Is it OK to use a language other than English in game chat?

[tahitiwahini]

I would think the answer should be no, because otherwise it would be too easy to set up secret alliances, thereby running afoul of the rules.

However, I guess if all the players in the game speak a language other than English, and no one objected, then it should be OK.

Here's the game chat from a game (http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=95601#gmtop) that shows what can go wrong. The parts in bold italics are translated very roughly from Dutch into English via babelfish:

2006-10-29 03:21:42 - robertivo: He, still a Dutchman. Possibly an advantage the others cannot which read what we to write.
2006-10-29 03:58:17 - robertivo: Proposal. What thought you of an alliance. Firstly those others and then under each other determine who there wins.
2006-10-29 04:00:05 - robertivo: We want get both as soon as possible extra armies. Your chance lies in the purple continent (this cannot decipher them, the country names, however). I am firstly to the turn. If I attack the red team there with my armies,
2006-10-29 04:01:05 - robertivo: you afterwards probably still but two weak opponenten have daar(2*ik or 1 * I and 1 * red). You must attack me then!!!
2006-10-29 04:01:43 - robertivo there: Moreover I try keep closed the door from the green area.
2006-10-29 04:02:58 - robertivo: In ruil for that fall you in the green area the green team. This way I can concentrate on the north. Moreover you can keep closed the door with your armies from the red area.
2006-10-29 04:03:40 - robertivo: We have, however, 2 up to 3 rounds for all this necessary afterwards see we further. Late effe what knows.
2006-10-29 11:27:05 - robertivo: Gisbert?
2006-10-30 13:22:13 - gisbert: I find it a nice offer, but I have the purple area nevertheless
2006-10-30 13:22:32 - gisbert: already, therefore what is my advantage then?
2006-10-31 03:27:16 - robertivo: The proposal was already of for that. Advantage for both is that we do not have pay attention to each other in America. Skilfully because rood is strongly and has Europe already!!!
2006-10-31 10:08:16 - robertivo: You rapidly must decide, differently closes down red our both in Azie.
2006-10-31 12:22:34 - gisbert: thus, now red just as probleemje have our own continent
2006-10-31 12:23:36 - gisbert: and we do not need provisionally frightened be for azie.
2006-10-31 12:26:20 - mikecomp33: if I spoke your language I would assume that you guys are playing together in this game....
2006-10-31 13:09:56 - b.k. barunt: i don't speak it either, but i would assume the same.
2006-10-31 13:11:36 - b.k. barunt: shall we follow suit?
2006-10-31 13:40:16 - robertivo: Next turn wants will catch I nevertheless extra bonus. For that I have the last country of the continent necessary that you have in have. Appetite to the purple continent. In ruil I weaken the tegenstand in green and let you that in possession take.
2006-11-01 12:18:35 - gisbert: hello everybody, there is no secret deal between robertivo and myself
2006-11-01 12:19:26 - gisbert: This is NOT a doubles game, so everyone for himself
2006-11-01 12:57:32 - b.k. barunt: good enough
2006-11-01 14:35:36 - robertivo: Nevertheless I central America and want I you therefore, however, must attack there!!!
2006-11-01 19:27:06 - b.k. barunt: Nevertheless I want attack there!!!
2006-11-02 07:26:54 - mikecomp33: http://www1.worldlingo.com/en/products_ ... lator.html
2006-11-02 07:27:53 - mikecomp33: gisbert and robertivo have been cheating this whole time, as we thought. Teaming up and going against us. Copied and pasted into a text translator. Not cool.
2006-11-02 07:31: 37 - mikecomp33: impostors. if you want teams play krijg in the correct game, but you ruin "everyone for itself" game by playing together.
2006-11-02 12:11:46 - gisbert: dear mike, if you read the translation correctly you would have seen
2006-11-02 12:12:30 - gisbert: that robertivo proposed a deal, but i didnot accept that deal.
2006-11-02 12:13:31 - gisbert: You can see that i still hold central america and that is not good for
2006-11-02 12:14:24 - gisbert: robertivo. If we had a deal then i would have left North America a few turns earlier.
2006-11-02 12:15:15 - gisbert: And Yes we talked in Dutch but that was just an answer on my part.
2006-11-02 12:16:16 - gisbert: I dodn't like it when I am falsley acussed, so an apoligy wouldn't hurt.
2006-11-02 12:40:31 - mikecomp33: if that is truly the case, I apologize. That said, Robertivo has 2 other negative feedbacks for the same problem.
2006-11-02 13:01:46 - robertivo: First of all: Gisbert is right, there was no deal.
2006-11-02 13:02:37 - robertivo: Second: read the homepage, it says (I quote):"Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader.
2006-11-02 13:04:42 - robertivo: Mike is the game leader. Good for him, bad for all the others of us. If we don't stop him, he wins and we lose. The objective of this game is to win, not to lose.
2006-11-02 13:05:33 - robertivo: By the way: nice trick with that text translator I must say. A possible advantage is now gone.
2006-11-02 13:06:47 - robertivo: At least this becomes a very interesting game now. Almost with real emotions.
2006-11-02 13:29:27 - mikecomp33: say what you want, your feedback speaks for itself. you wont be getting games soon.
2006-11-02 14:21:43 - b.k. barunt: i'm dumbfounded - what kind of loser cheats in a game like this? There's no reward, so why debase yourself?
2006-11-02 14:48:03 - mikecomp33: no clue. last time I check this was for fun. this guy is talking about "real emotions". I promise you, there are no real emotions.
2006-11-02 18:06:38 - b.k. barunt: well it looks like we're stuck with a couple of wankers here.
2006-11-02 18:07:20 - b.k. barunt: dutchboy wankers - gimmeabreak!
2006-11-02 21:39:58 - mikecomp33: gee, I wonder if robertivo is going to attack me???
2006-11-03 04:16:36 - b.k. barunt: what? not Central America?
2006-11-03 09:11:47 - gisbert: Hey mikecomp33, is it possible to get my negative feedback removed??
2006-11-03 09:12:22 - gisbert: I'm branded for life now for something I didn't do
2006-11-03 10:38:43 - mikecomp33: I tried to before you even asked, can't be done. Sorry.
2006-11-04 01:33:34 - robertivo: In an other game someone told me about two rules that apparently exist, which I hadn't read until then: Rule 2 is: No secret alliances. Alliances are allowed (which I was aware of) but no secret alliances. I violated this rule becuase I didn't know it.
2006-11-04 01:34:01 - robertivo: However, this is no excuse, so I apologise.
2006-11-04 07:47:58 - b.k. barunt: robertivo your prior negative feedbacks made you aware of these two rules well before this game. you are a liar and a cheat.
2006-11-04 07:50:24 - b.k. barunt: as for "using diplomacy" to attack the game leader, your overtures to gisbert began before anyone was game leader in this game.
2006-11-04 08:04:28 - b.k. barunt: i wasn't going to leave you a nf, since mike already did, but i despise pathological liars who take pleasure and pride in cheating.
2006-11-04 10:00:44 - robertivo: Darling, I got those in a game going on besides this game.
2006-11-05 22:26:40 - b.k. barunt: how prolific of you.
2006-11-05 22:27:01 - b.k. barunt: darling

[Neutrino]

I think any game chat should be in a language that everyone in the game can understand, not necessilary English

[dcowboys055]

its fine if they arent making alliances or breaking rules

[tahitiwahini]

its fine if they arent making alliances or breaking rules

That's the thing. If you don't speak the language, how can you tell what they're doing?

[dcowboys055]

Well i guess you'd have to have someone who knows that language take a look.

[hefm]

Too bad you can't be around and translate for me the next time I go to McDonalds...

[sammy324]

I see nothing wrong with exploiting a language as an advantage. One cannot police every possible collusion advantage. It would be no worse than two friends playing together and communicating outside of CC, or a kind of secret code someone devises. You can take it as the internet equivalent of a whisper between players in the live game: you don't know what was said, but you can tell something might be going on. In fact, it's not even as bad as that, as one can get a pretty good gist of what someone is saying by using freetranslation.com. Anyway, what are the chances of finding two people who speak the same language in one game? Very small, I think.

[tahitiwahini]

I see nothing wrong with exploiting a language as an advantage. One cannot police every possible collusion advantage. It would be no worse than two friends playing together and communicating outside of CC, or a kind of secret code someone devises. You can take it as the internet equivalent of a whisper between players in the live game: you don't know what was said, but you can tell something might be going on. In fact, it's not even as bad as that, as one can get a pretty good gist of what someone is saying by using freetranslation.com. Anyway, what are the chances of finding two people who speak the same language in one game? Very small, I think.

Did you read the first post in this thread?

I think you can make a strong argument that there was a secret alliance in that game which would violate one of the rules of the site. The examples you cite, "two friends playing together and communicating outside of CC," or using a "secret code someone devises," would both run afoul of the same rule against secret alliances I would think. At least if we're talking about a non-team game. If we're talking about a team game I would assume the players would use the team game chat feature.

As for the chances of finding two people who speak the same language in one game, did you read the first post in the thread?

[IronE.GLE]

I'm in a game like this as well. The two in question were just spreading across the board and leaving a wake of 1's and undefended common borders. Then I caught them talking about each of them taking out a country of mine so they could get the bonuses. Since then I use every single of the 13 armies I'm getting each turn to systematically wipe out one of them. Then I'll wipe out the other one. I'm really not even concerned with winning that game as long as I take out both of them.

[tahitiwahini]

I'm in a game like this as well.

Just curious, which language were they using, if you know?

[IronE.GLE]

He said it was Danish. 237283

[sammy324]

Did you read the first post in this thread?

I think you can make a strong argument that there was a secret alliance in that game which would violate one of the rules of the site. The examples you cite, "two friends playing together and communicating outside of CC," or using a "secret code someone devises," would both run afoul of the same rule against secret alliances I would think. At least if we're talking about a non-team game. If we're talking about a team game I would assume the players would use the team game chat feature.

As for the chances of finding two people who speak the same language in one game, did you read the first post in the thread?

Point taken. But, as it is on the game chat, and you astutely used an online text translator to figure out what they were talking about, I can't justify that as secret. As you did, most people might suspect something fishy if two people were talking to each other in a different language, and leaving unprotected borders with each other, and try to translate their words. Just because it is difficult to decipher doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The rules say, "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." Nothing else, about a required common language or anything. Nor should there be.

[tahitiwahini]

The rules say, "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." Nothing else, about a required common language or anything. Nor should there be.

Do you really believe that?

It seems to me that the "no secret alliances" rule is there to ensure that all players in the game understand when there are alliances in effect.

It seems to me that announcing an alliance in a language that is not common to all the players implicitly flouts this rule. At the very least it violates the spirit of the rule.

If it happened to me in a game I would most definitely leave negative feedback for those responsible.

[Lev306]

Did you read the first post in this thread?

I think you can make a strong argument that there was a secret alliance in that game which would violate one of the rules of the site. The examples you cite, "two friends playing together and communicating outside of CC," or using a "secret code someone devises," would both run afoul of the same rule against secret alliances I would think. At least if we're talking about a non-team game. If we're talking about a team game I would assume the players would use the team game chat feature.

As for the chances of finding two people who speak the same language in one game, did you read the first post in the thread?

Point taken. But, as it is on the game chat, and you astutely used an online text translator to figure out what they were talking about, I can't justify that as secret. As you did, most people might suspect something fishy if two people were talking to each other in a different language, and leaving unprotected borders with each other, and try to translate their words. Just because it is difficult to decipher doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The rules say, "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." Nothing else, about a required common language or anything. Nor should there be.

Are you saying that if they state a non-aggression pact or treaty in a different language then it is perfectly okay because in a certain interpretation of the rule: "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." that sort of cooperation is valid?

If you are saying that, then you certain can't disagree that I could make up my own secret code by substituting different letters for the ones in the english language, give the code to a few other players and publicly state an alliance in that code and continue play despite no one understanding what I just said?

In my opinion, foreign languages are okay as long as the two players are not forming secret alliances or working as a team in solo games. However, if you are going to state an alliance or whatever, I believe the rule cited above is intended to convey the meaning that the alliance must not only be announced in game chat but made understood among all players. After all, if we wanted to interpret that rule any which way we wanted to, I could say some gibberish in game chat and say I stated the alliance but its ur problem that you don't understand it.

[Nephilim]

i've not read this whole thread, only skimmed. but it would be really silly to make an official language, or even demand that a common language be used in games.

we can't police everything. you never really know if secret alliances are being made; you never know if a language you can't understand contains illegal stuff. anglocentrism isn't the answer.....not least b/c there are thousands of players here who dont speak english as a first language

[tahitiwahini]

If you are saying that, then you certain can't disagree that I could make up my own secret code by substituting different letters for the ones in the english language, give the code to a few other players and publicly state an alliance in that code and continue play despite no one understanding what I just said?

Great example.

[tahitiwahini]

i've not read this whole thread, only skimmed. but it would be really silly to make an official language, or even demand that a common language be used in games.

we can't police everything. you never really know if secret alliances are being made; you never know if a language you can't understand contains illegal stuff. anglocentrism isn't the answer.....not least b/c there are thousands of players here who dont speak english as a first language

First off I'd give a little more weight to your opinion if you had read the whole thread and not just skimmed.

Second, if you never really know if a secret alliance is being made, then I guess if makes no sense to have a rule prohibiting them, does it? The rule would be unenforceable, wouldn't it?

It happens that English is the de facto common language for this site. If you don't speak English how do you navigate this site and play the game? If I'm not mistaken the site is pretty much all written in English, is it not?

English is the lingua franca for much of the world's communications for many of the same political and economic reasons that other languages have been in the past (e.g., French, Latin). It's not anglocentric to point this out, it's a fact. Might it change in the future? Sure, but for now English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. For example all international air traffic control worldwide is in English.

This site would be utterly chaotic without a common language. I fail to see how this is silly. I guess I must be missing something?

[Nephilim]

ok. the force of my point does not depend on the previous statements in this thread, but on the arguments which i make. first off, the ban on secret alliances is, in fact, not enforceable. no one polices private messages. there is really very little way to know that a private alliance has occurred. the only feasible way to protect oneself from secret alliances is to watch the cheaters forum and ignore people who often get accused of doing it.

yes, of course english is the common language here. but so the f*ck what? why should we prohibit, for example, two ukrainians who stumble into a game from speaking in their much more comfortable native tongue? so that a few (anglocentric) people can feel a little more secure?

i say f*ck that. liberty over security. bad cases make bad law, and you, my friend, have a bad case. let's not try to make law out of it. and ultimately, something as simple as babelfish ruined there sneaky little move, and i'm hoping you're not the only person here smart enough to use that tool. cheating in another language is still cheating, and there are far easier ways to catch it and prevent it than banning languages other than the english. your proposal is reactionary and censorious, and a precursor to nationalist fascism. oooo, i sound so serious!!

it's not feasible to ban languages or limit game chat to a common language. it's not necessary, it won't prevent cheating at all, and it reeks of lots of bad ideas. we might as well ban pm's, im's, and emails. just relax.

[Kyle Trite]

The rules say, "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." Nothing else, about a required common language or anything. Nor should there be.

That's a loophole, they should fix that.

[Nephilim]

The rules say, "Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced in the game chat." Nothing else, about a required common language or anything. Nor should there be.

That's a loophole, they should fix that.

look into something called babelfish

[Kyle Trite]

[quote="Nephilim"]

yes, of course english is the common language here. but so the f*ck what? why should we prohibit, for example, two ukrainians who stumble into a game from speaking in their much more comfortable native tongue? so that a few (anglocentric) people can feel a little more secure?
quote]

Because it is not fair. U just said english was the common language here. Some of us don't have the luxury of knowing more than english so when u talk in a language we don't understand, it's not like we can do the same thing to u because all we know is english.

[Genghis Khant]

As long as any alliance is declared in game chat, I think it's fine to use any language you can speak. There's always online translators like babel fish which, although far from perfect, can give an idea what is being said.

[Genghis Khant]

yes, of course english is the common language here. but so the f*ck what? why should we prohibit, for example, two ukrainians who stumble into a game from speaking in their much more comfortable native tongue? so that a few (anglocentric) people can feel a little more secure?

Because it is not fair. U just said english was the common language here. Some of us don't have the luxury of knowing more than english so when u talk in a language we don't understand, it's not like we can do the same thing to u because all we know is english.

Quele domage. Peut etre tu doit aprendre un autre langue?

[Kahless]

Mi pensas ĉiuj ludo babili devus esti En Esperanto
(I think all game chat should be in Esperanto)

[Jake Kelton]

I think it should be all english. Rule #2 on here is "No Secret Alliences". So, if they are using another language, and making an Alliance through it, they are breaking the rules. Unless you translate everything someone says to find out if they are making secret alliences, I think it best to just say, no. Only english.