soft wizard wrote: I'm not really a fan of players being able to privately message each other. I mean, alliances are fine, but to do that in a real life, in-person game of Risk, what are you going to do? What's the real life analog? Telepathy? I don't think there is one--you simply have to have the conversation in front of everyone if you want to broker a deal--all players are privy to the arrangement agreed upon.

I guess this is beside the point somewhat, though, and probably easy for me to say since I haven't signed up for a premium membership yet and therefore don't have pm privileges. From that perspective, though, can you see how it could be thought of as awfully close to cheating, if some players have access to something rather game-changing and some don't? Oh well.

You do have messages (to the right of charts and designs), don't you?

M57 wrote:

soft wizard wrote: I'm not really a fan of players being able to privately message each other. I mean, alliances are fine, but to do that in a real life, in-person game of Risk, what are you going to do? What's the real life analog? Telepathy? I don't think there is one--you simply have to have the conversation in front of everyone if you want to broker a deal--all players are privy to the arrangement agreed upon.

I guess this is beside the point somewhat, though, and probably easy for me to say since I haven't signed up for a premium membership yet and therefore don't have pm privileges. From that perspective, though, can you see how it could be thought of as awfully close to cheating, if some players have access to something rather game-changing and some don't? Oh well.

You do have messages (to the right of charts and designs), don't you?

As a standard member, I can receive messages, but not send.

M57 wrote:

Tom has since made it such that accusations of cheating go directly to him, so there's no way to know if cheating is on the rise, constant, or in decline.  

The cheating way to possibly see the number of cheaters :) http://www.wargear.net/players/list/Z/5/ those good ole "zdisabled#" people (although I do believe some of those have been at player request and may not be specifically what is done for all found to be cheating).

There's also this thread:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2038/Information_only_Multiple_account_bans

smoke wrote:

There's also this thread:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2038/Information_only_Multiple_account_bans

No more cheaters since 13th Sep 2012. This is very reassuring !

Accusations should be kept off the public forums. If there is no conviction of cheating it just slanders their name. And who other than Slander would want that?

Aiken Drumn wrote:

It is a personal viewpoint, but I am VERY chatty in almost all of my games. If I can broker a deal between one or more players, why not? Anyone has the ability if they wish. I will be firing off messages both public and private most turns. A border agreement here, an alliance against a common enemy, etc, all part of the fun for me.

 

That being said, it is all IN GAME, all as a reaction to what is on the board. I don't have anyone I know who will side with me etc  before the game starts, or even after the first few turns. It generally is as the board starts to form I can see who it would be mutually benefit to ally with. Even then we always know that the stab has to come at some point. I love the balance between trust, benefit and having to look after ones own ass!!!

I agree very much that in game alliances are OK and are also part of the game. But what I do despise are players who systematically gang up against you, whatever the game and whatever the state of the board. 

Is it cheating? Not strickly according to the rule.

Is it cool? No!

Should it be made cheating? I think so, but in reality not easy/possible to enforce.

 

PS: I agree with the general consensus on this thread, but I still think there is room for improvement in relation to fair play