Truce clarification (ethical question)

by **gobruinss** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:16 pm

I have a question about a truce that was set up between myself (green) and pink in game 2490397. The truce was set up between Benin and Nigeria and while it has outlived it's usefullness, it is still in effect. My understanding is that it is only that border that is affected. Now that only pink and I are left, I have an opportunity with my cards to do some serious damage and maybe take him out. I assume that it is ethical to conquer Nigeria from the other side and I will take out Nigeria as the last one. Is this OK?

by **waiwai933** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:19 pm

Well, yes, backstabbing is part of the game. But is this backstabbing? Not really, since
1) you two are the only ones left in the game
2) you're not breaking the terms of the treaty

However, it is best to post that you are also ending the treaty effective 2 or 3 rounds in the game chat.

by **gobruinss** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:26 pm

waiwai933 wrote:Well, yes, backstabbing is part of the game. But is this backstabbing? Not really, since
1) you two are the only ones left in the game
2) you're not breaking the terms of the treaty

However, it is best to post that you are also ending the treaty effective 2 or 3 rounds in the game chat.

Yes, thank you....the treaty is supposed to end next round anyway but I am hoping that the game will be over by then.

by **Thezzaruz** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:30 pm

gobruinss wrote: Is this OK?

I think you'll get quite a lot of different opinions on this but IMO any alliance/truce in effect would be considered auto canceled when you get down to 1v1 play, it just isn't feasible to have such an arrangement against your only opponent.
But then again I expect (and accept) that alliances gets broken without warning so I'm a bit more liberal than most. 8-)