part because of a missed turn was not lost on me. Will strategically missing turns always work? No. Does it sometimes work? Yes. I've seen it happen. It's never worked for me because it's deplorable and I would never do it.

It's not against the rules to miss a turn. Your only hope to twist this into something against the rules was to prove that he "gained strategic advantage" from missing those turns. You have proven nothing of the sort.

This is how absurd your argument is.

You claim he was missing turns in order to win, but then he won because you missed a turn. So, for you to miss a turn makes you lose, but if someone else misses a turn that means they win, is that it? This is the bottom line among all idiots who claim that someone is "strategically" missing turns. It seems it's always someone else who wins by missing a turn, it never seems to work for them.

Well, Dukasaur, I am in the vast majority of the case on the same line than you. Missing turn is not a good strategy, it doesn't give you advantage. People saying so are speaking absurdity.
There is few exceptions. 3 players game can be an exception, if one players misses 2 turns, and the 2 other remaining players go to war ignoring the one missing turn, then it might be an advantage. This is risky, ofc, most of the case you end up with broken bonus and the 2 other players waited for you to miss a 3rd turns before going to war, but it could work. I've seen it couple of times.
I didn't look at the game in the OP if that was the case here.


@mojo, as it has been said to you earlier, missing a turn isn't breaking a rule, even if it happens many times in a game. To be breaking a rule you'd need to prove, in my opinion, I am not mod and that may not work but, at least :
1) that he missed in purpose and this has to be proven with undeniable proof ( almost impossible)
2) show that he did it in several occasions ( helps confirming point 1)
3) show strategical advantage of missing.

But saying that he played some turns in other game while he missed isn't sufficient to prove that he missed in purpose.
This explanation that he played some turns but keep this one in your game for later because he needed more time to think on the move make totally sense and is smthg that a lot of players do. For a freemium with only 4 games it may not be your case, but as premium with 70-80 games I always do that.

Exactly.

When I first wake up in the morning, I don't trust myself to think clearly. I first take turns only in simple 1v1 games where there's not much to think about. Only after coffee and breakfast do I start looking at multiplayer games. Then, if it's almost time for work, I run out of time and can't play those multiplayer turns. That means I have to leave them for after work, and if I have a long day at work and don't come home until late, I'll sometimes end up missing those. Not often, but it certainly happens.

[k bar]

To be honest, I don't mind if a player does intentionally miss a turn. The CC rules do not seem to forbid this action. Maybe CC rules, could state that if a player misses 3 consecutive turns, or 5 total turns, then they are eliminated.

[TeeGee]

sorry for taking so long here.

I wanted to check past cases and seek clarification on some before making a final ruling

For intentional deadbeating, K bar is CLEARED

He won the game, and under the current guidelines deadbeating is missing turns and being eliminated.

For deliberately missing turns, K bar is CLEARED

Firstly, most of these misses occurred between 4 and 10 weeks ago which makes it impossible to check the server logs to see if he actually logged in during the times available to take turns, so a manual check of other games is required. While I found an instance where it appears he was online, that is not enough.

Secondly, Conquer Club issues deferred troops for missed turns. If it was an offence, they would not be issued. There is a perception that you get an advantage, but in reality you do not get to use them until the following round after they are issued giving opponents 2 full rounds to attack. There are discussions in the suggestions forum to make changes to this, but it is how it is currently.

I only found 2 consecutive missed turns but during those times i did not see evidence of K bar being online in other games.