Clanlord Carl wrote:I'd like to join.....please clarify the no collusion statement.....can you say "Bill is winning all attack him for example" ...... easier to ban all game chat ?
Good question! No, that would not be considered collusion so long as it was said in that regard and Bill was, in fact, considerably ahead in the game.
I'm thinking more along the lines of tit-for-tat, such as ANY indication that anyone is helping another to be repaid within a different tournament game (so that both parties can advance).
Make sense?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.