The Rules (KDice):

General Rules

Do not use pornography avatars
Do not harrass people
Do not use hate language or avatars

Game Rules

Game-to-game favors or alliances are not allowed
Play only one account at a time

________

Which of these rules were broken by Federer?

None, AFAIK...

What he does might me stupid or annoying, but not bannable.

He's a mysterious character, that doesn't speak which is the way I am playing this month. Mrs M and all those people can suck it.

Federer is a good guy because he increases the chance for other players to get a better position, since he gets 7th in every game. So it's more like a cheat. He should be banned for the unfair advantage players get with him at the table.

Probably the bot was made for having an automated pga buddy with a player (maker) recognition giving a simple boost at the start by not hitting the chosen one without anyone noticing the main trick. Without a master is goes random.

The "watching the world burning" option is also viable ofc.

I still find the script impressive.

[Replying in Official Capacity]

Federer's play style breaches no rules. He isn't targetting anyone in particular, and he funnels no one either. It might be a problem we'd consider talking about if it was at the 5000 table level or something, but we've talked about this as a mod group in the past and Federer simply has a unique play style and doesn't breach any rules while playing this way.

In short, he's not permabanned because there's no grounds to do so.

I agree that he shouldn't be permabanned but personally I don't like what he's doing anymore.

I think his quest to win most aggressive rank was ok and cool for the first 2 months or so. The system allowed it so why not try it I guess. But it's getting very old and boring.

I'm not really sure there's a higher chance of winning the game since everyone's chance increases with the same amount. Of course a 7 player game yields more total points than a 5 player (and there's one less player with -50) but that's it. The main disadvantage is that every game there's one person who suffers the most for no good reason so I get why some people at the lower tables are starting to get annoyed.

Basically, there's not much we can do unless we interpret this as harassing or trolling the people at the lower tables in general. Not one person, just in general. Tbh, it's a stretch to do so unless like 100 players from the lower tables ask to do so.

Personally I think the most aggressive rank is wrong because it doesn't really reward the most aggressive player in the game. It rewards suiciding and quitting the game. So that should change and it should filter out players who don't play normally (with a realistic minimum of top3% in order to qualify). I think he would stop if he didn't show up in the rank anymore.

One last thing that players could do to channel their frustration is to ruin his gameplan. If you're in a game before him, hit him as much as you can so his attack/defence ratio drops

"I'm not really sure there's a higher chance of winning the game since everyone's chance increases with the same amount. Of course a 7 player game yields more total points than a 5 player (and there's one less player with -50) but that's it."

A 7 player game also yields more than a 6 player game, basically he gifts "+50 pts" (deducted from him) to the table - increasing the others' chance to win points. And if you evaluate the situation incorporating the "opportunity cost" of having him at the table instead of any other player: at a normal 7-player game, the 7th player has a nonzero chance of winning the game; unlike Federer who always quits before the game is over. So mathematically (if he chooses his targets at random): Prob(Winning|Federer at the table) >= Prob(Winning|No Federer at the table)

"The main disadvantage is that every game there's one person who suffers the most for no good reason so I get why some people at the lower tables are starting to get annoyed."

Yeah, he certainly makes the game more "random" (more of a gamble) by introducing another factor (besides dice rolls) that is not under your control. On the other hand, if you want quality games with smart players and sound strategies, you might wanna consider playing at 100 buy-in or higher tables instead of "zeros".

"One last thing that players could do to channel their frustration is to ruin his gameplan. If you're in a game before him, hit him as much as you can so his attack/defence ratio drops."

Yes, but for an individual player, it might not be a winning strategy (if the others son't follow suit). Hiting a player who would quit after 1 turn instead of a long(er) term threat is a bit akin to hitting greys. Sometimes it might be worth it (if you can grab a corner or conncect your lands), but not generally. And he (Federer) could vent his frustration by hitting you instead of someone else. (Well, provided he's not a bot, anyways. If he is, that might be a valid case for banning him.)

Best thing out of this post is that there are "mod group" meetings.

Dudes a tool, its what he does. You know its coming, and its on a 0 table. Who cares.

"Basically, there's not much we can do unless we interpret this as harassing or trolling the people at the lower tables in general. Not one person, just in general. Tbh, it's a stretch to do so unless like 100 players from the lower tables ask to do so. "

Well, i don't really get the notion that you can't ban him cause he's not breaking rules. It's obviously not the way the game was supposed to be played. It's obviously a bot. So what if the bot doesn't break a rule? Just make up a rule about bots not being allowed. It's Ryans/the mod's game, why can't you stop activity that is clearly not inside the perimeters of how the game is supposed to be played (or not played in this instance) just because its not in the rules?

The rules are just there to enforce the wanted behaviour from players. Do you really want bots playing? Seems strange to me. And I find him a funny distraction, I don't even care. But that seems like a strange way to rationalise unwanted behaviour. The difference between a good and a bad cop is how he reads between the lines of the law and how he uses common sense before law imo.

The response to this thread is fucking ridiculous.

ROFL.

what a bunch of babies. You think someone that suicides out every game should be banned?

Roll better on defense or stfu.