FG: Gladiator VI - The Unbearable Lightness of Fighting

[Spaced Cowboy]

But random orders is not fighting Sheep! (Hey lets add 15 more gladiators to fight and give them random orders, yeah..random gladiators). We should make it standard practice in this game...as we have done in the past...that when a player leaves, drops, or whatever, that his matches are dropped from the schedule.

[Sparrowhawk]

Whatever the decision, it has now been 5 days since the last round and the semi's could be on by now if the game continued (regardless of the option chosen). It seems it falls to Kassiopeia to decide which way to go and implement it (not everyone is going to be happy regardless of the option chosen).

As for myself, I was offering to fill in with the hope of keeping the game moving along, but it seems to have had the reverse effect of stalling it further. I would happily join in the next game if it means this game moves forward sooner.

/me

[Kassiopeia]

I'm going to have to agree with what Spaced has said on this one. Those who won Sheep will have an equal chance like everyone else to win, but against Sparrowhawk.

So everyone, please send orders for a battle with Sparrowhawk as well, and send your actual orders too, of course. I'll check my PM box to see who the slackers are this time.

Sheep's battles are now removed from the record. And Sparrowhawk, I'll be needing seven sets of orders from you. Let's get the game going again, so we can get to the semis before the next weekend,

[Spaced Cowboy]

Sparrow needs to pick armor and weapon stats....my orders versus sheep stand for sparrow....so sent already.

[Kassiopeia]

Oh, yes, Weapon and Armour, anything from 0 to 20, the sum of both must be 20.

[Sparrowhawk]

W10 A10

(for a number of reasons that I don't need to get into here )

Edit: Sent 7 sets of orders, only one round of orders for each however, not sure if you wanted me to send 7 x 2 sets of orders or not

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
I'm going to have to agree with what Spaced has said on this one. Those who won Sheep will have an equal chance like everyone else to win, but against Sparrowhawk.

That's totally irrelevant. This ruling favours those who haven't played Sheep over those who have. It doesn't matter that we all have equal chances against Sparrow, it matters that winners against Sheep have been robbed of their 3 points. Maybe the others would have won too, making it irrelevant, but maybe they wouldn't. There is no way they can lose from this decision, and lots of ways they can gain at our expense.

For the others to fight against Sparrow (or some artificial mechanism) *instead* of Sheep is also slightly unfair I agree, but it's much much closer to being the right outcome. Any ooutcome that replicates the chance of winning or losing that we who played Sheep faced is best, not just handing those who haven't played him a no-lose card.

Please reconsider before continuing. I'm not sending orders yet, and may wish to review the ones I've sent.

[Kassiopeia]

The situation looks so much clearer if you just allow yourself to think that "hey, Sheep actually never existed". If you can just let yourself ignore those battles, the situation will seem much better. The battles with Sheep should be considered a freak accident, things that have no relevancy to anything any longer. Battles you had to fight because of Sheep's decision to join, and battles that are now erased because of Sheep's decision to quit.

I suppose this is simply a vast difference of viewpoint on the matter, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I could bring it to a vote of the player I suppose, but that might bog the game down even further.

I'm sorry, but this is the only way I can see for us to solve this situation. Saying you're being robbed of three points is one way to put it, yes, but IMHO that's spinning it a bit too much.

I know this is hard, and I am definitely not happy to make this decision (curse you Sheep! we need to express it very clearly next time that if there's even a slight chance of you having to drop out, do not under any circumstances even consider joining), but I see it as the only choice that is even slightly fair to the most players. Just.... try to pretend Sheep never happened.

[Ljube]

So what now? Is Sparrow replacing Sheep and replaying his matches?


This situation reminds me of something. You are too young to remember this, so let me tell you all about it from the beginning. It was in year 1984 that a World Championship match took place in Moscow between Karpov (the ruling champion) and Kasparov (the young challenger). The match was played until one of the contestants scores 6 points, draws were not counted.

At first Karpov scored 4 quick victories out of ten games, he got his fifth point in the twenty first game and everybody expected he would easily win. The match dragged on however, Karpov avoiding complications and risks because he wanted a flawless victory and Kasparov offering draws even in better position. Finally he started winning and after the forty eighth game the score was 5:3. The match was interrupted then and a new match was scheduled for next year.

Kasparov consented to the rematch, while Karpov objected strenuously he had been robbed of his 5 points and a match ball. However, since the FIDE chairman supported the head referee's decision to discontinue the match, Karpov ceased objecting since he was a man who respected authority (remember, Karpov was from Soviet Union and a member of their Politburo).

A new match was held next year and the match ended with 6:4 in victories for Kasparov with 16 draws, but Karpov led with 2:1. Now, has Karpov been robbed of his victory or not? I think yes.

Are you, Kassiopeia going to rob DrSpike and me and the others of our victories against Sheep? I think yes.

[Kassiopeia]

But I am not having you play against Sheep again, like Kasparov and Karpov played each other twice. You're going to play against Sparrowhawk, all of you. The comparison would work better if it was a tournament, Kasparov had to quit mid-tournament, and someone else would step to take his place, and everyone would replay against this new player.

Again, Sparrowhawk isn't replaying Sheep's matches. Sheep and his games are stricken off the record, and a new player is brought in to fill the gap.

[Kassiopeia]

The only proposals so far that I've seen from those of you who played against Sheep would be grossly unfair against those who have not played against Sheep.

The best way to solve this IMO is to have Sheep wiped clean from the record and having Sparrowhawk fill the gap. Sparrowhawk can't in any way act as a bona fide replacement, and I don't see how the five random sets DrSpike proposed would work as a viable replacement for Sheep either - again, that'd be unfair towards those who haven't played against him yet.

[Ljube]

Obviously you didn't understand the situation.


Suppose I lose to Sparrowhawk and finish fifth. I'm out because you annulled my victory against Sheep. It's the same like in the second match. Karpov led 2:1. It would have been 6:4 had the match been continued with the result 5:3, but Karpov's 5 victories were annulled and he lost the match.

The same applies to DrSpike and the others who won against Sheep.

You are grossly prejudicial towards us who won against Sheep fair and square.

[Kassiopeia]

I understood the situation, but not what you were trying to say with it.

Suppose I lose to Sparrowhawk and finish fifth. I'm out because you annulled my victory against Sheep.

You are out because you lost to Sparrowhawk. I am not annulling only victories, I am annulling EVERYTHING. The fact that all those games happened to be victories doesn't figure into it. I'd act the same whether or not you lost or won over Sheep, it does not matter.

Again, I ask: Why not simply forget Sheep's existence? Do you believe that the victories over him were earned with such toil and difficulty that simply removing him from the entire tournament and replacing him with someone else is beyond imagination?

[Ljube]

But those who won their victories now have to fight for their 3 points again. That is unfair.

And you are only annulling victories cause Sheep has zero points (he lost all four matches). Or rather, perhaps he didn't lose them, but was cheated as he stated.

Who knows now. Anyway, if I count him in, you have managed to cheat 5 out of 8 players.

[J Bytheway]

Of course, there is no way to resolve this fairly, and I'm not going to argue for any course of action in particular, but I will point out that in the past this situation has been handled simply by removing all results of the given player, and so I don't think it's reasonable to object to that. Personally I object more to the addition of Sparrowhawk than the removal of Sheep - Sparrowhawk is placed at a significant advantage because he has far more information about our tactics than we have about his, and, AFAIK, this action is unprecedented. But I don't think it's a significant problem, in particular it's not especially unfair on me since I fought Sheep in the first round anyway.

Unless Sheep makes a miraculous return, it's pretty clear that no outcome will satisfy everyone, but we have GMs to make these kinds of decisions for us. Whatever happens, the most important thing is that future GMs explain what they will do in advance, which should effectively prevent argument.

So, orders sent.