Jump to content


Photo

Draw Refusal Topic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
622 replies to this topic

#41 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:34 AM

Hi Gary,

 

My responses are in bold below.

Hey, I have a question.  Enigma, how long did all the back-and-forth playing last?  Were you at this stage of the game for 20 moves each?  30?  Far more?

 

At least 10-15 minutes (so we're talking hundreds of moves).

 

 I only ask because I wonder what the threshold is for the M.T. for it to be deemed flagrant stalling on the other guy's part.  

 

It was very clear that he had no intention of making any other moves.  He would have continued on indefinitely.  

 

I don't see how this game could be called a "clear win" for you since you couldn't go right in and take the fellow's flag.

 

The reason it's a win for me is because the opponent cannot defend his flag without simultaneously violating the rules.  In this case, he has violated rule #11 (continuous chasing), as described here: http://www.isfstrate...sfgamerules.pdf

 

But certainly a tie was the best the other fellow had to hope for, at least legitimately.  

 

This is key, because clearly it would be impossible for him to have a win.  So the fact that he refused to take even a draw speaks volumes.  He is clearly in violation of the rules, whether he understands them or not.

 

I mean, I could see a guy hoping for a bit of luck and a quick screw up by you in the first so many moves at that time, but there has to come a point where it is ridiculous, and the opponent has nothing to hope for that is admirable and worthy. 

 

How long were you at it in the draw phase then?  

 

A long time, at least 10-15 minutes

 

I know it's salt on an open wound, but if we had the AutoDraw in place then it would have ended this game in a draw at X number of moves, and you would not have taken the "escape" loss.  On top of that, perhaps the fellow would've accepted your tie request sooner, knowing that the tie hammer was coming down anyway.  We clearly need the AutoDraw to enforce civility and good sportsmanship here.

 

 

Gary



#42 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:37 AM

Hello Enigma,

 

I've never seen this bug but based on the screenshots you provided can you now tell us if the piece which was hit by your major was still on the board just prior you surrendered and if yes which one it is?

 

Napoleon 1er

 

The piece was not on the board at the end of the game.  I later discovered it was a bomb and captured it with my miner.



#43 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,463 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:28 AM

Dear Moderators,

 

Please review the following game and take appropriate action.  This is clearly a win for me as the opponent is engaging in a continuous chase, but unfortunately he would neither forfeit, nor accept a draw.  Thank you for your assistance.    

 

http://imageshack.co...6/8649/emuu.jpg

http://imageshack.co...4/6803/njb5.jpg

http://imageshack.co...1/3229/fyzt.jpg

http://imageshack.co...9/9391/jqv4.jpg

http://imageshack.co...9/5409/uyn3.jpg

http://imageshack.co...8/2047/20j9.jpg

http://imageshack.co...9/2900/7qlr.jpg

http://imageshack.co...19/812/4dis.jpg

http://imageshack.co...1/9691/03t6.jpg

 

The MT has found ABSH in violation of our rules regarding draw refusal.  He will be assessed a 50 point rating deduction and given a letter of warning / explanation.  Enigma will receive 13 points, which is the difference between a draw and a loss.

 

Enigma, though your opponent was in violation of ISF continuous chase rules, the Moderating Team does not have a mandate to judge such cases, and so we could not award you points for a victory.  I think it would be a good discussion to have as a community whether we should begin enforcing this rule, as there seems to be some difference of opinion regarding it.  I'll start a new topic and poll for this issue, so please let's keep this thread related to draw refusal cases only.



#44 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:17 AM

The MT has found ABSH in violation of our rules regarding draw refusal.  He will be assessed a 50 point rating deduction and given a letter of warning / explanation.  Enigma will receive 13 points, which is the difference between a draw and a loss.

 

Enigma, though your opponent was in violation of ISF continuous chase rules, the Moderating Team does not have a mandate to judge such cases, and so we could not award you points for a victory.  I think it would be a good discussion to have as a community whether we should begin enforcing this rule, as there seems to be some difference of opinion regarding it.  I'll start a new topic and poll for this issue, so please let's keep this thread related to draw refusal cases only.

 

The Prof, I will look for this other thread.  But for a brief word, we cannot enforce rules that are of the ISF when they are not our rules.  ABSH didn't violate any rule to do with the double chasing, per se, because we have no such rule.**  It is rather that his double chasing passed the pointless stage and he violated our policy here of refusing a reasonable draw.  We might all agree that double chasing is bad in the particular case at hand--I would even agree--but that does not mean I would agree in all cases.  It is in this particular case where the double chasing needlessly extended the game that I find fault.  In the middle of a game I might not be of the same opinion.  So I would not be for any fix that mechanically stopped the double chasing at all times and without regard to circumstance.  Besides, as I said to you elsewhere is that if we stopped the double chasing, the next thing would be triple chasing....

 

I think for a superior fix we just have to look at the AutoDraw.  If implemented here it would kill any endless chasings or non-attacking movements.  If Enigma is correct  and he played 100's of moves before giving up, then the AutoDraw would have been a huge blessing to him.  And, it would also be a huge blessing to the M.T. as you would NEVER have to adjudicate on a draw refusal case again.  

 

**(Tangentially here, I would side with Trickz that not even the ISF has a rule against double chasing as the plain reading of their English "continuous chasing" cannot yield that interpretation, contrary to what Sohal says, though this is of course the way it is enforced there.)   

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#45 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:06 AM

**(Tangentially here, I would side with Trickz that not even the ISF has a rule against double chasing as the plain reading of their English "continuous chasing" cannot yield that interpretation, contrary to what Sohal says, though this is of course the way it is enforced there.)   

 

Gary

 

Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous?  They define chasing.  They note that chasing applies to 'one or more pieces.'  And continuous simply means without stopping.  So, if my opponent is chasing any of my pieces on every move, then he is engaging in continuous chasing and is breaking the rule.  I'm not understanding how this could be interpreted any other way.  


  • Designated Baby, Sohal and maxroelofs like this

#46 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 27 February 2014 - 03:38 AM

The MT has found ABSH in violation of our rules regarding draw refusal.  He will be assessed a 50 point rating deduction and given a letter of warning / explanation.  Enigma will receive 13 points, which is the difference between a draw and a loss.

 

Enigma, though your opponent was in violation of ISF continuous chase rules, the Moderating Team does not have a mandate to judge such cases, and so we could not award you points for a victory.  I think it would be a good discussion to have as a community whether we should begin enforcing this rule, as there seems to be some difference of opinion regarding it.  I'll start a new topic and poll for this issue, so please let's keep this thread related to draw refusal cases only.

 

Thank you and the Moderator Team for your assistance.  



#47 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:16 AM

Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous?  They define chasing.  They note that chasing applies to 'one or more pieces.'  And continuous simply means without stopping.  So, if my opponent is chasing any of my pieces on every move, then he is engaging in continuous chasing and is breaking the rule.  I'm not understanding how this could be interpreted any other way.  

 

First of all, to be precise, the ISF does NOT define chasing in Section 11.  In 11.3 they define "continuous chase" and "chasing move".  This is a tad semantical, perhaps, but let's be legal here.  (See 11.3 right below.)  They define that a continuous chase  (NOT CHASING OR A CHASING MOVE) involves this threatening "one or more pieces".  Nowhere does it state that a continuous chase involves two pieces of the attacker.  It merely asserts "one or more pieces" of the defender cannot be threatened incessantly.  Any other reading of these words is putting words into the mouth of the rule that it doesn't say.

 

Further, the "chasing move" definition below likewise does not stipulate that more than one piece of the attacker is covered by its words.  "a move in a continuous chase that threatens an opponent's piece" says nothing about two attacking pieces.

 

11.3 says,

to wit:

Definitions: 
continuous chase: the same player is non-stop 
threatening one or more pieces of his 
opponent that is/are evading the threatening 
moves. 
chasing move: a move in a continuous chase 
that threatens an opponent‟s piece that was 
evading during the continuous chase. 
 
Hereby: 
a/to move: a/to move plus attacking or a/to 
move to an empty square. 
to threaten: to move a piece next (before, 
behind or besides) a piece of the opponent. 
to evade: to move a piece away in the direct 
following move after it has been threatened. 

(Note the "a/to move" part above that The Prof pointed out tonight as being confusing.)

 

Since the definitions in 11.3 do not address what the ISF enforces in the issue of the double chase, the next part of the problem is only another mountain to climb for the ISF.  That is, the definition of the word "continuous".  If you claim that it means "without stopping" then you have a problem as the "double chase" is in reality two separate and alternating single chases, each breaking the word "continuous" in half.  The entry for this word at www.dictionary.com is:

con·tin·u·ous

  [kuhthinsp.pngthinsp.pngn-tin-yoo-uhthinsp.pngthinsp.pngs]  Show IPA

adjective
1.

uninterrupted in time; without cessation: continuous coughing during the concert.

 

The strongest meaning, the first one given in the entry, states "uninterrupted in time".  Moving from one piece to the next to attack in a "double chase" is interrupting the attacking on every turn.  And by the way, if the infamous 2 square rule can be interrupted by an attacker switching between his attacking pieces, then why can't this thing you point to called "continuous chasing"?

 

Moreover, if all this wasn't enough difficulty for the ISF interpretation, there is the little issue of defining who is the attacker and who is the defender.  There is no definition of these terms in 11.3.  For this reason alone, the double chase enforcement by the ISF is wrong.  Now you may say "Balderdash" with this point, but hold on.  In your game with ABSH he had the bigger pieces while you had the weaker ones.  He was unable to move very far but was forced to move in his turn due to zugzwang, and he couldn't afford to dispatch one of his superior pieces to go even two spaces away on an offensive.  You, on the other hand, were trying to get his flag with every move.  You, ironically, had merely a pair of scouts to attack with but you had him against the ropes.  So I ask, who was really attacking who in this situation?  I submit you were the wife beating the husband here.  He was defending his flag in the only way possible for him and you were trying to get to it.  Since he couldn't get you and you couldn't get him, you rightfully recognized the game should've ended in a draw and offered the tie.  I'm sorry he didn't accept your tie request; he was wrong.  But to say that is not to say I think you should've been given a win because of an erroneous interpretation of a cloudy ISF rule.  

 

Now, with all the definition issues stated above, the other two sections, 11.1 and 11.2 are rather moot at this point.  But here they are:

 

11.1 says,

to wit:

It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly.  The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.

 

 

11.2 says:

Exception: chasing moves back to the square 
where the chasing piece came from in the 
directly preceding turn are always allowed as 
long as this does not violate the Two-Squares 
Rule (Three-Moves-on-Two-Squares).

 

Enigma, I hope I have responded fairly and civilly to your question, "Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous?" I've thoroughly admired your many educational points in the forums since I have been here, and I think you're one of the great players on the site.  You could obviously teach me 25 ways to Sunday how to play this game, so I've tried to give you the best reasoning I can come up with on this issue.  I'm sure it hasn't changed your mind and that we'll just have to agree to disagree on it, but I'm okay with that.  Thank you for reading.  It was a small book.
Gary

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#48 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,463 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:47 AM

Gary, I complement you on your argument, which read like that of a skilled defense attorney.  I think you presented this side of the case as strong as can be done.  However, what you are essentially arguing is that the ISF doesn’t correctly understand its own rule, and that section Section 11 is incorrectly interpreted and applied at ISF sponsored tournaments.   But when the rule was written its authors must have intended it to mean something, and it doesn’t make sense to say that those who wrote the rule think that it means something different than they themselves originally intended it to mean.

 

So no matter how poorly written the rule is, there is no doubt as to its official interpretation and application by the ISF, which can be verified by anyone who has competed in a national or international ISF event.  Now, in order to make some progress on this issue, I hope we can stop debating the language used to describe the rule and rather try to reach a consensus (in the other thread) on whether we agree with or don't agree with the ISF interpretation of the rule, and that we will either adopt the ISF interpretation or adopt a different interpretation that would govern online games at Stratego.com.  In either case, I would be happy to help write an official version of the rules for this site that would spell things out precisely using much clearer language.      


  • Sohal likes this

#49 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:58 PM

Okay, moving to Official Rules thread.  Found here: http://forum.strateg...les/#entry12457


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#50 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:43 PM

Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous?  They define chasing.  They note that chasing applies to 'one or more pieces.'  And continuous simply means without stopping.  So, if my opponent is chasing any of my pieces on every move, then he is engaging in continuous chasing and is breaking the rule.  I'm not understanding how this could be interpreted any other way.  

 

You're way wrong here Enigma.

1. They don't define chasing at all.  For them chasing one piece continuously is the same as chasing more pieces continuously which is of course bs

2. According to you continuous simply means without stopping......let's apply that then : 

I can't continuously chase more pieces at the same time because after each attack the chain is broken, the fullbind is gone so this means there is a stop cuz' if not, the chain is not broken, logical.

So this means that the continuous part CHANGES its definition in a double chase while it's still the same meaning in one chase.

In one chase, the chain is never broken cuz' you keep on chasing so I understand this is completely illegal and that's why you can't do it here or with the ISF.

However,....the deffinition of the word clearly says : UNINTERRUPTED IN TIME.

Look at the double chase : there is an interruption after each attack so if you then say that "continuously SIMPLY means without stopping', then you're really contradicting the true meaning of the word.

The word should have the same meaning with EVERY board situation and that's clearly not the case.

 

 

Their rule in section 11.3 should say : 

 

"You can't continuously chase one piece but with a double, triple or quadruple chase, you can defend your ground and switch your attack after each turn since the chain is broken and the term continuous doesn't exist anymore.

However, if there is no progress after an x-amount of same steps, there will be an autodraw in place".

 

So if you're behind and it's your only option to secure a draw by blocking the paths off, then it's perfectly legal.

The guy who's in front just has to avoid the 2s- block situations on the board where his opponent tries to prevent any progress of the leading guy.  If he can't benefit, then it's an autodraw after an x-amount of moves.

 

 

Plus like this, it also protects the classic endgame situation where two miners and a bombed flag can win against two sergeants with a bombflag (which is absolutely a disgrace, miners more powerfull? wtf, my sergeants are more powerfull :s).

At least he can get a draw like this which is a fair result.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#51 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:16 AM

Hi Gary - see my comments below.

 

In your game with ABSH he had the bigger pieces while you had the weaker ones.  

 

I'd disagree.  In the situation at the end of the game, my pieces were much stronger.  Not of higher rank, but STRONGER.  For example, two scouts against an open flag with no adjacent bombs is deadly.  Furthermore, my flag was surrounded by bombs and my opponent had no miner, which means he could never capture my flag.  He was very weak in this situation, and it shows in the screenshots.  

 

He was unable to move very far but was forced to move in his turn due to zugzwang, and he couldn't afford to dispatch one of his superior pieces to go even two spaces away on an offensive.  

 

He was cornered by a massive assault on his flag and had nowhere to go, plain and simple.  His only move was to continuously chase my pieces.  

 

You, ironically, had merely a pair of scouts to attack with but you had him against the ropes.

 

Not only did I have scouts, but I had 2 captains, a lieutenant, a sergeant, a miner, and a spy.    

 

 So I ask, who was really attacking who in this situation?  I submit you were the wife beating the husband here.

 

Picture 8 angry teenagers up against 2 middle-aged, slightly overweight men.  The men might hang in there for a few minutes, but ultimately they are going to suffer an epic beatdown.  

 

 



#52 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:43 AM

Hi Gary - see my comments below.

 

 

Picture 8 angry teenagers up against 2 middle-aged, slightly overweight men.  The men might hang in there for a few minutes, but ultimately they are going to suffer an epic beatdown.

 

Well, thanks for that.  You've got me lol-ing.  I guess I'm the older Homer Simpson type man you speak of, so hey I'm helping my own!

 

In your game with ABSH he had the bigger pieces while you had the weaker ones.  

 

 

I'd disagree.  In the situation at the end of the game, my pieces were much stronger.  Not of higher rank, but STRONGER.  For example, two scouts against an open flag with no adjacent bombs is deadly.  Furthermore, my flag was surrounded by bombs and my opponent had no miner, which means he could never capture my flag.  He was very weak in this situation, and it shows in the screenshots.  

 

Well, of course my point was that you were threatening him more than he was threatening you.  I described the situation as a wife beating her husband.  But if you want it the other way, then you were the husband beating up on your wife.  Doesn't matter, though, because in any case neither of you could get the other's flag.  

 

I want to re-ask you something, Enigma, that I asked earlier but it got overlooked, I think.  It is this:  If the 2 square rule can be interrupted by the alternating of "attacking" pieces, then why can't this "continuous chasing" be so interrupted?

 

Thanks again for the laugh,

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#53 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:49 AM

Their rule in section 11.3 should say : 

 

"You can't continuously chase one piece but with a double, triple or quadruple chase, you can defend your ground and switch your attack after each turn since the chain is broken and the term continuous doesn't exist anymore.

However, if there is no progress after an x-amount of same steps, there will be an autodraw in place".

 

At least he can get a draw like this which is a fair result.

 

trickz, we are on the same page with the autodraw.  It is absolutely fair because it enforces things equally.  It is absolutely what we need to try here because we can always simply adjust the X in the number of moves until we tweak it to the best number.

 

That HmmNess agreed to the 200 move number before he left makes it a logical starting point to me.

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#54 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:57 PM

Enigma,

 

My personal comment to your game is that even though everything seems clear that the opponent's flag is in the corner left you cannot have a 100% certitude of it unless you would have verified with your last miner that all other 4 unmoved pieces are effectively 4 bombs. So you should have first verified this before asking for the tie. Possibly you could have had a victory? Imagine also that a player left with only 2 stronger pieces and no miner against you with higher number of pieces and in particular 2 scouts can only seek a draw and he can hope to obtain such draw only by chasing around his piece in corner left as he did EVEN IF THIS PIECE IS NOT THE FLAG! because if the flag would be one of the other unmoved piece and he would chase around there he definitely has no chance to defend his flag with only 2 pieces against your 6-7 pièces, so even if the flag is not in the corner he must bluff as if it was there.

So it was really a bad decision from him to not accept your tie proposal, he had no other better outcome possible.

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#55 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 01 March 2014 - 01:45 AM

Enigma,

 

My personal comment to your game is that even though everything seems clear that the opponent's flag is in the corner left you cannot have a 100% certitude of it unless you would have verified with your last miner that all other 4 unmoved pieces are effectively 4 bombs. So you should have first verified this before asking for the tie. Possibly you could have had a victory? Imagine also that a player left with only 2 stronger pieces and no miner against you with higher number of pieces and in particular 2 scouts can only seek a draw and he can hope to obtain such draw only by chasing around his piece in corner left as he did EVEN IF THIS PIECE IS NOT THE FLAG! because if the flag would be one of the other unmoved piece and he would chase around there he definitely has no chance to defend his flag with only 2 pieces against your 6-7 pièces, so even if the flag is not in the corner he must bluff as if it was there.

So it was really a bad decision from him to not accept your tie proposal, he had no other better outcome possible.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

The bombs were all identified by other pieces earlier in the game.  I did not remove them at the end because I did not want my opponent to know the identity of any of my remaining pieces.



#56 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 March 2014 - 11:40 AM

Everything is clear thanks, so you've lost 4 pieces on 4 bombs + your major on another bomb waouuuuw. Probably you could have allowed yourself to lotto these bombs because you had material advantage ... I'm not so far experienced and still have to learn when you can do this ... I would have lottoed these unmoved pieces with a miner

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#57 MarkLZCran

MarkLZCran

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:03 PM

Here's the solution for these players refusing a draw: if player 1 requests a draw 3 times  and all 3 are refused, then the player refusing the draw has 10 minutes to win the game.  If, after 10 minutes, the player refusing the draw hasn't won, then that player automatically loses.  That will put an end to these players who figure that they will wear you out in an endless waste of time where nobody can win.  They know that if they don't accept the draw that they can only waste 10 mins of your time and then they'll lose.



#58 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Dutch Tournament Manager
  • 1,038 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 March 2014 - 07:14 PM

That's not a very effective rule, because when I'm playing a low player and he sends me three requests at the start of the game, then i will have to win within 10 minutes. 


  • Original_Eagle likes this
To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#59 Vandwros.I

Vandwros.I

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:10 PM

I want to reply for something else! Please fix my nationality icon, i'm not from America! I'm from Greece! 

Thank you,

Sincerely, Vandwros.I



#60 pantelis114

pantelis114

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 03 March 2014 - 11:39 PM

ZEKILLER refused to tie and insulted me and my family with profanity.

 

As you will see he had a 2 and i had a 5 left with no other pieces.  I was trying to get to his flag but could not.  3 times i offered a tie and he just insulted me.  sorry for going overboard with screen shots.  I request that my lost points be restored and that zekiller be banned if he does not apologize.  If he does apologize publicly then he should be relegated in points.

 

 

http://imageshack.co...7/9208/wp9r.png
http://imageshack.co...19/516/owo8.png
http://imageshack.co...3/9797/52tr.png
http://imageshack.co...4/8638/dcav.png
http://imageshack.co...2/3262/kwui.png
http://imageshack.co...2/2579/63ao.png
http://imageshack.co...1/9373/3m89.png
http://imageshack.co...62/928/kkgp.png
http://imageshack.co...9/5987/yd9j.png
http://imageshack.co...4/8214/fyfd.png
http://imageshack.co...22/268/wz7r.png
http://imageshack.co...1/6107/iplp.png


Have a Blessed Day!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users