I vote wholeheartedly for #3.
Whatever the wording of the vague explanation for the rule, the foundation is "No secret alliances." A secret alliance is an alliance that no one knows about (besides those who are in the alliance, of course). So in order to follow the rule, if you've made an alliance with another player, make it public--announce it in the game chat. If you and another player want to consider forming an alliance, guess what--you don't have one! What point is there to discussing publicly something that doesn't even exist? You won't accomplish anything besides cluttering up the chat box.
Alliances are key elements of Risk (I think it's a no-brainer that CC = Risk with a few optional variations; CC is for people who want to play Risk online. Moving on....). Just as you wouldn't have a problem pulling another player aside in the board game Risk, there shouldn't really be any problem doing the same thing with the online version.
If other players start whining 'That's not fair! You're cheating!' then they're really the ones with the problem; they forgot that this is a game of strategy, not simply mindlessly bashing numbers against each other.
Consider an example:
3 players are playing on the map. 2 of them are relatively equal in strength, while the third is considerably stronger. It's readily apparent that he's (for the sake of simplicity, I'll use the male gender) gonna win. Now those 2 players face a decision: 1) They can keep bashing their heads against each other, continuously fighting over the same few territories and weakening themselves in the process. And of course, in the mean time, Player 3 can just keep smiling as he builds up his forces, slowly nibbles away at what's remaining of the other two, and gets even closer to victory. Or 2) The two squabbling players can wake up and realize that they're just sealing their fate, and they only way they'll survive is if they team up against the winning player to at least beat him back to a less threatening position.
If P3 whines that such an agreement is unfair, then he's simply ignoring a critical element in the game. He really should've planned for this.
To sum it up: alliances are strategic and are therefore fair and acceptable,
unless their existence is kept hidden from the rest of the players.
...
Ok, that's enough. It's too late and I'm too tired. I'm sure you can finish connecting any dots that I left out.
Besides, I think wicked said it well when she said "Once an alliance is agreed upon, it must then be announced before you take any further actions in the game."
Good night. Go ahead and disagree with whatever I said if you want. I'll deal with it tomorrow.
Just my thoughts,
Poocho
P.S. As I sorta mentioned, my mind's not completely clear. So if anything I said came across as offensive, I truly am sorry. I'll just have to correct it later.
