What, exactly, are the implications of this site's #2 rule?

[lord voldemort]

Alliances are crap !

QFT esp in 3 player, when u just capture a cont, and your not even in a comanding lead and they team up on you..so annoying.

[TheTeacher]

kk, so... right now there seems to be:

1. the official definition as it is: that technically it's not required to work out EVERYTHING in game chat, but make sure it's declared before any agreed apon actions are put into effect in any way, but when somebody tries to open up discussions via PM and the other feels it's an attenpt at cheating, it's an reportable offence that should be "noted", and as such, it's safest just to steer clear of the grey area. (acording to Wicked)

2. the majority, who seem to believe in the strictest sence of the rule, that EVERYTHING should just be worked on in game chat, because, for example, in real risk, u can't just PM people, and why should u be able to on CC? Also, some people just belive in this interpretation 'cause that's sorta the one they've been using and abiding by for a while, and they feel they might as well just leave well enough alone. (these r people who voted for option #1)

3. a minority who strongly believe that the rule only covers, at present, what it explicitly covers. that it only says that there are not "secret alliances" between players, which only means that others must be notified of it's presence before it it put into effect and/or any action is taken apon it.

4. a law-abiding minority who sorta are fine with anything, as long as it's sensible.

Now, while the majority do seem to be fine with the more popular interpretation of the rule, such a devision as this has shown does show there are questions and unclearness in the wording of this rule.

by the way, some ofPoocho's nice long post does not seem to address my question. The middle half of the post just seems to be arguing that alliances are allowed. A couple other people have posted that alliances are annoying. Actually, The fact that alliances are allowed has long since been established (i think). Let's not whine about that fact. It's just another tactic that has it's benefits and risks that some use more heavily than others. The question is at what point, if one were to start planning an alliance with another party, does a player have to anounce the existance of a truce/alliance/infosharing and/or plans for a truce/alliance/infosharing.

[jimboston]

I think ALL conversation about alliances potential or otherwise shoudl take place in chat.

Sometimes there are 'unspoken' alliances... for example I might type in chat something like...

"Hey Yellow... Red's getting pretty big there..."

Then.. without formal agreement both Yellow and I might start hitting Red more and not hitting eachother.

There's no formal alliance... just an unspoken acknowledgement that Red is the biggest Threat.

If that took place outside of chat... that would be cheating even if we never agreed formally to NOT hitting eachother and focussing on Red.
===

Also... sometimes... just by starting to talk about an alliance... you lighten up on the player you are talking to and focus on other areas.

The alliance might not formally be made till a few turns later... but just the talk of a potential alliance has affected your actions.

If that talk is occuring in PM or via some other IM... and not in game chat... it's cheating... cause just the talk causes it's affecting your actions.
===

Another possibility... you and another party talk about an alliance.

If done in game chat it allows other players to see you are planning...

I might see Yellow and Red talking... and say "Hey Green... they're teaming up over there... wanna call a truce on our border."

The talk in Game chat gives me a chance to counter.

If the talk occurs outside game chat... I don't know till it's a done deal and have lost time in planning to counter
===

I just think all game-related conversation should occur in chat.

It's just polite and the right thing to do.

[TheTeacher]

I believe that:
every
scentence
doesn't
need
it's
own
paragraph.

but other than that, good point.

[Molacole]

alliances are for noobs...

If you offer somebody an alliance througha PM then that's about as far as the PM's should go. They either decline it, agree to it or ignore it. Either way your terms of agreement should be done in chat.

If you're discussing the terms of an alliance then you've both already agreed to an alliance. You are just trying to work things out in your favor. So just because you offered such and such and now they're offering something else it still means that you both agreed to an alliance.

If you're willing to discuss an alliance then you've already made one.

[TheTeacher]

alliances are for noobs...

If you offer somebody an alliance througha PM then that's about as far as the PM's should go. They either decline it, agree to it or ignore it. Either way your terms of agreement should be done in chat.

If you're discussing the terms of an alliance then you've both already agreed to an alliance. You are just trying to work things out in your favor. So just because you offered such and such and now they're offering something else it still means that you both agreed to an alliance.

If you're willing to discuss an alliance then you've already made one.

Does this mean u suported #1 or #2?

[arizona]

I believe Lack has ruled on this, to say that contacting by PM was not forbidden. It's clear though that the exact implications of the ruling are subject to some interpretation.

My preference would be that all in-game communication take place in game chat. I've got absolutely no problem with alliances, but it's simply a cleaner solution.

[freddy32]

i dont like your peoples attitude