|
 |
Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:30 pm |
 |
 Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs
Guest
|
| Post subject: kdfreaky non-trading |
 |
|
just finished a 5p, about 23:15 GMT.
Players:
MisterCrabbs
zico
kdfreaky
didux
one more, I forget.
I had bought last green, kdfreaky had the other two.
The fifth player had quit so 4 left. Battle for 1st if no trades happened was between me, zico and didux. kdfreaky in 4th.
I offered him various options to give me green, he wouldn't sell for anything but crippling prices. Said he was happy to lose as long as that stopped me winning. He had no other trade options apart from with me and I was offering very big money, or all 4 whites. Also offered 3000 plus last brown. He came back with only absurd trades. As late as -400 in recession, he was demanding 2500 and all 4 of my whites.
While each player has their own valuations, he admitted in the game logs that he was happy to finish last as long as that stopped me winning. Thus, definition of a non-trade cheat. Nothing personal but my game was ruined, and he admitted that ruining it was reward enough for him from the game. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:19 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Food for thought:
| Kreso wrote: | Consider the following situation in 3+ player game:
Player A owns 2 green and player B owns 1 green and 2 purple and last purple is free. Now the obvious strategy for player A is to try to acquire last purple so that he can trade with player B.
In 3+ player game it might be a bad strategy to try to stop other people from acquireing monopolies. But it might be a good strategy to try to have some properties for trade. You might be able to make other player help you if you have the last property of the monopoly he wants.
I still didn't take a look at that game, I'm just thinking for now.
Also, about trades: A player is required to accept a trade which is obviously fair (benefits both players involved in a trade). "Trade embargo" is cheating. "Beneficial" is defined as: increases the player's chances to score better.
The point of trades in GM (for 3+ player games) is for players who are trading to gain advantage on other players. The trade should be beneficial to both players. Maybe, if you are a good bargainer, you can sway it a little on your side, but probably not much.
If a player is offered two trades from two different players which are mutually exclusive, and both have the same benefit for the player, then he is free to choose his trading partner. That's why monopoly is a bit of social game: it's good if other players like you, then they might be more willing to trade with you. |
from http://www.galacticmag.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=984 |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:13 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
As this is the first non-trade issue where I feel there might be reason to act, I'd like to ask for a second moderator opinion.
It's pretty complicated. Crabbs did offer reasonable trades. Once into EC Kdfreaky started offering trades for too much.
But crabbs was being quite pushy in the chat about Kdfreaky not accepting offers. Which is all well and good, but your more likely to get someone on side if you don't have a go at them.
I can see both sides to this. Trading and giving green would of given crabbs a pretty good shot at first. So I think Kdfreaky was reluctant to do that. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:25 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| trace567 wrote: | | I can see both sides to this. Trading and giving green would of given crabbs a pretty good shot at first. So I think Kdfreaky was reluctant to do that. |
With the whites, which I was offering, and the browns which freaky would easily have been able to afford, he would also have had a pretty good shot at first. That was more than generous since he was very much in last place.
Note, I also offered him the greens in exchange for his 3 oranges and 2 browns. Generous, but he laughed at it.
| trace567 wrote: | | But crabbs was being quite pushy in the chat about Kdfreaky not accepting offers. Which is all well and good, but your more likely to get someone on side if you don't have a go at them. |
You may have got this impression not from anything I said but from accusations that were made by players in the game, who stood to profit from our not trading.
The other two players in the game were very keen for freaky to refuse my trades, even though that meant certain defeat for him. Both these players, but especially zico, were sabotaging trade efforts in the chat log. I think it is those sabotage efforts that framed me as pushy, rather than any actions I took.
I made many efforts at fair trades and all were refused by freaky, in spite of how beneficial they would have been to him. I would rather not be held to a higher standard than others in terms of in-game bartering technique. I was not rude, and certainly was less rude than other players in the game. I would prefer it were not wrongly said that I was pushy.
kdfreaky was pushy in trying to skin me of everything I had. Zico was pushy in encouraging kdfreaky not to trade. I was not pushy, except insofar as I explained that not trading when it would help him was cheating.
Last edited by MrCrabbs on Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:07 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
Magflag12
Moon
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 373
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
I know I don't have authority to make a decision, but I will make my opinion.
I looked at the chat logs and the trade offers and it seemed it was possible that this was a spite issue, but hardly provable.
The thing is, is that it seems crabbs has used the 'non-trading' cheat in the incorrect manner. In my opinion, if a player refuses to trade PURELY out of spite or bitterness it should be considered a cheat. However, KDfreaky MAY have had SOME resentment towards Crabby, I think that is unlikely to be proven and from the chat logs I read that was not likely. Moreover, it is in my opinion that a player who does not trade and has NO OTHER options but to trade that particular trade or lose should be held a cheat. However KD offered trades and so did crabbs and they both would have changed the game to one players advantage over anothers OR would have equalled things out.
I will admit that a majority of Crabbs trades compared to KDfreaky were more fair most of the time, but because both players were offering trades and it just seemed that they both were just being picky we can't call this a cheat trade.
Crabbs refused just as many offers as KDfreaky did, so I believe this to be a non-cheat.
However, I would advise players to not refuse a trade out of spite, because if it is proved that you were doing that you will be punished.
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:02 am |
|
| Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate the general difficulty with punishing non-trade cheating, and also the extra potential workload of it. But I do feel this one to be a simple case, easily proven.
| Magflag12 wrote: | | it is in my opinion that a player who does not trade and has NO OTHER options but to trade that particular trade or lose should be held a cheat. |
I believe this important condition was met. I have shown that to be true in my first post - what other options did he have? I held all the relevant chips. But he would only make a deal that put him above me, something I would not have accepted as I was already contending for 1st place, and he was in last with no other options.
| Magflag12 wrote: | | Crabbs refused just as many offers as KDfreaky did, so I believe this to be a non-cheat. |
This is an invalid argument. All his offers were suicide invitations. All of my offers gave him a sporting chance of second or even first place.
Maybe I'll comment on this in the morning. Certainly I feel he should have traded and that I would have been a fool to accept any of his offers, but tomorrow I may have a different perspective.
Like to thank Trace for looking into this in detail as she does for so many cheat trades, and also to maggers for looking into this one. Without their work we would be far worse off. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bill2k06
Ex Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 2675
Location: Manchester UK
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Trace ive also had a look at this , and im thinking , in this game it should be punishableby same grounds of accepting a bad trade, because by not trading , this player has not gained nothing , of importance only ruined another players game,
i think we should punish this by deduction of 25% of players points,
i dont have access to the admin page for some reason, ive been having problems with forum/game and admin pages for 3 days now.
if you find time trace, please punish as you see fit, my advice, is guide only and your decision is final on this one.
_________________
 |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:52 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
trace567
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| 25% points reduction made to Kdfreaky (2416 points). |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:16 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
MrCrabbs
Guest
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks very much. 25% or 2416 points is not too heavy and is I think fair. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:04 pm |
|
| Author |
Message |
Bill2k06
Ex Moderator
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 2675
Location: Manchester UK
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
it acts a a warning for future game ruining
_________________
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
