Why cry

[Gweeedo]

I was looking in the Cheating and abuse forum.
Came across a few, secret diplomacy accusations.

Who are the people who cry cheater, cheater?
Is it the players who are being attacked, while their neighbors are ganging up on him, all the whiles not opposing each other...I believe so.
Why do you bother CC with this Malarkey!
Instead of crying, do a bit of research before you declare cheat.
Or you could try and play the game as it is.

Understanding that a silent (unspoken treaty) pact might show itself every now and again.
What you do next is sure to influence the outcome of the game.
While you are in a game you might want to act as if Secret diplomacy is legal...this way you might be able to overcome and enjoy the rest of the game.
Crying Cheater, cheater will only take you out of the game.

Don't you love having a neighbor who shares a common understanding.
I hate it when you have a neighbor who has been docile for 11 or more turns and all of a sudden asks if you want to have a treaty, why not leave well enough alone, bringing it out in the open could be harmful.

For such a simple non important game (such as risk), sure is a lot of players who like to cry foul.
Play the game any way your opponent brings it! Enjoy the satisfaction of destroying him.
I am certain that cheaters do not feel the same euphoria that a honorable player feels with each victory.

Many other discrepancies can occur while playing this game.
Learn to use them to your advantage, all is fair.
Crying cheat, foul, not fair is not going to help you be a better player...it might make you feel like a pro, at best.

[macbone]

Because, Gweeedo, two players secretly colluding with each other creates an unfair advantage. Most of us have probably experienced that kind of play around the table. I played Monopoly one time with a group of players who stole money from the bank when no one else was looking.

In another Monopoly game, a friend had bought up a few monopolies, and no one was willing to trade with him further, so when he was about to eliminate another player, he spared him, and in exchange, the second player made property deals for the first player and sold the deeds to the first guy for a dollar at a time.

I played a three-player Risk game with a buddy and a girl he was trying to get with, and they started exclusively attacking me.

If everyone is doing it, then great, enjoy the chaos and backstabbing. =) A no-rules CC game would probably be a lot of fun if everyone was in on it. But if some people are setting up secret deals on the side, and everyone else is playing, thinking everything's aboveboard, it really reduces the fun factor of the game. And I don't care how good the opposition is. If two players on the sly agree to join forces and eliminate everyone else, and no one realizes this until the end of the game, and they keep doing it game after game after game, they ruin the experience for everyone else, reducing the enjoyment of the game significantly.

[deathcomesrippin]

Because, Gweeedo, two players secretly colluding with each other creates an unfair advantage. Most of us have probably experienced that kind of play around the table. I played Monopoly one time with a group of players who stole money from the bank when no one else was looking.

In another Monopoly game, a friend had bought up a few monopolies, and no one was willing to trade with him further, so when he was about to eliminate another player, he spared him, and in exchange, the second player made property deals for the first player and sold the deeds to the first guy for a dollar at a time.

I played a three-player Risk game with a buddy and a girl he was trying to get with, and they started exclusively attacking me.

If everyone is doing it, then great, enjoy the chaos and backstabbing. =) A no-rules CC game would probably be a lot of fun if everyone was in on it. But if some people are setting up secret deals on the side, and everyone else is playing, thinking everything's aboveboard, it really reduces the fun factor of the game. And I don't care how good the opposition is. If two players on the sly agree to join forces and eliminate everyone else, and no one realizes this until the end of the game, and they keep doing it game after game after game, they ruin the experience for everyone else, reducing the enjoyment of the game significantly.

Anyone who is trying to pick up a girl over a live Risk game is probably a moron anyway.

[Gweeedo]

Because, Gweeedo, two players secretly colluding with each other creates an unfair advantage. Most of us have probably experienced that kind of play around the table. I played Monopoly one time with a group of players who stole money from the bank when no one else was looking.

In another Monopoly game, a friend had bought up a few monopolies, and no one was willing to trade with him further, so when he was about to eliminate another player, he spared him, and in exchange, the second player made property deals for the first player and sold the deeds to the first guy for a dollar at a time.

I played a three-player Risk game with a buddy and a girl he was trying to get with, and they started exclusively attacking me.

If everyone is doing it, then great, enjoy the chaos and backstabbing. =) A no-rules CC game would probably be a lot of fun if everyone was in on it. But if some people are setting up secret deals on the side, and everyone else is playing, thinking everything's aboveboard, it really reduces the fun factor of the game. And I don't care how good the opposition is. If two players on the sly agree to join forces and eliminate everyone else, and no one realizes this until the end of the game, and they keep doing it game after game after game, they ruin the experience for everyone else, reducing the enjoyment of the game significantly.

My point being; who is going to know the difference?
Game play is still the same. Be it underhanded or above board...You are going to feel cheated either way.
Too many players crying, secret diplomacy.
You can cry Secret diplomacy all you like! without evidence it is moot.
If you do not like diplomacy don't play maps (Kings court) that promote diplomacy.
Foe players whom you think are engaging in secret diplomacy, foe those who make treaties, unspoken treaties, early treaties, stupid treaties, deadly treaties, multiple treaties.
Before you cry cheat, look into it yourself...if you find evidence, then and only then should you bring CC into it.
We need to stop reacting to everything this way.
Improve your game experience...deal with it in the confines of the game.
Treat secret diplomacy as if it is a unspoken treaty, until you find out otherwise...by then the game will be over anyhow.

Nobody likes cheaters and nobody likes to be called a cheater.
Worst of all, is those who cry cheater, cheater while they are losing!

[Gabriel13]

I don't understand why you feel the need to type out a 20 sentences when you could simply say "People should have more evidence before they accuse people of conducting secret diplomacy". That's honestly all you needed.

[Dukasaur]

I don't think that was his only point.

[Gweeedo]

My point being; who is going to know the difference?
Game play is still the same. Be it underhanded or above board...You are going to feel cheated either way.

Why bother getting emotional?

Your anger and frustration only makes me stronger...mooo ha ha ha!

Although I do love it when somebody accuses me of secret diplomacy.
Of course it can throw the game askew.
It would be wise, rather than hollering Secret diplomacy...inform others (in the game) that such and such has a treaty (unspoken) going on.
In so doing you can sit back and enjoy the hostilities...No treaty going on here!!! Game log tells no lies.

[betiko]

Gweedo get back in your cave and stay there.

[loutil]

I believe Obama is involved in secret diplomacy with Putin.

[BoganGod]

I'm going to report gweeedo in cheating and abuse for attempting to clone HardAttack. Has the sentence structure going on. Is cheating to mindlessly ape the style of an established forum demagogue.

[jangler3]

Can I report the dice?

[Jmac1026]

This seems relevant.