|
Post by MookieNJ on Jan 7, 2007 20:09:18 GMT -5
In my opinion, as soon as it was realized that the settings were incorrect the game should have been scrapped and restarted. The fact that it was ruled to continue playing sets a horrible precedent. What if two clans are facing off in the Renaissance event but both prefer an Ancient start? Could they just incorrectly set the era, click in, and play the game like that? According to the ruling made in this match, the answer is yes because both teams accepted the settings when they clicked in. Personally, I enjoy Always Peace, 10 City Elimination, Raging Barbarians games myself ...
In the end, because the game took so long as was so completely screwed up, I agree with Bantams -- it's unfortunate, but both teams should have been disqualified. With this huge mess, the Renaissance event did not end until 18 hours after it started. Personally, I had to wait from finishing my first Ren game at 5pm to 11:30pm to play my second game. This was not very much fun.
|
|
|
Post by Gogf on Jan 7, 2007 21:27:02 GMT -5
What happens if the host changes the settings after every other players has clicked in and then launches the game?
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 8, 2007 3:13:59 GMT -5
Some players dont care about sportmanship Alex ...
|
|
|
Post by cankaban on Jan 8, 2007 4:20:32 GMT -5
2 city = elim So ..A..CanKaba ..A..Caesar Rupman = cheaters What makes the administrators?? Nothing as usual let us imagine that the roles are reversed....... are you stupid?i wasnt even in game when they razed my 2 cities.wanggon was there how can you fool calll me chater,you got a brain? also it should be a rehost when i call for it,but this full of sportmenship mdr players (ROMAZĂ,ALEXCHERBOURG,MATTH) didnt want a rehost,and they did everything to continue with barbarians.if they didnt make this barbarian thing,and i was in the gaem when 2 city razed,i would gave up,but when i saw they cried when i wanted rehost ,i would NEVER make the rehost,because they got no sportmenship( i mean alex mostly who posted this useless post here).if losing this game makes them more good then us,yes we cheater they not,they continued with barbarians,they didnt cheat,we cheated,they laugh off us when i called for rehost... ALSO: holocanthe in dont play list holocanthe in dont speak list this creature called me cheater,will admins do sth,or let all think i am cheater?
|
|
|
Post by cankaban on Jan 8, 2007 4:22:56 GMT -5
he got no idea what had happened and called me cheater i cant believe this,WHAT DID I DO!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jan 8, 2007 6:00:17 GMT -5
2 city = elim So ..A..CanKaba ..A..Caesar Rupman = cheaters What makes the administrators?? Nothing as usual let us imagine that the roles are reversed....... I see no diffrence between the no city elim or the babarian Is crazy to go on with wrong settings off course they should rehost when they finds that barbs is on, must be pretty early in the game Seems to me everyone is cheating in this event, disqualifi both clans compleetly, on behalf off bad sportsmanship cheating and the fact that it would make my clan become 5
|
|
|
Post by balmung on Jan 8, 2007 6:09:10 GMT -5
Huh, looks like not good sportsmanship And I agree to MMV , 2 city elim was the rule, that was clear. I think all players were able to count 1 and 1 is two. Why the hell they need a click in settings as help . Is the rule 2 city elim or 2 city elim and comp must count for it Do we need lawyers to decide about 1 and 1 is 2 now ;D
|
|
|
Post by matth on Jan 8, 2007 7:47:48 GMT -5
Once again i'm gonna tell what happen about the barbarian problems : Cankaban tell us there were barbs on the map after about 20 turns. So we say ok guys it's up to you we agree to rehost then. But as they took a city of alex (MDR guy) they didn't want to rehost and said they will deal with barbs. We say ok but don't ask for a rehost if you don't have the advantage in 10 turns. About 15 turns later we were leading on score and in all graph : gnp, prod, food and power. They made pause and Cankaban said there is two barbs near my land i ask for rehost. We answer that it was a bit easy to ask rehost now, 15 turns after we saw the problems and said we were ok to rehost. So we call the TD and ask what to do. He said continue because both team agreed 15 turns sooner to continue even with barbs. At 20 turns of the end of the game i took 2 city of Wanggeon (who was subbing Cankaban). He was in back and was first in score in their team, and half of their units where defending ceasar. But even if i took 2 city he didn't die and so we reallize there were a 2nd mistake : no city elim.... (i even took a 3rd city and he didn't die ). The TD said continue and so we had to do so... They won with 70 points on score... If wanggeon had die they couldn't won the game because even if they killed one of us we were still leading in score if wanggeon were dead. Both team made a mistake by not settings the good rules or not checked it. Both team should have been disqualify or we should have win but it's really unfair that they were allowed to continue the event.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Jan 8, 2007 9:14:33 GMT -5
if the game rules for a specific event is 2 city elimination, you can play without the option checked.
you lose two cities - you lose.
as the TD's said - don't rehost; play on.
the game was played on; two cities were lost - game over.
it's in the rules and always has been - it's not like it was a "surprise option" that had never been there before.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 8, 2007 10:32:26 GMT -5
The game should have been restarted when the Barbs were discovered. If I read this thread correctly one of the teams did now want a restart because they perceived that they had an advantage at that point BECAUSE of what had happened with barbs (who shouldn't even be there). If your opponent suffers due to an error, it is lousy sportsmanship to refuse a restart to eliminate that unjustice.
As to the victory condition, I agree with MMV. Both teams knew (or should have known) that it was a 2 city elimination. The victory condition was met. It doesn't matter if the game doesn't report the victory.
|
|
|
Post by balmung on Jan 8, 2007 10:35:12 GMT -5
yes, especially as it was torwards end of game. The surviving 2 players woulndt be able to recover. A lack of sportsmanship
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 8, 2007 11:17:43 GMT -5
Perhaps we should add a rule to the CCC general rules that says something like. "Players are expected to play their matches according to the rules specified. Matches played not according to the listed rules subject both teams to forfeiture. Before ruling about everything please try to use your brain . How can you disqualify a team who doesn't host the game? Do you know levi that some parameters cannot be seen by all players? Regarding MDR vs A ren matter i will not ask to replay game or to disqualify ..A.. team. We have made a "noob" mistake with settings so that's our fault. Death to All decided to let the game run. We did. No problem we accept it . Now we just know that players as Wanggon does'nt have any idea about sportmanship and fair play. There's still one thing a cannot explain . How can a guy who hasn't played any CCC game with Civ4 (I don't even know if he played civ4 once ) be HeadTD? Please before being "head something" try to learn first what is a CCC game!!!!! May be should we have a pool about that? Clan community cannot allows someone inexperienced ruling about the way to run events. True 100%
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 8, 2007 11:22:11 GMT -5
I actually agree with Levi this should be put into CCC and Ladder rules even perhaps false 100%
|
|
|
Post by matth on Jan 8, 2007 12:41:05 GMT -5
The game should have been restarted when the Barbs were discovered. If I read this thread correctly one of the teams did now want a restart because they perceived that they had an advantage at that point BECAUSE of what had happened with barbs (who shouldn't even be there). If your opponent suffers due to an error, it is lousy sportsmanship to refuse a restart to eliminate that unjustice. Noone loose any city because of barbs. I'm gonna try to be even more clear on what happen : Turns 15 : A team take a city to a MDR guy. Nothing about barbs there. Turns 20 : A team said that they loose a worker to barbs. MDR teams said : ok if you want to then we can rehost. A team say no rehost because we have an advantage by taking a city to one MDR. MDR say ok we don't rehost because you have an advantage but don't ask a rehost if MDR have an advantage in a few turns. A team say ok : no rehost, we deal with barbs. Turns 30 : A team ask for a rehost because of barbs (they loose an other worker as far as i remember). MDR refused because we already deal with the problems of barbs 10 turns before and now that we are winning (not because of barbs but because they rush while we were making city so we took an advantage) We ask what to do with TD and he said continue because you saw the problem 10 turns sooner and both team decide to continue and there is nothing new about barbs that would justify to rehost. Tunrs 70 : MDR teams took 2 city of Wanggeon, then a 3rd city still to wanggeon and we realize that 2 city elim was not checked. A team decide to continue even if they should be dead and the TD were ok with them. Just to tell : Barbarians problem was not the problem. Noone loose a city because of barbs and noone took an advantage because of barbs. Anyway we don't ask for points or whatelse : just to be clear about what each team did and how A won the ren event while they loose the first round against MDR team.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Jan 8, 2007 13:04:53 GMT -5
Now its more clearer If thats true ..A.. lost 2 cities and continued playing without Raising the rest of that players Cities at least then ..A.. where in the wrong and MDR clearly should have won the game on points
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 8, 2007 13:19:47 GMT -5
Dear Friends:
A dispute has arisen over the conduct of play in Event 7's round 1 match between MDR and ..A..
I have reviewed the comments above and the facts and wish to point out several things before Ruling as Head Admin.
1) Both teams are responsible for checking game settings before it begins. Of course there are one or two settings which only the host sees and these can't be validated by the other team.
2) Settings can also be checked during turn 1 (or later) of the game by pressing F8. this covers the eventuality Gogf mentioned of a last minute change by Host.
3) Some "mistakes" are minor and the game can proceed. For instance, the barb setting. This was fair to both sides. Both sides could also have mutually chosen to restart, or one side could have asked the TD for a ruling. If I were TD, I would probably make them continue with this kind of minor mistake, in the interest of not losing time, unless both sides agreed to a restart.
4) Some mistakes would be major. For example, in a RENN event setting the era to Classical. This can't be overlooked and as TD, I would rule the game must be restarted.
5) I want to remind people that MDR seemed to acquiesce to the settings mistakes and played on.
6) Any decision by a TD (DTA's decision to play on) can be appealed. Please consult the rules.
7) The biggest problem I have with this incident involves the two city elimination rule. This was never waived, and can't be. It's unfortunate the host forget to set it but its still the rule, and all players were bound by this rule. When Wanggon lost his 2nd city, he should have left the game voluntarily, if not, if I were the other team I would have stopped the game and demanded a TD decision. I'm sure the TD would have ruled the player dead once two cities were lost. Certainly, if it had been appealed to me, I would have ruled that way. The honorable thing to do is leave the game when you are defeated.
8) Unfortunately MDR did not appeal this ruling until it was a "fait accompli". Still, I consider the refusal of ..A..'s team to concede defeat or at least play on with wanggon removed after 2 cities were lost to be poor sportsmanship. I am therefore disqualifying their team from that event only (where they received 5 second place points) and moving the other teams up in the final standings accordingly.
We will add clear instructions next time about such settings mistakes in the rules.
I regret the confusion. I hope next time, any teams involved in a similar situation will show good sportsmanship and follow the rules.
Best, SirPartyMan
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Jan 8, 2007 13:44:32 GMT -5
Thank you for a fair and just decision for the entire ladder community.
|
|
|
Post by balmung on Jan 8, 2007 14:01:47 GMT -5
Clear words from a Thanks SPM for that quick response, well done
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jan 8, 2007 14:17:14 GMT -5
Sportmanship makes win ? So OS still have a chance in future ;D Sincerly, I am so agree with SPM that i cannot believe he said that
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 8, 2007 14:20:28 GMT -5
Hmm Im english dumbas or dumbass in general I dont see any decision expect to put some instructinos in the next CCC rules and ruling is on progressm, but mabye. I see only wot will be SPM doin if he was TD in those event no7.
|
|