Secret diplomacy in public chat?

[drunkmonkey]

Is it legal to make truces with others in fog of war games, by speaking in "code" about troops and territories that not everyone can see? If legal, is it ethical, or considered "cheap tactics"?

For instance:
"If you fort the troop count ending in 8 to the one ending in 3, I can [yada yada]"

Yes, everyone can see it. But not everyone knows what it means. You could even do something like this without naming who the truce was with, keeping most of the other players completely in the dark.

I'm not ratting anyone out here. It's something I saw recently, and I'm genuinely curious.

[DiM]

imho that's still secret diplomacy.

[Night Strike]

As long as it was in the game chat and not discussed elsewhere, it's not secret diplomacy.

[QoH]

It's in english, which means it's ok on a language level. It's for everyone to see, therefor not breaking the public aspect.

Is it's legal? I'd say yes. Is it ethical? I'd say probably not. Well, yes, actually I'd say it's legal, but it's kinda being a douche if someone decides to use that style of diplomacy.

[chapcrap]

I don't have a problem with it.

[IcePack]

I don't have a problem with it.

+1

[DiM]

how can it NOT be secret diplomacy?

the crucial aspect is FOG.

if player A writes in chat:
"if you move your stack ending in 8 from our left border i will attack the other guy from the place where we share the other border on the right"

despite being written in public chat and in plain english, only one person will understand this and all other players will have no idea who player A is making a truce with and who will player A attack.

when 2 people communicate strategy in a manner comprehensible only to them i call that secret strategy.

[darth emperor]

how can it NOT be secret diplomacy?

the crucial aspect is FOG.

if player A writes in chat:
"if you move your stack ending in 8 from our left border i will attack the other guy from the place where we share the other border on the right"

despite being written in public chat and in plain english, only one person will understand this and all other players will have no idea who player A is making a truce with and who will player A attack.

when 2 people communicate strategy in a manner comprehensible only to them i call that secret strategy.

Well, if the other player doesn't reply anything, is not even strategy, because is left unanswered (technically).
Also (well of course depends on maps and situations), but in general you can have a great idea of who is the guilty one (even if is a bottleneck region.
Futhermore, if you tell by diplomacy of which region you are talking about, or whom you are talking about, you are giving sensible info, so in many time might be non worth, apart that losing the idea of fog. So the diplomacy here is to get what you want putting the less information possible...

[chapcrap]

how can it NOT be secret diplomacy?

the crucial aspect is FOG.

if player A writes in chat:
"if you move your stack ending in 8 from our left border i will attack the other guy from the place where we share the other border on the right"

despite being written in public chat and in plain english, only one person will understand this and all other players will have no idea who player A is making a truce with and who will player A attack.

when 2 people communicate strategy in a manner comprehensible only to them i call that secret strategy.

Who cares if the other players don't know the terts being discussed? They know something is being discussed, that's the point. They're trying to do it without letting everyone know what is behind the fog (which keeps things secret). So, FoW could be busted for secrecy, but not the players.

[DiM]

the other player doesn't need to reply anything, he just needs to agree and act according to what player A suggested.
the strategy can be explained without anybody getting any info out of it except for the 2 persons planning the strategy.

player A says something like:
"hey, please move your stack that ends in 8 on our border so i may pass and let's have a truce there. for this i shall attack the guy that annoys you on the other place where we share a border, then we can ally and kill him there. you don't have to respond, just do as i requested and i shall do what i promised"

nobody will know who player A is or where he's making a border truce with player B or who they're gonna ally against.
heck, they won't even know if this is really happening.
since everything regarding this diplomacy is secret, doesn't that make it secret diplomacy?

[agentcom]

Who cares if the other players don't know the terts being discussed? They know something is being discussed, that's the point. They're trying to do it without letting everyone know what is behind the fog (which keeps things secret). So, FoW could be busted for secrecy, but not the players.

I think this is pretty close to the key issue here. In fog games, often people speak in some kind of "code." "Hey cyan, let's trade off that on that northern/eastern border that we share"; "I'll move my bigger stack back, yellow"; etc. Basically anytime you say anything that is not "Hey blue, let's exchange Bangkok" or "Red, I'll move 19 troops off of our border" you could be accused of "speaking in code." Nobody expects that level of detail in fog games. Unless you think that NO information should be exchanged (which is not an opinion based in any way on the rules of this site), it would be real hard to draw a line.

If you are one of those people, go find the Suggestions for "True Fog" (disabling chat) or whatever people are calling it and lend your support for this option.

Note: that a true code, that effectively makes the chat non-English would probably (I would hope) not be allowed. So no Morse Code or decoder rings allowed!

[SirSebstar]

..............

despite being written in public chat and in plain english, only one person will understand this and all other players will have no idea who player A is making a truce with and who will player A attack.

when 2 people communicate strategy in a manner comprehensible only to them i call that secret strategy.

no, you know ther are having a truce, or someone is having you on, either way, you are warned

[DiM]

..............

despite being written in public chat and in plain english, only one person will understand this and all other players will have no idea who player A is making a truce with and who will player A attack.

when 2 people communicate strategy in a manner comprehensible only to them i call that secret strategy.

no, you know ther are having a truce, or someone is having you on, either way, you are warned

how do you know they're having a truce? the second player doesn't have to respond and you don't know if he acts according to player A's indications. so because it is fog and the message is cryptic you don't know who the layers involved are (except for the one proposing the truce) and you don't even know if the truce went on.

so what exactly are you warned about?

[Lindax]

I don't have a problem with it.

+1

+2

Lx

[squishyg]

For me, secret diplomacy means you don't know two people have a side deal going on. Understanding the terms of their agreement is not included in that protection.

Also, it's fog. If you want to know what's going on, don't play fog. Or be better at fog.

[DiM]

well i kinda hate all forms of truces in games. even when they're public and clear it still bothers me to see them. which is strange because in real life i adore using diplomacy and screwing with people's minds when playing risk.
if it were up to me i'd ban all forms of diplomacy.

[mc05025]

Is it legal to make truces with others in fog of war games, by speaking in "code" about troops and territories that not everyone can see? If legal, is it ethical, or considered "cheap tactics"?

For instance:
"If you fort the troop count ending in 8 to the one ending in 3, I can [yada yada]"

Yes, everyone can see it. But not everyone knows what it means. You could even do something like this without naming who the truce was with, keeping most of the other players completely in the dark.

I'm not ratting anyone out here. It's something I saw recently, and I'm genuinely curious.

Actually it is a smart way to make diplomacy but very rare and hard to work.

But what is working is something like

'Yellow do you want truce to our borders? if yes do not answer just leave our borders with 1 troop etc'

that way the others does not really know if you have truce. In addition sometimes you can even avoid to say the name 'yellow' so that people have even less information

That is simple and I have used it successfully.

[drunkmonkey]

Thanks for the discussion - this was exactly what I was hoping for. I was already about 90% sure it was legal, and that's cleared up. I felt it was very cheap when I asked, but after reading the arguments, I feel it's at least a little less unethical.

[Timminz]

Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand.

If it is posted in game chat and in English, it's legal.

[drunkmonkey]

I was already about 90% sure it was legal, and that's cleared up.

[DoomYoshi]

It is a form of secret diplomacy since the code must be agreed upon before the game starts - in secret.

Let's say I pm Dukasaur and we enter a bunch of sunny 8-players together. If I attack his territory and say "nice try dukasaur" he knows I won't let him keep the bonus. However, if I attack in silence, I will let him keep his bonus. The thing is that the agreements of the truce were agreed upon OUTSIDE of the game.

The problem is that it is impossible to tell what is going on here. I have seen a lot of secret code popping up in games. I could start writing gibberish sentences in all my games and not be communicating with anyone, and so no enforcement is feasible.

Legal? No. Moral? No. Impossible to Police? Yes.

[GrudgeBringer_]

I think it IS secret diplomacy and as such, it should be at least called out if you are in a game with the people. The one thing everyone seems to miss is this...If you can say it in a way no one but you knows ANYTHING they are saying, then they must have got together beforehand OR in other games.

I have only played a little over 100 games, but have never seen anything close to that. IF, I did...I would call them out and not play with them again. From what i have read on here, there are a lot of folks that would play with them.

I count this the SAME as posting on a wall..it is there for anyone to see iF they want to carry it that far, but it is really really borderline cheating.

Just an opinion...

[agentcom]

I count this the SAME as posting on a wall..it is there for anyone to see iF they want to carry it that far, but it is really really borderline cheating.

Just an opinion...

I know you're new to the site, but I just want to warn you: posting on someone's wall about a game IS cheating. Please don't do this, for your own good.

I've said this before (and hopefully the statute of limitations is up haha), but when I was new to this site, I PM'd someone about a truce. We were both new players, so we arranged a truce through PM. Fortunately, this was short-lived as the other player was called out for doing the same thing in another game. He then called me out for it in chat and (again fortunately), the other players let it go. I'm lucky I don't have a C&A warning for what I did. I didn't know any better, but that wouldn't have been a valid excuse.

Just a rule...

[DiM]

I've said this before (and hopefully the statute of limitations is up haha), but when I was new to this site, I PM'd someone about a truce. We were both new players, so we arranged a truce through PM. Fortunately, this was short-lived as the other player was called out for doing the same thing in another game. He then called me out for it in chat and (again fortunately), the other players let it go. I'm lucky I don't have a C&A warning for what I did. I didn't know any better, but that wouldn't have been a valid excuse.

Just a rule...

quick.... a point reset

[agentcom]

I've said this before (and hopefully the statute of limitations is up haha), but when I was new to this site, I PM'd someone about a truce. We were both new players, so we arranged a truce through PM. Fortunately, this was short-lived as the other player was called out for doing the same thing in another game. He then called me out for it in chat and (again fortunately), the other players let it go. I'm lucky I don't have a C&A warning for what I did. I didn't know any better, but that wouldn't have been a valid excuse.

Just a rule...

quick.... a point reset

Wouldn't have been too much of a big deal to get a point reset back in those days. The first 600-700 points aren't that difficult. It's the next 600-700 points ... and the ones after that. Boy, if I got a point reset today (especially for something that I did 2 years ago), I'd be pissed.