A regular feature of open speed assassin games incorporates players deliberately enabling an opponent to win,
Here's a good example of a players excuse for repeatedly attacking another player's (yellow's) target when his target was green:
"well i did not know where he was since it was fog of war and i did not think u where his target. it thought he was after me.. and i was really after green... so i thought that the green in front of my guys was all he had but he accually had more. there u go bud"
This clearly doesn't stand up to logic as an excuse for helping another player to win. If the player in question "thought that the green in front of my guys was all he had" then he would logically attack green to win straight away (rather than attacking yelow's target for the first 3 turns).
In fact, the excuse actually proves guilt. Thinking green only had the territory in front of him and not attacking it (3) can only be because this guy didn't want to win.
What counts as evidence round here? Surely things are more cut-and-dried where assassin games are concerned?
Or do we all have to go to playing private and 1 v 1 games 'cos everything else is unsafe.