[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
Comments: The two players in question are "friends" outside the game and have entered this game with pre-set commitments to not attack each other, as clearly shown in the first line in public chat, which states, in principle, "This is a formal declaration that we (player A and player B) will not attack each other on the Dakar/Sao Paulo boundary. The second line in public chat is to the effect, "yes, I agree to the above sentence". All this written without any preamble or requests...It is tough enough to win a game without having to go up against two players who have already agreed not to fight each other before entering the game.
Koganosi wrote:They are pretty much right. THey stated it its legal. They agreed not to atack eachother. This is probably just gonne be Foe, Rate and Move On!
Urs
Koganosi
It cant be that simple... no one in their right minds would want to play a game with these 2 if this is how they are going to play. if they are friends which they clearly are and want to work together from the start than they should of created a team game. They should be at the very least warned that any further abuse of unwritten rules may get them blocked from playing with each other. This is just another exmape of 2 friends exploiting unwritten rules and game ethics. Foe is not a solution because if they don't get stopped they will keep doing this to others. The community will be better off if these two aren't playing together.
Koganosi wrote:They are pretty much right. THey stated it its legal. They agreed not to atack eachother. This is probably just gonne be Foe, Rate and Move On!
Urs
Koganosi
It cant be that simple... no one in their right minds would want to play a game with these 2 if this is how they are going to play. if they are friends which they clearly are and want to work together from the start than they should of created a team game. They should be at the very least warned that any further abuse of unwritten rules may get them blocked from playing with each other. This is just another exmape of 2 friends exploiting unwritten rules and game ethics. Foe is not a solution because if they don't get stopped they will keep doing this to others. The community will be better off if these two aren't playing together.
I do agree with you. Though its still a loophole in the rules. So they might get warned, blocked, etc for something else.
2013-01-17 01:05:54 - Cadowyn: A non-agression pact between the Commanders Indrid Dragon and Cadowyn has been created. The territories of Dakar will not attack Sao Paulo, and vice versa.
2013-01-17 01:12:13 - Indrid Dragon: I agree with the aforementioned.
As that's the first thing written in chat then this must be SD. It is obvious that they have spoken about this agreement somewhere else before coming to chat, and I beleive the rules clearly state it in illegal to go onto a game with pre-conceived alliances.
It does not matter if they discussed this in RL or on MSN or whatever before or after the game was started:
Somehow they have communicated the will to form an alliance outside chat.
Ofc next game they can just make a show of setting up the alliance in the chat, but this game they did so clumsily showing to anyone with a brain that it was discussed before hand out of chat, and that is secret diplomacy.
lol, the first sentence is not a question, it's a statement.... a truce involves agreeing in the game chat during the game, not before, therefore there is no loophole and this is plain and simple SD.
Thanks for all the feedback guys...I felt a bit of a prick reporting them, but it just seemed wrong what they did. In fairness to them, they did not believe they had done anything wrong.
