1 edit
Originally posted by GottschalkSince there are hardly any rules on how a realm can conduct itself, you are technically correct in saying no rules were broken. However, everybody knows that Novgorod has acted in total disregard of how the game should be played i.e. to win to give his RL friend an unfair and unearned advantage. I do not agree that an honest player would accept such a "gift" knowing that it is against all rules of sportsmanship. If a friend of yours offered to throw a game to you at an OTB tournament so that you could finish ahead of other players, I believe you would be honor bound to refuse. I see no difference here.
I think Novgorod is guilty of some poor sportsmanship in granting passage rights to the realms that will be taking his provinces.
Let me again reiterate that NO rules appear to have been broken. Even if Novgorod was giving away wheelbarrows full of gold each turn, it is technically not a violation of the rules, though it would anger me even more. Inc ars and Poles to flow freely across the border with the promise of free buckets of cash.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf they're all making moves that they believe will help them win the game, I see no problem with it. In NE, my nephew wound up with Sweden next to my Prussia and we have worked closely together the whole game. But I would not allow him to let me conquer his territories so I could win; that would be dishonest and unsportsmanlike to the other players.
What do you think of a group of people coordinating with one another from the get-go due to relationships and friendships outside of the game? For example, the "kill all non RHPers" thing we had going? It's clearly advantageous to anyone who does this, if the people are all skilled and can trust one another that is. The way the game is set up such peo ...[text shortened]... moves; but perhaps one might sacrifice in the short run knowing he'll get support later.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI see your point about the chess tournament (although I am not familiar with the acronym OTB). But surely the player would be within his rights to resign or withdraw from the tournament? Would his opponent then not advance as if he had beaten the resigning player fairly? Or would the resigning player be replaced in the bracket?
Since there are hardly any rules on how a realm can conduct itself, you are technically correct in saying no rules were broken. However, everybody knows that Novgorod has acted in total disregard of how the game should be played i.e. to win to give his RL friend an unfair and unearned advantage. I do not agree that an honest player would accept such a "g win over someone else, I believe you would be honor bound to refuse. I see no difference here.
If the resigning player acted in collusion with his friend and joined the tournament for the sole purpose of letting his friend advance, then sure, both are exhibiting poor sportsmanship.
The thing that rankles me the most is that Novgorod doesn't have to face any of the stink his actions brought about. He's gone. The Horde and Bavaria feel that they have to somehow defend their character and the rest of us feel ripped off.
If I was Norway, I'd be really pissed, especially if someone is planning on attacking them anytime soon. Should that be Saxony, Bavaria, or the Horde, I would be plenty hacked. Again, getting attacked is part of the game. If this transpires, Norway's anger should be directed at Novgorod, not against anyone else just playing the game, for all the good being angry at a FORMER player will do him.
Not a good situation at all.
Originally posted by GottschalkOTB = Over the Board
I see your point about the chess tournament (although I am not familiar with the acronym OTB). But surely the player would be within his rights to resign or withdraw from the tournament? Would his opponent then not advance as if he had beaten the resigning player fairly? Or would the resigning player be replaced in the bracket?
If the resigning play ...[text shortened]... for all the good being angry at a FORMER player will do him.
Not a good situation at all.
If you resign the tournament, you're not placed in the next bracket (in a Swiss style anyway which is the most prevalent). If the Tournament Director had evidence that two players had colluded to allow one to win, he'd kick them both out and report them to the appropriate governing body. It would not matter if they had agreed before the tournament to do this; if in the last round two players colluded to allow one to win and there was sufficient evidence to prove it, they'd both be disciplined.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWould resigning the tournament give your opponent at the time an advantage? i.e. he'd get free passage to the next bracket?
OTB = Over the Board
If you resign the tournament, you're not placed in the next bracket (in a Swiss style anyway which is the most prevalent). If the Tournament Director had evidence that two players had colluded to allow one to win, he'd kick them both out and report them to the appropriate governing body. It would not matter if they had agreed ...[text shortened]... o allow one to win and there was sufficient evidence to prove it, they'd both be disciplined.
For further clarification, OTB refers to a chess game where the two players are sitting at a physical board as opposed to playing on the computer or via e-mail.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAt the tournaments I've played in, brackets are usually announced a half hour or so before game time. I guess someone could just not show up at the scheduled time and the other player would win by forfeit. If that was all that was known, then it probably wouldn't be considered a big deal. But if there was other evidence that indicated pre-agreement or collusion for the one player to forfeit, then the TD would be justified in bouncing both players. There seems to be such evidence here: RWingo's statement and the fact that JohnnyBoy is a RL friend of KW + the moves Novgorod made.
Would resigning the tournament give your opponent at the time an advantage? i.e. he'd get free passage to the next bracket?
For further clarification, OTB refers to a chess game where the two players are sitting at a physical board as opposed to playing on the computer or via e-mail.
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree with you here. There is no doubt that Bavaria and the Horde have benefitted from this, but collusion would be asking Novgorod to be a very disciplined player to wait 20 turns (11 of which Bavaria was at the gates of Venice and could have used an extra boost) just to WOUND Norway's fleet. Bavaria and the Horde could have been in a much better position had Novgorod done this sooner.
But if there was other evidence that indicated pre-agreement or collusion for the one player to forfeit, then the TD would be justified in bouncing both players. There seems to be such evidence here: RWingo's statement and the fact that JohnnyBoy is a RL friend of KW + the moves Novgorod made.
Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that this is exactly what it seems -- a player needing to leave the game and doing it poorly and inconsiderately.
1 edit
Originally posted by GottschalkYou've completely ignored my point that it really doesn't matter WHEN they agreed to collude. Rwingett's post indicates he had prior knowledge does it not?
I disagree with you here. There is no doubt that Bavaria and the Horde have benefitted from this, but collusion would be asking Novgorod to be a very disciplined player to wait 20 turns (11 of which Bavaria was at the gates of Venice and could have used an extra boost) just to WOUND Norway's fleet. Bavaria and the Horde could have been in a much better y what it seems -- a player needing to leave the game and doing it poorly and inconsiderately.
EDIT: And Norway was assisting Saxony against Denmark up until when BTW?
Originally posted by GottschalkYes, my jaw is tight about Novgorod's ignoble move, but there is nothing I can do about it. I can't even voice my displeasure personally, so I've been deprived of my only outlet for grievance.
If I was Norway, I'd be really pissed, especially if someone is planning on attacking them anytime soon. Should that be Saxony, Bavaria, or the Horde, I would be plenty hacked. Again, getting attacked is part of the game. If this transpires, Norway's anger should be directed at Novgorod, not against anyone else just playing the game, for all the good being angry at a FORMER player will do him.
Not a good situation at all.
I expect in this game to be attacked, but to have someone make a suicide run at you when they are no longer going to participate is bush league stuff.
Let it be known to those who would take advantage of my current situation, I'm spoiling for a fight.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right; I did ignore your point about when they might have agreed to collude. I did this since I thought I had done a decent job of making a good case that they had NOT colluded. If they had not colluded, then they had neither colluded early nor late.
You've completely ignored my point that it really doesn't matter WHEN they agreed to collude. Rwingett's post indicates he had prior knowledge does it not?
EDIT: And Norway was assisting Saxony against Denmark up until when BTW?
I am NOT arguing that the Horde and Bavaria were ignorant of Novgorod leaving before he actually left. I am rather certain that Novgorod, as their ally, would have told them all about it. I would have for my allies had it been me leaving. I don't think that this is collusion, but a case of Bavaria and the Horde taking advantage of a bad situation.
I suppose another possibility exists: Novgorod and the Bavarians and/or the Horde have been colluding but it took them 20 turns to make it effective enough so that someone might notice. Of course, that would make them morons, and I do not choose to think of them as morons, especially since they are both faring better in this game than I am currently.
Also, I suppose that it is possible that someone might invent a family death to explain the decision to leave. Such an action would be reprehensible, to so play on our pity to hide their chicanery. Again, if we were dealing with THAT kind of jerk, why didn't we see it before hand (and I'm talking about Novgorod, here).
Honestly, it's just easier for me to believe that Novgorod pulled what too many players that realize that this game is not for them do... they pull out and decide to play the spite card on the way out. It's immature and unfair to those left. I don't need to know anything more to hold a very dim view of Novgorod's actions.
1 edit
Originally posted by GottschalkSuppose for a second you are right; how are the actions of Bavaria and the Horde not contemptible? THEY took advantage of the fact that Novgorod had a death in the family to improve their situation in the game. In addition, they kept this information secret from everybody else. You need to look up the definition of the word "collude" if you don't think "I'll quit the game, but give you free passage to my territories and not build any troops to defend them so you can conquer them so you'll win the game" isn't collusion.
You're right; I did ignore your point about when they might have agreed to collude. I did this since I thought I had done a decent job of making a good case that they had NOT colluded. If they had not colluded, then they had neither colluded early nor late.
I am NOT arguing that the Horde and Bavaria were ignorant of Novgorod leaving before he actual left. I don't need to know anything more to hold a very dim view of Novgorod's actions.
For those wondering what happened to Novgorod's gold, before last turn Bavaria had 10 Elite Marines and 4 Royal Gallions in Venice. After last turn they had 23 EM's and 12 RG's there. EM's cost 6 Gold and RG's 10 meaning Bavaria spent 158 Gold in Venice. Bavaria has a total of 105 annexed Gold provinces plus their upkeep must be around 50 for their large army. Where did all that extra gold come from??