Perfect justice is impossible. But it is possible to have some thing resembling an asymptote which nearly reaches perfect justice - what is needed, is checks and balances on power.

Whether or not you can recognize it in yourself, everyone has bias, Ryan is not immune. Everyone sees the world at a different angle - everyone sees a slightly different perspective.

Right now Ryan is Judge Jury and Executioner.
It is not in question that he DOES have the right to wield these powers - it is his game.

However, having that much power concentrated into one individual is not conducive to justice.


Ideally there would be an appeals process, handled by an uninvolved third party or committee of trusted players - with the power to overrule Ryan's rulings on justice matters.

One final note:

I do respect and appreciate Ryan's intentions to clean up the game. He clearly has GOOD intentions.

However, I am concerned that in application, these good intentions can end up doing harm to undeserving individuals. (whether or not I am deserving or undeserving is irrelevant). With the aforementioned suggestion for a check on power, these concerns of mine would be alleviated.

I've played with you many times kitten. you are a pga'ing wunderkind.

Holy shit. If im cutekittens im killing the player who has the best chance of beating me in the tournament. regardless of flags. this is the reality of the multi table tourney; a different strategy is used becuase essentially the same old monthly tournament is played out over a short period, so this type of strategy is completely legit. Im not 100% sure but i remember Ryan saying once that a flag is not some sort of contract that gives you a certian place, but only lets people know of your intentions, so first can choose to accept a flag or not. If they decide that they dont want to accept the flag then thats their choice and its not a dishonest play.

I guess CuteKittens the only thing different I would have done in your situation is announce clearly in the chat box that you're going to try to kill xyz player because you want to win the tourney and would rather play the weaker player in the next round.

Cause if what you're saying is true it is definitely a legitimate strategic move. If however you assured the two final players that they would have a fair fight for 2nd and then interfered, that is quite a fishy move and justifies what Ryan did.

it's just a lot of maybes here but maybe Ryan didn't ban CK for killing the highest point player but for for trying to change the outcome of the fight for 2nd after CK noticed the player he secretly wanted to win the so called fair fight wasn't getting his likely 2nd after all.

Maybe if CK immediately had gone for the kill of Cod4 there wouldn't have been a ban. It's maybe a borderline legit strategy to try and kill highest point player first but I would say in the cases where 1st doesn't have a huge lead, it's not really fair to give him a lower finish.

I want to win tournaments too but I will rarely use the "kill highest" technique because I prefer to win it from the better players rather than weaken them early to get a better chance. Maybe I am naïve and won't win many tourneys but that's how I want to win them.

Last maybe: maybe Ryan didn't only ban you for that last game but maybe it was a combination of that game and previous ones? Honestly I hope it was only for you trying to kill Cod4 that last game.

what is getting out of hand is senator mccarthy who seems to have prejudice against anybody who has been around this game for a long time. he loves to throw us under the bus as an example, but goddamn it, most of us werent fuckin doing anything bad when we got penalized. we werent pgaing. we werent trading favors. we werent favoring one person over another for any other reason besides, IF I DONT FAVOR THIS PERSON IN THIS CURRENT GAME RIGHT NOW, HE WILL KILL ME AND I WILL BE OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT. apparently this is not a good reason. if i am given a tough start with a large big neighbor, i am not fuckin allowed to try to truce him, because that is cheating. i am not allowed to use the chatbox to try to be nice to him. all i am allowed to do is say, kill me, im monte fucking carlo, and i am short-stacked next to you because you had a better start. its my time to give up and exit the tourney, because if i fuckin try to even THINK of trucing ONE GODDAMN PLAYER, senator mccarthy here will log in, ban my IP so until i lose out of the tourney, and give no logical fuckin explanation, even when i present mine.

i just dont understand. ive been fighting for a fair game ever since january. ask any of the top players. ive been one of the cleanest top players as far as not favoring one playerName over another. ive been a loud annoying proponent of this fairness for almost a year.

and then, here comes Ryan, just a couple weeks ago, and decides he will make this the new focus now: the single-game fairness. great! im excited, because im sure he knows how much i have sacrificed myself to achieve this cause in the past year. except wait. he decides that the fairest way to implement a strict rule of fairness is to silently ban IPs of people for which he has been the judge jury executioner. does he consult anyone? no. would his own advisors agree with him if they had witnessed the same play? we will never know. the enforcement of this fairness is in itself completely unfair. especially when i, as one of the fuckin chiefest proponents of fairness over the past year, is one of the first ones thrown under the YES WE CAN fairness bus. the way that punishment is doled out needs to be much more consistent, and needs many more than one biased perspective to be judge/jury/etc. in no way did i cheat when i got ip-banned.

I bet Ryan would have voted for Obama: clearly he wants change

I still think a set of guidelines for what will be banned would be easier to live with. But Ryan decided we need to figure it out ourselves. I think I will stop trying to convinse him but others are free to keep trying.

Some great alltime players already said numerous times that one key thing that defines a great kdicer is their ability to overcome all new challenges from kdice rule/scoring/flag changes. Well it looks like no favors allowed is a new (or a better inforced) rule. I admit it will be a hard rule. LAst tourney I was overthinking every strategic descission twice. It's damn frustrating if you have to doubt all your moves that make sense for your own survival and all.

But I don't think trying to truce a larger player when you are weaker will be punished because that's part of the diplomacy strategy. A large player accepting a truce from a very small and easily killable neigbour could be punished if he does that to kill a clear 2nd instead. The correct thing to do would be to leave the small player alone if needed, focus on 2nd to ask/force him to flag 2nd and if he does, kill the small player.

But of course you can't blame the small player for trying to survive. You could blame the big player for accepting and screwing another playing. If a small player asks me for a truce, I try to state clearly what he can expect from the deal (dont count on getting 2nd...) or I ask what place he has in mind.

But I am not gonna pretend I am the holy virgin Mary or something. If I am the small player, I will also try to avoid being attacked by the big guy and get the highest place possible.

as i said the point difference was 300 or so it wouldnt have made a difference next round as ck got a sick start anyway, so she would have won.

IF THE POINT DIFFERENCE WAS 300 IT WASN'T A STRATEGIC MOVE

because we wouldve had to come 1st maybe 5 time to win the tournament and that wouldnt happen even with luck