Jump to content


Photo

NSquared


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Three Musketeers

Three Musketeers

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 08 December 2013 - 05:57 AM

https://www.facebook...&type=1



#2 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 December 2013 - 06:23 AM

Where is it?



#3 NSquared

NSquared

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:19 PM

This is ridiculous.

 

I am playing Three Musketeers in the QA, and we get down to the end of the game. He has a General, I have a Spy. My flag is open, and his is in the corner, surrounded by bombs. (He claims it isn't, but who's going to believe that?)

 

I naturally am not going to GIVE him the victory by surrendering or giving up my Spy. If he wants the victory, he must earn it. 

 

This game is about capturing the flag. If you can't do that or are unwilling to guess, then eliminate all of your opponent's movable pieces. If you can't do that, IT'S A TIE. There are no other options.

He has two options: Go for my flag, or offer a tie. I am absolutely not going to let him capture my Spy; it's not even an option. 

 

I offer a tie three times, and he denies all three. So....

 

For the next 9.5 hours, he chases me endlessly and hopelessly around the board, all the while claiming that because he has a "higher" piece (which isn't really true in this situation) he deserves the win.

 

Before anyone chimes in with "You are way too serious about this", STOP. There are two things that I refuse to let happen on this site. 

1. I refuse to let people take advantage of me. I am never going to give someone the win because they claim that they deserve it. 

2. I refuse to cave in to unsportsmanlike players. Three Musketeers thought they deserved a win in a situation that any sane, rational player will know is a tie. 

 

I posted this somewhere else a while back, but I'm going to repeat it:

 

Regardless of whether his actions qualify as "cheating" or not, this website needs to show they are committed to the quality of the gameplay here by banning players like this. If this site fails, it will only be because of their refusal to regulate the quality of the gameplay. 

 

I have provided the evidence. When is this site going to put their foot down and start banning these accounts?

Attached Files


  • Dekaeneas-Spy, Caesar101 and BlueMarshall007 like this

#4 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,495 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:17 PM

9.5 hours game !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there wasn"t the screenshot I would never believed that there are people who spend so much time from their life for that.

Of course from the other hand I want to congratulate NSquared because he proved that sometimes you need to do extraordinary things to prove that unfair never wins.

And he did it in an unranked quick game.

We will discuss it in our committee and I can tell you that this is the first time we will judge such case, but you have earned that .

Congrats again!!!



#5 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:32 PM

This is another example of poor sportmanship. Quick games have to be done in 10 minutes? Cherio Nsquared for not giving up!

I would have thrown the towel after one hour I'm afraid.

I'm happy the JC will act on this 'cheating' too'. I did already  a proposal, to get rit of these people. I'm convinced JC will make some minor adjustments in the rules to dedicate a seperate paragraph to this form of deception.

I would say: The sooner the better!

 

Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#6 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 December 2013 - 09:58 PM

I ask the Commission to give the screenshot to book with Guinness World Records(Dekaeneas-Spy has a share    %) :P .
NSquared :( PLEASE :(  send me emaιl ( :angry: tips for better nervous system :angry: )
.

 

Ενα ανεκδοτο για να γελασουν λιγακι οι ανθρωποι των αποφασεων (επιτροπη).

 

 

Ο λοχίας στους στρατιώτες :
- Σε λίγο θα έρθει ο λοχαγός . Προσοχή στραβάδια ! Αν σας ρωτήσει : " πόσων χρόνων είστε " θα πείτε 22 , " πόσα χρόνια υπηρετείτε " θα πείτε 2 , " ποιο
φαγητό σας αρέσει , τα φασόλια ή το κρέας " θα πείτε και τα δύο . Έρχεται ο λοχαγός και ρωτά ένα στρατιώτη που ήταν Πόντιος :
- Πόσα χρόνια υπηρετείς παιδί μου ;
- Είκοσι δύο λοχαγέ μου .
- Είκοσι δύο ; Και πόσο χρονών είσαι ;
- Δύο ...
- Δύο ; Μα δεν μου λες με περνάς για τρελό ή για ηλίθιο ;
- Και τα δύο λοχαγέ μου (captain).  

 

let's take into consideration the committee if the Three Musketeers is captain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy


  • Caesar101 likes this

#7 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:13 PM

 

 

For the next 9.5 hours, he chases me endlessly 

 

 

Die hard to the bone, looooooooooooooooooool


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#8 chefwd76

chefwd76

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 08 December 2013 - 11:29 PM

Wow, three musketeers spent 9.5 hours being a very poor sport and then took the loss...  It looks good on him.


Let anybody that believe's something is impossible be interrupted by somebody else completing the task, for it is only impossible for those who cannot.


#9 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 12:12 AM

Yo, this type of behaviour is insanely wrong

but it doesn't justify the fact that you play so long!

What do you gain with it? I think something in your brain is gone

so waste becomes the greatest song that'll make you strong!  :D

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=XzcWwmwChVE


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#10 Three Musketeers

Three Musketeers

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 09 December 2013 - 12:20 AM

Okay, our stance is 3-fold:

 

     Firstly, you talk about "unsportsmanlike conduct" while for 9 1/2 hours we conducted ourselves in a polite even friendly manner while NSquared continued to berate us with foul language and constant insults. So if we want to talk about "sportsmanlike" behavior then maybe we should consider language as the priority issue. 

 

     Secondly, yes he did offer us a tie but only after the first hour of unreciprocated insults. As such, we too "refuse(d) to cave to (an) unsportsmanlike player." Moreover, after searching for rules on Stratego.com we determined that since there are no rules to dictate the result of such a situation, and since we felt that we had the superior setup with high piece, we continued to play knowing that general beats spy regardless of who attacks. Were the table turned and we had low piece, we would have ended the game within seconds by making a last attempt to guess the opponent's flag, as we feel this is the only sportsmanlike way to end the game.

 

     Finally, though we understand that we are considered the "bully" in this situation, due to the aforementioned unsportsmanlike conduct and superior board set up, we argue that this was a two-sided stubborn match (as is implied by the length of the game). We felt we were entitled to a win with high piece while NSquared felt he was entitled to a tie though he clearly had the less superior board setup. As such, if there is to be a ban, it should be extended to both players. Although, we feel this is harsh considering that there is no clearly defined rule.

 

A final note:

     As a resolution we suggest that a rule be made to address this type of situation. In fact, we suggest that it be clearly outlined in the rules that high piece wins. 



#11 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 09 December 2013 - 12:51 AM

Okay, our stance is 3-fold:

 

     Firstly, you talk about "unsportsmanlike conduct" while for 9 1/2 hours we conducted ourselves in a polite even friendly manner while NSquared continued to berate us with foul language and constant insults. So if we want to talk about "sportsmanlike" behavior then maybe we should consider language as the priority issue. 

 

     Secondly, yes he did offer us a tie but only after the first hour of unreciprocated insults. As such, we too "refuse(d) to cave to (an) unsportsmanlike player." Moreover, after searching for rules on Stratego.com we determined that since there are no rules to dictate the result of such a situation, and since we felt that we had the superior setup with high piece, we continued to play knowing that general beats spy regardless of who attacks. Were the table turned and we had low piece, we would have ended the game within seconds by making a last attempt to guess the opponent's flag, as we feel this is the only sportsmanlike way to end the game.

 

     Finally, though we understand that we are considered the "bully" in this situation, due to the aforementioned unsportsmanlike conduct and superior board set up, we argue that this was a two-sided stubborn match (as is implied by the length of the game). We felt we were entitled to a win with high piece while NSquared felt he was entitled to a tie though he clearly had the less superior board setup. As such, if there is to be a ban, it should be extended to both players. Although, we feel this is harsh considering that there is no clearly defined rule.

 

A final note:

     As a resolution we suggest that a rule be made to address this type of situation. In fact, we suggest that it be clearly outlined in the rules that high piece wins. 

 

 

You're full of BS.

It was a tie, end of discussion.

Or you take the flag or you kill all the pieces and if you can't do any, it's a tie.

Your so called "highest" piece is pretty worthless if you can't kill him so you fokked up......

and he fokked up to be able to kill yours,....so a tie.

 

 

Learn the rules better I'd say.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#12 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:24 AM

     Firstly, you talk about "unsportsmanlike conduct" while for 9 1/2 hours we conducted ourselves in a polite even friendly manner while NSquared continued to berate us with foul language and constant insults. So if we want to talk about "sportsmanlike" behavior then maybe we should consider language as the priority issue. 

 

 

Where is your screen shots showing this foul behavior of NSquared?  All I see is you refusing a clear draw.  



#13 Three Musketeers

Three Musketeers

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 09 December 2013 - 03:14 AM

     No screen shots were taken, however none are needed according to Angelus a Stratego Staff Administrator follow the link and see for yourself. It is the 5th post on the page.

http://forum.strateg...he-forum-rules/

 

     And to clarify, we are not suggesting that we were right and that NSquared was wrong we are simply wanting a clearly defined rule so that for future games we can do what is stated in the rules but as of yet there are no rules addressing this issue. There is no way us or NSquared should be punished for being "wrong" or "right" when a right and wrong hasn't been clearly defined. If there are rules then please direct us to them and we will gladly follow them in any future games we may play.



#14 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 09 December 2013 - 03:37 AM

No screen shots to provide us, then it didn't happen.  Simple as that.



#15 Three Musketeers

Three Musketeers

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 09 December 2013 - 04:00 AM

    Well then I will go through support and Angelus and give them the exact time of the conversation so it can be reviewed because his post suggests that we can be provided with more evidence.

 

     Also you ignored my attempt at a compromise in both my initial and second post. There needs to be a rule. And if there was one stating that we should have tied then we would have gladly accepted that as part of the game withing seconds. But as of now you keep avoiding the fact that there is no rule on this issue.

 

     Everyone plays the game to win and that's what we were doing, playing to win. Our best chance was to capture his spy. Why would we tie when we didn't see a rule that stated to do so? Why are we in the wrong because we didn't accept a tie? Nothing says we have to in that situation, again if there is show us and we'll shut up. But why shouldn't he have to surrender? We outmatched him in pieces. It's because there is no rule. You see this argument can go both ways which is the exact reason there needs to be a clearly defined rule that we can follow in this type of situation, and it is also why no one can be banned based on the evidence unless I want to really go after what NSquared said on the in-game chat then he could get in trouble for his foul language.



#16 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 09 December 2013 - 05:49 AM

This is ridiculous.

 

I am playing Three Musketeers in the QA, and we get down to the end of the game. He has a General, I have a Spy. My flag is open, and his is in the corner, surrounded by bombs. (He claims it isn't, but who's going to believe that?)

 

I naturally am not going to GIVE him the victory by surrendering or giving up my Spy. If he wants the victory, he must earn it. 

 

This game is about capturing the flag. If you can't do that or are unwilling to guess, then eliminate all of your opponent's movable pieces. If you can't do that, IT'S A TIE. There are no other options.

He has two options: Go for my flag, or offer a tie. I am absolutely not going to let him capture my Spy; it's not even an option. 

 

I offer a tie three times, and he denies all three. So....

 

For the next 9.5 hours, he chases me endlessly and hopelessly around the board, all the while claiming that because he has a "higher" piece (which isn't really true in this situation) he deserves the win.

 

Before anyone chimes in with "You are way too serious about this", STOP. There are two things that I refuse to let happen on this site. 

1. I refuse to let people take advantage of me. I am never going to give someone the win because they claim that they deserve it. 

2. I refuse to cave in to unsportsmanlike players. Three Musketeers thought they deserved a win in a situation that any sane, rational player will know is a tie. 

 

I posted this somewhere else a while back, but I'm going to repeat it:

 

Regardless of whether his actions qualify as "cheating" or not, this website needs to show they are committed to the quality of the gameplay here by banning players like this. If this site fails, it will only be because of their refusal to regulate the quality of the gameplay. 

 

I have provided the evidence. When is this site going to put their foot down and start banning these accounts?

 

I agree that the situation you describe is ridiculous. I'd go so far as to say abusive (and thus actionable). 

 

We will review the screenshots and the case. 


How can I help you?

#17 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:01 AM

Okay, our stance is 3-fold:

 

     Firstly, you talk about "unsportsmanlike conduct" while for 9 1/2 hours we conducted ourselves in a polite even friendly manner while NSquared continued to berate us with foul language and constant insults. So if we want to talk about "sportsmanlike" behavior then maybe we should consider language as the priority issue. 

 

     Secondly, yes he did offer us a tie but only after the first hour of unreciprocated insults. As such, we too "refuse(d) to cave to (an) unsportsmanlike player." Moreover, after searching for rules on Stratego.com we determined that since there are no rules to dictate the result of such a situation, and since we felt that we had the superior setup with high piece, we continued to play knowing that general beats spy regardless of who attacks. Were the table turned and we had low piece, we would have ended the game within seconds by making a last attempt to guess the opponent's flag, as we feel this is the only sportsmanlike way to end the game.

 

     Finally, though we understand that we are considered the "bully" in this situation, due to the aforementioned unsportsmanlike conduct and

superior board set up, we argue that this was a two-sided stubborn match (as is implied by the length of the game). We felt we were entitled to a win with high piece while NSquared felt he was entitled to a tie though he clearly had the less superior board setup. As such, if there is to be a ban, it should be extended to both players. Although, we feel this is harsh considering that there is no clearly defined rule.

 

A final note:

     As a resolution we suggest that a rule be made to address this type of situation. In fact, we suggest that it be clearly outlined in the rules that high piece wins. 

 

Some quick reactions...

 

First, there should be no "we." Only "I." If multiple players are using the account, then the account should and will be closed/banned. This is clear from the Terms and Conditions.

 

Second, I agree that insults could be considered abusive and unsportsmanlike conduct. Such incidents should be reported with tangible proof (e.g., screenshots). If you have any to offer, we will take a look at them.

 

Third, two wrongs don't make a right. Insulting language does not give anyone the right to drag on a game which is obviously (well, hopefully obviously to any experienced player) a draw (if neither player is willing to risk their remaining piece testing out an unknown piece).

 

Fourth, superior setups and pieces depend on the position on the board and overall context. In the context described and shown in NSquared's screenshots, the General has no inherent advantage over the Spy in that situation - except for the fact that at least NSquared's flag is exposed. However, if you make no clear attempt to capture it, then that clearly indicates you are not willing to take a risk to grab that flag (quite reasonable). In such cases, a draw is the patently correct result. Your "tables turned" scenario is absolutely your choice to play - but not actually the "correct"/optimal approach in a conservative play scenario.

 

It sounds - to be honest - that you didn't correctly understand the nature of the position on the board. Even so, it is plainly obvious that continuing for several hours without any progress after your opponent has offered a tie is indisputably wrong and - at best - abusive (and as such, against the rules).

 

Finally, you are just wrong when it comes to the high piece winning in this situation. In this case, you are defining "high" by the original rank, but there are many instances in which this system of evaluating the worth of a piece is absolutely incorrect. For example, were the situation a General vs. a Miner in that position, the player with the Miner would have the slight advantage, notwithstanding any zugzwang positions.

 

If you have any further questions about the situation or circumstances, please do not hesitate to reach out.

 

Thanks. 


How can I help you?

#18 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:05 AM

 

 

     And to clarify, we are not suggesting that we were right and that NSquared was wrong we are simply wanting a clearly defined rule so that for future games we can do what is stated in the rules but as of yet there are no rules addressing this issue. There is no way us or NSquared should be punished for being "wrong" or "right" when a right and wrong hasn't been clearly defined. If there are rules then please direct us to them and we will gladly follow them in any future games we may play.

 

You are a member of this forum, obviously. We have in this forum clearly indicated in the past that repeated avoidance of a draw in a clearly drawn position (as evidenced by the lack of progress on either party's front for a protracted period of time) is unsportsmanlike at best - and possibly abusive (and punishable) in some cases. 


How can I help you?

#19 NSquared

NSquared

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 09 December 2013 - 06:41 AM

This will be my last public comment on this matter.  For everything I say, I have screenshot evidence to back it up. Let me know what email address(es) to send them to. 

 

1. "Three Musketeers" IS actually three guys playing together. They told me this in the chat. One of the players has an account named Sumner, the second has an account frankfrank, and the third player didn't say his account name. Sumner has played ~200 games, frankfrank ~100. So they are not beginners to rules of chasing/stalling/etc. They each took turns playing for a while ("shifts" as they called them).  They have just recently also created another account named "Theee Musketeers", which is only one letter difference. I know it's them because they are a recent visitor to my profile page. 

 

2. The picture I have provided clearly shows how they intentionally photoshopped a screenshot to try to get me to attack their backrow, non-corner piece.

On the left of the photo is a recent game where I put my flag next to a corner bomb. I have highlighted how both tiles on the left photo are equal in height. Now compare that to the photo on the right, the one they sent me (The first post in this thread had a link to a facebook page that contained the photo, but has now been removed). Their flag tile is clearly taller than the corner bomb tile. I also highlighted an error in their photoshopping: a vertical line on the bottom right side of their flag tile. My photo on the left has no such artifact. 

So, they tried to get me to attack a bomb by deliberately editing a screenshot. That's hardly sportsmanlike behavior. 

Attached Files



#20 Three Musketeers

Three Musketeers

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 09 December 2013 - 07:04 AM

     Alright thank you LearningThisGame for an actual answer. We appreciate your absolute professionalism even if you think we are completely wrong.

     But about being a member of the forum we just joined like a few days ago and just looked at the forums after the game to help this situation never before have any of us looked at them. So we haven't seen what you stated above which is why during the game we kept playing. We just wanted cold hard facts a clearly stated rule to say that we had to tie which would have been fine. That should be updated to the terms and conditions. 

      But about palying together yes we did three of us. We didn't  realize this was illegal considering we can't find it in the terms and conditions if you could specify where that would be great. And okay if it's there then ban us for that we are fine with that. But we would love for everyone to be able to take a look at the conversations he had with us and I agree with you one 100% 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.

     Although we have no screen shots of the insults and profound language we have contacted Angelus the Stratego Staff Administrator about NSquared's language during in-game chat. And due to his post (link provided above) we think our conversation can somehow be recovered and that can be used as evidence instead of screen shots. 

     But again thank your for your answers they are appreciated.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users