Like in this game against 2bigfeet http://www.wargear.net/games/player/189657, turns #579 and following, RoyalCrown will not finish the RT games, just for the sake of being a jerk.

Happened to me in http://www.wargear.net/games/view/189640, turns 518 and following. I had to let myself skipped to make him kill me off.

And again in http://www.wargear.net/games/player/189641, turns 906 and following.

A previous case was raised in this thread http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1737/Complete_idiot_on_one_of_my_game and it was said that because it was possible to surrender,  it was not a big issue. I did not want to surrender.

I believe this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and RoyalCrown should be banned from playing here.

This is exactly what the surrender link is for!

there are some that don't think the surrender is a viable option for whatever reason. the never give up attitude can be commended (heck i just won a 3p real time game that i *almost* surrendered on), but sometimes theres just no way.

take 8x8 Go-Geared with no pieces on the board and the other player has more than 1/4 of the spaces (1/2 to win)...

A previous case was raised in this thread http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1737/Complete_idiot_on_one_of_my_game and it was said that because it was possible to surrender,  it was not a big issue. I did not want to surrender.

Why not?  Surrendering has no negative affects, and the site does not display how many times you surrender. Surrendering is simply the mechanic provided by the site for you to end a game which you know you have lost.

Not resigning/surrendering a dead lost game is a very serious offense in some gaming cultures, and it is THAT behavior that would lead to banishment!

Hugh wrote:

Not resigning/surrendering a dead lost game is a very serious offense in some gaming cultures, and it is THAT behavior that would lead to banishment!

I am not familiar with such gaming cultures. However, I would say that resigning/surrendering a dead lost game is an expected courtesy in many gaming cultures, and not resigning is therefore considered to be rude, or at worst, inconsiderate.  Ifyou think about it, not surrendering when you are way behind is also being inconsiderate of your own time.

That said, because most of the games on this site are non-deterministic, there is always a chance, however minute, that a player who is way behind can still win, even against perfect play by their opponent -- so there's gray area.

Personally, I prefer to wait until the odds are pretty damning -- say on the order of 1:1000 or worse. Heck, I play the lottery on occasion, so I figure that surrendering with better odds would be irresponsible.

"Banishment" is a slight exaggeration. But, the reason for the admonishment I have witnessed in chess club circles is this simple message: "The game is over, time to move on to either analysis or another chess game; quit wasting my time as well as your time."

Yeah, I wouldn't resign unless it's worse than 1:1000, but the positions in the posted links looked worse than that!

Hugh wrote:

Not resigning/surrendering a dead lost game is a very serious offense in some gaming cultures, and it is THAT behavior that would lead to banishment!

In the games that Toto linked to it is fairly clear the RC is just being a jerk -

like a cat playing with a mouse - "I can kill you at any time, but I'll let you think there is a chance you can get away and I'll enjoy tormenting you"

But, in this case the mouse can simply quit - and try to win the next time.

Yeah I know, I looked at the games. In one he says "don't be a sore loser, take your turns", so I think he was being a counter-jerk to someone being a jerk. The others he may have just been a jerk. It doesn't matter whether my devil's advocate makes sense or not. The phrase "should be banned" is so extreme that it should be reserved for cheating, hate speech, and the like. (Plus I play this guy a lot and think his behavior is typically normal and sporting.)

+1 to Amidon and M57's posts...and I think banishment would be an "extreme" reaction (not "slight").

There is always "give em a warning and a framework for banishment, then wait for more complaints"  and then take banishment action.

ratsy wrote:

There is always "give em a warning and a framework for banishment, then wait for more complaints"  and then take banishment action.

And here I object again, on grounds that no official infraction occurred.

Hugh wrote:

ratsy wrote:

There is always "give em a warning and a framework for banishment, then wait for more complaints"  and then take banishment action.

And here I object again, on grounds that no official infraction occurred.

I'm with Hugh, It seems like a pretty douche way to play, but arguably just another form of taunting/mind games.   Crazy idea, but maybe the accused should be clued into this whole thread to get his take...?  Let him know how his play is being viewed. Educate before ya incarcerate?

Educate before ya incarcerate.

Gotta agree with this statement.  There is always the option to make em an enemy too. Sometimes for the greater good, the crappy stuff needs to be managed though. 

A true General of his army would know when to surrender and leave whatever small population of his people are left rather than total annihilation of his/her people. 

Toto: You And I both knew the game was over... you kept on attacking therefor wasting my time by not surrendering. I figured I would return the favor. I am not breaking any code of conduct. 

Essentially what you have done here is make yourself look like a whiner. Loosen up your belt and relax a little bit tiger, it's a game. 

I want to say publicly say that I do not appreciate how my name was brought up in the forums in this manner. So here is my official response.

Toto, by starting this thread one of two things happened.

A: You got so angry that you tried (Yes Tried) to find a way to get even.

B: You did not know a better way to convey this topic.

You and I both know that option B is not the case. This is actually the incorrect place to even place such a thread.  

To all other readers of this thread:

I like to control the entire map. It's a great feeling seeing the red nation completely overtake the board. Also there is another reason, I like the enemy to know and see that they have been defeated. There is something more memorable when the enemy enters the map and sees his tiny nation surrounded without a chance. Definitely more so than just having the game disappear from your game list.  

I am not trying to offend or upset you Toto, but for you to search through my games list and try and find games similar to what happened to you? This just proves that i struck a nerve and my tactic did exactly what it was intended to do.

I would request to Tom that this thread be either moved or deleted. My argument being that this is an attack on ME not the tactic. You could see how a whining thread like this is not very fair to me or other people that this may happen to in the future. It's not like my name is used in one of the responses of the thread, it is the actual title of thread.... c'mon man.

RoyalCrown wrote:

I want to say publicly say that I do not appreciate how my name was brought up in the forums in this manner.

...

I would request to Tom that this thread be either moved or deleted. My argument being that this is an attack on ME not the tactic. You could see how a whining thread like this is not very fair to me or other people that this may happen to in the future.

+1

I haven't really read into the exact situation between you and Toto, but I agree that threads attacking individuals should be kept to a minimum.  

There are two ways to go IMO:

1) If you suspect a person of cheating, there is already a link at the bottom to report.  Use it.

2) If a player is performing a tactic you don't like, set them as an Enemy and start a thread on the tactic so the community can decide if it should be made illegal or not.  

Thank you Attila, I 100% agree.

I do not have a problem with you making me an enemy Toto

tom wrote:

This is exactly what the surrender link is for!

This should have been /thread.

Speaking as one who has been the subject of personal attacks on this site, I would say that deleting these posts would not be consistent with current policy (I'm pretty sure those threads still exist). It seems to me that the participants in this thread actually saw the problem for what it was and identified a solution.   If RC wants to surround his opponents to let them know how good he is before delivering the final blow, that is his gaming style and prerogative, and he has explained why he does it. 

Some here may take issue with this style of play, but it is certainly not illegal, and of course they can resign/surrender if they don't like it, BUT  ..they should also be allowed to bring it to public forum for discussion.   That way, others can decide how they stand on the issue and avoid play with RC if they wish.

Personally, I will have no problem playing with RC.  If I get bored because he is taking too much time to kill me once the game is down to two players, I'll just resign.  If he does it with three players, I will probably make him an enemy and bring it to the attention of others in the forums so that others can avoid being similarly tormented ..if they so wish.