Should throwing a strict game be bannable?

People are banned for joining and ruining passworded stricts being played by other people, yet there is no official policy provision for intentionally ruining games when people are themselves playing on a team. In a way, it is even worse than people joining mid-game and ruining it. When that happens, well, you didn't lock the game, what did you expect? But when you lock a game, make teams, and proceed to play, there is nothing to stop a player for intentionally ruining the game to spite another player. They can even hint they are going to do it before, and brag about it during and after, and not fear consequences. Sure, people mess around in opens. Fine, people give up in stricts when the going gets tough. But to plan to and then actually ruin a strict game for everyone else, not because you're losing, or your allies did something to piss you off, but just because you don't like someone on your team?!?!

Which is precisely what DS did today.

And he is an op. Shouldn't ops be role models, demonstrating exemplary behavior? What does it say if an op ruins a game for the other 5 people playing by sabotaging his own team whenever they get ahead? He made a comment about people taking the game "too seriously." If he *doesn't* take the game seriously, then why should he even want to, let alone get to, be an op?

See, thing you’re forgetting derami, is once you are in a team, ready to play. Every player has every right to do whatever they want. That includes carpet mining their own territory, shooting their teammates etc. If you don't like it, refuse to play with that player. Officially writing a grey area like this into the 'irc rules' isn't exactly going to stop anyone from doing anything. What you'll ban them? ... big deal ... its not like being in the irc channel is a big privilege anyways. Its the same as constantly being allied with a newbie, newbie’s are prone to 'ruining' games they play simply because they suck, so they do things sucky players do (shooting their teammates, getting the teammates stuff killed) So I guess according to your latest poll, we should ban all newbie’s from the irc channel too. Cause they may ruin a few games.

Way to make people feel like they can just come and play the game ….. good on you bud.

Min

seems public opinion is swaying the other way, min, but let's frame it another way: let's say they do this to only one player. and so most other players aren't effected and therefore don't really care. without something official preventing it, that person might have to skip out on a lot of games - so then what? the asshole who throws games gets to play, but the guy just trying to have fun doesn't. i just want what i assume most people do - fun games where you don't have to worry about someone ruining it for personal reasons. for the noobies out there: this doesn't happen a lot - it was one op with a personal grudge.

"So I guess according to your latest poll, we should ban all newbie’s from the irc channel too." - Min

How did you get that from the poll? The poll is about *intention* not *accident* or *inexperience.* if the 'noobie' shoots your tank or lgm by accident, so what? honest mistake. i'm very friendly to new players, and have trained a fair number as well. if your friend steps on your toes? you handle it. if he punches you in the face on purpose? you get pissed, and rightly so. likewise with someone systematically planning to and then ruining a game - making it literally impossible, no matter who is on what team, for your team to win on purpose. we adjust teams to make them more fair and give noobs good allies, but there is no way to counteract someone who intentionally refuses to let their team win. and, even if you don't want to make it bannable and open up grey area, can we at least de-op people who do it? why would a person want to be (or make sense as) an op if they are intentionally ruining games? isn't that exactly what they're around to prevent?

and it still doesn't address my second point: you *yourself* sarcastically suggested i was keeping people away by making it seem like there are more issues than there are or whatever. but the bottom line is: ops acting like 2-year-olds and ruining passworded stricts at their whim is, in my opinion, much more likely to drive off players. again: ops are supposed to be the responsible ones, right? i'm not saying this happens all of the time, and as i said in my response to the inquiry in the *other* forum post, these problems aren't rampant or totally ruining all games. i'm not saying there is a huge problem, i just want ops to set good examples - is that really such an unreasonable demand? meanwhile, you have *another* op responsible for the 'derhomo' post above. what's up with that? you think that isn't driving potential new players away? yay, welcome homophobes, but open-minded intelligent liberals stay away?

<ds_> I'd rather lose with you on my team than win

-= D

If I can throw a 4 game series in IBL and not get banned, its only fair that DS can throw a game because his teammate is a moron.

touching sentiments. still: (1) his decision wasn't based on whether or not his ally was a 'moron,' which is an objective designataion, but rather made because he didn't 'like' his ally, which is a subjective characterization. (2) who cares what you did? it has no bearing. simply ask yourself: should a person who is tasked with *reprimanding people who ruin games* be allowed to, themselves, *ruin games with forethought and intention* and *without remorse*?

either way, there is a largely silent but quite strong majority that seems to think you are wrong, and that people ruining games (perhaps ops especially?) should be held accountable for their actions. why else is there a policy, if not to prevent people from ruining the game? i am not saying that this is a huge problem that happens all the time, but it is still worth discussing - if you want to use false analogies or irrelevant examples to brush it off, why bother posting at all?

Until you become a chanop on #winbolo, it won't be a bannable offense.

Until you run your own game server, it won't be a bannable offense.

Point? Quit your whining.

In game, days after DS tried to wriggle his way out of admitting he threw a game, the following exchange took place:

Der: Ds, are you going to try to win this game or not?
DS: Why don't you wait and find out?

<Dev_l> you going to ask before every game now
<Dev_l> cause I'm not going to answer you
<Dev_l> wheee!
<Dev_l> this is fun!

Look, DS, if you're pissed that I posted about this, and want to maintain that you didn't throw the game on purpose, why not simply answer 'yes' if I ask whether you are going to try or not? That would end this discussion, and this thread, forever. I would once again ask, because you don't seem to be able to answer: if you are going to go around ruining games by not trying because you 'don't like' your ally, why be an op - someone who tries to keep games from being ruined - unless it's just a power trip?

Whoops, nevermind, I answered my own question :P

so, what exactly is your bitch? .... that ds is an op? ... or that ds doesn't play very well when allied to you? .... Thing I love about this community is how the 'silent majority' is somehow give a voice by one person.

I purposely throw plenty of games, which is why I'm offended by your suggestion that people should be banned for this. Throwing games is what I like to call 'grey area' .... how do you prove this offense? ... how are you to judge how a person is playing any particular day? would it be ok to you if he just threw the games instead of telling you beforehand? ... what if he's drunk out of his skull (many of our players like to get nice and wasted before playing a game of bolo).

Seriously derami, get over it.

Min

For the record, I've thrown every game of Winbolo that I've ever lost.

Though, I wouldn't be particularly offended if I was banned.

if you are going to go around ruining games by not trying because you 'don't like' your ally, why be an op - someone who tries to keep games from being ruined - unless it's just a power trip?

He claims the loss wasn't intentional, you claim it was. I can't speak on that aspect but I can say that he's never abused the an op command on IRC. In fact, I don't think he's even used them yet.

I actually spent a few hours sorting though about 50 people to recommend to take over my op responsibilities (which I sucked at) and since ds was already an op on the main Bolo channel, I suggested him.

I'm making a new thread in a few polling the communities suggestions for my final op replacement. It's up to LRL but I'm sure he, as well as I are interested in everyone's opinion on this.

Sorry for chiming in a bit off topic. :D

sigh, derami you really need a life outside of winbolo.. DS rox! DER SUX

Suicide Jockey wrote:

If I can throw a 4 game series in IBL and not get banned, its only fair that DS can throw a game because his teammate is a moron.

^5 to you SJ. good ole times

seriously those were the best times of winbolo. they will never be like that again

and ya der is just wrong

underdog wrote:

^5 to you SJ. good ole times

seriously those were the best times of winbolo. they will never be like that again

Ya, I like to think of it as the "before lrl and fireice times" back when the only people as uptight as lrl/fi was the euro players.

Min

i even remember specificially what sj is talking about. i might be one of the only who does.

lol mac was so pissed

I remeber it as well, Good times.

Min

I thought I was pretty clear (just re-read the exact wording of the poll question) but a few questions suggest I wasn't.

1) Min: my criteria for judgement isn't how well a person does or doesn't play, based one whatever (e.g. your example of them being drunk). It is whether or not they say before, and then hint during and reiterate after the game that they are going to cause their own team to lose because they don't like someone on their team. If they just play crappy, get frustrated in-game and quit, well, it happens. If they are going to go around joining games that they intend to ruin from the start, and then ruin ... can you honestly tell me that isn't *worse* than someone just killing a game from IRC midgame? Frankly, your question belies the fact that you didn't read my earlier post - I would suggest, in the future, reading before you respond to something.

2) Hood: he didn't claim it wasn't intentional. Rather, he claimed I could prove it (and that only after I had admitted that I hadn't copied down his text from days earlier when he had said it explicity). And, frankly, use your head on this one: if he refuses to say simply that he WON'T ruin games on purpose and that he in fact PREFERS to lose if he is on my team (see quotes earlier in this thread) the only logical conclusion is that he in fact would and will ruin games when on my team. Tell me with a straight face that that is good op behavior, bannable or not. Why would he not just say "I won't ruin the game on purpose"? Why would he even agree to play on my team if he would rather lose than win on it?

While I'm not suggesting that policy be dictated by popular opinion, I do find the poll results rather revealing. We all know that there are a lot of people who will vote against a poll of mine just out of a knee-jerk reaction of dislike for me personally. So, the fact that most poll respondants agree with me is, I think, worth noting. Underdog saying (without any argument or justification for his claim) that I am simply 'wrong' seems a bit presumptuous. I think what we're seeing here is a common-sense response - people believe that bans are precisely an option to be used when someone ruins a game intentionally!

Play bad? Play drunk? Play with your toes? Who cares?

Say you're going to ruin games before you even join, then joining and ruining them because you don't like someone? Shit, might as well just go to irc and kill them mid-game. Or, be mature about it and play with whoever's on your team, or refuse to play on their team, or whatever ... but wasting everyone's time by throwing the game? Why bother. The game in question had Lucky, Harl and other players ... why, DS, would you disrespect them just to get at me? Grow up.

And for all of you who disagree agree with me, just ask yourself: If I started joining games and ruining them, would you not want me banned? If I said 'I'm going to ruin this game' and joked about doing it in-game, then bragged about it afterword, would you not want me banned? I'm not asking for some radical grey-area provision, I'm asking for a concrete black-and-white policy revision about people who *clearly state* that they are going to ruin a game, and then follow through on that statment.

But ya know what ... I know before I make these posts who will and won't agree with me. Because ya'll just speak out based on who you do or don't like, you don't even read the arguments. So why do I bother ... the poll results say it all I think (that people are divided on this).

-= Der

ok...this has gone on long enough, but I'm sure it will go on for much longer so I should just continue ignoring thread...

anyways, I'm writing this as bolo/winbolo player, whether I'm an op on irc or not, because it shouldn't matter and my response would be the same...

First all I think you need to look up the word ruin in the dictionary to familiarize yourself what what you are truely saying here, but to paraphrase that if I did in fact "ruin" a game or this game mind you I would have:

1. To destroy completely; demolish.
2. To harm irreparably.
3. To reduce to poverty or bankruptcy.
4. To deprive of chastity.

Well, somehow if I did any of these things, I don't think game wouldn't have lasted oh say 30+ minutes with the advantage going back and forth between both teams which mind you was a 3x4 with you and I on the 3 team.

So let's just cut to the chase. Did I say the things that you quoted me saying, I'll say yes to some and probably to the others, but let's think about this for just one second. Have you ever said something in the heat of battle pissed off about something that happened in a game, any game or any situation for that matter where maybe just maybe it was just smack talk. The kinda a talk like "I'll get you next time", or "I could beat you anyday in a 1x1", or "mine is bigger than yours even if you did get me this time". Tell me what comes of those sayings? Not much really, although sometimes you might get a good 1x1 out of it :), because they are said as a "knee jerk reaction" to something that just happened. Did you annoy me the game before this game? I would say it's very possible cause you don't know when to let things go sometimes...you smack talk like like the best of them, and god forbid someone try to smack talk back to you. So you know what der, I didn't smack talk back to you like the norm. I didn't challenge you to a 1x1, or call you some foul name. I said in the game when I was allied to you that I quote "I'm going to make this game interesting." Did I say the game before or after that I would rather lose with you as my ally than win. I probably did, and you know what I would say it now too. did I say after the game that I wanted to lose it, probably, but wanting and actually doing are to different things. I wanted to buy a pc a year ago. Do I have one yet? Although I should be ordering one this week...whee! I want to go sky diving. I never will. So I probably said those things because in my opinion and it's my opinion only, you talk too damn much about how good you are when you're winning, and frankly I don't want to hear it. Although, I've learned that you also whine too much when you are losing or lose too, so I guess it's a lose/lose. However, I'm a big boy and I can ignore your rants unless you decide to try to deface my name in the process, which you have set out to do in this thread. You know what I would rather win with you as my ally too than lose, but I'll explain that in a bit...

So what does the quote mean from before("I'm going to make this interesting")? It can mean lots of things, and apparently you took it as I was going to blow the game or make us lose. We'll fine you're entitled to your own opinion, and that's what this whole thread is based on your interpretation of what I meant, and you know what you're wrong that I threw the game intentionally. Would I rather lose with you as my ally sure, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw a game because I said it, but if we then lose you could so that I did throw the game, which is what has happened here. Are you right in you assessment..no cause if I wanted to throw the game and you can quote me on this, I would have taken all 7 of those pills that I was carrying in the game at one point and dumped them right off to the opposing team and then sat in the water afterwards until the game ended. Did I do that? No, so get off my back, because that's throwing a game!

So back to my explanation about the lose with you as my ally crap... you know what? I would rather lose with siren, underdog, ren, sev, knuck, lance, cf, kat, lrl boro, harl, poe, pip, bitch, acro, min, spin, sticks, tip, enigma, phart (r.i.p.), hell even packer, and the list could go on and on, and you know why, cause I would rather have all these people right beside me going down in flames together and having fun doing it however way they or I decided to play, then to not play this game at all. Did I slack off in my play at the beginning to maybe make you work a little harder, and myself and my other ally? I did, but you know what I was there until to end and going right down the toilet with you, and what did that give us but a nice 3x4 that went on for a good 30 minutes. To be honest, it's my right to do so if I wish because in my eyes it was uneven even with us having 3 people. Who here has never let a weaker player just have the pill cause it wasn't worth crying over it? What vet here hasn't let a noob get a nice advantage only to see if they could come back and win it anyways? How is this scenario different from any of those? It really isn't, and to illustrate this point I refer you to any game where the teams are lopsided, and someone attempts to try something new or do something crazy just to see if it will work or hell give the unfair team slight head start in whatever way possible, and then the so called inferior team wins. Did the better teams blow the game? Even if they said after the game that they let the other team win, did they really mean it? who knows.. who cares...Have you ever said "I let you win" in your life? If you have then this thread is pretty worthless. If you haven't said it well I guess winning is just that important to you, and so be it... but it's not to me.

If you want to win and it's so important to you than fine... that's ok with me, but I don't have to go by what you say and I can chose to play however I want according to the policies that have been set forth. I mean cmon...if I don't feel like sending my man into certain doom, and planting where you want me to plant...that's my choice.... If we lose the game because of it, so be it I decided that I wanted to go in another way. you going to tell me that I ruined a game just cause you don't think I was playing the way you want me to or think I can or because I said something mean to you the game before, well that's on you. There's a quit button and an ignore button if you don't want to play with me, but trust me I don't want it to come to that, but I won't try to please you either. I'll play the way I want in accordance to the policies. I've had my fair share of losses and my fair share of wins, and I've blame myself, and my allies for it before, but you know what one game later and 2 games later all was right again... get over this...it's stupid...

Did we have choice words during the game, sure we did, but we had choice words before and after the game too. What of it? We all talk smack. I don't disagree with that but you know what after the game is over it should end. well maybe there should be some bickering on irc since games end on winbolo when all the bases are taken and you can't sit around and shoot the sh_t, but after someone has said their peace and the other has too...move the f_ck on.... cya on the bolo battlefield...

I have no more to say on this...

Maybe I'll read the rest of your post, DS, when I'm really bored. In the meantime I'll just address the fact that the game lasted a long time. That was, in fact, at the heart of the matter, and I'm so glad you brought it up because I had forgotten to. Whenever we got the advantage you would say something to the effect of "uh oh time to turn the tides again" and either stop playing, sacrifice your lgm, or kill someone else's. So not only were you *ruining* the game with malicious intent, you were making it die a slow and painful death rather than outright shooting it in the head - a mercy killing is much less cruel. If killing a game from irc quickly and painlessly is bannable, drawing one out but refusing to allow your team the possibility of winning should be doubly so, in my opinion.

You talk of my 'opinion' and 'interpretation' ... nice back-peddling. If I had known you were going to deny it after the fact I would have scribbled down your exact (and very explicit) claims at the time. I think you suddenly realized when I brought this up that I was right, and have consequently started rewriting history in case other people in positions of power (or the general bolo public) agreed with my perspective. Sure we've all slacked off in games, or tried risky things, but I have to say I have never prevented my team from winning simply because I didn't like one of my allies - that one is new to me.

I don't need to win every game, but if I know ahead of time my ally won't *let* me win it the game does start to lose its point ...

-= wheee

oh jeez... I guess I have one more thing to say...


I think you need to think about this one thing here. I didn't ruin a game of bolo. I apparently ruined a game of bolo to "YOU" because you think I didn't play up to my potential and because I slacked off and let the other team gain some ground at time in the game. Well so the f_ck what? I've talked to several people from the game none of them thought I "ruined" it and like me they had fun playing it. Well, maybe I think you've "ruined" every game that you've quit because you had an lgm bug or because you didn't think someone should have spiked you in a 2x3 or whatever, or like in a recent game with si, jolly, myself and enigma, when you sent your man and I shot it in the the beginning and it was a 2x3 and you decided it wasn't worth playing after that so you quit...I guess you "ruined" those games and you should be banned too right...

I can chose to kill a man, not kill a man, take my shots at tanks, let them drive back to their corner. Let them steal a pill cause I didn't want it there anyways and could get it back later, keep dying until I get a start I want, not plant a particular pill for awhile cause I want to hold on to it just in case...etc, etc. etc. and you know what? I can do all of these if I freaking want to whether or not it costs us the game or not, and whether or not I tell my my ally that I'm not planting this pill until I feel like or I'll get off the base when I have everything I think I and not when you say so, or I don't care what you say, but I'm not losing my man cause just because you want the pill built.

Again all of these can be a game changer or cost us the game, but I can do them all if I want too, and I can tell you that I;m going to do them too cause you're or anyone else can't tell me how to play with the policies set forth. If I a suxed so much on that game whether on purpose or not. It doesn't matter, but I'm allowed to sux when I want whether I'm suxing on purpose or because I just can't play right that day, and this my friend is why you are wrong in the fact that I "ruined" this game. I only ruined this game to "you" because we didn't win, well screw you... I don't care about your wins when you're on my team or not, and I will chose to play the way I want in accordance to the policy. If I want to just sit on the base until the other team gets a 5 pill headstart and then see if I can come back... I will, and there's nothing you can do about it. I don't have to go when go is called and I don't have to run bases the way everyone else does. I don't have to collect pills if I don't want. Is this ruining a game too? What if I said I wasn't going to use my lgm this game. Did I just ruin the game...NO! I made it interesting...

Only you have a gripe about this. I had fun playing the game, and from the people I talked to, they did too, and that's all it's all about. I hope someday you realize that your say is not the end all of all conversations, and to say this once again: You are not right by any means. In your own head you are right and since you can't see past the nose in front of you to the outside world, this will never change, and you won't let anyone tell or try to explain to you otherwise. If you have some gripe about the way I was/am playing in a/that game as my ally or not, I will propose a solution besides just not playing with me in the first place...wall me the f_ck in so I can't do all the things that you asked, then go ahead and play it your way without me. If I say I'm suxing today or I sux or I'm going to sux today, or I think the other team will win or I think we will lose. then just wall me in or quit because all of these can be "INTERPRETED" as I'm going to throw the game if you want to dwell on it and think of it like that and we wouldn't want you thinking I'm throwing a game or anything...

so you said: You talk of my 'opinion' and 'interpretation' ... nice back-peddling. If I had known you were going to deny it after the fact I would have scribbled down your exact (and very explicit) claims at the time.

I know what I said and I'm not back peddling... I have no reason to back-peddle. I hoped we'd lose and we did no matter how I played cause it wasn't just me playing and I didn't have the final say in how it ended. We all had a part in our loss, so don't just pin this on me no matter what I said.

In closing, you helped us lose that game as well no matter what or how I played. Hell if we lost we all had something to do with it not just me. You started dying 5 minutes into it over and over again and you even ended with the most deaths out of all the people in the game. I could say that "you were making it die a slow and painful death rather than outright shooting it in the head - a mercy killing is much less cruel." by not being around to help you allies and just repeated dying instead of just quiting right away when you determined in your mind that I was blowing it, and you didn't want to play it anymore. And you even said that you started doing this(dying) cause I was throwing the game, well aren't you the just the bigger man by having a temper tantrom about it and dying repeatedly and sometimes not being around when you allies or other ally needed you. Maybe you "ruined" the game because you weren't around to make up for my play or your other ally's play when it really counted as you should have been and maybe, just maybe, that's the way I interpret it so I guess you should be banned too, but you know why you shouldn't be?...cause you can do that if you want to...

and now I'm done...

As an aside, I do recall that Lucky was dissappointed we didn't win, and hadn't realized what you were doing and thus expected us to have a chance.

Once I realized you were following through and making good on your threat, I knew we couldn't win and yes I probably should have quit rather than trying to finish it out in a suicidal attack frenzy) - but knowing you wouldn't let us win, there was nothing I could do to 'counteract' your actions. Nonetheless, I didn't *plan* to throw the game, I didn't throw the game because of some personal dislike for you, I lost heart because *you were already throwing it* and that is precisely the point of this entire thread to me: people (ops especially in my opinion) should set a good example, not point out how one can bend the rules and still ruin a game *that they expressly intend to lose before it even begins* and then comment throughout *about how they are actively setting their team back whenever it gets ahead.*

Do I think people should be banned for losing heart mid-game because it's going badly and giving up? No. Do I think less-skilled players should be 'punished' for not playing as well? God no, anything but. But [0_0]zzz got away with tons of shit because no one could quite pin bannable offenses on him though he was constantly intentionally *ruining* games by: shooting his allies or their lgms, leaving alliance midgame and then quitting, starting up mid-game in games where he was idling (which he justified because he had spawned the map) and all sorts of other stuff that no one was sure was bannable - his intentions were crystal clear, but his actions were in a grey area with regards to policy.

My point: there is a not-grey line between expressed intention and forethought (premeditated game murder :) and circumstantially giving up or playing poorly or whatever else. I'm not suggesting you *should* be banned for what you did because you're right, it isn't in the policy now. Still, I think the results so-far of this poll suggest that incorporating a *very clear* policy revision relating to *writing an intention to and then ruining a game* would be a positive step, and that you set a bad example for other players if you plan to and lose games on purpose, whatever it says in the policy, and especially if you are an op.

Just my two cents.

Yay, im not DS's rather loose with list. I feel so special :D

†DS† wrote:

I think you need to think about this one thing here. I didn't ruin a game of bolo.

Yes you did. You joined.

CF

derami wrote:

1) Min: my criteria for judgement isn't how well a person does or doesn't play, based one whatever (e.g. your example of them being drunk). It is whether or not they say before, and then hint during and reiterate after the game that they are going to cause their own team to lose because they don't like someone on their team.

So, what your introducing is whats known as grey area, if claim that he did, he claims he didn't. Next you'll suggest we need a jury of our peers to make these sorts of decisions.

derami wrote:

If they just play crappy, get frustrated in-game and quit, well, it happens. If they are going to go around joining games that they intend to ruin from the start, and then ruin ... can you honestly tell me that isn't *worse* than someone just killing a game from IRC midgame?

Well, first thing your assuming here is that I give a flying shit about the current irc policies. What your suggesting is bullshit. And most certainly doesn't cover people like zzz who would just 'ruin' the game quietly without letting you know.

derami wrote:

Frankly, your question belies the fact that you didn't read my earlier post - I would suggest, in the future, reading before you respond to something.

You little fucking bastard. I read your earlier post, and its utter idiocy was completely overwhelming. I -IGNORED- large portions of what you posted on purpose. But here you are, questioning weither I can read. ya, I can read, and I in fact read your entire bullshit post before responding.

Your little poll means less than nothing, you know why? ... becuase of how the questions are asked, and how your first post was written. Try posting in an unbiased fashion rather than this utter shit.

I also like how you need to change usernames every other post derami, whats the purpose behind that? .... I guess someone had to come out of the woodwork to replace fireice.

Min