That game started 22 October. The thread you reference didn't happen until 5 November. They didn't break their word. Epic Fail to BrightEyes.

Sorry, Thread was started 3 November. Either way, they didn't break their word.

Ok, but doesn't the behavior indicate a problem? An unbreakable alliance, even after the thread was put up?

Spring 1911, Germany attacks Russia. Hardly an unbreakable alliance when one attacks the other.

You really need to verify your suspicions before you make accusations.

Oh, sorry, Spring 1911. So I should just ignore the previous ten years of the game? I attempted to communicate with both of them. I was told by Germany that Russia was a good ally and that I had to die. 'Good ally', no kidding.

Spring 1911 would have been right after the agreement, so yeah. I know that 1904 was still well before they made the agreement. I would suspect that Spring 1911 was within a day or two of the agreement that what they were doing was wrong and they would stop.

Spring of 1910 was on November 16th. The agreement was made on November 4th. 16-4 is not two. And either way, isn't the problem that they had an 'unbreakable' alliance in the first place???

Not when the agreement was made

please ban these multiaccounters

I couldn't tell when 1910 was because the public chat ended at 1904. The problem of the unbreakable alliance in the first place is mute as they hadn't agreed to it. Enforcing a rule expost facto is a dnagerous principle to set. As far as their continued, it could be argued that they were in a place at that point where their best bet was to continue to work together until 1911 when Germany took advantage and stabed to get the win in 1912. But you claimed this was a new game, which it wasn't. That in itself provides reasonable doubt and negates all future arguments. Had you made this argument to begin with rather than implying they started this game in violation of the agreement, you'd get more sympathy. If they do it again, I would agree they need a ban, but for if I were a mod I would just warn them to be certain to play fair in the future and keep an eye out on them.

I agree with Draugnar. The behaviour in this game seems fairly normal. So they had a strong alliance. So what?

Alamothe, there is no evidence of multiaccounting as far as I can see.

The point isn't when they cheated, but that they actually did. Metagaming is NOT a new rule.

It's not multi accounting, metagaming. Jamiet99uk, if I could direct you to look at their game records, you will see that there are many 'strong alliances' between the two. And the fact that this game was anon only adds to the point.

Metagaming is not necessarily against the rules of this site.

Unfair as it is in regular games, it completely ruins anonymous games.

Nonetheless, this thread is completely pointless.

If you feel you have a valid complaint, email the moderators, don't clutter up the forum with your accusations.

Well, if that's how they play, I'll avoid them in normal games, and apparently now I have to avoid playing any anonymous games.

@Jamiet99uk these actually are valid accusations. See the first thread, they had actually admitted to it. threadID=493795

It's not that they aren't valid overall, but that your choice of games to accuse them on is invalid. Provide an example of a game started after the agreement in which they had a clearly unbreakable alliance and I'm sure a mod will acgt on it. Until then, STFU.

This is a problem that can only be solved after an anonymous game is finished. Does the fact that they actually admitted to it mean anything?

EMAIL THE MODS!

The forum is not the place to go bandying about accusations against other players, however valid you think they are.

EMAIL THE MODS!

Anonymous metagaming?

You mean they knew who they were???

That is exactly what I mean.

@Draugnar: Did you read the first thread? 1. You agreed with me. 2. They confessed to it. 3. One would think that a confession means that this activity would have to stop. So, until you make up your damn mind on whether metagaming is right or wrong, would you kindly STFU.

Well that beats the whole purpose of anonymous games. I think they should be punished by preventing them from joining any anonymous games in the future

I'm saying you have no proof they metagamed. STFU on the forum, but by all means have a mod check it out. I do agree that their metagaming was wrong, I just don't agree that you have provided sufficient proof and I feel your initial accusation was so easily confirmed as being incorrect timing wise as to make this particular instance somethihng of a :"boy that cried wolf" scenario. But by all means, have a mod check it out BrightEyes.

I was i8n a game with judas and duzenko and I didn't win. They must've been metagaming and multiaccounting, how else could you explain the fact that I didn't win. I'm with Bright E Yes all the way on this one.