Anonymous Collusion

[Stromguard]

Yes, it appears to be a fine line between illegal and unsportsmanlike.

[DuPont]

Yes, it appears to be a fine line between illegal and unsportsmanlike.

Well, I don't know that I agree with that at all. I think the nice thing about the anonymous format is that you can do whatever you like and it's all fair. Sort of like playing Diplomacy where you expect to get screwed over. In one game, I declared somebody an ally and voted for his HC motions simply to hide the fact that I was going to jump him. If I think somebody is bedeviling the leader, I'll be quite happy to send extra gold to help them along and bring friendly motions to the HC on their behalf. I like the whole 'fog of war' aspect - did the GI lose control of the Northern Mists because the DW is attacking or did he just declare a few PCs neutral to hide his strength? Other than actually contacting somebody outside of the game, I don't think anything you do in an anonymous game is unsportsmanlike.
I have played lots of anonymous games - it's my favorite format. I have never once suspected collusion nor have I ever been contacted by somebody even hinting that they'd like to work with me on such a scheme.

[Kronin]

I'm hesitant to chime in here, as I've only been playing for about a year, but overall I think this is great group of players and I would be really disappointed if someone was colluding through emails in a team anon game. I hope that's not the case!!!

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another. You should always play for YOUR team to win! Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO.

[DuPont]

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another.  You should always play for YOUR team to win!  Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO.

I'm not sure I agree with this, either. My position in any game, anonymous or otherwise, is clear. If you attack me, I will not forgive. You may well put me in a position where I can't win, but then I will do my best to make sure you don't win either. I mean, I won't throw a game to somebody else - I won't invite another player to come take all my PCs so they can win - but I'll stay around your ankle like a rabid terrier and as you try to pivot off to take on a new opponent, you'll find the tattered remnants of my kingdom rising up again to drag you back in. I think playing to prevent your foe from getting the win is an entirely valid style of play. I mean, I don't care WHO wins as long as it's not the guy who jumped me!

[Hawk_]

I'm hesitant to chime in here, as I've only been playing for about a year, but overall I think this is great group of players and I would be really disappointed if someone was colluding through emails in a team anon game.   I hope that's not the case!!!

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another.  You should always play for YOUR team to win!

Some players have played the same positions 3-4 times.  When you know certain positions very well it becomes easier to predict what they will do.

This knowledge may also contribute to the illusion of coordinating attacks.   

[Kronin]

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another.  You should always play for YOUR team to win!  Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO.

I'm not sure I agree with this, either. My position in any game, anonymous or otherwise, is clear. If you attack me, I will not forgive. You may well put me in a position where I can't win, but then I will do my best to make sure you don't win either. I mean, I won't throw a game to somebody else - I won't invite another player to come take all my PCs so they can win - but I'll stay around your ankle like a rabid terrier and as you try to pivot off to take on a new opponent, you'll find the tattered remnants of my kingdom rising up again to drag you back in. I think playing to prevent your foe from getting the win is an entirely valid style of play. I mean, I don't care WHO wins as long as it's not the guy who jumped me!

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I stand by my original opinion. Play to win...anything else is cheese.

[Jumpingfist]

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another.  You should always play for YOUR team to win!  Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO.

I'm not sure I agree with this, either. My position in any game, anonymous or otherwise, is clear. If you attack me, I will not forgive. You may well put me in a position where I can't win, but then I will do my best to make sure you don't win either. I mean, I won't throw a game to somebody else - I won't invite another player to come take all my PCs so they can win - but I'll stay around your ankle like a rabid terrier and as you try to pivot off to take on a new opponent, you'll find the tattered remnants of my kingdom rising up again to drag you back in. I think playing to prevent your foe from getting the win is an entirely valid style of play. I mean, I don't care WHO wins as long as it's not the guy who jumped me!

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  I stand by my original opinion.   Play to win...anything else is cheese.

I agree with both sides on this.  I play to win but also to DuPonts point if someone attacks me they are going to pay.   Last thing I want is someone thinking a good tactic is to attack me.  We play with the same group of people over and over.   

In the the game referenced for this discussion I played the UN. Was down to 2 PCs my allies WI and BL only the WI had anything.   BL was just an army at that point.   We had been fighting two teams and we're paying the price we saw the number one team just picking off region after region.  So we declared the other teams we were fighting ally and went head long into the other team.  We had no way of knowing if the others would also switch the war effort to stop the number 1 team from winning.  To me this was the only way we could later win if the other clear favorite was taken down.   I still see nothing wrong with it and have had it back fire as well.  I went after the clear leader in another game and did help stop him from winning but had my remaining PC eaten up by someone that would rather just focus on there one goal of attacking me.

I have suspected a group of cheating but can not prove because the way I felt they did it was agree not to attack each other and stay away from the others regions being attack.   I play a ton of games and spot pattern but still have brought none to task in the forum.  Simply without proof one should not drag someone else in the mud.   I still play anon and enjoy them 

[Ry Vor]

Yes, it appears to be a fine line between illegal and unsportsmanlike.

Well, I don't know that I agree with that at all. I think the nice thing about the anonymous format is that you can do whatever you like and it's all fair. Sort of like playing Diplomacy where you expect to get screwed over. In one game, I declared somebody an ally and voted for his HC motions simply to hide the fact that I was going to jump him. If I think somebody is bedeviling the leader, I'll be quite happy to send extra gold to help them along and bring friendly motions to the HC on their behalf. I like the whole 'fog of war' aspect - did the GI lose control of the Northern Mists because the DW is attacking or did he just declare a few PCs neutral to hide his strength? Other than actually contacting somebody outside of the game, I don't think anything you do in an anonymous game is unsportsmanlike.
I have played lots of anonymous games - it's my favorite format. I have never once suspected collusion nor have I ever been contacted by somebody even hinting that they'd like to work with me on such a scheme.

Wow, DuPont - impressively devious!  I hadn't considered some of those tactics, but yes, its all fair.

I think on this discussion (the thread in general, not a particular post), that there are different perspectives needed for the different formats.  The Gray Mouser was just crying on my shoulder about being denigrated and attacked (very effectively) by 3 kingdoms on the same turn, and denigrated by the High Council, but it was a full diplomacy game and he had taken at least one PC from each of them in the previous turn or two.  So, while it was three on one, he is culpable, and could have used a bit more diplomacy to get an ally or two of his own.

There is no "rule" per say on dropping before Turn 12, which we revised to Turn 10, its just a useful community protocol as an old problem was early drops that threw the game to a neighbor that hadn't done much to deserve it, but in the Resurgence we haven't seen much of that, though a few newer players have dropped a game early if something goes wrong.  The game is more fun when you overcome some adversity - Alamaze isn't like playing a solo computer game on easy setting - something is going to go against you at some point.  And to the point of the rabid terrior personas (there are several), you don't want a reputation of dropping at the first sight of blood.  Suck it up.  How'd you like to get together with your buddies for a monthly five player Axis & Allies game and have one quit after an hour?

The sportsmanship aspect that is maybe most important in a format is in a Magic (team) game: don't drop on your team.  Paraphrasing Pink Floyd, when you're in, you're in for good.  Not fair for the other two players.  If the whole team drops, that's unfortunate, but don't leave the two guys who were your teammates hanging.

[Kronin]

I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another.  You should always play for YOUR team to win!  Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO.

I'm not sure I agree with this, either. My position in any game, anonymous or otherwise, is clear. If you attack me, I will not forgive. You may well put me in a position where I can't win, but then I will do my best to make sure you don't win either. I mean, I won't throw a game to somebody else - I won't invite another player to come take all my PCs so they can win - but I'll stay around your ankle like a rabid terrier and as you try to pivot off to take on a new opponent, you'll find the tattered remnants of my kingdom rising up again to drag you back in. I think playing to prevent your foe from getting the win is an entirely valid style of play. I mean, I don't care WHO wins as long as it's not the guy who jumped me!

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  I stand by my original opinion.   Play to win...anything else is cheese.

I agree with both sides on this.  I play to win but also to DuPonts point if someone attacks me they are going to pay.   Last thing I want is someone thinking a good tactic is to attack me.  We play with the same group of people over and over.   

In the the game referenced for this discussion I played the UN. Was down to 2 PCs my allies WI and BL only the WI had anything.   BL was just an army at that point.   We had been fighting two teams and we're paying the price we saw the number one team just picking off region after region.  So we declared the other teams we were fighting ally and went head long into the other team.  We had no way of knowing if the others would also switch the war effort to stop the number 1 team from winning.  To me this was the only way we could later win if the other clear favorite was taken down.   I still see nothing wrong with it and have had it back fire as well.  I went after the clear leader in another game and did help stop him from winning but had my remaining PC eaten up by someone that would rather just focus on there one goal of attacking me.

I have suspected a group of cheating but can not prove because the way I felt they did it was agree not to attack each other and stay away from the others regions being attack.   I play a ton of games and spot pattern but still have brought none to task in the forum.  Simply without proof one should not drag someone else in the mud.   I still play anon and enjoy them 

In regards to your first point about making sure someone knows they are penalties for attacking you, that's fine and good unless the game is anon. In regards to your second paragraph...in that example you were still paying "to win". The point was not that you shouldn't attack the front runner...the point was that you shouldn't only play to decide who wins with no intention of winning yourself. My personal code of morality, if you will, is that you should always play to win. If you are only playing to keep someone else from winning because they outplayed you earlier in the game...just seems petty and unsportmanlike to me. Personally I tip my hat to that person, learn from it, and try to do better the next game.

[DuPont]

"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"