Forum
what a fun game - 3 vs. 1 Stacy Love, a trucebreaker
![]() |
know_it_all wrote
at 8:39 PM, Saturday April 7, 2007 EDT
4 players left: AlphaZeta, chipswithafork, Stacy Love (#1), and me.
Stacy truced with all three of us in oder to take out the 5th player, brown (forgot his name). we succeeded. than Stacy break the truce and started attacking all three of us. chip and & want to flag and end the game, but Alpha keeps on fighting. Eventually, we all join force against Stacy. It was a looooooong but fun game. she keeps on saying that breaking truces is not cheating and all three of us disagree. eventually, we killed her. |
Replies 1 - 10 of 10
![]() |
bigbrother narth wrote
at 10:57 PM, Saturday April 7, 2007 EDT hats off to you. and Lol, sound hilarious
|
![]() |
Improv42 wrote
at 12:33 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT Breaking truces is not cheating. Why? Because truces aren't in the rules. Truces are free-form diplomacy in the chat window, and are acted out via choices in the game. Seems to me Stacy operated on the premise that since the truce was activated to kill Brown, and Brown was indeed eliminated, the truce was done, and she was free to do as she wished. She wished to try and steal the win and more d-points, but it looks like you three kicked her ass. Good on you. And that's how you deal with people who do things you don't agree with. If you're playing with others who agree with you, ally against the one you see as being bad.
But you can't call it cheating if no rules were broken. Since there are no official rules on truces, no cheating took place in your situation. You did the right thing by you and your allies when you squashed her. What she did wasn't illegal or cheating, but it was very unwise, and it will cause you to be wary of her if you play her again. Reputation usually takes care of those who are shady in truce deals. |
![]() |
know_it_all wrote
at 12:42 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT .
|
![]() |
know_it_all wrote
at 12:46 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT i see what you are saying.
1) i consider truce a binding contract. and in our case, if stacy's intertion is only work together to kill brown and then all men for themselves, she should be more clear and all of us would then be position better for what's come after brown is gone. 2) all 3 of us are under the impression that we'll flag after brown is gone, so you cannot say that i am treating stacy unfairly 3) ok, i can accept that it's not cheating. but it certainly is unfair behaviour on the part of a player who has no common courtesy, no integrity, and no decency |
![]() |
Improv42 wrote
at 2:02 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT 1. "A binding contract"? Uh...no. Sorry. YOU may consider a truce...which is "spoken" online in a chat-like format to be a binding contract, but no court in the world would. Just because Stacy didn't think like you do does not make her a cheater.
2. You say "all 3 of us are under the impression" -- well, if you were at all unsure, why didn't you clarify when you made the truce? Seems to me that if someone says "let's truce to kill Brown" and Brown does get beaten, the original purpose of our truce is done, therefore, so is the truce. If you wanted to flag afterward, you should have said so at the time of the truce. Stacy took advantage of your assumption. Devious? Yes. Cheating? No. And when did I say you or anyone treated Stacy unfairly? She acted in a manner that displeased the three others, and they made her pay for it. All's fair, and the wronged got justice. There's no problem here. 3. We're agreed then, that what Stacy did was not cheating. But you go too far when you accuse her of having no integrity or decency. IT IS NOT HER FAULT that the three other parties DID NOT specify that once Brown was killed that she'd flag with the rest of them. If you want that to be part of your truce, you had better make sure everyone knows it. Otherwise, you have only yourself to blame if someone sees that gaping loophole and beats you with it. Sorry! |
![]() |
Improv42 wrote
at 2:04 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT In short, Stacy agreed to the terms of the truce as it was stated, and followed those terms TO THE LETTER.
Again, clever and even possibly weaselly, but not illegal. If you get into a truce, be aware of the terms. If you're not aware, ask. |
![]() |
Racoontailz wrote
at 6:11 AM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT This is all very interesting to me.
|
|
Ubersmush wrote
at 1:09 PM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT Nice wish Id seen that game
Breaking truces might not be in the rules but its still scummy, like pgaing and trash talking. Gotta hate those people |
![]() |
5er wrote
at 2:43 PM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT so you all truced to kill off the weak, 5th player and then when there was nobody left on the board to kill that wasn't in the alliance she starts attacking you?
how is this something to bitch about? unless the rest of you were willing to flag to end the game, there was no other way for the game to continue unless somebody started attacking the others... and the three of you had it in your power to automatically end the game thru flagging the moment that brown had died. |
![]() |
aixo wrote
at 3:29 PM, Sunday April 8, 2007 EDT Improv42... I totally agree with you!!!
Also if I would never backstabb an ally, we can´t call backstabbing cheating! You´re so right with your argument, that this isn´t part of the rules.. Well, backstabbing isn´t fine and not nice for the reputation of a player. But it´s not cheating! The same thing as this "flag/surrender" discussion... or this PGA-discussion... |