Steinmeister

[jacksonexl]

Accused:

• Steinmeister

The accused are suspected of:

• Having a secret alliance

Game number(s):

• Game 1857154
  and any other game he's in.

Comments:
be wary of playing him as he sends pm's trying to create secret alliances between everyone. i asked the other guy in the most recent game i'm in with steiny and he said he's been sending him messages as well. Other games i've played with him i've gotten the odd message here and there.

[spearfish]

Well it's common sense. I mean, come on. Of course two players would, and should try to take out an opponent if he's larger than both of them.

[demon7896]

spearfish, either you're really STUPID or you haven't read the rules

[jacksonexl]

he fishes for under the table alliances.

[demon7896]

or that too.

[conquerAce]

We see the messages from Steinmeister but I'm curious to see how you replied...

[TheScarecrow]

in which case both of them should be busted if the OP replied positively to Stein's offers.

but as far as I can tell this is a clear cut case of the Secret Alliance Rule at THE VERY LEAST on Stein's part

[Salan]

what is the craziness about secret alliances? I don't understand the need for that, of course im extremely new here, haven't played yet..


but seriously though, in any conflict two people fighting one because it is in their best interest could be constructed as a 'secret alliance' don't you run into fake reports that aren't needed in the first place?

and even if they did have an alliance, they do have to fight each other at some point?!

[jacksonexl]

i never replied. i have never had any kind of secret alliances or any interest in any secret alliances. it creates an unfair advantage. i win or lose on my own merits or doofus plays. and i never blame the dice for a win or loss as it will alway even out in the end. i was just posting to let other be wary of "funny instances" in any games they have with steiny. he fishes for secret alliances.

[conquerAce]

I have played with Steinmeister and I don't think that he "fishes" for secret alliances.... i think he looks for the best way to take out the strongest player. Starting up alliance talk in the game chat can put a target on you thus the PMs.

If you weren't interested in talking strategy... reply as such and the PMs would've stopped....

It looks like Steinmeister was letting you know that the target was the other player...

my two cents anyway

[lancehoch]

I have played with Steinmeister and I don't think that he "fishes" for secret alliances...

That is exactly what Steinmaster is doing by sending a PM. He is secretly
trying to form an alliance. The third party in the game had no idea that this was occurring. Also, if any turns were taken before a final yes/no were sent, this becomes even more clear. The topic was discussed here.

[alster]

I have played with Steinmeister and I don't think that he "fishes" for secret alliances...

That is exactly what Steinmaster is doing by sending a PM. He is secretly
trying to form an alliance. The third party in the game had no idea that this was occurring. Also, if any turns were taken before a final yes/no were sent, this becomes even more clear. The topic was discussed here.

Yes? That's quite alright. You can form an alliance anyway you want as long as you announce it in the game chat (in English) before the alliance begin to apply. It would seem highly inappropriate in some instances to begin discussing an alliance in the game chat before agreed to, that could give the opponent a huge advantage.

[lancehoch]

That is why the game is called "R***." You need to take chances. If making an alliance in game chat will get you eliminated, maybe that is not the right thing to do. To me it seems highly inappropriate to make alliances in private and not in game chat. People should be able to come to some kind of understanding where everyone is able to object or give their own interpretation. Also, how can anyone prove that all of the rules have been followed when the alliance is made through PMs. Who is to say that I wont avoid attacking someone for 5 rounds or so even before I propose an alliance over PM just to build some trust, which could be seen as a secret alliance.

[Bruceswar]

For the record, Sending PM's only leads to disaster. Played many games with Jackson. He is not gonna mess you around in a game. He is a fair player.

[Thezzaruz]

he fishes for under the table alliances.

But that isn't against the rules (well at least not atm as these rules are being discussed). I would have dropped a note in the game chat that I'm not interested or something like that so all 3 players knows what's up.

[Steinmeister]

Hi this is Steinmeister.

Thanks to my friends and fellow players who have posted supporting comments.

Here are the facts:
1. I do send PMs.
2. I seek to arrange alliances that will be expressed in gamechat
3. The purpose of my PM is to either: * Make an offer and sort the details of that offer before it is expressed for all to see in game chat OR to discuss developments in that game
4. I do sent PMs to more than one player BUT not at the same time. In other words, I may be speaking to one player in ROUND 6 but by ROUND 12 the game could have changed and I may be speaking to another player. ( The only exception to that is if more than one player is involved in a truce or agreement expressed in game chat)
5. I DO NOT DO SECRET ALLIANCES. It is against the rules.

The proof posted by Jacko actually states, written by me, "Secret alliances are not on" or to that effect.
So, in effect, Jacko has offered NO PROOF.

I am disappointed by the flame but this is a global game with many personalities and clearly not everyone is familiar with negotiation techniques nor has the talent to use them.

I get beaten 3:1 by some pretty good players. I see the techniques they employ and learn from them. I never go back on my word, my offers are presented in clear and explicit terminology and when presented in final form are placed in game chat for all to see. Jacko is upset because he does not understand the technique nor does he know how to use it BUT notably, he never made contact with me about this. He just flamed me in a forum. If you have something to say, you could have made contact but he didn't. That says a lot in itself.

Regards
Steiny

[Steinmeister]

HI Steiny here again.

I went back to the game to have a look again. (It was a while ago)

I noted that when I made an attack on one of his continents, Jacko responded with a very bitter:

2008-04-22 13:08:14 - jacksonexl: bad play going after my bonus. didn't work so well did it?

I am not fond of that tone to say the least.

Bra beat us both and good for him. I don't bemoan the fact that we were beaten by a SGT. I am happy for Bra that he kicked down the door and went on to win. That shows his promise as a player but I don't mind saying that Bra drove me nuts with his tactics. Bra could have won around times over but he just wouldn't act and I bemoaned the fact that I was the only one executing anything dynamic on the board.

I don't think there is room in this game or life for bitterness like that expressed by Jacko. Better you take on the challenge and if someone beats you as Bra did, fair and square, then celebrate his victory. Don't flame me because you didn't win.

One more thing, there is quite a good player - handle - Conquer Ace who is a real mover and shaker in this game. This guy is constantly busting my chops but I like him because he will take a chance and instigate change against a game leader.

I like a fluid game as opposed to a stalemate so I like CA's bravery in the game.

I was very frustrated by Bra's lack of action during our game and I stated that in a PM to Jacko. That said, I am happy for Bra's victory and am not about to flame him in a public forum just because I lost the game. They are called private messages for a reason Jacko. When you post them and the content does not prove your case, all it really says is that you cannot have a private conversation. That's about you, not about me.

[TheScarecrow]

i would suggest though steiny that unless you are paranoid, you should discuss these things in the game chat.

organising alliances like the way you were is very sneaky and nasty.

[Steinmeister]

Scarecrow,

Negotiating a deal before you announce is purely strategic. You don't want to announce your strategy to the other players until those plans are ratified. Can you imagine filling up the game chat with lines and lines of negotiations? Of course not. It is the first sign of a complete amateur.

No government, business or any other entity openly negotiates,it is all done behind closed doors and then announced.

What is wrong is entering a secret alliance WITHOUT ANNOUNCEMENT. That didn't happen here as there was NO negotiation and no communication.

I have come across personality types like Jacko's before. He did not communicate, would not discuss, had nothing to say UNTIL he LOST. Then, he had plenty to say. It's the kind of guy that looks astonished when his wife walks out on him because he hasn't communicated with her for the last year.

Communication is part of life as is negotiation. As such it is part of this game. His complaint is a matter of sour grapes.

Regards

Steiny

[TheScarecrow]

i understand you Steinmeister. im not disputing that at all.

consider though... most of the offers for alliances i have seen are (in the game chat) "hey teal, pink is getting too big and strong. how about we dont break each others bonuses until round 10?" ive seen people as high as major doing this.

Can you imagine filling up the game chat with lines and lines of negotiations? Of course not. It is the first sign of a complete amateur.

lines and lines??? dude the answer to the question i just mentioned would either be: "Yes sure lets attack pink!" or "Go away. You are on your own." negotiation done. completed. kaput. finished. verrry few lines. three at the very most. if (in my example) he was to attack you... meh the game was lost anyway, pink would roll over you and your opponent quicker. if pink was to attack you after that offer... it doesnt matter, he would have attacked you anyway.

I have come across personality types like Jacko's before. He did not communicate, would not discuss, had nothing to say UNTIL he LOST.

if you PMed those messages to me i would have ignored them also. and after the game you would have gone on my ignore list as well. I would be absolutely manuring myself *figuratively speaking of course* that i may be pinged for 'attempted' SAs. If i was to reply to those messages AT ALL, i would have said something along the lines of, "Talk to me in game... unless you are paranoid."


Have the guts to talk about alliances in game chat. It wont hurt you. youll lose what exactly if you talk in GC? Your house? Your family? Or just like 27 points?

27 points.... a couple games 1v1 on classic would be more than enough to get that back.

[Steinmeister]

If only life was that simple. I really need a team of contract negotiation lawyers to sort each on of these.



For example: Players 1 seeks truce on border. The Q is which border? What is it limited to? Will it be deemed hostile if player 2 attacks them elsewhere?

OR

Players 1 and 2 agree not to attack X common border for 3 rounds. They lock in the deal. Player 1 then promptly reduces his numbers on that border and allows, on purpose, another player, say player 3 to attack the now undefended border.

What does this mean? It means you need explicit terms and conditions, time frames and exit strategies. If only you could put a couple of lines in gamechat.

[TheScarecrow]

now you are comparing australian wine with american beer (american beer by the way, to me, is like making love in a canoe... f!@%ing close to water)
lol good old monty python

anyway back on topic

those scenarios can happen. when that occurs its best to just foe list them and move on... maybe leave a neg.

mind you if you are STUPID enough to strip your troops from your borders you deserve to be thrashed. personally i always try to maintain 1.5x my allies 'daily' armies on my borders. that way they have to think twice before they try anything... of course that strat is rather meaningless when you get to escalating

Now to your questions:

For example: Players 1 seeks truce on border. The Q is which border? What is it limited to? Will it be deemed hostile if player 2 attacks them elsewhere?

Player 1 would say which border they wanted left alone. Also if Player Two attacked Player One in a place totally unrelated to that Player One's bonus it should NOT be considered hostile. the only clause i have in my alliances with other players is "lets not break each others bonuses". attacking elsewhere is fine.

Players 1 and 2 agree not to attack X common border for 3 rounds. They lock in the deal. Player 1 then promptly reduces his numbers on that border and allows, on purpose, another player, say player 3 to attack the now undefended border.

Player One would be deserving of a negative feedback and would deserve to be demoted to the lowest rank possible and have a total score reset. that is the worst piece of c@!p ive heard of. Player One should have been aware of the possibilty of such an attack. when i accept an alliance im always looking for ways Player 3 could break through and try to protect myself from these threats. Strategy 101 there.

I dont play too many escalating games so things may be different there... but not by very much