I realized the other day when dealing with a complaint that there's no actual rules anywhere on the site to say whether or not you are allowed to team up with another player and if you are, when.

Obviously a single player operating multiple accounts is not permitted, but what about two players teaming up against others? At what point are you allowed to team up with another player - is it before you join, during the join phase or only after the game has started?

Basically I need to put down some rules / guidelines so if abuse happens in the future then I can point them to a policy so looking for a general consensus on this.

Hmmm, teaming up for anything other than going after the "strongest" player should perhaps be advised as a bad idea, but teaming/truces should be allowed (even if in secret). I know I expect them when I have a lead, and/or I assume them when there is someone else in a huge lead (this is just good strategy IMO). I don't think intentionally joining games in groups and eliminating others before really playing to win should be tolerated (of course this may be difficult to restrict/identify, but could say that it looks like it may be multiple accounts which is bannable).
So it seems like there really shouldn't be "teaming" until after a game has started and begun to be played, and even then they should be more like "truces" until a certain point.

Yertle wrote: I don't think intentionally joining games in groups and eliminating others before really playing to win should be tolerated (of course this may be difficult to restrict/identify, but could say that it looks like it may be multiple accounts which is bannable).
So it seems like there really shouldn't be "teaming" until after a game has started and begun to be played, and even then they should be more like "truces" until a certain point.

I agree with this - ethics are a little fuzzy once a game begins, but the pre-arranged nonsense should not be allowed.  It would be good to state official warnings regarding this behavior somewhere, because some will do this "innocently" (as we saw in a previous post - game with a gf - I can definitely see the innocence in this).

-Hugh

Anything arranged before a game begins is forbidden.

Doing anything in-game other than trying to win that game is forbidden.

That's my take. I don't think it gets much more complicated than that.

asm wrote:

Anything arranged before a game begins is forbidden.

I agree. prearranged alliances should not be aloud. that's what team games are for. as far as what happens in a game "All is fair in love and war"

KrocK wrote:

asm wrote:

Anything arranged before a game begins is forbidden.

I agree. prearranged alliances should not be aloud. that's what team games are for. as far as what happens in a game "All is fair in love and war"

They shouldn't be, but good luck enforcing it, especially once tournament play starts.

In the real world, I've seen Risk games with arbitrary alliances pop up.  Sometimes it's just a couple of friends wanting to teach a rather obnoxious player from a previous game a lesson, sometimes it's just everybody teaming up against the strong guy, sometimes it's just a mad dash to get the weakest player's cards.  I think it's a little annoying, but diplomacy is part of the game.  Chances are, unless it's a 3-player board, if you're getting ganged up by a couple of players, you can always talk to the remaining players and organize your own temporary alliance to clear the board.  Point being, the situation frequently resolves itself.

My two cents:

Permanent multiple-game alliances (at least in Ranked play) should be highly discouraged in the site's policy, with language that threatens removal from the site or some sufficiently punitive action. However, I don't think Tom or anyone else need bother with developing a sophisticated system of enforcement. The occurrence of this sort of collusion will likely be rare, and will frequently resolve itself as the community becomes aware of offenders and ostracizes them. In the extremely rare cases where it becomes a real problem, Tom will have a clear policy in place on the site that he can use to justify kicking the offenders off the site.

I agree 100% with Kjeld.

And I forgot about the tournament thing. I'd say that's an exception to the "no negotiation prior to game start" rule, or at least look at an entire tournament as one continuous event rather than a series of discrete game events.

Oatworm wrote:

Sometimes it's just a couple of friends wanting to teach a rather obnoxious player from a previous game a lesson, sometimes it's just everybody teaming up against the strong guy, sometimes it's just a mad dash to get the weakest player's cards.  I think it's a little annoying, but diplomacy is part of the game.

Hence the language of my first rule. All of these decisions fall under the category of trying to win that game (except the first one, possibly*).

* I say 'possibly' because previous experiences obviously inform current decisions. There's a particular player on this site who I have observed to act irrationally at times, and has cost me more than one game with his singleminded pursuit of my own destruction - to his own detriment. I approach playing against this player differently now based on my knowledge of his past decisionmaking.

asm wrote:

I agree 100% with Kjeld.

And I forgot about the tournament thing. I'd say that's an exception to the "no negotiation prior to game start" rule, or at least look at an entire tournament as one continuous event rather than a series of discrete game events.

Oatworm wrote:

Sometimes it's just a couple of friends wanting to teach a rather obnoxious player from a previous game a lesson, sometimes it's just everybody teaming up against the strong guy, sometimes it's just a mad dash to get the weakest player's cards.  I think it's a little annoying, but diplomacy is part of the game.

Hence the language of my first rule. All of these decisions fall under the category of trying to win that game (except the first one, possibly*).

* I say 'possibly' because previous experiences obviously inform current decisions. There's a particular player on this site who I have observed to act irrationally at times, and has cost me more than one game with his singleminded pursuit of my own destruction - to his own detriment. I approach playing against this player differently now based on my knowledge of his past decisionmaking.

Just because you and Yertle are arch nemeses doesn't mean you should play differently against him!

Vataro wrote:

Just because you and Yertle are arch nemeses doesn't mean you should play differently against him!

I was wondering about that :P.  I really enjoy attacking asm, although I don't try and do it until my own detriment.

I think it's smart to play against certain people more than others, you definitely don't play against everyone the same, especially when you know that someone else is better.

BlackDog wrote:

I think the biggest issue is in tourneys where more than one person advances to the next round. If only one person advances, then an alliance is necessarilly limited by the fact that it must be broken at some point. If two players know they will both advance to the next round, then there is no limit to how far they can trust one another. Back on Warfish I was in a 4 man FFA tourney where two players basically allied from the start, and of course they made it to the finals.

Quoted for legibility.

Redacted for clarity.

I think the biggest issue is in tourneys where more than one person advances to the next round. If only one person advances, then an alliance is necessarilly limited by the fact that it must be broken at some point. If two players know they will both advance to the next round, then there is no limit to how far they can trust one another. Back on Warfish I was in a 4 man FFA tourney where two players basically allied from the start, and of course they made it to the finals.

Now I'm confused.

Me too.

asm wrote:

Anything arranged before a game begins is forbidden.

Doing anything in-game other than trying to win that game is forbidden.

That's my take. I don't think it gets much more complicated than that.

agree with the first part. the blank cheque alliances in individual tourneys result in 1 vs 1 vs 2... in warfish tourneys, I would check to see who advances with who, and if I see opponents advancing a few times together, I go check histories... if they are allied, I make an alliance with the odd man out... so are all 4 of us get accounts terminated (ie if whatever sanctions are applied aren't done really fast?).

for part 2, I will play for 2nd place (or 3rd or 4th) to advance if I have to and that option is available. If I think the other players can't knock down the leader, or it will just be easier to make sure I advance, I will target the weaker. So I'm playing to have the best shot at winning the tourney, just not the individual game. So I really disagree with that.

also wondering how will this get proven? what constitutes proof? can admin investigage accusations and read Private Messages or inboxes? I've seen players dumb enough to post public messages to each other about tourney long alliances, but most often it will be done more secretly. Will admins be comfortable cancelling premium accounts on suspected alliances?

Gimli wrote:

asm wrote:

Anything arranged before a game begins is forbidden.

Doing anything in-game other than trying to win that game is forbidden.

That's my take. I don't think it gets much more complicated than that.

 

 

for part 2, I will play for 2nd place (or 3rd or 4th) to advance if I have to and that option is available. If I think the other players can't knock down the leader, or it will just be easier to make sure I advance, I will target the weaker. So I'm playing to have the best shot at winning the tourney, just not the individual game. So I really disagree with that.

I more or less interpret that as 'winning'.

Gimli wrote: also wondering how will this get proven? what constitutes proof? can admin investigage accusations and read Private Messages or inboxes? I've seen players dumb enough to post public messages to each other about tourney long alliances, but most often it will be done more secretly. Will admins be comfortable cancelling premium accounts on suspected alliances?

Good questions... at the end of the day there is no such thing as 100% proof, even if one person is playing with 2 different logins on the same computer there's no real way to distinguish between that situation and two people sharing the same computer (or sharing the same internet connection).

Reading of private messages is ruled out from a privacy perspective but I think it is acceptable to check whether two players have sent each other a private message during the course of the game - if two players have obviously teamed up and have not sent any messages to each other then that is a fair indication that there is something going on.

Cancelling Premium or any account would be a last resort but I would certainly be prepared to do it if a player continued to cheat after having received more than 2 warnings.

As regards tournament alliances, where more than 1 player or team advances the tournaments will use either pre-defined brackets or randomized brackets each round to ensure that the same players are not able to progress through multiple rounds by advancing together.

tom wrote:

Gimli wrote: also wondering how will this get proven? what constitutes proof? can admin investigage accusations and read Private Messages or inboxes? I've seen players dumb enough to post public messages to each other about tourney long alliances, but most often it will be done more secretly. Will admins be comfortable cancelling premium accounts on suspected alliances?

Good questions... at the end of the day there is no such thing as 100% proof, even if one person is playing with 2 different logins on the same computer there's no real way to distinguish between that situation and two people sharing the same computer (or sharing the same internet connection).

Reading of private messages is ruled out from a privacy perspective but I think it is acceptable to check whether two players have sent each other a private message during the course of the game - if two players have obviously teamed up and have not sent any messages to each other then that is a fair indication that there is something going on.

Cancelling Premium or any account would be a last resort but I would certainly be prepared to do it if a player continued to cheat after having received more than 2 warnings.

As regards tournament alliances, where more than 1 player or team advances the tournaments will use either pre-defined brackets or randomized brackets each round to ensure that the same players are not able to progress through multiple rounds by advancing together.

If you include cancelling premium as a punishment, it may be wise to include a clause on the premium signup page that says you reserve the right to revoke premium status with no refund in the event of _________. Not sure if it would actually be necessary, but couldn't hurt.

I'd say there would have to be a refund of either the full or a pro rata amount based on the amount of time they had paid for. Otherwise they'd be within their rights to demand a chargeback via Paypal for the service they paid for not being provided.