> i believe the game should not include favors carried over from one game to the next.

Why?

> i believe each game should be played fairly.

Why is PGA not fair?

> it's the mindset that cheating is cool - in any way shape or form.

Why is PGA cheating?

You all are making assumptions that PGA is cheating. Why is it cheating? Why is it not fair?

> It's kinda like shooting some hoops with your buddies after school - you dont play softer or give them favors because you know them - in fact, you have MORE fun rubbing it in their face when you do win ;)

There are plenty of individual based sports where "teams" openly PGA, such as car racing, running, bike racing, yet only the individual wins. How is Team Cabal any different than Team Andretti?

noob,

We've decided as a community that organizing alliances outside the game is not part of the game and is an unfair advantage - therefore its cheating.

But that's close to being circular (or is circular)...why is it an unfair advantage? Everyone has the ability to do the same thing. Honestly if PGA wasn't a dirty word, I think you'd see the teams form in a open and honest fashion such that all the things that everyone thinks make it unfair wouldn't exist. You'd find teams actively publicizing themselves and recruiting, and competing for people to join vs. being secretive.

BTW I'm biteme, one day I'd like my account back :(.

Bad argument. Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean it makes it a fun game. Why not allow running with the ball in basketball. Everyone could do it so it's fair right? Nobody wants to play that game.

In KDice, not disclosing that you're teamed up with someone is not part of the rules and cheating. Why do the people who like PGA keep thinking this is not clear?

The team idea would work but the key point that you're missing is that the teams would HAVE to be disclosed.

Anyway, I think this is a tangent to monte's post. There is no argument for non-disclosure of teams. I've been planning on implementing fully disclosed teams for a while now - but this still does not justify non-disclosed teams.

My original point is nobody cares about schemes... the game as it is is so much more compelling (and traffic driving) than any schemes. Most people don't get wrapped up in them. We don't need to argue about what is and what is not cheating... that is clear and was decided a long time ago.

I hear you on the tangent, but I can't let go of a debate I'm winning!

> Just because anyone can do it doesn't mean it makes it a fun game.

I didn't say PGAs were fun and fun wasn't the question raised by monte (though I'd be happy to debate the funness of PGAs:)).

> Everyone could do it so it's fair right?

Why not?

> Nobody wants to play that game.

Facts presumed not in evidence! There's certainly a lot of vocal people, i.e. kdicefreak, who say they don't want to play it BUT yet there's lots MORE who still PGA. I'd say actions speak louder than words in this case.

> The team idea would work but the key point that you're missing is that the teams would HAVE to be disclosed.

I didn't mean argue against disclosure, but I guess it was implied by monte's use of the term scheming, my mistake. So the question is then if at the beginning of a game I announce my PGA is that cheating?

> My original point is nobody cares about schemes...

No no, scheming is good. Don't conflate secret attack plans for non-disclouse of the teams.

> We don't need to argue about what is and what is not cheating... that is clear

Definetely not.

> and was decided a long time ago.

By you, not by me. Monte asked, and I will answer!

> the game as it is is so much more compelling

In your opinion, certainly not mine.


OK I'm done :)

hypocrisy should be a bannable offence...

Ryan, where are the rules??? In the event that the community agreed to stop pgaing, their actions speak otherwise.

As bad as last month was, if only a few ppl are aware, then I know the scheming isn't hurting the community. Nevertheless, I agree that it should be done with. MOREOVER, I uphold that this post is pointless, and just a scheme for monte to display his reformation. I offer applause.

Furthermore, I think you should check your definition of scheming...I, do not qualify as a schemer, my actions are generally rash...and never thought through fully. BOOM!!!
1 for Johnson and the schemers
0 for carlo, lol just teasing...

why is monte trying to hard to be the next leek? is it a slow transformation we get to all watch?

let's make this quick since I try to focus my kdice time as much as I can to playing this month

Monte: most of all, I think scheming should become a bannable offense. scheming involves AIMing, PGAing, abusing loopholes, funneling points, community accounts, and who knows what else. ---> fully agree, but we also need to have a long community discussion about what is acceptable as friend friend play. Any player I have as a friend knows I will attack/cut him if my gameplan demands it. On the other hand friends are safer to truce with or to go around when connecting because you have a better knowledge of how the friend will play compared to a stranger. If you are in a fight to the death with a friend (or you are just in the same corner with 2 exits) and it looks like fighting will probably give you 4/5, friends are much easier to convinse to let go of a fight and bundle the forces to go for maybe 2/3.

Now how are you ever gonna get rid of that. I can't do it with the current system where players can chose where to sit and the number of players playing the higher table is so small. Now that montecarlo is so honest, I think he will agree it is difficult not to ignore the safety you feel when trucing someone you know (does he play well/does he backstab/will he honour the truce to the death/...) over someone you haven't seen before.

But I agree it's a thin line sometimes (friends<->pga) and we should have gentlemens agreements on what is acceptable and what not because I am tired with the grey area. So maybe some screencaps with standard situations and a rule about what is ethically acceptable in each of those situations would clear up a lot.

I was thinking about writing an open letter to all my friends (friends I confirmed as friends) on my profile page about what me being a friend ment to me on the kdice map.
I never took the time but I think it is time I do it soon.

Johnson is right that it will be so difficult to ban pga out of the human mind. Especially with the current competition (where people can just sit with who they like).

I also 500% agree with Dr. Skrumgaer that skill measurements should be based on averages not totals. I already posted somewhere else that I think most wins -> best win%; most kills -> best avg kills; and yay for PPG>points. I also think skrum will agree that a good measure of skill should be based on a comparisson with the entire kdice population and not only compare it in a small group of always the same players (this influences the end result "dramatically" because of the huge opportunities for scheming.

Finally, for Ryan: I hope you had the time to read my last mail I sent. After reading this thread, I am even more convinsed something similar to what I (and I am sure others did before me) propose is the only way to get scheming and even the friend-friend relations under control.

"I already posted somewhere else that I think most wins -> best win%" -jurgen

Would still probably need to put more weight on higher level tables. Anyone that can play at even an intermediate level can hold ridiculous high averages on the 0 & 100 tables. It would be a sort of middle ground between the old ELO scoring and the current cumulative system.