I know it's an old issue and one will never end, but take a look at this:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/11465

What do you think about black and orange??? Did they co-operate?

Sry to bring this matter up again, but you know... it sucks!

=/

didn't look like it until maybe right before yellow got booted. i don't think yellow could really poke at black without a big and bd retaliation. tho if he would have stuck around he would have HAD to do so, or prove out your suggestion. but i'd say with him dropping out, i'm guessing they weren't - or at least nothing to concretely say they were.

I wouldn't come to that conclusion unless I was looking to come to that conclusion :P. I think I could justify the moves, although again, if I'm looking to come to co-operating then it could be seen too.

I think so. Orange's moves in the 250's and 290's where he inexplicably uses every single one of his units in the area to attack you to help black get Aus, and then their ongoing non-buildup of common borders, looks more than suspicious to me.

But there's no way of knowing when they decided they'd play the game this way - before the game (against the rules) or during the game (totally fine). It's possible that a few turns in they just decided they'd need each other's help if either one was going to win. Which seems justified to me. Neither one of them is very good.

So all we can do is say watch out for these two players and if it seems to be happening consistently, take action.

Yertle wrote: I wouldn't come to that conclusion unless I was looking to come to that conclusion :P. I think I could justify the moves, although again, if I'm looking to come to co-operating then it could be seen too.

Disagree. Did you review the history?

I suppose there's SOME chance that all of that could be chalked up to simply monumental stupidity, but is there even any conceivable irrational justification for orange's moves? Other than he just likes clicking his mouse in different places sometimes?

Eh, I just don't normally go looking for co-op, and if something appears too fuzzy then normally I just chalk it up to moves that I don't understand or don't think are best. I looked at the History, there were some moves that I wouldn't have made, but eh.
Not saying it did or didn't happen though, it very well could have.

and personally one game a conspiracy does not make. now if we could make a somewhat 'hidden' page where we could list possible collusions, then if we had a question, we could add to it and look there and say nah they've not been doin this before; or conversely these two seem to have a history. then you have some documentation to back up tom's move at banning.

I've actually already had a complaint about those two working together in another game and terminated it (game 11464).

I've booted the remaining player sjk100 - if you'd prefer I can terminate the game if it's not going to be fair who wins from here.

Yertle wrote: I wouldn't come to that conclusion unless I was looking to come to that conclusion :P. I think I could justify the moves, although again, if I'm looking to come to co-operating then it could be seen too.

I don't come to that conclusion either, unless it looks very suspicious to me (and actually this is the first time that's happening). I've lost lots of game already because I've been attacked by more than one player, but it was obvious that they weren't teaming up. At least not for the whole game.

I also usually refuse to cease-fire with someone. For me the game is one vs everyone , even though I know it's part of the game (can we call it diplomacy??). And I'm starting to accept it a (really tiny) bit more

Cheers!

^__^

ps: tom I've answered in the game. You can terminate it if Ender is ok with it. Thx

Diplomacy is very nearly unnecessary (in many cases not advantageous) on that map. Allowed, of course, but... you need the option to slay more than the continent bonus a lot of the time.

Hugh wrote: Diplomacy is very nearly unnecessary (in many cases not advantageous) on that map. Allowed, of course, but... you need the option to slay more than the continent bonus a lot of the time.

Yeah I know. That's why I neglect such deals everytime (maybe except just once)

:)

Isn't it kind of a slippery slope to start terminating games because you suspect people of teaming up? Isn't diplomacy part of war?

Morbo wrote: Isn't it kind of a slippery slope to start terminating games because you suspect people of teaming up? Isn't diplomacy part of war?

Diplomacy is part of the game, sure.  You might call conspiring before hand to win by either double accounting or swapping wins diplomacy, but it's certainly not the kind of diplomacy we want on the site.  In that same vein, posting a forum message and ultimately getting the site admin to terminate a game because of suspected collusion can be considered diplomacy.  Once again it's not the kind we want, but at least it's reactionary.

I understand your slippery slope concerns, but recognizing the potential for using the 'terminate game diplomacy' in a non-reactionary abusive manner does not make it more likely to occur because tom terminate some games already.