PEACE has cheated

[Illuminatus]

I inquired too what was Hives mistake. But this isn`t a reason to end the ACDG.

[Nubclear]

I think if you quit, CyCon will wither away Don't quit!!!!! CyCon needs you!

And Googlie and I are discussing the matter.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by obstructor
I inquired too what was Hives mistake. But this isn`t a reason to end the ACDG.

This is just one of many incidents. Some of these incidents proved to be unfounded, without anything irregular going on, but with others there was indeed something questionable going on. So it's not like it's unnecessary to sometimes ask the Gods to check if nothing fishy is going on. However the choice seems to be to either shut up about possible irregularities, or get "" and "" reactions from other factions their members about daring to question some actions. That really gets after a while.

[laurentius]

please dont go

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Maniac
Btw, would I be correct to assume the Hive not accepting the PEACE techs is the "major mistake" HongHu is talking about in the turn tracking thread?

No.

In their internal thread she said that (first time round) they didn't accept the techs as it depressed their research rate to their next tech.

I think she forgot second time round, 'cos now the other Hiverians are complaining about the effect on their research rate.

Tass and I discussed having HH play yet again, but decided that as this change gave them no advantage, but rather a distinct disadvantage, we'd let it run.

If PEACE hadn't offered the techs first time, then had the second, we'd have insisted on a replay, but that was not the case.

And she did replicate the first turn's mismanagement in the second (the action she wanted to replay but Tass wouldn't let her earlier on)

G.

[Maniac]

Thanks for the answer. It seems all my assumptions about PEACE/Hive actions are wrong lately.

[GeoModder]

Let the game continue then With Maniac

[Drogue]

Yay, crisis averted

[MrWhereItsAt]

But all this begs the question of what should happen if things WERE as bad as suspected..... In the Civ3 ISDG we are facing this now, with two teams using an exploit, one as 'justice' after the first team's exploit abuse, and now both are threatening to stymie the game as neither will back down. What happens if someone abuses the system here and is going to be a f***wit about it? What can we do?

[GeoModder]

Try to keep the moral high ground, that's all we can do. That way, if the cheaters bail out or are expelled by the gods, we're the winners

[Maniac]

In the Civ3 ISDG we are facing this now

So it indeed seems to be a characteristic of all democracy team games. After this one I therefore think we should have no more team games, as fairplay can't be assured.

That way, if the cheaters bail out or are expelled by the gods, we're the winners

I doubt that's ever going to happen. Personally I think that in such circumstances we should just leave the game, and if as a consequence our opponents win, they would hopefully realize it's not because of their skills, but because of their cheating. It would be a meaningless victory.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Maniac
So it indeed seems to be a characteristic of all democracy team games. After this one I therefore think we should have no more team games, as fairplay can't be assured.

Cheating has nothing to do with teams, but with attitude. In a single-player-a-faction game exactly the same thing could have happened. Only the effects are less influenced since not so many players are participating in such a game. Besides, it gives the gods a job to perform . Shouldn't be only fun for them

[Googlie]

Actually .......... I wouldn't have ruled the PEACE actions as a cheat, but in light of the past "bias" assertions re CyCon-PEACE issues I abrogated all decision-making to Tass.

Reasons for not considering it a cheat:

The originally-played Maki turn was never posted to the turn-reporting thread, so (unlike the Hive's when Jamski played it) never was the official turn. It was simply put up internally as a midturn save.

She had not followed turn orders in playing the turn (but there was a history of her not doing that)

Herc played the turn following the turn orders, and in the correct sequence sold the CC at LA.

Realizing that in all probability LA was going to be lost, he thought "what the heck - might as well go out in a blaze of glory", so replayed attacking the CyCon units from the base.

Note that we are allowing these "test" playings - not to "try for a different result" - but rather as strategic planning exercises

To his surprise, the attackers from the base came out ahead.

So if orders had been followed (CC sold first to raise cash) and the simulation been done first, there would have been no Maki reload message. And if someone such as FlameFlash or JohnDMuller had played the turn, then sent the save to Maki to post, no reload message would have been received. The issue then would have been "what's the deal with the odds changing when the Command Center gets sold"

And I don't think that the CC selling and then attacking could be considered an "exploit", as no-one knew that it worked that way. There are many quirks in smac/x and who knows why the odds increased - perhaps the programming that way was intentional.

But I did pass responsibility to Tass for the ruling on this one and promised to support it

(Note that I have not shared these thoughts with PEACE. They are still smarting from my "It's Ok for the CyCon to steal Doc Init" ruling - and the irony of the CyCon accusing them of cheating in this latest episode is not lost on them)

G.

[GeoModder]

Woaw, seems like I'm playing here with quite some misunderstandings.

Originally posted by Googlie
The originally-played Maki turn was never posted to the turn-reporting thread, so (unlike the Hive's when Jamski played it) never was the official turn. It was simply put up internally as a midturn save.

So a midsave isn't a 'holy grail', thus in disagreeing with it within the faction and letting another player replay it with other orders is allowed? Even better if that new player hasn't opened yet the turn, so no 'reload' message is attached. Ok, I can follow in that, but still, there were multiple reloads attached, thus that was very suspicious for other factions.

Originally posted by Googlie
Note that we are allowing these "test" playings - not to "try for a different result" - but rather as strategic planning exercises

I have done so once and was rebuked by my faction mates for fore-playing. Do we here in CyCon live all under this misunderstanding then?

Originally posted by Googlie And I don't think that the CC selling and then attacking could be considered an "exploit", as no-one knew that it worked that way. There are many quirks in smac/x and who knows why the odds increased - perhaps the programming that way was intentional.

Yes, I already agreed earlier that in this sequence their is no cheat involved. That only left the 'reloads' for faction outsiders.

Originally posted by Googlie (Note that I have not shared these thoughts with PEACE. They are still smarting from my "It's Ok for the CyCon to steal Doc Init" ruling - and the irony of the CyCon accusing them of cheating in this latest episode is not lost on them)

Was before my time, and haven't found this discussion so far. Would someone care to give a link to this cheating allegation on CyCon?

Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, Googlie. It smartens me up

[Maniac]

I have the same feeling as GeoModder. All what you're saying here comes as quite a big surprise to me, and is from what I understand essentially throwing overboard the "no-playing-ahead" and "no-reload" rules we agreed upon at the start of this game. Have I and presumably many other cyborgs been wrong for 56 years?

Originally posted by Googlie
The originally-played Maki turn was never posted to the turn-reporting thread, so (unlike the Hive's when Jamski played it) never was the official turn. It was simply put up internally as a midturn save.

In all PBEMs (except the current "Claustrophobia" PBEM) and also this one IIRC reloads are not allowed, and thus I presumed it logically follows that once a move - by the turnplayer or any other member - is made, it's final and needs to be executed in the final turn. There is for example the case of a non-turnplayer pirate moving around a probe skimship and thus discovering our invasion force, while in the official turn the probe skimship moved in another direction. This was ruled as breaching the rules back then. Not anymore?

She had not followed turn orders in playing the turn (but there was a history of her not doing that)

That's annoying of course when that happens, but if the above rule is followed, the moves Makahlua made should be the final ones. And if there is a history of her not following orders, why then not elect another turnplayer? Then they won't be faced with these troubles.

Note that we are allowing these "test" playings - not to "try for a different result" - but rather as strategic planning exercises

That's absolutely the first I hear of this. Have other factions this already done regularly? But so you say I would be allowed to do as many reloads and test plays as I want for the sake of strategic planning? If it are just for testing out domestic former & crawler orders etc, I don't see any problem, but if military or exploration unit movement will happen that turn, I don't see how you can be certain that the turnplayer isn't just trying to get better combat results, better unity pod pop results or do some exploring while claiming to do some "strategic planning".

So if orders had been followed (CC sold first to raise cash) and the simulation been done first, there would have been no Maki reload message. And if someone such as FlameFlash or JohnDMuller had played the turn, then sent the save to Maki to post, no reload message would have been received.

I agree. But that's not the situation that happened.

And I don't think that the CC selling and then attacking could be considered an "exploit", as no-one knew that it worked that way. There are many quirks in smac/x and who knows why the odds increased - perhaps the programming that way was intentional.

I agree. After you had confirmed that those battle results were perfectly "normal" and did not indicate cheating, that was no longer a problem IMO. The fact of the reloads still was an issue though, and I assumed that's why Tassadar made his ruling to do a replay.