Question about what a "secret" alliance is.

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:43 am

Is it permissible for two players to discuss an alliance via private message, and then announce it in the chat? Or should alliance discussions occur only in chat.

Just curious what your take is on this.

Aladriel · Post by **Aladriel** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:53 am

Only talking with your teammate in PMs is allowed. If you are playing a singles game and wish to make an alliance with one of the other players, it must be discussed in the game chat. Otherwise, it is considered to be a secret alliance. Which is, of course, frowned upon.. to say the least.

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:58 am

How is it a secret alliance if it's only talked about via IM? As long as you annouce the alliance in the game chat, before any of the 2 take their next turn, apon agreement of said alliance, should make it legal.

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:05 am

Here's the problem, and I ran across it... two guys chat via "PM" and form an alliance... and then announce it. Well, I went backed and looked at their other games, they play almost every game together, and have conveniently formed alliances a couple of times in the past, and one refers to himself as the other's younger brother. Not sure if that last part is true, but I am sure that these guys planned on forming an alliance before this game ever started.

And now my turns might just accidentally take 23.9 hours ;-)

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:05 am

From the Rules page,
You must announce any alliance in the game chat.

So no public discussion necessary as long as it's announced prior to it going into effect.

Joe McCarthy · Post by **Joe McCarthy** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:07 am

OwlLawyer wrote:Here's the problem, and I ran across it... two guys chat via "PM" and form an alliance... and then announce it. Well, I went backed and looked at their other games, they play almost every game together, and have conveniently formed alliances a couple of times in the past, and one refers to himself as the other's younger brother. Not sure if that last part is true, but I am sure that these guys planned on forming an alliance before this game ever started.

And now my turns might just accidentally take 23.9 hours

Oh man, their names werent ron or reg were they?

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:08 am

LOL... no, they were not.

Ian Faith · Post by **Ian Faith** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:35 pm

What if I say in the chat "I have an alliance with Kped. Just kidding." but I really DO have an alliance with Kped? Technically I said that I did have an alliance with Kped in the chat, so I'm covered, right?

Also, what if I am working with another player using IMs, and we coordinate our moves and stuff in our best interests, but we specifically privately agree that we do NOT have an alliance, but rather a "strategic partnership". Then we don't have to say anything in the chat, right? Because if you're going to try to tell me that a strategic partnership and an alliance are treated the same, there are going to have to be some changes around here.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:57 pm

Ian how many games have you played here on CC? While I certainly applaud your effort to learn the rules before playing, perhaps you should play a game or two before looking to weasel around them? An alliance by any other name is still the same ...

Ronaldinho · Post by **Ronaldinho** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:01 pm

wicked wrote:Ian how many games have you played here on CC? While I certainly applaud your effort to learn the rules before playing, perhaps you should play a game or two before looking to weasel around them? An alliance by any other name is still the same ...

Couldent of put it better my self....lol

Ronaldinho. :wink:

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:02 pm

wicked wrote:Ian, I completely cannot comprehend sarcasm or humor.

Ian Faith · Post by **Ian Faith** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:03 pm

Oh, I haven't ever played Risk - not the board game version and certainly not the online version. I don't even have a computer. My interest is more theoretical, and that is the reason for my questions. However, would you say I have to be a doctor to ask questions about my health? Do I have to be a comedian to tell a joke? Must I lose my virginity in order to ask questions about you know what? If so, please accept my apologies - I was just trying to get a discussion going so we can nail this down. I mean seriously, do you think an alliance is the same thing as a partnership??

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:06 pm

Dude, you need to get a computer fast, so you can start posting here.

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:11 pm

OwlLawyer wrote:Here's the problem, and I ran across it... two guys chat via "PM" and form an alliance... and then announce it. Well, I went backed and looked at their other games, they play almost every game together, and have conveniently formed alliances a couple of times in the past, and one refers to himself as the other's younger brother. Not sure if that last part is true, but I am sure that these guys planned on forming an alliance before this game ever started.

And now my turns might just ally take 23.9 hours

That sounds like a multi to me, or just two brothers taking advantage of the system, either way, it would not be fun to play with them

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:39 pm

Ian Faith wrote:What if I say in the chat "I have an alliance with Kped. Just kidding."

You are a $#^% moron. Just kidding.

Ian Faith wrote:but we specifically privately agree that we do NOT have an alliance, but rather a "strategic partnership".

You are NOT a moron, but rather "intellectually challenged".

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:46 pm

lack is challenging Ian Faith to an intellect battle. Big mistake.

Ian Faith · Post by **Ian Faith** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:46 pm

lackattack wrote:
Ian Faith wrote:What if I say in the chat "I have an alliance with Kped. Just kidding."

You are a fucking moron. Just kidding.

Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question does it? (And it's not very nice of you to disparage Kped that way.)

lackattack wrote:
Ian Faith wrote:but we specifically privately agree that we do NOT have an alliance, but rather a "strategic partnership".

You are NOT a moron, but rather "intellectually challenged".

I'll concede that point as well I suppose, but I think you know deep down that your forum will never be all that it could be until you start facing the tough questions. I'm certainly not looking to get into a battle of wits with the chief ninja turtle of an online board game forum - more just seeing a situation and trying to make it better.

Turtle Power!

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:49 pm

ADMIN BURN!!!!!!!!

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:49 pm

Slender retort Ian. I'll see you at the debate try-outs!

Ian Faith · Post by **Ian Faith** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:50 pm

Thank you gentlemen. You're far too kind. An easy challenge won is still a challenge won I suppose.

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:28 pm

If you're not here to play risk, why are you here? I feel as though this site is under attack. A somewhat successful one at that. Regardless of what most people might think of the TB crew, (and even I, think that they're sometimes humorous), I think that almost Everyone would agree that this was a much better forum before they arrived en masse, battle plan in hand.

Now, almost every thread is flooded with their "sarcasm". With them posting in concert to support each other, and attack others. What's the point?

Who does this change in the nature of the forum serve? No one, not even the TB crew. They are not trying to make this forum more like what they want it to be like, they are just trying ruin it for everyone else.

If they want to play, fine, or even discuss game related issues in a meaningful way, but if this is the way they want to continue, I would just relieve them of their posting permissions, forum, by forum.

OwlLawyer · Post by **OwlLawyer** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:42 pm

Grow a thicker skin, tool.

Most of us pay this site, which is more than can be said for others.

There was no "battle plan in hand" just a bunch of friends that found this site and like it. It's fun to play. We play more than most.

We don't disrupt every forum, and you people need to grow up a little and stop crying to the admin.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:23 pm

I agree with Scarus. Isnt the flame wars sufficient to your jokes? Do you really need throw your sarcastic comments over all? If you like the site, why are you trying to do it less pleasant for all other members? What are you gaining for being disgusting? If you know yourselves from another site, make the jokes there, then. Or by pm. Why are you thinking you are so funny, huh? Do you imagine us all want your wise words? And still talks about growth when you are seeking for attention like babies? Please stop being what we call in Portuguese "pé no saco".

TuckerCase · Post by **TuckerCase** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:09 pm

OwlLawyer wrote:Here's the problem, and I ran across it... two guys chat via "PM" and form an alliance... and then announce it. Well, I went backed and looked at their other games, they play almost every game together, and have conveniently formed alliances a couple of times in the past, and one refers to himself as the other's younger brother.

wicked wrote:From the Rules page,
You must announce any alliance in the game chat.

So no public discussion necessary as long as it's announced prior to it going into effect.

I think the language of the rule doesn't cover enough. Let's say there are two players who join all the same singles games together, and have agreed ahead to work together in them. Even if they announce the alliances in the game chat, the alliance was formed awhile ago. I call this a secret alliance, when two players enter a single player game with the secret intention of working together. Obviously this makes it unfair to the other players, if those two people will work together no matter what, even if strategy does not dictate that they should. Personally I think all diplomacy should be done in the game chat, at least until an alliance is actually formed. Maybe Lack can weigh in on this?

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:22 pm

And wicked, I take it you meant the alliance simply needs to be announced in the game chat and any plan making can take place outside of the game chat?

Well if you are going to take that rule literally, you and your "partner" could work together, win the game, and THEN announce it in the game chat that they were partners. Perfectly legit right?

No, I think all dicussion about alliances must take place in the game chat and no where else. The only time its acceptable outside of the gamechat is in a team game of course.

Question about what a "secret" alliance is.

Question about what a "secret" alliance is.

hmmm....