Question about what a "secret" alliance is.

[wicked]

Common sense should dictate here guys.... obviously announcing an alliance after the game is won is ridiculous. We all know the spirit behind the rule... not to catch anyone offguard and make it fair for all playing. We shouldn't need to spell out every possible scenario for people looking for loopholes. Use your common sense guys, or ask if you have none.

[Chadmw]

Ok, I don't understand how you can say we Staches are here to ruin this forum. That is no where close to being true. Trust me most of us are Mods are loyal members of another forum that has been under attack many times, and no way would we put anyone else through that.

Do some members of the the stache have a weird sense of humour, sure a little, but that's just because we have known each other for awhile so we have the same type of sense of humour.

Also if you notice we have kept pretty well to 2 or 3 threads in the flame forum, except for the 4 or 5 of them that were made by other members about us.

In this thread Owl asked a serious question, yet half way through we are attacked for being trolls, so who are the real trolls

[Joe McCarthy]

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.

First of all, youve been here maybe two months longer than me, so of course all due respect to your eldership and the long-established culture of this six-month old site.

Now bite me. We paid the same to be here as everybody else and we like to have fun in the forum same as everybody else. There has been no attack. You just dont like the fact that being a pompous jerk isn't as easy now because there are some wise-acres around that will laugh at you.

And as far as changing the place, we arent interested in that or in ruining anything for anybody else. Loosen the hell up and have fun why dont you? Its a damn game.

[jaydog]

well said lack!

[OwlLawyer]

::slow clap::

[wicked]

ok you've both said your peace, so let's get this back on topic. Owl raised a valid point for discussion.

[sully800]

Common sense should dictate here guys.... obviously announcing an alliance after the game is won is ridiculous. We all know the spirit behind the rule... not to catch anyone offguard and make it fair for all playing. We shouldn't need to spell out every possible scenario for people looking for loopholes. Use your common sense guys, or ask if you have none.

Of course you can't protect against every loophole and its the spirit of the rules that must be maintained. That's my point actually. I don't think the rule means that I come on the game chat and say "I have an alliance with wicked". I think I would need to say what I actually fiscussed with you oustide of the the chat, perhaps "wicked and I have decided to not attack between the Brazil/North Africa border for 2 turns".

Perhaps I'm wrong and you only need to say that you're allied with someone. But to me that blurs the line of cheating very easily because you could be withholding a great deal of info from other players. I think any strategic decisions should only be discussed in the game chat for standard games.

[lackattack]

The alliance announcement should come obviously *before* any collusion takes place. But if you were playing in person around the table you would know the specifics of your opponents' treaty and here you don't. I wonder if the terms should be made public? I'd like to hear some more opinions.

[AK_iceman]

I personally do not play in games where alliances can occur. But in my opinion I think it would be more fair if you announced the specifics of the treaty if there is any, and also should only discuss it in the game chat.

[TuckerCase]

The alliance announcement should come obviously *before* any collusion takes place. But if you were playing in person around the table you would know the specifics of your opponents' treaty and here you don't. I wonder if the terms should be made public? I'd like to hear some more opinions.

I think all diplomacy should be done in the game chat. That way you can have counter proposals by the other players, and everything, so it really brings a lot of diplomacy to the game, instead of things being done in secret. At the very least, I think all alliances should be initalized in the game chat. It's more fair, and also it's more interesting. So let's say if one person offers an alliance to another person, I might try to convince them how unwise that is. So there's a lot of mind games.

[Scarus]

Whenever people agree, in advance of the game, that they will be allies, then that is not really any kind of acceptable alliance, but an unannounced team game, masquerading as an alliance. Those games work out good for the teamers, and not so good for the other unsuspecting players who have the "alliance" sprung on them at an opportune moment.

This type of thing should be outlawed. If you want to play a team game, play against other teams, not against whatever unsuspecting individuals end up in your game. This is also easily enforceable, as you can see if people are making "alliances" with the same individuals game after game.

On the other hand, it seems kind of unenforceable to require that all alliance negotiation take place in the open chat. I don't think you're ever going to be able to prevent people from approaching other players, in private, and asking them to team up

Personally, I perfer the level playing ground that you can only find in games where there are no alliances.

[AK_iceman]

Personally, I perfer the level playing ground that you can only find in games where there are no alliances.

Exactly! Like 4 player doubles games and triples games!

[Pilate]

Personally, I perfer the level playing ground that you can only find in games where there are no alliances.

Exactly! Like 4 player doubles games and triples games!

Don't those games involve alliances by definition? lol

[Nikolai]

Since I am guilty of forming alliances or treaties both ways, I'll try not to throw too many stones here.

I think that it's unreasonable to deny discussion of treaty terms anywhere except the game chat - after all, when I'm playing regular, board Risk, I will occasionally ask someone to step into another room to hear a proposal from me. I actually think that this adds depth to the game - it forces awareness that there may be something going on, while denying specific knowledge. Someone mentioned "mind games" earlier in this thread: I think that allowing private discussion of treaty terms adds to the mind games, because it forces you to make your counter-offer without necessarily knowing if it's a better deal than what the other guy is offering. However, with that said...

I do think that there are two components that are absolutely essential to the construction of a treaty by PM. The first is that you need to make an announcement in game chat that you are in discussion or are looking for a treaty. This prevents the other people from being blindsided by your alliance/treaty, and allows them to make counter-offers or to try to dissuade the other party. And the second has already been mentioned: you must announce in game chat that you have reached an agreement before taking any actions - at all. In other words, claiming that you waited a turn to make the announcement because you didn't think your moves that turn would be affected by the alliance doesn't count - others need to know how to handle their own moves.

So, with that off my chest... I'll shut up for now.

[tonywalrus]

All alliance talk should be in the game chat. I have been approached a number of times by PM. I always politely decline and refer people to the in game chat. It is only fair that everyone in the game is aware of what is going on elsewhere.

By the way, I am not a member but the stache do make me laugh. CC would be a poorer place without them.

[gavin_sidhu]

Lack can u go to ur first comment and change the word "f*cking" to something more pleasant to the ears. According to the off-topics "how old r u?" There are some 11 yr olds here, not the right words for them to be reading.