FFA: Calling for a systematic hunt for P1s.

This is exactly the behaviour we didn't want. :/

Warning 1: No Meta-gaming.
[Spoiler]

quote: Has there been such a thing here? I must have missed it.

That's the thing. There hasn't been. It's all legit under the eyes of P1.

I'd be fine FFAs being actual FFAs, or perhaps have temporary alliances based on a particular player becoming a significant threat at a specific point of a game. Something like "player x has det / SW / control of a continent...", but whenever P1s are in a game, it's P1 vs FFA.

I'd be totally fine with descalation if there was some sign from the other side that this isn't the desired outcome. Instead, we get justifications and rationalization.

Don't quote people out of context.

I think it makes absolute sense that you try to destroy the side that has the most disproportionate win chance. In an individualist ffa that's the local purpler. This is pretty much common knowledge and requires very little overt coordination at this point.

But if you know there's an alliance that can be treated as a team, same rules apply. Starting out with two players allied for life essentially means that the alliance "holds two spots" from the first second of the game.

And if the "we're a team" is written right on the player's nickname, just as the purple star would be, well then.

I don't think anyone really needs to "sign up" for the hunt, or whatever. This all becoming common knowledge is quite sufficient of itself, imo.

FWIW i don't think "deescalation" has much chance against unspoken agreements, either. It's very hard to undo reputational damage.

quote: The most substantiated claim against RedEagle is that he plays FFA too casually and not "serious" enough according to GoogleFrog and Anir.

That's not true though. In the long thread I linked above, there are several instances of RedEagle disabling SW or putting units on ceasefire and sending them to another P1.

If this was about one instance of a player being casual about FFAs, I would be forced to admit I am in the wrong for creating this thread.

quote: I find this take kinda weird Anarchid.

Nonweird takes can be fully inferred from the orthodox position, and thus valueless. I take this as a compliment.

quote: The most substantiated claim against RedEagle is that he plays FFA too casually and not "serious" enough according to GoogleFrog and Anir.

Casualness is a claim about RedEagles's feelings. I take it as an attempt at online psychology: useful inasmuch as modelling your possible FFA opponent is; limited inasmuch as online psychology.

quote: However, if FFA is played Hunger Game-style where pregame alliances are okey, the probable collusion and collaboration that the clan P1 has done, is simply acceptable play.

I have no claim for or against this. My take is that regardless of existence of a claim of mine to make, the other players of FFA games being simply aware of this fact is likely sufficient to have the hunt-down effect through the mechanism of common knowledge.

quote: I don't think a member of the moderator team should promote behavior that is currently either against the rules or will be against the rules in the future for "serious" FFA play when such guidelines haven't been properly established.

It is not against rules to gang up against a faction that holds a disproportionate amount of resources and win% in an FFA, as far as i know.

[Spoiler]
Moreover, i propose that this requires no pregame collusion on the part of the players who gang up against the perceived ultimate threat, be it identified by a purple star next to the threat's identifier, or by another identifier in a similar position, be it a flag, or a clan tag.

quote: Also, where and how should players be allowed to play casual FFA?

What is "casual FFA"? The way i see it, so-called Casual WHR is the thing that dictates the color-coded caste of ZK players, almost without exception, and every FFA game bets a massive amount of that currency.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for rational men to respond to incentives.

[Spoiler]

quote: It is not against rules to gang up against a faction that holds a disproportionate amount of resources and win% in an FFA, as far as i know. Although you would like it to be so, wouldn't you, you eddog :P

Yes, I think this should be against the rules as a pre-game statement.

Godde wrote:

quote: However, if FFA is played Hunger Game-style where pregame alliances are okey, the probable collusion and collaboration that the clan P1 has done, is simply acceptable play.

Anarchids response:

quote: I have no claim for or against this. My take is that regardless of existence of a claim of mine to make, the other players of FFA games being simply aware of this fact is likely sufficient to have the hunt-down effect through the mechanism of common knowledge.

How is that different from calling for collusion against a specific clan that is currently being investigated for collusion?
In my opinion, this should be an illegal pre-game FFA statement.
As an admin, you cannot both prosecute people for collusion while promoting such collusion.

According to my FFA rules of conduct, there are illegal pre-game FFA statements and legal statements.

Legal statements:
Attack the highest rated players first.
Players of clan X are likely to team up ingame, so watch out for that.
Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that.

Illegal statements
We are clan X and we will completely defeat all other players before attacking eachother.
I and player X will be allied when the game starts regardless of all other players.
I think clan X are allied even though they say they are not so lets ally against them.

Borderline statements:
Attack player X, he is the highest rated player here.
If all lower skilled players team up on me and high skilled player X, I will ally with high skilled player X from the start.


Then there are statements ingame that I think should be legal or illegal:
Legal statements:
Attack the highest rated players first.
Players of clan X are teamed up, so lets ally against them.
Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that.
I and player X are allied.
I think clan X are allied even though they say they are not so lets ally against them.
Attack player X, he is the highest rated player here.
If all lower skilled players team up on me and high skilled player X, I will ally with high skilled player X from the start.

Illegal statements:
We are clan X and we will completely defeat all other players before attacking eachother.


I think one determining factor that makes some illegal behaviour allowed ingame while not allowed pre-game is lying.
If the lying extends to the pre-game of FFA, then the forum is also part of the FFA metagame and it would be a legit strategy to go on the forum and lie about FFA players.



While the difference between the legal pre-game statement "Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that" and the illegal pre-game statement "I think clan X will collude even though they say they won't so lets ally against them" might seem subtle, but I think there is an important distinction to make here. The suspected colluders can answer the question honestly if we accept that there is no lying allowed before a FFA game starts. Any ingame alliance between the clan would then be incidental depending on the circumstances of the FFA and diplomacy ingame.


Preferential rules(these are all rules that should be agreed upon by all players or have to be set by the host of the game and these rules should be revealed to all players):
Hey players, lets all join voicechat so we can talk while we play!
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and ask general questions about the game but if your questions reveal any information, we will tell you to stop talking about the game.
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and talk while we play but don't ask any questions about the game.
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and listen while the players talk but you have to be muted.
Hey clans, there are 3 clans in this game room, lets team up in our clans until there is only 1 clan left.
Hey other players, we are newbs and there are skilled players in this host, is it okey if we ally from the start? We probably wont win anyway.

I find this whole situation really silly. If they are in fact working together to ultimately ruin FFA matches by making them one sided towards their own clan, surely with time, replays and personal accounts would tell the whole story. Why jump the gun and actively encourage them to behave in the way that you seek to punish them for? If anything, any targeted harassment would give them valid reason to collude and make the staff teams job harder in this investigation.

This also goes for the other threads that have sprouted from the whole controversy. Any solution or method of teaching that is strictly implemented through community teaching and hearsay is by no means a valid solution to a gameplay problem.

quote: If they are in fact working together to ultimately ruin FFA matches by making them one sided towards their own clan, surely with time, replays and personal accounts would tell the whole story.

I think this take underestimates how clear the existing evidence is.