Conquer Club

I have recently gotten into an argument/discussion with some people in a FFA game about what constitutes 'Secret Diplomacy'. My understanding is that Secret Diplomacy is when two players ally without the knowledge of the other players and then proceed to play as if on a team. Others in the game indicated that they believe that even if intentions to ally are announced publicly, specific TACTICAL discussions (ex. "You attack north and I will attack south") must ALSO be placed in public chat. I was wondering what justification for that exist (if any) as I did not yet get a satisfactory answer yet. Why should it still be considered 'Secret Diplomacy' if intentions to ally are made public, but specific goals/tactics are kept hidden?

The others are right.
You should discuss everything in the game chat. Nothing can be discussed elsewhere.
The only thing you can do outside the game chat, is a wall message asking someone to read the chat of a game. That's all.

I do not know the justification for that.

Donelladan wrote:The others are right.
You should discuss everything in the game chat. Nothing can be discussed elsewhere.
The only thing you can do outside the game chat, is a wall message asking someone to read the chat of a game. That's all.

I do not know the justification for that.

But tactics is not diplomacy though. That's why I was asking for clarification, since that's the sticking point. And a justification/reasoning would be helpful.

Aliksander wrote:

Donelladan wrote:The others are right.
You should discuss everything in the game chat. Nothing can be discussed elsewhere.
The only thing you can do outside the game chat, is a wall message asking someone to read the chat of a game. That's all.

I do not know the justification for that.

But tactics is not diplomacy though. That's why I was asking for clarification, since that's the sticking point. And a justification/reasoning would be helpful.

Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must only be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. That includes tactics on where to attack.

As soon as you take it outside of the Game Chat, then it's considered Secret Diplomacy. If we allow one thing to be said outside of Game Chat, people are going to try and use that as leverage to post other things. "Well you allowed so and so to post this, why couldn't I post that?"

If everything MUST be posted in Game Chat, then that situation wouldn't arise.

Also, in the game you're talking about Aliksander, from what I understand, you've proposed an alliance, with strategic suggestions on how you could work together, including specific attack points. There isn't even an alliance yet, but you are coordinating effort. Stating in the public chat that you have proposed this does not alleviate the advantage you have gained from the secret communication. The rule of "everything must be in chat" is to avoid potential abuse and gray area as stated above as well.

Iconoclazt wrote:Also, in the game you're talking about Aliksander, from what I understand, you've proposed an alliance, with strategic suggestions on how you could work together, including specific attack points. There isn't even an alliance yet, but you are coordinating effort. Stating in the public chat that you have proposed this does not alleviate the advantage you have gained from the secret communication. The rule of "everything must be in chat" is to avoid potential abuse and gray area as stated above as well.

Fair enough, I still think its a grey area, but I've already had several people I trust to some degree weigh in and I appear to be in the extreme minority.

Mods, feel free to close this thread at your discretion.

CC only has 2 firm rules.. this is Rule #2: No secret diplomacy
Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must only be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. No other methods of communication may be used to hold diplomatic discussions between opponents including, but not limited to, the forum, the wall, Live Chat, or the inbox.

No Grey area, it clearly states in our rules that it MUST be in game chat.

It's not even a gray area or a Gary area or a Garyea.

TeeGee wrote:CC only has 2 firm rules.. this is Rule #2: No secret diplomacy
Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must only be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. No other methods of communication may be used to hold diplomatic discussions between opponents including, but not limited to, the forum, the wall, Live Chat, or the inbox.

No Grey area, it clearly states in our rules that it MUST be in game chat.

Let me explain why it IS a grey area, even though I have already stated I intend to follow as other have suggested. The implication is that discussing specific strategic decisions outside of the game chat is a form of cheating, because not everyone is aware of the 'rules of the truce' but let me give you an example for your consideration:

2 players who have played multiple games together, and may even be friends, are in a FFA, they do not communicate outside of game chat, or even in chat for that matter, but both know they would rather one of them win than any of the other players. They make sure to keep SOME troops on each others borders but don't attack each other as long as they are both relatively equal in power. IN EFFECT they are in a secret alliance and coordinating even though no 'rule' is broken.

Compare that to the situation I am proposing, where BEFORE ANY COMMUNICATION STARTS one player announces to the entire game that he intends to form an alliance with player X, but doesn't want to discuss specific tactics in the open so as not to completely dash the purpose of coordinating at all. They other players are fully aware they are possibly going to coordinate, just not in the HOW.

In which of these scenarios are the other players in the FFA at a greater disadvantage? And which of these scenarios is actually disallowed by the rule while the other is permitted? My contention is the rule, as written, allows for behavior that is clearly against the INTENTION of the rule, and in this scenario is used against someone who clearly is trying to follow the intention.

To reiterate, I am FOLLOWING THE RULE AS WRITTEN, but I still disagree that it effectively/justly serves its intended purpose as written.

I don't see why the first situation you described should somehow make it ok for the second situation to happen.


But please know that first situation is also forbidden. It happened before. Ofc it may happen often and not being reported, but when two players play too many games together and it can be observed that their gameplay favor each other, those players are blocked from playing together in the future.
Even if there was no communication. Because you are right, it would be a secret alliance, thus the rule have been broken.

Donelladan wrote:I don't see why the first situation you described should somehow make it ok for the second situation to happen.


But please know that first situation is also forbidden. It happened before. Ofc it may happen often and not being reported, but when two players play too many games together and it can be observed that their gameplay favor each other, those players are blocked from playing together in the future.
Even if there was no communication. Because you are right, it would be a secret alliance, thus the rule have been broken.

Well that's good to know, though I don't know how people would know that in a random game.

But anyway, I wasn't using one to 'excuse' the other. I was giving examples of how 'strictly following the rule' can still violate the SPIRIT of the rule as you yourself pointed out, and 'technically breaking the rule, as written' does not necessarily reflect violating the spirit of the rule. Hence why I assert that the rule should, in my opinion, be expanded/edited and clarified in terms of its purpose.

Aliksander wrote:

Donelladan wrote:I don't see why the first situation you described should somehow make it ok for the second situation to happen.


But please know that first situation is also forbidden. It happened before. Ofc it may happen often and not being reported, but when two players play too many games together and it can be observed that their gameplay favor each other, those players are blocked from playing together in the future.
Even if there was no communication. Because you are right, it would be a secret alliance, thus the rule have been broken.

Well that's good to know, though I don't know how people would know that in a random game.

But anyway, I wasn't using one to 'excuse' the other. I was giving examples of how 'strictly following the rule' can still violate the SPIRIT of the rule as you yourself pointed out, and 'technically breaking the rule, as written' does not necessarily reflect violating the spirit of the rule. Hence why I assert that the rule should, in my opinion, be expanded/edited and clarified in terms of its purpose.

You are right, it's not easy to find out if you only played one game with the players, especially if they are not cheating but just being "nice" to each other.

When you have a suspicion, first thing to do is to check how many games they played together, if it's more than half of all the game they played on CC, usually it's fishy. If it's a lot, then up to you to check if they have a high win percentage. (for example, in a 8 player game, one player should win close to 12,5% if it's based on luck only, if you noticed two players are often playing 8 players games together, and each of them has a win % higher than 20%, then there is probably a problem).

If people really do that to get points, they usually get caught, because then the rise in rank attract attention.
If they just play couple of games together, and don't really cheat but are simply a bit nicer because it's their mate, well probably they won't get caught, but it's less of an issue I guess.

From the game chat Aliksander, and from here, it appears you see a sharp distinction between coordinating strategy and diplomacy. In the case that spawned this discussion, however, you have let us, the other players in the game, know that as part of your diplomatic proposal, you shared strategic insights and possible outcomes of the alliance/coordination. These you have not shared as you claim you should not have to under the Secret Diplomacy rule.

As I mentioned in the game chat, those insights and musings are part and parcel of the proposed alliance. One could say they were being used to negotiate terms and/or convince the other player to ally. i.e. diplomacy.

Ultimately, the way I've seen the Secret Diplomacy rule applied across CC is that NO COMMUNICATION between players is private except for the team chat in team games. This is to prevent these blurrings of the lines where one player may in good faith think that they are not committing an infraction, but they are indeed gaining advantage through secret communication.

I believe you have a genuine opinion on this and this has come as a surprise to you, but since multiple players in the game have stated you should have copied/pasted the entirety of your private comms and you've refused, the only reason I am not calling this a reportable case of secret diplomacy is because I believe the other player involved when he states he didn't read the communications once he realized what they were, so I don't think there is harm there. However, I hope you take into consideration what everyone here is telling you and reassess your stance on private comms to other players.

Iconoclazt wrote:From the game chat Aliksander, and from here, it appears you see a sharp distinction between coordinating strategy and diplomacy. In the case that spawned this discussion, however, you have let us, the other players in the game, know that as part of your diplomatic proposal, you shared strategic insights and possible outcomes of the alliance/coordination. These you have not shared as you claim you should not have to under the Secret Diplomacy rule.

As I mentioned in the game chat, those insights and musings are part and parcel of the proposed alliance. One could say they were being used to negotiate terms and/or convince the other player to ally. i.e. diplomacy.

Ultimately, the way I've seen the Secret Diplomacy rule applied across CC is that NO COMMUNICATION between players is private except for the team chat in team games. This is to prevent these blurrings of the lines where one player may in good faith think that they are not committing an infraction, but they are indeed gaining advantage through secret communication.

I believe you have a genuine opinion on this and this has come as a surprise to you, but since multiple players in the game have stated you should have copied/pasted the entirety of your private comms and you've refused, the only reason I am not calling this a reportable case of secret diplomacy is because I believe the other player involved when he states he didn't read the communications once he realized what they were, so I don't think there is harm there. However, I hope you take into consideration what everyone here is telling you and reassess your stance on private comms to other players.

I do not agree. I do not see musings of what other players might do, or what I believe they should do, to be part of 'diplomacy', and I do not regard that as a violation of the spirit of the rule regardless of what others have said. As stated multiple times, I will forevermore not communicate with others in a FFA outside of game chats from this point forward, but I am not willing to provide advice to others in a game to mine AND another player's detriment all over a misunderstanding that has been blown out of all proportion, especially at the behest of other players that 1) would directly benefit from that action and 2) have repeatedly called my honor into question despite the mountain of evidence (feedback and ratings) indicating that I am overwhelmingly a friendly, honorable, and fair-minded player.

Iconoclazt wrote:From the game chat Aliksander, and from here, it appears you see a sharp distinction between coordinating strategy and diplomacy. In the case that spawned this discussion, however, you have let us, the other players in the game, know that as part of your diplomatic proposal, you shared strategic insights and possible outcomes of the alliance/coordination. These you have not shared as you claim you should not have to under the Secret Diplomacy rule.

As I mentioned in the game chat, those insights and musings are part and parcel of the proposed alliance. One could say they were being used to negotiate terms and/or convince the other player to ally. i.e. diplomacy.

Ultimately, the way I've seen the Secret Diplomacy rule applied across CC is that NO COMMUNICATION between players is private except for the team chat in team games. This is to prevent these blurrings of the lines where one player may in good faith think that they are not committing an infraction, but they are indeed gaining advantage through secret communication.

I believe you have a genuine opinion on this and this has come as a surprise to you, but since multiple players in the game have stated you should have copied/pasted the entirety of your private comms and you've refused, the only reason I am not calling this a reportable case of secret diplomacy is because I believe the other player involved when he states he didn't read the communications once he realized what they were, so I don't think there is harm there. However, I hope you take into consideration what everyone here is telling you and reassess your stance on private comms to other players.

+1

Aliksander wrote:

I do not agree. I do not see musings of what other players might do, or what I believe they should do, to be part of 'diplomacy', and I do not regard that as a violation of the spirit of the rule regardless of what others have said. As stated multiple times, I will forevermore not communicate with others in a FFA outside of game chats from this point forward, but I am not willing to provide advice to others in a game to mine AND another player's detriment all over a misunderstanding that has been blown out of all proportion, especially at the behest of other players that 1) would directly benefit from that action and 2) have repeatedly called my honor into question despite the mountain of evidence (feedback and ratings) indicating that I am overwhelmingly a friendly, honorable, and fair-minded player.

-1

-1-1-3-

Aliksander wrote:

Iconoclazt wrote:From the game chat Aliksander, and from here, it appears you see a sharp distinction between coordinating strategy and diplomacy. In the case that spawned this discussion, however, you have let us, the other players in the game, know that as part of your diplomatic proposal, you shared strategic insights and possible outcomes of the alliance/coordination. These you have not shared as you claim you should not have to under the Secret Diplomacy rule.

As I mentioned in the game chat, those insights and musings are part and parcel of the proposed alliance. One could say they were being used to negotiate terms and/or convince the other player to ally. i.e. diplomacy.

Ultimately, the way I've seen the Secret Diplomacy rule applied across CC is that NO COMMUNICATION between players is private except for the team chat in team games. This is to prevent these blurrings of the lines where one player may in good faith think that they are not committing an infraction, but they are indeed gaining advantage through secret communication.

I believe you have a genuine opinion on this and this has come as a surprise to you, but since multiple players in the game have stated you should have copied/pasted the entirety of your private comms and you've refused, the only reason I am not calling this a reportable case of secret diplomacy is because I believe the other player involved when he states he didn't read the communications once he realized what they were, so I don't think there is harm there. However, I hope you take into consideration what everyone here is telling you and reassess your stance on private comms to other players.

I do not agree. I do not see musings of what other players might do, or what I believe they should do, to be part of 'diplomacy', and I do not regard that as a violation of the spirit of the rule regardless of what others have said. As stated multiple times, I will forevermore not communicate with others in a FFA outside of game chats from this point forward, but I am not willing to provide advice to others in a game to mine AND another player's detriment all over a misunderstanding that has been blown out of all proportion, especially at the behest of other players that 1) would directly benefit from that action and 2) have repeatedly called my honor into question despite the mountain of evidence (feedback and ratings) indicating that I am overwhelmingly a friendly, honorable, and fair-minded player.

Having honour isn't really about you. It's about how you engage with other people. It is a thing bestowed, not claimed.

Aliksander wrote:

TeeGee wrote:CC only has 2 firm rules.. this is Rule #2: No secret diplomacy
Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must only be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. No other methods of communication may be used to hold diplomatic discussions between opponents including, but not limited to, the forum, the wall, Live Chat, or the inbox.

No Grey area, it clearly states in our rules that it MUST be in game chat.

Let me explain why it IS a grey area, even though I have already stated I intend to follow as other have suggested. The implication is that discussing specific strategic decisions outside of the game chat is a form of cheating, because not everyone is aware of the 'rules of the truce' but let me give you an example for your consideration:

2 players who have played multiple games together, and may even be friends, are in a FFA, they do not communicate outside of game chat, or even in chat for that matter, but both know they would rather one of them win than any of the other players. They make sure to keep SOME troops on each others borders but don't attack each other as long as they are both relatively equal in power. IN EFFECT they are in a secret alliance and coordinating even though no 'rule' is broken.

Compare that to the situation I am proposing, where BEFORE ANY COMMUNICATION STARTS one player announces to the entire game that he intends to form an alliance with player X, but doesn't want to discuss specific tactics in the open so as not to completely dash the purpose of coordinating at all. They other players are fully aware they are possibly going to coordinate, just not in the HOW.

In which of these scenarios are the other players in the FFA at a greater disadvantage? And which of these scenarios is actually disallowed by the rule while the other is permitted? My contention is the rule, as written, allows for behavior that is clearly against the INTENTION of the rule, and in this scenario is used against someone who clearly is trying to follow the intention.

To reiterate, I am FOLLOWING THE RULE AS WRITTEN, but I still disagree that it effectively/justly serves its intended purpose as written.

C&A has several cases of Secret Diplomacy that are in the form of the first case. In fact, most Secret Diplomacy cases are based on playstyle as opposed to any definite proof. Neither form of cheating is permitted. They are both disallowed. End of Story.

There is no case of cheating that is allowed that is against the intention of the rule. There may be undetected cases, but that doesn't mean they are allowed.

Consider a far more common example: Two players are playing in the same tournament and they end up in a multiplayer game together. Player A targets player B, allowing player C to win the game while player A wins the tournament without declaring anything in game chat. That is allowed under the current rules because there is no "diplomacy".

After 12 years of case law, I don't know why you can come in and claim that it is a grey area, when every single case has ruled it to not be a grey area.

Anyone with a shred of common sense can interpret the secret diplomacy rules correctly. You got caught out and you're trying to bullshit your way out of it on a forced technicality. Shut the f*ck up and get better at the game.

Symmetry wrote:Having honour isn't really about you. It's about how you engage with other people. It is a thing bestowed, not claimed.

No honor is acted out, not granted by consensus. The whole world can claim that something is dishonorable, but that doesn't make it so. A vote cannot confer or remove honor.

Aliksander wrote:

Iconoclazt wrote:From the game chat Aliksander, and from here, it appears you see a sharp distinction between coordinating strategy and diplomacy. In the case that spawned this discussion, however, you have let us, the other players in the game, know that as part of your diplomatic proposal, you shared strategic insights and possible outcomes of the alliance/coordination. These you have not shared as you claim you should not have to under the Secret Diplomacy rule.

As I mentioned in the game chat, those insights and musings are part and parcel of the proposed alliance. One could say they were being used to negotiate terms and/or convince the other player to ally. i.e. diplomacy.

Ultimately, the way I've seen the Secret Diplomacy rule applied across CC is that NO COMMUNICATION between players is private except for the team chat in team games. This is to prevent these blurrings of the lines where one player may in good faith think that they are not committing an infraction, but they are indeed gaining advantage through secret communication.

I believe you have a genuine opinion on this and this has come as a surprise to you, but since multiple players in the game have stated you should have copied/pasted the entirety of your private comms and you've refused, the only reason I am not calling this a reportable case of secret diplomacy is because I believe the other player involved when he states he didn't read the communications once he realized what they were, so I don't think there is harm there. However, I hope you take into consideration what everyone here is telling you and reassess your stance on private comms to other players.

I do not agree. I do not see musings of what other players might do, or what I believe they should do, to be part of 'diplomacy', and I do not regard that as a violation of the spirit of the rule regardless of what others have said. As stated multiple times, I will forevermore not communicate with others in a FFA outside of game chats from this point forward, but I am not willing to provide advice to others in a game to mine AND another player's detriment all over a misunderstanding that has been blown out of all proportion, especially at the behest of other players that 1) would directly benefit from that action and 2) have repeatedly called my honor into question despite the mountain of evidence (feedback and ratings) indicating that I am overwhelmingly a friendly, honorable, and fair-minded player.

To be clear, I have not called your honor into question. I've been concerned that you're not willing to concede the point that this sort of communication is against the Secret Diplomacy rule, but since you state also here that you will from here on out abide by that, I think I'm done. I've stated multiple times I would not force you to divulge the rest since the other player claims to have not read it, so no harm done. But you acknowledging that it should not happen per the site rules is what I was after or I'd have to avoid playing you. I won't play someone who willingly cheats the rules. You say this was a mistake and I believe you. Done as far as I'm concerned.

If you've ever climbed a water tower with a bucket of paint to defend your sister's honor, you just might be a redneck.

I find this discussion very relevant to a game I am in. So I have a few questions:

1) where do I find the "Rule" on Secret Diplomacy?
2) what is the other Rule referred to?
3) If diplomatic discussions are in the open, are there any restrictions on how opponents "collude" with each other?
a) if stated in the open, can two players decide they want to eliminate an opponent and agree to do so?
b) in a fog game, can the two players share what they see, as long as it is in the open?
c) again if done in the open can they discuss strategy to eliminate the third player?
4) All of the questions I ask assume that the two players came into the game "at arms length" and not with a plan to cooperate together in secret. As I read this, though difficult to prove, such a secret alliance would be a violation of the rules even if there is no secret communication during the game.

Thanks - this is an interesting discussion. The cooperation to which I am referring was done against me, but it is not going to defeat me, just raised questions I had never previously considered.

bobbythomson

bobbythomson wrote:I find this discussion very relevant to a game I am in. So I have a few questions:

1) where do I find the "Rule" on Secret Diplomacy?
2) what is the other Rule referred to?
3) If diplomatic discussions are in the open, are there any restrictions on how opponents "collude" with each other?
a) if stated in the open, can two players decide they want to eliminate an opponent and agree to do so?
b) in a fog game, can the two players share what they see, as long as it is in the open?
c) again if done in the open can they discuss strategy to eliminate the third player?
4) All of the questions I ask assume that the two players came into the game "at arms length" and not with a plan to cooperate together in secret. As I read this, though difficult to prove, such a secret alliance would be a violation of the rules even if there is no secret communication during the game.

Thanks - this is an interesting discussion. The cooperation to which I am referring was done against me, but it is not going to defeat me, just raised questions I had never previously considered.

bobbythomson

1. Click "RULES" in the top right corner of the screen. Works from any page.
https://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=rules
2. Ditto
3. There's no restrictions on what people can agree to, as long as it's done in the game chat
4. Correct. Collusion in advance would constitute secret diplomacy. It is difficult to prove, yes, but has been done.