I personally don't feel entitled to make a ruling against the wishes of one or some of the players.

I don't know what the rest of the mods think.

Even if the game was ruined by two players who were cheating and influenced the game with their cheating? If that's the general concensus then I accept it but it seems unfair that a corrupted game should be allowed to continue. But I'll respect the oppinions of the Mods in this. I just feel that games involving cheaters should be forfeit.

Anyone else agree?

I kind of think the mods have an obligation to step in, especially if the player who could win it can do so as a result of the cheating or the ban, even if they weren't involved in the cheating. At a minimum, the game should be paused and the ones who want to draw or cancel should have the option of refusing to unpause until replacement players are found.

But having looked at this game, I think it is still fairly balanced. I didn't look over the past turns in detail, butt here are four powers fairly well balanced (6, 7, 8, & 9 SCs). The two remaining survivors should use their powers of persuasion to be the poisoned pill to whpoever tries to eliminate them and work with the other. Sometimes these positions turn around and wind up coming back for the win or a strong second. France only needs one more SC to make money and Russia could sneak his way into 3 more with good negotiations. I don't think this game is ruined at all. It just got a bit more interesting and challenging for a couple of the players.

The mods fulfilled more than their obligation when they banned the cheater and posted the message. Consider this no different than when a player goes CD for not logging on, moderators do not pause a game for that.

Ok. If that's the way it is I'll concede and play it out. It was the end so much as how it got there but that's ok.

I am aware of no precedent for acting in these situations.

In my opinion, all games in which banned accounts participated should be automatically canceled, or at least excluded from the statistics, or put in their own special category.

I *am* aware of a precedent of the mods pausing any game in which players are being banned. That happens all the time and should have happened here, but all the spots are filled so it shouldn't be an issue. Chrisp and Fig have both done that in the past.

pausing != drawing or cancelling.

From what I've seen the Mods here operate very cautiously, avoiding any precedents that can become problematic longer term, as Shost/Xapi stated.

Pausing/unpausing games and banning multis is one thing, deciding the future of games that were affected by these events is a totally different story.

Some people suggested canceling these games, drawing them, not counting them for points/ratings, etc. Why? What if someone is in a good position, despite the cheaters, why should they be penalized? They've done nothing wrong. It's tough luck for some, but that's the point - it's luck now - you want the system (moderators) to be splitting the pie in the end in order to correct the ... luck?

They've banned the cheaters, whoever had the misfortune to play with them will have to live with it. It's not your fault, it's not the moderator's fault, it's certainly is not the fault of another player who happened to be lucky or took over a CD. There's no reason on Earth why these players should be penalized for anything, which is what you're asking.

"pausing != drawing or cancelling."

Nice misdirect, Xapi, but Ghost said "I am aware of no precedent for acting in these situations." Forcibly pausing *is* acting. Did I take a crap in your Wheaties that you are hunting me down and making statements that, on their face, make it look like I'm wrong when in fact what I said was 100% accurate?

I know you're a mod now, but leave me the fuck alone.

@ Draugnar

"These situations" means when the players don't agree on what to do with a game, when this game has been tampered with. What Ivo explained.

Pausing a game to give time for replacements, etc. is not a definitive thing, players can agree to unpause it, draw it, cancel it, etc.

Forcing a pause or unpause is something we do regularily, because it has little long term effects. Forcing a cancel or draw is something we do more rarely, and it's something we never do against the players wishes. (We usually do it when all but one player has voted, and the remaning hasn't joined the site for long.

I don't eat Wheaties.

You write a lot in this forum, I read most of it. I have a tendency to speak out when I disagree with someone or I think they're dead wrong, and I think you're dead wrong.

I'm not chasing you around, it's not personal, but from where I'm standing, you seem to say a lot of dumb things (or things that I considered dumb) that I don't like to leave unanswered.

I'm sorry, it's the kind of person I am. You should let people make an opinion for themselves regarding wheather you are saying dumb things or I am.

I wouldn't ask you not to answer my posts.

It doesn't matter anymore. I've excepted the ruling and will play the game on. Thanks everyone for your input and judgement. I'll try to play private games from now on as there seems to be a rash of such games going on. Oh well. It happens.

@ Ivo:

"Some people suggested canceling these games, drawing them, not counting them for points/ratings, etc. Why? What if someone is in a good position, despite the cheaters, why should they be penalized? They've done nothing wrong. It's tough luck for some, but that's the point - it's luck now - you want the system (moderators) to be splitting the pie in the end in order to correct the ... luck?"

The logical fallacy in this is so obvious I don't see how it's not beating you over the head. Diplomacy isn't about luck. That's the quote ON THE MAIN PAGE OF THIS SITE. And the idea that it's unfair to punish someone for doing well "despite the multi" is foolish. Because often times (if not always) a multi helps a third party that is completely neutral. That's the nature of the game. IE Germany and France are cheating, and eliminate England. Now Germany and France are CD, since they've been banned, and Russia gets most of the SC's. Turkey get's none. And England got eliminated entirely. How is that fair? How can you say that you actually think a game like that should be counted in the statistics??

@ Xapi:
So if a game is paused due to the banning of a multi, can one player refuse to unpause? I think they're perfectly in their rights to do that...

@ C-K:
That's called giving up. You shouldn't do it.

Refusing to unpause for no reason other than holding a game hostage for a result is not allowed.

@Draugnar: Shut up

1. gameID=7279, userID=10789
2. gameID=7697, userID=12652
3. gameID=9550, userID=13970
4. gameID=9885, userID=14661
5. gameID=10076, userID=13823, userID=14661, userID=14662, userID=13374
6. gameID=11315, userID=16066
7. gameID=11336, userID=16843

This is a compilation of all of the games I've played in with banned accounts. Now I'm not saying that all of these should be canceled, since I haven't looked into each one, and I don't know if there was cheating in each specific game, but I feel as though at the very least my defeat from game 5 should be purged from my record, and I'm kind of stiffed about it. I obviously didn't deserve the survive that I received from that game. And while Bubbles and Cubes have long since left the site, I feel they'd probably agree if they still cared...

@rlumley

Man, if you're going to argue with me you need to up the level a bit :)

The fact that the quote says "there's no such thing as luck" does not make it automatically true. I just bought a book for my nephew that states that Santa exists. If I send you a copy will you believe it?

Of course there's luck in this game, as in any other game/sport. Longer-term things level out and if you're good you'll win more. But there's always luck when you look at individual games.

As for the list of games you've made... not sure what your point is. You think you've gotten an unfair share of the bad... I'm sure mine will be longer, same with a lot of other people.

Get some perspective on things, you're not the center of the universe, shit happens to all.

@alamoth: Fuck off

I agree with rlumley. I think that if a player is banned for being a multi, then all games he was playing in at the time should be cancelled. They are tainted by having a multi in them, and it is not fair to continue with them - whoever was winning or losing.

I also think that all _completed_ games that this multi had participated in should be retroactively cancelled.

@ Ivo_Ivanov: "As for the list of games you've made... not sure what your point is. You think you've gotten an unfair share of the bad..."

I think rlumley's point is that if, in any of those games, he has been defeated (or prevented from winning) due to the actions of a multi, then he is the victim of cheating, and should therefore have those defeats wiped from his record, because his defeats occurred in unfair circumstances.

The reason I asked for this ruling was that I was fairly certain that the general oppinion and precedent here would surely be that games involving cheating would be at least canceled. Is this way there is nothing loss and nothing gained. Now I understand that the other players have done nothing wrong but the to say "You are back where you were before the game started" is much less unfair than "Here's a cheap win, some points because you did nothing wrong."

In the first scenario no one wrongly benefits nor wrongly loses anything. In the second scenario some wrongly gain and some wrongly lose. I 'm surprised that this is the precedent. I've never seen a game that allowed tainted games to count. I'm surprised that some players wouldn't have a problem with winning such a game, although I guess I shouldn't, but I'm more surprised that the site agrees.

I agree with you, C-K. Games involving banned players should be cancelled.

I disagree.
I looked through Bearnstiens games when I banned him.
Those two accounts may (but I'm certainly not sure) have both been him, but I didn't ban them for links to each other. Thus, as it was unproven, I must assume MC != Bearn
Therefore, whilst you had two 'dodgy' players, I didn't see that they were working unfairly together...

@ Figle: "I disagree."

Are you saying that you disagree with myself, C-K and rlumley, all of whom argue that games involving banned players should automatically be cancelled?

It would seem so yes.
I think that a game with the same player as multiple accounts should probably be closed, and I would be fine with that becoming a rule, but if you have one cheat account then its not enough to warrent closing the game.

Jamiet: "I agree with rlumley."

Well there's a first time for everything. :-)

@ Ivo: I'm not saying there isn't luck. I'm saying diplomacy isn't ABOUT luck. Poker is about luck. Gambling is about luck. Diplomacy is NOT about luck. Therefore shouldn't we try to reduce the amount of luck required whenever possible? And this is quite possible.

Also, I did a quick look through your games too. (A somewhat more herculean task, given you apparently have 227 games...)

Do you really think that you deserve credit for your win in this game (gameID=4613), a game where all the other players not only had similar names, but ALL CDED AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME!!?!?!?

How about your win in gameID=5984, where there were two people banned and one that it looks like the mods missed (Austria)? You think you deserved that win? Cooincidentally, it seems you were able to take significant advantage of the multi that was banned in that game, gaining, depending on how you count it, up to 9 SC's.

Germany was pretty well assisted by the multi in gameID=11404, don't you think you could have won it if not for that?

In this gunboat game, gameID=14685, Germany and Italy were banned for multi accounting. Oddly enough, Austria seemed to benefit from every single one of their actions. You don't feel as though you were done an injustice by this?