Edited Robert Hinrichsen (May 16, 2013 07:46:02 AM)
Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:
By the book, I believe Joe is correct. The only infraction committed here is Outside Assistance on Moby's part, and he will receive a match loss for the next round. Nemo has committed no infraction because he did not solicit the advice.
This is one area where, in my opinion, the policy documents could be improved. The IPG has no “additional remedy” section for Outside Assistance, and yet it is precisely in cases like this (where one player gains a significant external advantage through no wrongdoing of his own) that additional guidance would be very helpful. Simply saying “too bad, play on” does not seem to provide for adequate vindication of Ahab's expectation of fair treatment and rules enforcement, and it is very likely to leave him with a negative experience as a customer. I can't say exactly what remedy would be appropriate here–perhaps in cases of Outside Assistance the non-benefiting party should be given the option to have the game be a draw–but I certainly feel that applying no remedy at all is not good customer service.
Edited Philip Ockelmann (May 16, 2013 11:52:46 AM)
Originally posted by Samuel Nathanson:
It seems unsolicited, but could Nemo and Moby be in collaboration? I'd ask Nemo if he and Moby are friends.
Edited Johannes Wagner (May 16, 2013 08:35:02 PM)
Originally posted by David Carroll:
Yes, I recognize it as a deviation (and commented as such,) but I'm still going to ask him about it, because he can flat out say, “I was going to make the mistake, but Moby pointed out something I hadn't considered.” This would basically be the only case I would issue the match loss.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.