I disagree - it's not enough to say players should simply be preferred for the deferred troops. The problem is this: when someone is missing turns, some players often assume that player is NOT returning. Because once someone starts missing turns, people make different judgements about whether that ...

Why is this being posted in this forum?

If everyone on CC has bad dice, does it work out well in the end?

I foe people who (1) are really abusive in chat, (2) get busted cheating and (3) can't handle multi-player game negotiations and go nuts when weaker players band together to fight the strongest, or (4) use bully / suicide tactics.

Over 6000 games played, there's been a bunch. So my foe list is big ...

seriously, you played a game with Dom? He's not on your foe list?

What were you thinking?

Isn't life wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to short to listen to the trifles of tiny men?

My question was not meant to be completely theoretical - here's the real situation

I was playing against someone I normally play against frequently (a preimuim account holder) but the chat was really weird...

Then the person admits to me that she is not the normal account holder (although she does ...

Question: if I have a premium account, can I share it with someone that has a freemium, so that person can play speed games when I'm not using it?

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on ...

This is a great idea, but I think we might need to set it around TYPE of random map, possibly organized by map complexity.

So random simple maps (with standard, territory-based bonuses, no autodeploys, no bombarding and no one-way traffic)

Medium maps (with one or two twists - like feudal ...

I can't believe you did it, either, littlebrother2k7.

Bad behaviour is a matter of choice, not nature. The fact that CC is "just a game" is not particularly good excuse for being a jackass. In fact, it's a really good reason for not going out of your way to harass, insult and abuse people. People ...

Yeah, there are a handful of people who abuse the ratings, but not really enough to mess the system up. They wash out in the end. To get your rating before 4.0, you really do need to consistently behave like a prick...

As a starting point, we we really need is a "minimum ranking to join" setting for games. So when you start a game, you could set it to 4.0 - and every player with a rating under that couldn't join. So quickly, the true jerks on this site would start missing out on lots of game. Finally we'd give ...

Wow, this is just "warned"? This, to me, is just about the worst behavior on CC - if you can't get busted for this, something is wrong

Not only should this be BUSTED, but CC needs to have a game termination rule. When cheating is found during a LIVE game, the game should be terminated, with no points lost by the victims

Why on earth you are recommended he leave me a bad rating and foe me? Endurance took a big early lead in a 3 man game (much of it at my expense) and then the two weaker players tried to fight back.

Better advice would be: learn how to play three man games more effectively but not going for a big ...

This is only needed for freestyle. This would be annoying for sequential games

Without question, FREESTYLE is a difficult game option. Not only is it tricky the master the strategy - it's much different than the boardgame (for example, you can take and hold big bonuses by playing quickly last), magiiiiic probably has clickable maps and is almost certainly playing against guys ...

statecraft is probably one of the biggest jerks on the site. this is good test case for whether the offense of severe PM abuse is real. I mean, either we take that seriously or we don't

Please fix the starting region allocation. in 1v1 games, the players start at 15 on this map. gives far too big of an advantage to the guy that goes first. 14 is much, much better

Accused:

arcanecellars
sonja_sonja

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis OR
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

4213132

Comments: they joined within 4 minutes of each other on the same day, they play over 90% of their games together (although many as doubles parters) and in ...

Just put 40ozassasin on your foe list. He made a dick move - don't play with him again

Sorry, I can only prove he tried to cheat in my game. If evidence of cheating in multiple games is needed, I don't have that. Although given he is blocked from playing with his former mutli/secret alliance pals, you'd think this would be classified a second offense!

Ok, so if demonfork thinks btown101 and btown80 are the same person, than he should include BOTH of them in his form. As if stands, the form submitted doesn't make much sense without that additional clarification.

So the accusation is: a new player understands a complicated map, so he either has ...

I'm sure I understand the ruling here - I'm happy to provide screenshots of the PMs (for forward the PMs to you) if the copy/paste isn't enough. Please don't make a ruling of no evidence yet!

But "noted" doesn't mean anything, does it? This isn't about him trying to cheat with multi accounts of his ...

Usually, the accusation of being a multi is based on a single person playing in the same game with multiple accounts. In your game, btown101 is clearly playing with only 1 account and is by definition not a multi, unless you are accusing him of also playing your account, in which case you're both ...