Jump to content


Photo

Questions and Discussions Thread for MT Reports (2020)


  • Please log in to reply
348 replies to this topic

#21 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 04 January 2020 - 11:06 AM

He may just be a bit more respectful and/or restrained than that.

 

(Very manipulative language, methinks–also fundamentally unconvincing.)

 

Or, until a former MT who seems to have an axe to grind with the current MT started raising questions that have already been answered. nonobadork had waited already past one week's time–too long I think if someone truly felt wronged...that is not about restraint or respect, but about reconciling what had been delivered to the recipient. His other involvement with MT posts concerning his affairs have usually been answered almost immediately.



#22 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,103 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 04 January 2020 - 11:50 AM

What I don't like so much though is this ruling against nonobadork. I don't like to be the one to moan about MT but this one seems quite a bad decision, especially as the complainant is not only turned down but is then inferred to be some sort of cheat.

 

Also a case like this reminds me of times when I was outvoted 1-3 in similar circumstances with MT cases. Very exasperating when the evidence is so clear.

 

The opponent has 10 minutes to do something with the miner. They do nothing but shuffle pieces around for the whole of that time. So 10 minutes no progress = guilty.

 

But somehow it is not guilty because 'the miner was behind the defeat screen' and so was 'obviously' going to take the flag. Well if it was so obvious and straightforward why had the miner not taken the flag already ? 

 

And then nonobadork is implied to be dishonest because  the defeat screen is obscuring the miner ! The defeat screen covers 60% of the board ! What is nonobadork meant to do here ? They have already given the opponent 10 minutes and the player did nothing but shuffle around. Should nonobadork wait another 3 or 4 minutes for his opponent to move the miner to an unobscured lane ?

 

 

That quote is 100% correct. The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case. The miner had 10 minutes. Time is up.

 

The most annoying case I had in MT was a player that reported a draw refusal when he had a colonel, not much else, a 'tripod', but a deceptive open flag. The opponent had a colonel, no miners, but about 6 pieces to lotto with. From the board position it was clear the accused player had a clear path to start lottoing and only needed 10 moves to do so. After 200 moves they had lottod nothing.  But in the defeat screen the draw refuser had a piece moving towards the flag, so my colleagues insisted this proved the player was 'progressing' towards the win. My argument was that 200 moves is more than enough time to lotto so it was unreasonable for them to be given anymore. That a piece was near the flag was irrelevant as they had already been next to the flag and then moved away. It didn't matter that the flag was open. It wouldn't have mattered if the flag had been on the front row because if you don't lotto you can't hit it .

 

I have encountered many players like the opponent in this game. They get into an unexpected good position against a much higher opponent where they can try for the flag, but they get scared to take the initiative and guess wrong*. When you start offering draws they will make comments such as 'but you are not doing anything!', because they would prefer to have you lotto into their bombs and take the responsibility of trying to win away from them.

 

*that the opponent 'knew' the correct flag placement I don't think is right to assume in any case. I played someone who was on 1000 elo that had the flag in the right side position.

I agree with Toby, we have 1st screenshot at 3:28, 2nd screenshot at 3:38 and defeat screen at 3:40. No pieces have been captured during these 12 minutes. Rule says clearly that a plaintiff can surrender after 10 minutes of no game evolution. This is what Nonobardok did, so why shall he be punished for having respected the rules? Even if the miner is behind the defeat screen and is walking towards the left corner there has been more than 10 minutes without game evolution  => de facto verdict shall be guilty, there is no escape or exceptions to be made to this rule.

WHat happened is that the opponent was waiting a mistake of Nonobardok to start moving his miner. This mistake was to let his captain getting cornered. But obviously in the absence of this mistake the opponent would not have moved his miner and the draw would have been more than obvious. It has never been recognized that who is waiting for a mistake of his opponent to make the game evolving is in the right. Verdict in this case shall be guilty, I agree with the old MT.

 

In the past it was even discussed within MT to reduce this 10 minutes rule for cases like this , might be worth finalizing this rule ...


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

#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,038 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 04 January 2020 - 12:42 PM

KMC, while I would agree with you that there is a certain point where response from someone is beyond normal, for this site many may not be here daily, so I don't think a week seems too long at all.

Contrary to what you say, questions about the nonobadork case were not answered. At least not until I began asking them. The surprising ignoring of the ten minute gold standard by the MT in this case needs to have a more solid foundation, I feel, than it did. The mere unprovable possibility that the flag may be under attack seems flimsy to me. This type of logic might be used to justify requiring more than 7 minutes of evidence, for example, but once 10 minutes is hit...barring buffer use by the victim...it should be a done deal most of the time. In my opinion there should definitely be VERY solid evidence to overturn this mainstay of the online rules, not just a mere possibility. Certainly if such an exception exists to the gold standard it should be in the rules.

Edited by GaryLShelton, 04 January 2020 - 12:58 PM.

  • Napoleon 1er likes this
Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#24 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,743 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:12 PM

.
Yes, will questions directly related to a case decision be permitted in the reporting thread, or will all such questions be put to this topic only?

Yes, we much prefer to have the report threads clean of anything that isn't a report or MT message.

 

 Rule says clearly that a plaintiff can surrender after 10 minutes of no game evolution. T

Moving towards a flag is progress. If the plaintiff had better screenshots, e.g. showing that the miner had been down there for 5 minutes already, he would have given solid evidence that the accused was not going to do anything. 

 

The accused is innocent until proven guilty, which we considered to be the case based on the evidence provided.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates
See this thread my blog post

#25 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,103 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:15 PM

 e.g. showing that the miner had been down there for 5 minutes already, he would have given solid evidence that the accused was not going to do anything. 

 

 

there are 10 minutes between the 2 screenshots ...


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

#26 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,743 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:21 PM

there are 10 minutes between the 2 screenshots ...

 

"Two screenshots of your opponent rejecting two tie requests 10 minutes apart. These screenshots should ideally show all pieces on the board and no progress in the game during that time."

 

"give us ten minutes of no-progress proof and a defeat screen."

 

The miner advancing forward, as explained in the previous post, we did consider progress. It is up to the plaintiff to show there wasn't.


  • KissMyCookie and Eagle06 like this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates
See this thread my blog post

#27 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,103 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 04 January 2020 - 03:28 PM

"Two screenshots of your opponent rejecting two tie requests 10 minutes apart. These screenshots should ideally show all pieces on the board and no progress in the game during that time."

 

"give us ten minutes of no-progress proof and a defeat screen."

 

The miner advancing forward, as explained in the previous post, we did consider progress. It is up to the plaintiff to show there wasn't.

... frankly sir, do you believe that the mistake of nono after 10 minutes is worth a victory for the opponent? ...


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

#28 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:14 PM

Regarding the case against nonobadork:

 

For me, this case was not even close to guilty. I'll try to explain why, clearly, now.

 

 

Observe the first screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/RqdiE4D

 

In this screenshot, we can deduct the following:

Nonobadork has two pieces that are both moved and revealed, and they are not trapped in any way. They are free to move wherever they are able to. Commandeur has one piece that is moved and revealed - a colonel - and his second piece, the miner, is likely unmoved and unrevealed. The time is 3:28.

Observe the second screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/djSQV1K

 

In this screenshot, we can deduct the following:

A lot of progress has been made. Commandeur has trapped one of nonobadork's pieces, the captain, and is now preventing it from moving. This leaves nonobadork with only one movable piece. Furthermore, Commandeur's last miner is now revealed and moved and is somewhere in the 12 center squares of the board. This means that the miner is progressing towards the plaintiff's side of the board and there is a high potential that the flag may be captured. And, out of the 12 squares not viewable by the 2nd draw refusal screen, there are only 2 squares (16%) in which the flag could not be captured if the miner was there. In the other 10 squares, it is impossible for nonobadork's colonel to stop the miner.

 

And what further convinced my ruling for not guilty was the fact that it is entirely logical to assume that it would take a silver player 10 minutes to 1) trap one of nonobadork's peices and 2) advance the miner to a potentially winning position in opponent's territory.

 

When ruling in draw refusal cases, MT looks at not only if pieces were taken but also the advancement and places of pieces. This is very clear in the rules. If MT feels that a piece had been advanced to an important place during the 10 minute timeframe, like a miner travelling to the flag, then it is perfectly within MT's jurisdiction to rule not guilty. And, in this case, not only was a piece (miner) advanced to a very important area, but the defendant also managed to trap one of the plaintiff's pieces, severely limiting his mobility, during the 10 minute time frame.

 

For me, and everybody else in MT, when looking at the facts, there's simply no possible way someone could arrive at the conclusion "guilty". While it is possible that nonobadork had no malicious intent in bringing his case to the MT, that is a bit hard to believe when he offers the second draw and surrenders just as the miner is approaching his flag and is on one of the  12 spaces on the board covered by the second refusal screen (that's 12 % of the board - no idea where Toby gets 60% from).


  • KissMyCookie likes this

I'm gonna be the 2020 NASF Champion  :) 


#29 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,103 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 04 January 2020 - 06:58 PM

Thank you Fairway for your kind and detailed explanations which are appreciated. But do you agree with the following 2 statements:

 

- If Nonobardok would not have let his captain get cornered his opponent would most likely not have been able to move his miner towards the flag.

 

- Nonobardok made his mistake after more than 10 minutes after the first screenshot has been taken. Should he have done this mistake earlier then nobdy would  argue with your verdict, should he have done the mistake later nobody would argue that the 10 minutes were not elapsed and claim not guilty, but because the mistake happened just a little bit more than 10 minutes after the 1st screenshot then  the case is somewhat borderline. You decided to not consider that the 10 minutes were elapsed and give favourable verdict for the opponent even though the opponent was waiting for a mistake of Nonobardok to start making evolution to the game, which is not a fair attitude.

 

Anyway MT has final word on this issue and whatever your decision is it is the final one. Would be good if MT clarifies the validity of the 10 minutes for future cases and confirm if there is an intention to reduce this time in future rules.


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

#30 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,743 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 07:04 PM

Thank you Fairway for your kind and detailed explanations which are appreciated. But do you agree with the following 2 statements:

 

- If Nonobardok would not have let his captain get cornered his opponent would most likely not have been able to move his miner towards the flag.

No idea. Doesn't matter either.

 

- Nonobardok made his mistake after more than 10 minutes after the first screenshot has been taken. Should he have done this mistake earlier then nobdy would  argue with your verdict, should he have done the mistake later nobody would argue that the 10 minutes were not elapsed and claim not guilty, but because the mistake happened just a little bit more than 10 minutes after the 1st screenshot then  the case is somewhat borderline. You decided to not consider that the 10 minutes were elapsed and give favourable verdict for the opponent even though the opponent was waiting for a mistake of Nonobardok to start making evolution to the game, which is not a fair attitude.

We also took in the possibility that the plaintiff defended by chasing, either way, the plaintiff did not convince us of guilt.

 

Anyway MT has final word on this issue and whatever your decision is it is the final one. Would be good if MT clarifies the validity of the 10 minutes for future cases and confirm if there is an intention to reduce this time in future rules.

I'd say it is safe to say that the 10min still applies, but that has to be without progress.

10 min for no progress

5 min for clear draw


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates
See this thread my blog post

#31 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 04 January 2020 - 07:09 PM

The opponent has 10 minutes to do something with the miner. They do nothing but shuffle pieces around for the whole of that time. So 10 minutes no progress = guilty.

Not only is capturing pieces viewed as progress, but advancing important pieces to important areas and locations with the imminent intent to make progress is also viewed as progress. Please read the rules on draw refusal which stipulate this. Just because no pieces were captured in 10 pieces does not automatically assume a guilty verdict. You have to look at the big picture, not just glance at the graveyards and shout "Guilty!"

 

 

And then nonobadork is implied to be dishonest because  the defeat screen is obscuring the miner ! The defeat screen covers 60% of the board ! What is nonobadork meant to do here ? They have already given the opponent 10 minutes and the player did nothing but shuffle around. Should nonobadork wait another 3 or 4 minutes for his opponent to move the miner to an unobscured lane ?

ok, now I understand where you got 60% from. You were looking at the defeat screen. But, since that's the case, you're looking at the wrong screenshot. Take a look at the second one. The miner is covered by the second draw refusal screen, which is decidedly smaller than the defeat screen and covers only 12%, nowhere close to "60%" of the board.

 

You state that "the player did nothing but shuffle around". Obviously, that is false. Look at the first screenshot and observe how both of nonobadork's pieces are free to move. And how commandeur's miner hasn't yet moved.

Then look at the second screenshot. Observe how one of nonobadork's pieces is now trapped. And how the miner has now moved and, evidently, is now in the opponent's territory. That's not shuffling around, that's playing with intent and a mind to progress.

 

 

 

 

But somehow it is not guilty because 'the miner was behind the defeat screen' and so was 'obviously' going to take the flag. Well if it was so obvious and straightforward why had the miner not taken the flag already ? 

 

Well, I nor another MT member never said what you have in quotes, so perhaps you are attempting to paraphrase. In that case, please recognize that your paraphrase should read "the miner was behind the draw refusal screen" rather than "defeat screen" because there is a pretty huge difference.

"Why had the miner not taken the flag already" -> Again, there were several things that commandeur had to do to be able to advance the miner and capture the flag. Nonobadork had two moving pieces and commandeur needed to make that just one, in order to take advantage of the more-squares rule and advance past the colonel into the opponent's setup. Commandeur did these things. It wasn't like it was just a straight shot to the flag and all commandeur had to do was click the "up" button until he got there. His work was cut out for him, especially against a platinum player, but he did all the things that he had to in order to progress the game and make the capture of the flag possible.

 

 

That quote is 100% correct. The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case. The miner had 10 minutes. Time is up.

This one is really confusing. "The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case". Sorry, but this is coming from a former MT member? What??

 

The position of the miner isn't relevant? The position of the miner is everything! Toby, since you've been on MT I'm surprised I have to say this, but you can't just look at the clock and the graveyard and arrive to a conclusion on every single case. Some cases are more involved than that! This case is one of them. The position of the miner is everything in this case. In 10 minutes, commandeur was able to trap a piece of nonobadork's and, as a result, was able to advance his miner into the opponent's territory. And you tell me that it doesn't matter that the miner is in the opponent's territory? Of course it does! Progress isn't just looking at the graveyards; progress is also the positioning of the pieces and advancement of the pieces. I will again refer you to the draw refusal rules on that one.

 

 

The most annoying case I had in MT was a player that reported a draw refusal when he had a colonel, not much else, a 'tripod', but a deceptive open flag. The opponent had a colonel, no miners, but about 6 pieces to lotto with. From the board position it was clear the accused player had a clear path to start lottoing and only needed 10 moves to do so. After 200 moves they had lottod nothing.  But in the defeat screen the draw refuser had a piece moving towards the flag, so my colleagues insisted this proved the player was 'progressing' towards the win. My argument was that 200 moves is more than enough time to lotto so it was unreasonable for them to be given anymore. That a piece was near the flag was irrelevant as they had already been next to the flag and then moved away. It didn't matter that the flag was open. It wouldn't have mattered if the flag had been on the front row because if you don't lotto you can't hit it .

 

 

This is a nice example... but it's not really related all that much to this case. In your example, the opponent has a clearly huge matieral advantage and has a straight shot to the flag, whenever he wants to. This is not commandeur's case. Commandeur has to make progress before he can get to the flag like trapping nonobadork's piece. He did this in the 10 minutes window. This is progress. And now he can get to the flag - but now nonobadork won't let him, because he quickly surrenders before he can and tries to claim the points.

 

 

 

I have encountered many players like the opponent in this game. They get into an unexpected good position against a much higher opponent where they can try for the flag, but they get scared to take the initiative and guess wrong*. When you start offering draws they will make comments such as 'but you are not doing anything!', because they would prefer to have you lotto into their bombs and take the responsibility of trying to win away from them.

 

*that the opponent 'knew' the correct flag placement I don't think is right to assume in any case. I played someone who was on 1000 elo that had the flag in the right side position.

That's wonderful that you've encountered players like that... but who's to say that commandeur plays the same way? Nothing nonobadork brings to us shows or proves that. 

 

About the flag placement - that's precisely my point - 99.9999999999% of silver players would head to the corner and not to the side, because they're silver players... not 1000 ELO players.

 

Either way, there was loads of progress made in the 10 minutes that made it impossible to rule guilty. This includes:

1) Commandeur trapped one of nonobadork's pieces

2) Nonobadork's mobility was severely limited by this

3) Commandeur, after trapping the piece, was able to move his miner into play

4) Commandeur moved his miner down the lane and took advantage of the more squares rule against nonobadork

5) Commandeur has the potential to win the game and capture the flag, as a result of securing the advantage in the more squares rule, and appears to be taking advantage of that presently. There is a very high probability that commandeur is advancing to the flag with the intent to take it as nonobadork surrenders.

 


  • Verti_GO likes this

I'm gonna be the 2020 NASF Champion  :) 


#32 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 04 January 2020 - 07:11 PM

Thank you Fairway for your kind and detailed explanations which are appreciated. But do you agree with the following 2 statements:

 

- If Nonobardok would not have let his captain get cornered his opponent would most likely not have been able to move his miner towards the flag.

of course, this was the mistake that led this game to be, instead of a draw, a winning situation for Commandeur: and one that he was taking advantage of, presently, as nonobadork surrendered.

 

- Nonobardok made his mistake after more than 10 minutes after the first screenshot has been taken. 

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It's exactly 10 minutes and 20 seconds between screen one and screen two. How do you know this? How do you know it didn't take 7 or 8 minutes for commandeur to trap the piece, then another 2 minutes for him to advance his previously unknown miner down the lane and, as a silver player, figure out how to take advantage of the more squares rule?

 


I'm gonna be the 2020 NASF Champion  :) 


#33 Powderkeg

Powderkeg

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 07:31 PM

gkestabitis did nothing entire game. What a crybaby. Tired of people playing the system instead of playing games. What a waste when we allow people like this in here. 

#34 Powderkeg

Powderkeg

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:26 PM

Keep removing my replies but the truth still remains. People on this game community play like bullies and nothing you can do stops it. 

Moderators are ineffective, people banned remain for weeks or more in community, etc. What a joke. People game system. People steal points, and more. Very bad online game. No controls by management, moderators, leaders. I've had literally hundreds of points stolen from my ranking by others. Absurd. 



#35 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 04 January 2020 - 09:53 PM

Keep removing my replies but the truth still remains. 

 

 

OUR replies will be removed very soon as they have nothing to do with cases filed here.

 

Either you provide evidence (photos or video) or you have nothing relevant to bring to this matter. If you want to defend yourself well, provide PHOTOS or VIDEO.

 

Thanks, Powderkeg...or have you still not understood proper procedure here?



#36 Powderkeg

Powderkeg

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Marshal

Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:21 PM

I dont give a crap about procedures any longer. Tired of the crap on here. Just ban me. Sick of it all. Abusers, bullies, people stealing points, too much crap on here. Good bye



#37 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 04 January 2020 - 10:45 PM

Good bye

 

If I got a dollar for every time you said "Good bye", I could retire and buy myself a Caribbean Island.

 

Nevermind–Happy New Year, just the same.  :) 


  • Powderkeg and Sorrow like this

#38 nonobadork

nonobadork

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 January 2020 - 03:48 AM

There is a lot of speculation in my case and I hope to resolve a couple of things. 

 

His minor hadn't moved until after my first draw request. I blocked him for quite a while after the draw request and he wasn't anywhere near the flag. He doesn't trap my captain until less than a minute of my second draw request, at which point I wasn't even paying attention because I was going to report a draw refusal within a minute. I didn't think this mattered based on my understanding of draw refusal cases. I didn't reply after the MT issued a verdict because it didn't matter that much to me, it's just points in a game and I didn't want to start any problems. It was also right in the middle of the holidays. When I saw more discussion about the case come up, I went to reply in the thread, but at that point it was January 1 so I couldn't reply anymore. The only thing I ask is that the rules reguarding progress in a tie refusal be explicitly stated. I thought as others seem to in this thread that 10 minutes was the gold standard for him to attack. It wasn't like I was double chasing him or letting the buffer run down before each move.

 

To be very clear, if the game had run for another couple of minutes, he would have won based on his current position, if he didn't do something stupid. However, he would have never achieved his position if it wasn't for the fact that I knew the 10 minute mark was about to come and I no longer cared because I thought I had a tie no matter what based on my understanding of the rules. 


Edited by nonobadork, 05 January 2020 - 04:03 AM.

  • GaryLShelton, Napoleon 1er, KissMyCookie and 2 others like this

#39 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,963 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 05 January 2020 - 08:43 AM

To be very clear, if the game had run for another couple of minutes, he would have won based on his current position, if he didn't do something stupid. However, he would have never achieved his position if it wasn't for the fact that I knew the 10 minute mark was about to come and I no longer cared because I thought I had a tie no matter what based on my understanding of the rules. 

 

Your candor is refreshing, nonobadork, and it goes to support what I posted as my assessment of your modus operandi. Thank you for your honesty and expressing something very significant here, and it goes to the very heart of something of which I have remained highly critical–the wording and composition of certain so-called rules.

 

Spoiler

 

My past experience in dealing with former specific MT members had been variable, as sometimes they were rather helpful with some advice, and other times they appeared to be totally closed off from observations or suggestions offered, specifically about things which seemingly could be taken as a criticism. So here is my question to the current MT:

 

Will our current MT panel afford community members an open mind and an open channel to discuss potential issues about rules (wording, composition, execution), publicly or in PM, and can this community be assured that our voice is on par with the MT's voice? In other words, can we hope to avoid the nonsense attitude of, "We don't air our dirty laundry in public" rubbish?! That kind of attitude is what allows a community's simmering frustrations to explode.

 

Thank you and I await your reply.


Edited by KissMyCookie, 05 January 2020 - 01:39 PM.

  • nonobadork likes this

#40 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,743 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 05 January 2020 - 01:13 PM

There is a lot of speculation in my case and I hope to resolve a couple of things. 

 

His minor hadn't moved until after my first draw request. I blocked him for quite a while after the draw request and he wasn't anywhere near the flag. He doesn't trap my captain until less than a minute of my second draw request, at which point I wasn't even paying attention because I was going to report a draw refusal within a minute. I didn't think this mattered based on my understanding of draw refusal cases. I didn't reply after the MT issued a verdict because it didn't matter that much to me, it's just points in a game and I didn't want to start any problems. It was also right in the middle of the holidays. When I saw more discussion about the case come up, I went to reply in the thread, but at that point it was January 1 so I couldn't reply anymore. The only thing I ask is that the rules reguarding progress in a tie refusal be explicitly stated. I thought as others seem to in this thread that 10 minutes was the gold standard for him to attack. It wasn't like I was double chasing him or letting the buffer run down before each move.

 

To be very clear, if the game had run for another couple of minutes, he would have won based on his current position, if he didn't do something stupid. However, he would have never achieved his position if it wasn't for the fact that I knew the 10 minute mark was about to come and I no longer cared because I thought I had a tie no matter what based on my understanding of the rules. 

 

Thanks for your honesty regarding the case. We also trust that our less gifted forum members are also more understanding of the verdict now.

 

You are right in that your opponent has +- 10 minutes to attack, which we felt was done. If you ever run into a draw refusal situation again, we strongly recommend making a video of it, which is much stronger. Screenshots always are a bit tricky.

 

Either way, have a good (Stratego) 2020.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates
See this thread my blog post




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users