Is this Cheating?

[Teutonics]

A guy, who got a recent neg for cheating, joined one of my games. In his reply to the neg he states that he doesn't believe he cheated. OK, were his actions cheating & if not, then how wide spread are these secret PM negotiations?

The Neg started out like this: I hate cheaters...You went behind everyone's back, to send out feelers, to see if i would form a team with you in this non-team game....

His response: This is MY EXACT e-mail to sure. "Subject: game 1628860 My understanding of the rules is, we can discuss an alliance secretly, but if we come to an accord we must declare it. So my question to you is, are you willing to discuss?" Now I stand by my actions and if they are deemed inappropriate let the community be my judge and jury.

[oVo]

Any player who wishes to create an alliance with another must do it in the Game Chat any other method is against the spirit of the game. This is further clarified in the rules where it states NO SECRET ALLIANCES.

PMing someone asking them to read the Game Chat because you are making them an offer etc. is cool,
but coordinating your shit outside the game isn't.

[GabonX]

But what if you announce your alliance after agreeing but before any turns are taken? The rules do not state that PMing someone to ask for a truce which will be announced when it is made is against the rules...

There really should be clarification from the mods on this as it is somewhat ambiguous.

[Dancing Mustard]

Sounds a bit shady and sneaky... but it's not a secret alliance per se, just an invitation to engage in a public one made in private.

I'd say it's theoretically fine... but I wouldn't do it myself.

[detlef]

Certainly a gray area. I have contemplated doing that very thing because offering up some sort of alliance in game chat can really backfire if the other player declines. It doesn't take much to connect the dots if you're not invited to alliance and share a major border with the person initiating the offer. So now that guy's shown his hand to the table and yet doesn't have the luxury of an ally to show for his troubles.

Of course, one can argue (and quite fairly I might add) that's the risk you take. As I think about it, I've never entered any alliances that didn't make such obvious sense that everyone couldn't see them coming anyway.

None the less, I can understand why this could be deemed as legit.

[oVo]

As you just pointed out most alliances/truces tend to be pretty obvious and therefore are not that big of a risk and a PM may only be necessary to point out to the player to read the Game Chat to be sure they see the offer. Encouraging dialogue outside of the game, where tactics are coordinated prior to movements or announcements in the chat still sucks and is still unfair to the other players who are outside the loop.

I was in a long game with five players remaining as it approched 100 rounds when one of the players suggested creating a pact... that is all that was said in the game chat. It soon became obvious by the deployments and forts that three players had indeed formed an alliance and after several rounds had passed it was finally posted to the chat. The player who organised it had PMed me much earlier in the game suggesting some actions we could take to corner the map and then fight it out between us... but I responded "I don't coordinate moves outside the game" and that if he had something to say "put it in the game chat." The only justice of that triad was that the organiser was eliminated when it came down to just the three of them.

[detlef]

As you just pointed out most alliances/truces tend to be pretty obvious and therefore are not that big of a risk and a PM may only be necessary to point out to the player to read the Game Chat to be sure they see the offer. Encouraging dialogue outside of the game, where tactics are coordinated prior to movements or announcements in the chat still sucks and is still unfair to the other players who are outside the loop.

I was in a long game with five players remaining as it approched 100 rounds when one of the players suggested creating a pact... that is all that was said in the game chat. It soon became obvious by the deployments and forts that three players had indeed formed an alliance and after several rounds had passed it was finally posted to the chat. The player who organised it had PMed me much earlier in the game suggesting some actions we could take to corner the map and then fight it out between us... but I responded "I don't coordinate moves outside the game" and that if he had something to say "put it in the game chat." The only justice of that triad was that the organiser was eliminated when it came down to just the three of them.

Well, I'm not advocating working out the details of an alliance in private, rather simply the invitation. Something like. "I think we're going to need to work together here for a bit or this thing is over. If you're interested, we can talk specifics in game chat."

[PaperPlunger]

It shouldn't even be a gray area. Sure, he attempts to make an alliance outside of game chat, but he IS going to announce it, so it is in correspondence with the rules.

[Top Dog]

According to the rules, one could pm another asking if they'd like to have an alliance to avoid public denial and others knowing you were going to team up against them. If accepted you would have to state it in the game chat somehow... it is not something MOST feel is right but the rules don't condemn it... discussing an already accepted alliance specifics is alright as well, and more people think that's alright... (just discussing the details...)

[gdeangel]

I agree with majority of posters above. It's not cheating, but it can lead down a slippery slope since someone is going to maybe read between the lines, or you are going to have to start acting differently in the game. For example, you send the email, then while your waiting for a response... are you going to really attack the guy you just made the offer to when you want them to trust you?

The way I've done it a couple of times ... and that's not to say I haven't done it other ways... but sometimes your back is against the wall and you can't afford retaliation if the other guy doesn't go along... I'll say something in game chat like: "Red I just sent you a PM. Did you get it?" Then I don't think its a problem to skew your tactics a little since the other players know there's possibly a conversation.

If Red doesn't reply, you know just as much as everybody else. If Red comes back and there's a deal, it goes in the chat. If Red says no deal, then no need to put it in the chat (so you've got to spell out in the PM how you want to negotiate.)

Many times, I'll PM the other guy asking him if he's willing to take some specific action - like break a certain bonus or give me a territoriy - in exchange for specific action on my part. 100% the reply has been, "No, but I'll do X instead." I'd like to know what people think in this situation... is this coordination that has to go in the chat? 99% of the time, X is something I don't really care because it doesn't directly (but maybe does indirectly) help me. Thoughts?

(My game eithics tell me that's not an alliance, and I will play on without responding as though the guy I PM'd is fair game.)

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that coordinating details of an alliance in private is the best way to do it when your cornered. Otherwise your giving away your next moves... probably worse than not having the alliance. Simple deals like cease fires are an exception, but if you are going to coordiante an attack on territories X & Y, you would never tell the enemy where it's coming.

[wicked]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

[MOBAJOBG]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

Well, there are a few high rank players whom I shall not name that wouldn't agree with your definition. These people may spurn the offer and report you in for secret alliance. I know of a case to serve as for an example whereby roadwarrior whom I know is incapable of any secret alliance was found guilty of attempted secret alliance.

So, be careful and always ensure to include a caption such as "Of course, the details must be declared in the Game Chat prior to our next turns should you decide to accept my offer" in the pm.

[wicked]

So, be careful and always ensure to include a caption such as "Of course, the details must be declared in the Game Chat prior to our next turns should you decide to accept my offer" in the pm.

Yes, that would be wise. It's hard to determine intent when those PMs are sent. However, that is the official CC stance, always has been. However, most people consider it common courtesy not to ask for or discuss alliances in private at all.

[Twill]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

Technically that isn't true...

The rules state that

Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced beforehand in the game chat

Discussion of an alliance is a form of collusion and as such must be announced in the game chat before any discussion is entered into.

If you have publicly entered into an alliance and all participants in the game are aware of this you may THEN discuss details and strategies in private (although it's bad manners) but everyone must be aware of any attempts to screw eachother over.

Technically, that person should have announced his/her intent to find an alliance partner before entering into private "feelers"

You might want to mention this to the player in question

[owenshooter]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

Technically that isn't true...

The rules state that

Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced beforehand in the game chat

Discussion of an alliance is a form of collusion and as such must be announced in the game chat before any discussion is entered into.

If you have publicly entered into an alliance and all participants in the game are aware of this you may THEN discuss details and strategies in private (although it's bad manners) but everyone must be aware of any attempts to screw eachother over.

Technically, that person should have announced his/her intent to find an alliance partner before entering into private "feelers"

You might want to mention this to the player in question

thank you, twill... it is always nice to get an answer that you know is the final answer... sigh... you are my hero!!!-0

[TheTeacher]

Somebody should go reword that rule so it's more clear. like... a word such as "collusion"... well, under some definitions in most dictionarys, it means a secret agreement, and just saying "let's talk about it" isn't nessesarily an agreement... and I made a thread about this myself some time back and couldn't get a very good answer. And wicked's repetatively had a very liberal stance on it and said that it's not really a crime unless there's actually an alliance agreement that isn't announced, and I find a plurality of CCers seem to agree with this stance, but still a majority feel it is a crime, and may neg people for something like this. It's all been very confusing. I've tried to steer clear of the grey area and not do anythign questionable myself ever since my third (or was it fourth?) game on CC when i tried PMing to ask about truce negotiations and the other person told me asking over PM is illegal.

[wicked]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

Technically that isn't true...

The rules state that

Any form of collusion between opponents must be announced beforehand in the game chat

Discussion of an alliance is a form of collusion and as such must be announced in the game chat before any discussion is entered into.

If you have publicly entered into an alliance and all participants in the game are aware of this you may THEN discuss details and strategies in private (although it's bad manners) but everyone must be aware of any attempts to screw eachother over.

Technically, that person should have announced his/her intent to find an alliance partner before entering into private "feelers"

You might want to mention this to the player in question

Well then technically you need to talk to Lack then.

I suggest everyone standby then b/c it looks like Twill wants to change what has been the policy.

[Twill]

Well then technically you need to talk to Lack then.

I suggest everyone standby then b/c it looks like Twill wants to change what has been the policy.

If I'm wrong then I do apologize, and I'll double check with Lack and Andy, but that's how I've always interpreted what's written.

I'll come back with an answer by monday hopefully

[edwinissweet]

why is it illegal to say something in a different language?

[wicked]

why is it illegal to say something in a different language?

It's not. Alliances must be announced "in a language understood by all in the game." So if everyone in the game understands Spanish, it can be announced in Spanish. When in doubt, use English, as by being on this site you're implying that you understand English, since that is the official site language.

[hwhrhett]

i always thought it was stupid that people were allowed to make alliances in private messages, its a slippery slope, but that if somebody does that, it is a legitimate reason to leave bad feedback.

i like that twill wants to change it tho it would be better if it wasnt allowed.

[Herakilla]

all alliances have to be made publicly but the details of which can be secret between the members

thats my thoughts and i am very opposed to any sort of alliance in a standard game barring the fact that there is a clear game leader who would automatically win unless every1 teams up on him/her

[owenshooter]

i like that twill wants to change it tho it would be better if it wasnt allowed.

he doesn't want to change it. he stated what he thought the written rule meant, and i have always thought the same. and since he and wicked disagree, he is going to check with andy and lack for a definitive answer. it will be nice....-0

[GabonX]

I'm interested to hear the final verdict on this one.

[State409c]

Now for the official stance...

Alliances can be asked for and discussed in private, as long as they are announced before they occur in the game. So you guys can PM and discuss specifics and all that, so long as before either of you take your next turns, the alliance is announced in game chat, in a language understood by all.

Did the official stance change in the past few months? Because this wasn't the stance then when you guys let a bogus negative stand after I went back and forth with you for about 2 weeks and 10 emails.

I did just this, PMd a guy who had announced he was deadbeating and begged him to play his turn because it might make the difference in me winning and losing. He came back and decided to play, attacking me a round later, then putting in the negative feedback that I asked for a secret alliance.

I asked you guys to rescind that part of the feedback because it simply wasn't true - a reason you listed for removing feedback I left once for your clan buddies or some other dweebs that live on this site - and you claimed that it was the users perception I was trying (whatever that means) to ask for a secret alliance, and you let it stand.