Could I have your unbiased opinion in this game?

[dimknaf]

In this game (http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12810350), I am accused that I have overridden a pact that I never signed. Please, could you tell me your unbiased view.

We were 3 equal strength players. I said to one of them, that I would prefer him to be the winner if someone else had to be. I offered him to propose a pact. He attacked the third player without proposing or signing anything and when I asked for a specific proposal, I received ""i dont need a non attack pact, I need a concesion". I could not stay in a situation that the other one had not signed anything, while I was self-commited by my proposal. I found the causation (I admit) to take the game, as the other player with a tricky way tried to avoid a clear pact. Am I immoral or a non reliable player?

Thank you for your reviews.

[BigBallinStalin]

You offered a range of possibilities, but Brock didn't explicitly agree to anything, so you're in the right.

(I read from the latest post to "2013-08-01 09:52:23 - dimknaf: I think that we should all help Brock and his leading role").

Either it's a misunderstanding on his part; he forgot to mention that he could trust you if you do X, for him--then y'all could agree to something, etc (which may explain his outburst at the 'lack' of your good faith--in accord with his imagination, etc.; or maybe he's full of shit because he could've used your brief relief in attacks/pressure to his advantage and to your disadvantage. Either way, Brock didn't offer a strong affirmative to any actual contract.

[dimknaf]

Thanks for your answer. I think that these lines can help you:


2013-08-27 04:53:11 - dimknaf: I can be a truly ally. And do you know what I am thinking. I admire the way you act. If somebody else than me had to win, I would like you to be
2013-08-27 04:54:35 - dimknaf: You use diplomacy, In most cases you kept your word. You played clever. The game should go to one of us.
2013-08-27 04:57:14 - dimknaf: I am waiting a proposal. I just said do not mobilize your troops against me. For example, we could have a non-attack pact until round 110.
2013-08-27 04:58:23 - dimknaf: So you could easily expand your bonuses and regain any looses. But as I said, I have open ears
2013-08-29 09:50:05 - Brock: green you are tying me up here!
2013-08-29 09:56:47 - Brock: That was defensive not offensive (not that you probably care!)
2013-08-30 05:01:37 - Powderman: Not RED plz
2013-08-30 08:56:44 - Brock: Red I dont need a non attack pack I need a territory concession.
2013-08-30 09:00:27 - Brock: Sorry green but you were heading my way not reds! I will be out of vb1 next move!
2013-08-30 09:01:36 - Brock: Orange may I pass through VL1?
2013-08-30 09:05:05 - toshx54: Go ahead yellow
2013-08-30 09:17:17 - dimknaf: Brock I tried to offer you a pact and you did not accept. You say that you still need a concession.
2013-08-30 09:18:19 - dimknaf: I am afraid that this is my opportunity to finish the game, as we have not signed anything

[nàme]

Well, he moved four times before you attacked him, and only wrote in the chat once, complaining to green (making me think that he was angry at green, which is why he attacked him). After that, he wanted to negotiate a treaty that you initiated a few days ago, which may imply a ceasefire in some people's eyes. I think that because you attacked him after wanting to sign a treaty you were both in the wrong, although he would be more wrong for calling you out on it. Next time you don't hear from someone after a few turns, ask them again. If they still do not answer then you are definitely in the right to attack them. However, he did not "accept" anything so to speak, but that does not mean you are free to attack him.

In this case, considering all the talking beforehand and the time in between the turns, he should have been able to read and respond to the message. Also considering the fact that you ended up making a move that I assume will end the game very shortly, he is more wrong then you.

Are you immoral? Maybe. Are you non-reliable? No.
Is he immoral? Yes. Is he non-reliable? Maybe.

I say any truce breaking is justifiable if you win the game the NEXT turn no matter what. This however isn't the case as nothing was really noted. That being said, I wasn't in the game and don't know the feel of it. The participants probably have a right to be mad as well.

Honestly? I feel bad for tosh. It must be hell trying to keep up with what is going on and not participating in it.

[macbone]

If you offered a truce, and he never accepted it, then it's not a broken treaty. You can't break a treaty that only one party was in favor of. However, you guys have a lot of chat in that game, and several offers and agreements were made. I wouldn't say you were being unreliable.

As for your morality, well, you didn't break any rules, and all's fair in love and war. =)

Brock also used Greek in chat. All chat needs to be in English. (Yeah, I know people can use Google Translate, but them's the rules.)

[Gilligan]

If you offered a truce, and he never accepted it, then it's not a broken treaty. You can't break a treaty that only one party was in favor of. However, you guys have a lot of chat in that game, and several offers and agreements were made. I wouldn't say you were being unreliable.

As for your morality, well, you didn't break any rules, and all's fair in love and war. =)

Brock also used Greek in chat. All chat needs to be in English. (Yeah, I know people can use Google Translate, but them's the rules.)

OR, a language that all players can understand. If everyone understands Greek, have at it!