| Name |
Message |
When |
|
WLoH Int Judge
|
Your posts will also be deleted. We have stopped this kind of trolling we were previously subjected to, we havn´t the time for you to waste. I wonder who you could be lol ;)
If your issue is real contact me by email to disclose the member you feel is guilty of your accusation, that is the only way to prevent the ´problem´ you apparently perceive.
|
20/01 2017 23:47:47
|
|
WLoH Int Judge
|
SettleThisDebate, anonymously speculating about an ´issue´ which has never been a real problem seems bizarre. Demanding answers from an admin team which has real matters to deal with is not welcome. If a player is experiencing another member refusing to start a game they should name them, this way it will be a tactic the accused is unable to use for very long.
Further posts from you will be ignored as there is no valid reason for you to hide your identity.
|
20/01 2017 23:23:05
|
|
SettleThisDebate
|
Let´s say that John has posted, but Joe and Amy still refuse to play him.
Who would the judge award the 150-0 win to?
|
20/01 2017 22:20:33
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
I reckon John would have posted earlier in the season to get the issue resolved.
|
20/01 2017 21:50:01
|
|
SettleThisDebate
|
This is not in regards to any ongoing leagues on the site.
I just need a straight answer on what would happen in this scenario:
John, Joe, Amy and Pauline are all of the players in one division. John sends Joe and Amy several challenges, but they both refuse to play him and reject all of his challenges. He takes screenshots to prove that challenges were sent, then sends these to the judge as evidence. All of the other games in the division are complete.
This means that John has only completed one game, Joe and Amy have both completed two and Pauline is the only player to have completed all of their games.
What happens to the two games John has not been able to complete? Does he win 150-0, or are Joe and Amy awarded a 150-0 victories over him?
|
20/01 2017 21:04:21
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
That explains the delivery failure. A shame as I spent some time on that email too thinking that there might be a good reason for you wanting to remain anonymous on the forum. Anyway the person you were talking to has their evidence below from more than one person and in the rules / FAQs. We´d be very happy to discuss further with them if they want to post here, in their group, or to email the judge if there is some sensitivity. Any concerns about games not being played to gain advantage / disadvantage another player can be raised with the judge.
|
20/01 2017 08:20:32
|
|
SettleThisDebate
|
The e-mail I used for this account is a fake e-mail, so I did not receive it.
Besides, the person I am having this debate with wants to see evidence on this website.
|
20/01 2017 07:06:47
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
Hi SettleThisDebate. I addressed those concerns in the email I sent you. Did you receive it? Thx
|
20/01 2017 07:02:11
|
|
SettleThisDebate
|
@WLoH Int Assist
I will be interested in seeing the other useful information that you have.
You can prove that you sent somebody a challenge by taking a screenshot of the page when you send an invite, then another when it says that you have already sent a challenge.
If you are telling me that the rule they are citing is correct, then this is open for abuse.
1. People can hold back from playing the player they think they are most likely to lose to until the table is complete. If a draw in their remaining game is enough for them to win the group or avoid relegation, then they can avoid playing the remaining opponent to guarantee that they won´t lose.
2. Two or more players can join forces by agreeing to not play a particular player in their group. They then secure guaranteed victories for themselves, while the person they refuse to play receives a number of losses.
I can´t see any scenario in which the person whose challenges are being refused is seeking to gain an advantage.
|
20/01 2017 06:58:16
|
|
1hockey
|
I over lapped you a bit there Assist I could not see your post but I hope I was helpful but it seems you have other info but it is a good debate and a possibility of a rule change or is there something in the rules I missed
|
20/01 2017 06:21:25
|
|
1hockey
|
I suppose the problem with settle this debate is that you guys have not fronted up with who you are. You must first accept a game invitation for it to come under the rules of a resignation and the 150 or 50 point rule. There is nothing in the rules that state you have to play a player but trying to resolve this can be difficult because this game is not attached to word feud so it is impossible to determine who has made a challenge and who is refusing the challenge to determine who should receive the points. If you can prove that you made the challenge and your opponent refuses to play then you might have grounds that you were the aggressor so should be awarded the game with a 150. It is up to you at the moment to prove this and so have the advantage at the end of the season with auto results.
|
20/01 2017 06:18:00
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
Point 1 is obviously for a game that started and was resigned or timed out. Point 2 is the applicable one and covers the scenario you allege. There is some other useful info that I will send shortly.
|
20/01 2017 06:09:29
|
|
SettleThisDebate
|
Unfortunately we have not settled this ourselves as I am citing this rule:
´If your opponent resigns or fails to make a move within the time limit (3 days), you win the game.You then have two choices: either deduct 50 points from your opponent´s score and register this result, or register the score 150-0.´
Whereas he is citing this rule:
´If a game remains uncompleted after 14 days, the player that has finished the fewest games overall, is deemed to lose, based on the assumption that this player is the slowest. Games that have been lost 0-150, are not considered to be completed. If both players have completed the same number of games, the result is set to 0-0; if not, the player who has completed the most games, wins the game 150-0.´
The rules do not specifically say what will happen to the outcome of a game if a player refuses to play one opponent, but plays against everybody else. The person I am debating this with requires a specific answer from you.
|
20/01 2017 05:40:22
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
Ps. Setting up a new user to try posting an anonymous question seems like an odd length to go to ... if there is a good reason for this though that isn´t appropriate to discuss on forum then please do email the judge :-)
|
20/01 2017 05:15:24
|
|
WLoH Int Assist
|
An easy debate to settle yourselves as it´s covered on the rules page
|
20/01 2017 05:12:55
|