Is this a BS truce?

[jpreno]

This discussion comes out of an unfounded claim against me, that was officially rejected, but some points were raised that I thought would make for interesting discussion.

First off--This is NOT about secret diplomacy. I fully agree that secret truces and the like spoil this game and are not welcome. I request that you do not waste bandwidth lamenting secret truces (start another thread).

Anyway, below is an edited copy of a thread regarding the claim against me (you can see the whole thing by looking at my user profile) :

-------------------------------------------

BLUE [as part of complaint]: ... I got off to a great start, wouldn't have been surprised if they went after me in each of their own best interest, but It looks like they're against me, together, until I'm out.

Game chat:
"2011-01-26 06:18:30 - jpreno [RED, me] : Green, our only chance is to go after blue together--truce till blue is gone?
2011-01-26 12:50:09 - [GREEN]: sure
2011-01-26 19:32:40 - [RED]: Green, why'd you take Mumbai from me? What about the truce?
2011-01-27 06:22:02 - [RED]: OK, then--let's get this over with
2011-01-27 12:37:28 - [GREEN]: oops i forgot [too] many games sorry"

MODERATOR 1: Diplomacy is allowed as long as it is only done in Game chat like this was. ... A bs truce for sure ...

jpreno [me]: Why is this a "bs truce"? As noted [BLUE] was off to a great start ...

MODERATOR 1: Some people think any truce in a 3 player game is BS.

MODERATOR 2: Thats right! Also it wasn't a lets even it up truce. It was an elimination truce. BS.

jpreno [me]: ... I've been playing Risk for over 30 years, and this is how the game is played. Sure, I proposed an "elimination truce", but so what? It's not a legally binding contract that's gonna land you in court when you break it--i.e., I took a risk proposing it, and we each take a risk each turn we honor the truce. Blue could have counteroffered to green, and of course, once the balance of power changed I would expect other discussions to happen (or at any time along the way for that matter)....

--------------------

So here is the question for discussion:

Is this a BS truce, and why? In fact, can you really have a BS truce?

I put this out to see what the community thinks--I don’t plan on changing my gameplay--if you don’t like it don’t play with me. (and by the way, I hardly ever try to set up truces, in this case, the game was so one-sided I had to try something to change it).

Thanks!

[owenshooter]

why don't you post in the proper forum like Strategy or Q&A instead of spamming the GD? and all truces are BS... people whine when they are broken, and they are always inevitably broken. as long as it is discussed in the chat log, it is not against the rules. so i would suggest changing your strategy. players that need to rely on truces are not very good players. wow, ANOTHER TRUCE THREAD... that is like 4 this week... you have bored the black jesus...-the black jesus

[rdsrds2120]

This is a talk of strategy. "How do you consider a truce BS? Is this one? What about truces in general?" are all strategy related topics. Olleyoop --

-rd

[natty dread]

why don't you post in the proper forum like Strategy or Q&A instead of spamming the GD?

How about cutting the guy some slack owen... he's only got 4 posts... I doubt he intended to "spam" your precious GD.

[jpreno]

Thanks for the nice reply Natty.

To the others--I'm a newb and I apologize-we all start somewhere, right? I'll try to do better in the future.

[natty dread]

Well, I still don't think you should make truces in 3-player games. In fact, here's a list of games you shouldn't make truces in:

2-player games
3-player games
4-player doubles
triples
quadruples
any assassin games
any games with escalating spoils

Also, for the record, even though there are no official rules against breaking truces, guys who do break truces are frowned upon by players. If you don't honour your truces, you will notice that you'll get lots of bad ratings and end up on lots of foe lists. You might think you "know how Risk is played" but this is not Risk, this is Conquer Club, and CC has it's own set of social norms and conventions.

[Blinkadyblink]

Also, the fact that you decided to truce until blue was eliminated rather than until blue was as weak as you probably pissed blue off. If I were him I'd have foed you. Whether a truce is bs or not is completely subjective.

[SirSebstar]

All truces are BS, unless you win. Then its.. handy...

[mc05025]

In my opinion this is ok.

Blue should have said that he will suicide on the weakest player if he continue to attack him even if blue was not the strongest anymore.
Or he could attack the weaker, so if the weaker did not team up with him the stronger player would win the game etc etc

That is diplomacy in 3 people game.

In my opinion you have to avoid it if the game is not a stalemate because the game stops to be a strategic game and it turns into a diplomacy game.

[rotean]

Well, truces are are a part of the game. Personally, I prefer to have no truces and simply plot to eliminate the weakest player to get their spoils/territories. It's much more satisfying to rely on ones own wits and stratagems than on the whims of other players. All War is Deception. Do not be deceived by the silky words of a friend soon turned enemy...

[SirSebstar]

Edited by SirSebstar:
Rotean, please try to leave subjects that have had no reply for weeks alone. In this case the last reply was made in feb 2011, and you post a reply in jan 2013.. thats a 2 year necro.
If you would like to comment on the occurance of truces, 3players game or otherwise, then feel free and make a new post. I am sure it will get some responses as the opinions on CC are quite strongly in difference on this subject.

[Gillipig]

nice necro rotean....
Before you, somceone posts in feb 2011, and you post a reply in jan 2013.. thats a 2 year necro.
dead subjects (longer then a few weeks) should rest easy.. If you have something to say, make a new post..

Is that really the official standpoint on the matter? If that is the case, why do you merge threads to avoid having similar topics?

[SirSebstar]

nice necro rotean....
Before you, somceone posts in feb 2011, and you post a reply in jan 2013.. thats a 2 year necro.
dead subjects (longer then a few weeks) should rest easy.. If you have something to say, make a new post..

Is that really the official standpoint on the matter? If that is the case, why do you merge threads to avoid having similar topics?

What do you mean?
If nobody posts for 2 year in a subject, is that necroing? yes it is.

Does the fact that rotean thinks truces are part of the game, but does not prefer them truly represent a lifechanging comment, unlike e.g. natty dread who wrote that he thinks you should not make truces in three player games (the OP's question)?
No, I dont think so.

Its short, factual and and offers an alternative. I don't know what you read into it, but i would like to know. if you don't like what I wrote, then give me at least the courtecy to discuss it. There is no ill will on my part. Just, dry fact.

[Gillipig]

nice necro rotean....
Before you, somceone posts in feb 2011, and you post a reply in jan 2013.. thats a 2 year necro.
dead subjects (longer then a few weeks) should rest easy.. If you have something to say, make a new post..

Is that really the official standpoint on the matter? If that is the case, why do you merge threads to avoid having similar topics?

What do you mean?
If nobody posts for 2 year in a subject, is that necroing? yes it is.

Does the fact that rotean thinks truces are part of the game, but does not prefer them truly represent a lifechanging comment, unlike e.g. natty dread who wrote that he thinks you should not make truces in three player games (the OP's question)?
No, I dont think so.

Its short, factual and and offers an alternative. I don't know what you read into it, but i would like to know. if you don't like what I wrote, then give me at least the courtecy to discuss it. There is no ill will on my part. Just, dry fact.

I was just wondering, but I think you gave me the answer in this post. Correct me if I'm wrong:
Bumping old threads is okay so long as your post majorly contributes to the topic. If you just want to talk about the topic, without neccesarily contributing with something new/original, create a new thread.

[SirSebstar]

That seems correct Gillipig so yes.
Around CC it is held the the original poster (OP) sets the limits for the discussion. if you want to discuss something after it has become relevant (e.g. due to time, like here 2 years) then you do it elsewhere, as in your/another thread.. If you have a truely important relevation about something, then you can still revive an old thread, but in most cases, you just start something new.

There are exceptions ofcourse. E.g. Dice rage threads tend to get merged since they are all about the same recurring subject.
In this case a specific situation was made, and further discussion usually revolves around those specific guidelines.

[Iron Butterfly]

I have been playing awhile. I had no idea it was a necro thread until I looked closer. It is also possible he posted without knowing it was old. If necro posting is a problem just lock the thread after say....mmmmm a year?

[Gillipig]

I have been playing awhile. I had no idea it was a necro thread until I looked closer. It is also possible he posted without knowing it was old. If necro posting is a problem just lock the thread after say....mmmmm a year?

It's not that posting in an old thread is not allowed, but you have to have something to say. Not just agree/disagree with some other poster, the necro bumper needs to add something important to the discussion.