Etiquette question (or, when is a truce not a truce?)

[geigerm]

My apologies if this gets long-winded, and if it's in the wrong place. Had this situation turn up in one of my games and wanted some feedback:

It's a 4-man escalating game, Pearl Harbor, and one of the players (yellow) had probably taken half the map. The blue player posted, "need help with yellow please, or we all lose"--a pretty clear assessment of the situation. So, I offered a 3-round truce prior to my turn in Round 7. Blue didn't respond in the chat, but did continue to attack yellow and only yellow, while I did the same.

Fast forward to Round 9 ... I knock out green to get his cards, cash in two sets, and take out a bunch of yellow's armies. Blue follows by busting most of yellow's remaining bonuses; yellow retaliates with a set of his own and has things at best even between me and him after the round. But at this point, it's unclear--at least to me--who's really in a better position.

So, when my turn comes around in Round 10, after the three rounds have passed, I see that I've got an opportunity to win the game by knocking out blue, taking his cards, and using the resulting set to cripple yellow. I try to do so, fail by leaving one blue army in play, and the next thing I know, blue regains his ability to use the game chat and I'm a "backstabbing bastard" who's going on his ignore list. (Incidentally, the game's still going on--blue had a set, and he obviously wants nothing more than for me to lose at this point.)

Now (finally), here's my question: was I wrong? Blue's perspective is that I should have been able to "read the game" and know that he wasn't after me, and that I apparently should have known that he would never just turn on me and would have offered a warning first. That's the way I've always ended announced truces--let each player take a round at the end of the truce to set up their previously undefended borders and then begin attacking. But, given that he never explicitly responded to my offer, I wasn't sure if we really had a truce or not, and having never played with the guy before, I had no clue if he was going to turn on me if he felt I was in a stronger position and therefore more worthy of attack.

So, did I screw up? Would people have handled this differently, and if so, how?

[wcaclimbing]

If you called a truce, but he never accepted it (responded in the chat agreeing to it) then there is no truce and it is all fair play.

You are correct on this one.

[hecter]

Your truce was up... I wouldn't worry about the ignore list (you'll probably never play him again) and if he leaves you a neg, go to the help tab and get it removed.

[lord voldemort]

yes all seams fair. it was a good move and a fair move. i suggest when proposing alliances, say to give a 1 round or 2 round notice for when the turce ends. makes a lil less confusion.
but apart from that your not in the wrong. pitty u couldnt eliminate him

[oVo]

Seems there was no truce to break, since no response was given in the game chat.

[kingprawn]

Hitler formed a truce with Stalin and then invaded Russia when he thought the time was right. All is fair in love and war.

[geigerm]

Hitler formed a truce with Stalin and then invaded Russia when he thought the time was right. All is fair in love and war.

Not sure I love the comparison, being Jewish and all, but it makes sense.

Thanks, folks, for reinforcing what I thought in the first place.

[KoE_Sirius]

He didn't answer you.Except his offer to go on his ignore list..Add him to your ignore list and sleep better knowing you will never have to play him again.
....
....
Edit:Whats his ID...My ignore list needs updating too.

[geigerm]

He didn't answer you.Except his offer to go on his ignore list..Add him to your ignore list and sleep better knowing you will never have to play him again.
....
....
Edit:Whats his ID...My ignore list needs updating too.

Heh, I just saw this ... for some reason, I feel oddly compelled to not answer--don't want to drag anyone's "good name" through the mud. And since the player in question was kind enough to not leave negative feedback , I don't need to trash him. However, I'll say this ...

... I ended up winning the game anyway.

And the best part about it is, yellow pretty much handed it to me after my good friend in blue wrote in the chat, "yellow i have a set, kill me, u win the game, dont red red win."

Not sure what it means to "red red win" (I'm sure he meant "let red win"), but yellow tried to knock him out, left 1 blue army on V6, broke most of my bonuses ... and then inexplicably didn't prevent me from taking out that last blue army, getting two sets and over 100 armies as a result, and wiping him off the map. Had yellow protected the blue army instead of his own bonuses, he would have won the game.