Conquer Club

the universal rules say "no secret alliances or secret collusion between any two players in a game, etc." it is possible there some may read this rule and think, "as long as it's not an actual agreement to work together and/or an agreement not to attack each other, it's can't be that bad."? So where in legal teritory does this place sharing bits of info via PM on Fog of War games?

It is noted in the rules that, while any agreements between players must be declared openly in game chat in English and/or other language that all players understand, using PMs to discuss said agreements is legal, as long as the aforementioned agreement is declared openly to exist. So, technically, the way i interpret this rule, if u PM a player asking a question along the lines of "are you interested in discussing..." your not breaking this rule, not technically. You just have to declare it in game chat IF and WHEN you and the other party come to an agreement to act certain ways. And i think a lot of people are jumping the gun by reporting such questioning via private messages as cheating. I'm glad that such reports are usually just "Noted" and folks don't get "Busted" and kicked out and/or suspended for doing this once, and after the mods come in and say "well, he shouldn't have done that..." these people often just don't do it any more, but still... i think the point is still worth debating about what the implications of this rule are.

Anyhow, since this IS in sorta grey territory, using the above mentioned questionable activities is NOT something people who truely want to stay completely clean should do. But the way the rule is stated, it is sort of a stretch to say it covers some of the area that it's been extended to by folks in the cheating and abuse reports. The yelling at's and negative feedbacks i've seen some folks recieve for this sort of stuff is kinda harsh.


Of Course, rather than debating the meaning of the rule the way it is worded, there's another simple solution: Lack could just reword the rule to explicitly show what he means by it, giving examples of what's legal and what's not, and eliminating such fuzzy words that's definitions, as far as in risk/cc games, is unclear, such as "collusion". Dictionary.com defines "collusion" as:

1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy.
2. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement.

both these definitions can be interpreted to mean any agreement that leaves others out of the loop at all, at any point during it's planned existance, or even the planning of the planed existance. Alternativly, they could be interpreted to mean just a secret agreement that was reached and put into execution without notifying others.

So, in brief, the question i'm asking is: Is asking about whether your interested in an alliance or truce via PM cheating? Is asking about whether your interested in Fog of War info sharing via PM cheating? Also, here's another question that i just thought of: Is info sharing via PM in fog of war games legal at all, even when it's existance is declared oppenly in the game chat?

I went with number one. It should be declared in game chat if people are even thinking about an alliance.

Alliances by PM are cheating. The wording of the rules are pretty clear. You've just busted yourself as a cheat.

If your negotiations were in progress by PM and both of you attacked the same person, then that would still be classified as working in concert even though you hadn't necessarily concluded ALL alliance discussions.

Do everything in game chat, then you can't get pinged for it.

This post is HUGE

I voted the first one

erm... what?

go read rule number 2. it banns "colusion" and "secret alliances" unless they are "announced beforehand in the game chat". the question is, at what point do you need to declare truces on game chat? the way it's worded, it doesn't technically say u have to declare it on game chat before asking others if their interested in discussing truces/alliances/info-sharing. you obviously have to declare it in game chat when any such agreements are finalized or initiated. So at what point does it have to be declared? Technically u could ask somebody via PM if their interested in thinking about an agreement, and when they reply that they are, then u could mention in game chat that u r discussing an alliance. except apparently people have been calling others cheats and bringing it up in cheating and abuse reports when some folks do ask via PM if others are interested in discussing info-sharing or alliances.

and I'm not sure if that post there is a joke or not, but i'll just go and deny it now, i'm not a cheater. I got 22 positives and 1 negative feedback on my record, and that one negative is more or less retalliatory for a feedback i left somebody else when they accidentally broke a truce. I've never been acused of anything (yet, that I know of) in cheating and abuse reports. any furthur comments about my legitimacy that don't include laughing or smiling emoticons to indicate they are jokes and I'll start loosing faith in the cc comunities abilities to seriously discuss a topic and I'll just go and give up and continue playing my games and leave everybody to go about their ways. But i feel this topic could use a bit of attention.

I also realise that many, as sangfroid suggested, will just avoid this issue and stay completely clean by staying far outside this grey zone. But the question remains to be asked about exactly how bad are the crimes of those that do stray into this grey zone, or consciously use it to their advantage.

and yes, i do write a lot, soundout.

TheTeacher wrote:and yes, i do write a lot, soundout.

i noticed i write very little

On the very few occasions I've asked for a truce I've asked for it in game chat, That way you give other players the opportunity to form an alliance. In my experience most other players do the same. I've had a few Pm's from players seeking alliances which I've ignored.
I try to avoid alliances because they sometimes result in bad feeling since at some stage the alliance must be broken and one player will come out the alliance stronger.
Alliances should be instinctive in my opinion.

I said everything has to be done in game chat.

Risktaker17 wrote:I said everything has to be done in game chat.

so u think, even after an alliance is declared and worked out in game chat, it is illegal and reportable if ur ally desides to send to u a PM saying "I plan to attack so-and-so next turn"?

see, soundout, i am capable of writing somewhat short posts.

why do u guys even care? just never do alliances and u wont get in trouble

the_fatty wrote:why do u guys even care? just never do alliances and u wont get in trouble

Agreed

the_fatty wrote:why do u guys even care? just never do alliances and u wont get in trouble

lol... apathy, the solution to all the world's problems...

i care 'cause i like to know exactly what people make of the rules, so that I know how far I can safely go, so that i will be able to go so far and know i'm safe. lol, there's a bit of circular reasoning for u.

TheTeacher wrote:

Risktaker17 wrote:I said everything has to be done in game chat.

so u think, even after an alliance is declared and worked out in game chat, it is illegal and reportable if ur ally desides to send to u a PM saying "I plan to attack so-and-so next turn"?

Imagine if you were playing the actual board game and tried to do this.

TheTeacher wrote:

the_fatty wrote:why do u guys even care? just never do alliances and u wont get in trouble

lol... apathy, the solution to all the world's problems...

i care 'cause i like to know exactly what people make of the rules, so that I know how far I can safely go, so that i will be able to go so far and know i'm safe. lol, there's a bit of circular reasoning for u.

Why dont you ask the advice of the high ranking players on CC about alliances?

BaldAdonis wrote:

TheTeacher wrote:

Risktaker17 wrote:I said everything has to be done in game chat.

so u think, even after an alliance is declared and worked out in game chat, it is illegal and reportable if ur ally desides to send to u a PM saying "I plan to attack so-and-so next turn"?

Imagine if you were playing the actual board game and tried to do this.

so ur argument is CC should be like risk? if so, good point. the basis of this argument is disputable though.

TheTeacher wrote:so ur argument is CC should be like risk? if so, good point. the basis of this argument is disputable though.

CC IS like Risk. It uses the same basic ruleset, with a few house rules added in, and a wider variety of maps. How is that disputable?

While it is a common courtesy to work out the details of your alliance in game chat, it is not required. Once an alliance is agreed upon, it must then be announced before you take any further actions in the game. If you and another come up with an alliance via PM, yes you probably will get accused of cheating because of appearances, so to avoid that, it's best to work things out in chat.

rule 2 is rule 2, interpret it for what you want...

I'm an old school Risk player, and played extensively online before the existence of C Club. Don't get me wrong, I love C Club, but I'm just too ingrained with an old school sense of Risk Honor, to the point where I feel that any kind of alliance is unethical. Sure, it's legal, but it's also legal for me to kami you if you do declare such intentions.

Usually, what happens is that someone will mention something about an alliance, and then I immediately post that I automatically kami alliance makers.

Announce it, or not, you still get kamied, I don't care about quibbling about the nuances of this rule.

Man up, and play by yourself, or play doubles.

Scarus

I vote wholeheartedly for #3.

Whatever the wording of the vague explanation for the rule, the foundation is "No secret alliances." A secret alliance is an alliance that no one knows about (besides those who are in the alliance, of course). So in order to follow the rule, if you've made an alliance with another player, make it public--announce it in the game chat. If you and another player want to consider forming an alliance, guess what--you don't have one! What point is there to discussing publicly something that doesn't even exist? You won't accomplish anything besides cluttering up the chat box.

Alliances are key elements of Risk (I think it's a no-brainer that CC = Risk with a few optional variations; CC is for people who want to play Risk online. Moving on....). Just as you wouldn't have a problem pulling another player aside in the board game Risk, there shouldn't really be any problem doing the same thing with the online version.

If other players start whining 'That's not fair! You're cheating!' then they're really the ones with the problem; they forgot that this is a game of strategy, not simply mindlessly bashing numbers against each other.

Consider an example:

3 players are playing on the map. 2 of them are relatively equal in strength, while the third is considerably stronger. It's readily apparent that he's (for the sake of simplicity, I'll use the male gender) gonna win. Now those 2 players face a decision: 1) They can keep bashing their heads against each other, continuously fighting over the same few territories and weakening themselves in the process. And of course, in the mean time, Player 3 can just keep smiling as he builds up his forces, slowly nibbles away at what's remaining of the other two, and gets even closer to victory. Or 2) The two squabbling players can wake up and realize that they're just sealing their fate, and they only way they'll survive is if they team up against the winning player to at least beat him back to a less threatening position.

If P3 whines that such an agreement is unfair, then he's simply ignoring a critical element in the game. He really should've planned for this.

To sum it up: alliances are strategic and are therefore fair and acceptable, unless their existence is kept hidden from the rest of the players.

...

Ok, that's enough. It's too late and I'm too tired. I'm sure you can finish connecting any dots that I left out.

Besides, I think wicked said it well when she said "Once an alliance is agreed upon, it must then be announced before you take any further actions in the game."

Good night. Go ahead and disagree with whatever I said if you want. I'll deal with it tomorrow.

Just my thoughts,
Poocho

P.S. As I sorta mentioned, my mind's not completely clear. So if anything I said came across as offensive, I truly am sorry. I'll just have to correct it later.

Scarus wrote:
Man up, and play by yourself, or play doubles.

Scarus

i completely agree with scarus!!! i fell into playing doubles games, because i was encountering so many players with alliances/secret alliances. it seemed whenever i would get an edge, alliances would be struck, and i would be killed by the weaker players. i don't like alliances in 3 and 4 player games. if you want a partner, play doubles. otherwise, MAN UP!!!

p.s.-i voted for the first one. and i think wicked pretty much settled it... now if only optimus can show up and toss in a few nuts and bolts...

p.p.s.-3.........2..........1........

Scarus wrote:I'm an old school Risk player, and played extensively online before the existence of C Club. Don't get me wrong, I love C Club, but I'm just too ingrained with an old school sense of Risk Honor, to the point where I feel that any kind of alliance is unethical. Sure, it's legal, but it's also legal for me to kami you if you do declare such intentions.

Usually, what happens is that someone will mention something about an alliance, and then I immediately post that I automatically kami alliance makers.

Announce it, or not, you still get kamied, I don't care about quibbling about the nuances of this rule.

Man up, and play by yourself, or play doubles.

Scarus

SCARUS! Long time! Welcome back!

Poocho wrote:I vote wholeheartedly for #3.

Whatever the wording of the vague explanation for the rule, the foundation is "No secret alliances." A secret alliance is an alliance that no one knows about (besides those who are in the alliance, of course). So in order to follow the rule, if you've made an alliance with another player, make it public--announce it in the game chat. If you and another player want to consider forming an alliance, guess what--you don't have one! What point is there to discussing publicly something that doesn't even exist? You won't accomplish anything besides cluttering up the chat box.

Word.

Alliances are crap !