I think that rule is taken out of context since it was a tourney... the set up was as follows (4 man table to start with...4th place already eliminated and me with huge glob and 2 much smaller players)

Fiero600-800 pts and easily in 1'st
minibiatch - 600 pts and north of my huge glob
kevin143 - 125 pts and south of my huge glob

if i kill minibitch - i got 500 points, kevin nothing, mini -500

if i kill kevin - i got 125 points, mini nothing, kevin -125

so..if i kill kevin i get heads up but only 125 points, and if i kill mini i get 500 points but i have to play 1 v 2 against 2 players that would be clearly going for me... so i thought and realized i might can get both the 500 points AND the heads up battle...

so i tell minibitch"obviously you'd rather have 2nd place than 3rd place in the tourney but i need the 500 points to seal my tourney victory...so if i kill kevin, will you lag out first round heads up?"

he agreed... and we followed suit

i felt like this was a very effective tourney strat... certainly if i had killed mini and they 2v1 me 3 games in a row because i was the leader that would have been valid... any thoughts? tournies add new aspects not seen in regular tables so there should be a new set of rules for them i think

I believe that no deal should express any pledge to do something in the next game. Not formally, you can think what he surely will do, but not express or pledge. But that´s just my take, tourneys are surely grey-zone.

- i asked Fiero to think about going heads up with me, and killing Kevin, instead of keeping it 3way - bad for both of us.
- Kevin and i have been 2/3. He asked for a fight for his position. I agreed and WON!
- he was out, no matter what...

But yeah, lagging out one game to satisfy fiero and hoping he seriously keeps his word with the fight / tourney strat / whatever was just dumb(!), cause i already won the fight for 2/3 and took myself in a weaker position.

So Kevin, dont change the facts.

P.S.: i got fucked, not you kevin.

I made myself weaker without any sense. -_-

lagging out the NEXT game = game to game favor

very clear game to game favor because of the lagout next game, KDICE MOD bring down justice on this fiero lad.

oh man so caught.


why you keep trying to justify shit fiero, just tell them to fuck off.

This is definitely a game-to-game favor, but I have increasingly noticed that people think a different set of rules should govern tournies. That being said, instead of making a knee-jerk reaction and giving -play to the two of you, I've sent an e-mail to Ryan asking if he's given any thought to the different gameplay of tournies compared to regular tables. I also told him to check this thread out as a good example of what most of you guys claim to be "good tourney strat".

If Ryan doesn't respond I'll assume that I should moderate based on the usual rules. This would mean -play for 7 days on the fiero and minibiatch accounts.

I'll give Ryan 24 hours to respond from the time I make this post.

So when i wouldnt have lagged out for one game, it would have been ok, and just a casual fight won for 2/3 + common sense tourney strat to go heads up - which fiero denied, cause he let me fight instead of doing the tourney strat (going heads up)

well... so i gonna get fucked twice, damnit!

That is pretty fucking lame ass game to game. To include any stipulations on actions taken in a future game for doing something in a current game is fucking dumb.

Jesus fiero you ignorant fucking twat, why the fuck would you try to justify this?