Conquer Club

I am playing in a four-player game on Balsieten's Scotland, and 'Fog of War' is on. Player 1 ('The Krel') has given away my position and troop count in the public chat, as well as attempting to form an alliance with the other two players to create a 3v1 scenario.

Is this against the rules, or just bad sportsmanship?
Thanks


This is the game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10410239

Nesoi wrote:I am playing in a four-player game on Balsieten's Scotland, and 'Fog of War' is on. Player 1 ('The Krel') has given away my position and troop count in the public chat, as well as attempting to form an alliance with the other two players to create a 3v1 scenario.

Is this against the rules, or just bad sportsmanship?
Thanks


This is the game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10410239

very poor sportsmanship unfortunately.
as long as he conducts the diplomacy in the game chat and not making secret alliances it's ok. as for giving details on your position it is also a severe lack of fair play.
my recommendation is to put him on your foe list and give him a bad rating so that others will keep away from him.

DiM wrote:as for giving details on your position it is also a severe lack of fair play.

That's debatable actually... there's no clear consensus whether it's considered ok to reveal positions in fog or not. Some argue that it goes against the spirit of fog games where you're not supposed to know where your opponents are... others argue it's just part of game diplomacy, as you can also give false information about someone's positions, just like you can use propaganda in a real war.

You can be of either opinion, personally I don't really care either way as I'm not really into fog games, but it's not correct either to say that it's universally considered unfair play.

Ideally, players in fog games probably should agree beforehand whether they want positions to be revealed, but this can of course be difficult in public games.

natty_dread wrote: You can be of either opinion, personally I don't really care either way as I'm not really into fog games, but it's not correct either to say that it's universally considered unfair play.

Agreed.


--Andy

Definitely not against the rules. Oxymoronic or not, military intelligence is a commodity. Restoring the balance of power (and tipping it in your favor) requires the effective use of diplomacy, which in turn requires whatever intel you have on your opponents.

and we all know you can use fake intel to win a war

Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

****

ask me2 wrote:Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

Why not make it against the rules or you may as well just not bother with Fog games

ask me2 wrote:Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

You mean like Lack should put it in the community guidelines?

Fog of War Games:

Using the game chat to announce where a player's territories and troops may (or may not ) be is NOT against the rules. It may come across as unfair or not in the spirit of the game, but feel free to find strategic applications of this non-rule.

quoted from the community guidelines
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

Did anyone even bother to look at the game chat? His opponents didn't even do what he's trying to claim they did. This was purely a case of someone trying to get consensus against the board leader to knock him back down. Even if you hate giving away fog information, you would almost certainly agree that NOTHING wrong was done in this case.

woodruff, though i agree with your assessment that nothing was wrong here, he did state that "Argyll is only secured by a garrison of 4. " and attempted to get other players to attack it.
As before, giving away troop counts, positions and bonuness is okay in gamechat, and if you lie, that is good too.

SirSebstar wrote:

ask me2 wrote:Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

You mean like Lack should put it in the community guidelines?

Fog of War Games:

Using the game chat to announce where a player's territories and troops may (or may not ) be is NOT against the rules. It may come across as unfair or not in the spirit of the game, but feel free to find strategic applications of this non-rule.

quoted from the community guidelines
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

So why don't people just read the rules before asking things like this?

ask me2 wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:

ask me2 wrote:Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

You mean like Lack should put it in the community guidelines?

Fog of War Games:

Using the game chat to announce where a player's territories and troops may (or may not ) be is NOT against the rules. It may come across as unfair or not in the spirit of the game, but feel free to find strategic applications of this non-rule.

quoted from the community guidelines
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7785

So why don't people just read the rules before asking things like this?

Laziness/not knowing where to look.

Woodruff wrote:Did anyone even bother to look at the game chat? His opponents didn't even do what he's trying to claim they did. This was purely a case of someone trying to get consensus against the board leader to knock him back down. Even if you hate giving away fog information, you would almost certainly agree that NOTHING wrong was done in this case.

That is correct , we would all agree that nothing wrong was done.. So we should criticize DIMS statement to foe these individuals since it didn`t take the time to investigate .

We don't go down that road in Q&A.
This is neither discussion nor C&A nor ring of flames. The advice to foe is sound it the player felt like it should not happen. That you and i might feel different about it, is really not up to us. Q&A is for questions, and sometimes ambiguous answers, since not everything is black and white. The foelist is there so people can regulate who they really dont want to have join their games, for whatever reason they see fit. Since this is not a C&A there is no investigation, but since it is a question of whether it is allowed or not, then yes it is allowed. Fair does not come into the equation here, except in the relevant players mind.
or something like that.

danfrank wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Did anyone even bother to look at the game chat? His opponents didn't even do what he's trying to claim they did. This was purely a case of someone trying to get consensus against the board leader to knock him back down. Even if you hate giving away fog information, you would almost certainly agree that NOTHING wrong was done in this case.

That is correct , we would all agree that nothing wrong was done.. So we should criticize DIMS statement to foe these individuals since it didn`t take the time to investigate .

I like the suggestion of asking the other players from the start if they do or do not agree that revealing fog of war information is fair play.

My style is flat rate/foggy which often stalemates into a war of attrition (I know a lot of player don't like stacking troops but I don't mind). I've seen bonuses/victory conditions be called out so much I take it for granted.

Personally I would like a setting where everything is hidden - such as announcements of auto-deployments, continent bonuses awarded, number of regions and spoils held, and who is attacking whom.

ask me2 wrote:Yet ANOTHER thread about giving away positions in fog of war. I think Lack should state in the rules (Excuse this if he has) that it's NOT cheating. So we don't keep getting these threads.

New players should be able to ask these questions without criticsm as they dont troll the forums like experienced players... so give em a break.

Roussallier wrote:I like the suggestion of asking the other players from the start if they do or do not agree that revealing fog of war information is fair play.

That would never work even if everyone did agree to it... player a realizes who is going to win the game, is he going to suck it up or have one last attempt to salvage the game and tell the others what he sees? Some might accept the lose... most others, i doubt it. I wouldn't agree to this myself... word play is part of fog and if you get a talkative bunch together in can make for a very entertaining game.

I hope the original poster sticks to his stance when he is behind in a fog game and and see who the probable winner is going to be. Somehow i doubt that as well...

AndyDufresne wrote:

natty_dread wrote: You can be of either opinion, personally I don't really care either way as I'm not really into fog games, but it's not correct either to say that it's universally considered unfair play.

Agreed.


--Andy

Bull shit
Worst type of unsportmanlike conduct

Foe and suicide him

And let others know so they can foe the cheating bitch

HighlanderAttack wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

natty_dread wrote: You can be of either opinion, personally I don't really care either way as I'm not really into fog games, but it's not correct either to say that it's universally considered unfair play.

Agreed.


--Andy

Bull shit
Worst type of unsportmanlike conduct

Foe and suicide him

And let others know so they can foe the cheating bitch

In case you didn't notice, yours isn't the "universal statement" on the subject.

HighlanderAttack wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

natty_dread wrote: You can be of either opinion, personally I don't really care either way as I'm not really into fog games, but it's not correct either to say that it's universally considered unfair play.

Agreed.


--Andy

Bull shit
Worst type of unsportmanlike conduct

Foe and suicide him

And let others know so they can foe the cheating bitch

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Well I do apologise for causing such a stir here. Clearly, people are very passionate and I see that ask me2 is very concerned that his time has been, yet again, wasted with this frivolous thread. Might I put forward the notion that his reply has wasted yet more of his time, and draw the conclusion that therefore his time must not be all that valuable? Okay. That was off-topic. Back on the topic of why I'm such an idiot for asking this dubious question- I am a new player and it seemed odd to me that someone would attempt to form a 3 vs 1 alliance and I simply wondered if this was against the rules.

Now I know.

AND KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

Thank you all for taking the time to immerse yourself so passionately in this topic of interest.


Nesoi