Other than losing in a game so someone else can win I don't think you can. There would have to be a bug in the code that people who know about it can use to gain an advantage, but I think things are set up fairly securely.

why shouldnt we ask questions?
Its a free world... least where i live.
More than likely this person is a CHILD in all senses of the world and cant stand losing.
BUT- there may be "teams" of mates playing or people using several accounts:(

He has accused me of cheating.

Me, too.

There are no bugs in the code that would allow 'cheating', although some errors do cause deviations from the official ruleset. Still, if people are like this, just don't play with them, or ally against them - it really is that simple.

yeah he accused me too, he also quits immediately once things don't start going his way, instead of trying to negotiate with one of the people going against him, its thanks to him me and coemgenus now have to wait 24 hours every turn and that, though our game has 4 still alive individuals, me and him are the only playing. The thing that turns me off the most is people that quit if they think they don't have a chance, I started playing and took over a bunch of civ dis and yeah a lot of them on their way out went out, but some, though i had none of my original land, and only three units, lasted and now might have a very good chance of winning. My recommendation is don't play with asa12, i don't plan on ever doing so in the future. If anyone wants to take over his civ dis, feel free.

My bad I guess he isn't in civ dis, though seeing how he hasn't done anything in a while he should be, the game is "You Started It!", as soon as he goes join up.

24 hours for a retreat?

It's a disband. No other option.

lol, i think some of you guys need less free time. Congrats on your attention grabbing whining to the entire php community though.

I find it strange that a player named Nemesis is the one posting this accusation, since I have never played with him, nor has he ever actually played a game, which only strengthens my belief that certain players are using multiple accounts to ‘cheat’.

Also, sorry to shatter your semi-delusional hope that my anger was some kind of thinly veiled uncontrollable feminine lust caused by your irresistible phpdiplomacy prowess, but in fact I am a man and not a 'she'.

Less free time? It takes around 10 minutes a day. Of course we'd have less free time if you wouldn't go into Civil Disorder for every game you were losing in.

You have the time to post your McCarthy-like rant. MOVE!

Well, I wouldn't call it cheating off the bat; but after watching the moves in "You Started It!" (gid 816) I'd say Italy and Turkey have a suspiciously strong alliance. I suspect the two players know each other from outside the game, but maybe I'm just not trusting enough.

That doesn't make it cheating though and it's certainly possible that conversation (i.e. diplomacy) occured which explains the moves. Forcing them to wait 24 hours for every turn isn't an answer. If you're going to give up on the game at least stop signing in so the country can go into civil disorder.

Well thank you for your input dangermouse, first off, i don't know coemgenus, secondly why wouldn't we work together, i took over from someone else after turkey took over naples (spring 1906), realizing i couldn't win if i was fighting turkey, and that they were more after germany, and that france was wide open, i switched sides.

I continued working with turkey as a direct result of france quiting and germany being a moron over the message board thing. I think this proves the point people have made in other posts about how one talks to people affects whether or not you will deal with them. I would have gladly teamed up with germany anytime over the last few turns, if they hadn't been such a pissant.

But why the hell should I have to explain myself, what kind of insecure peon has to accuse people of cheating in an online GAME, yeah its just a GAME. I will continue to work with turkey in this game until we get both of the other guys off the board and if turkey wins, i don't care, the spirit of the game was already ruined by the two individuals that realized they didn't have the skill to win so they left like little children.

People need to stop doing two things, accusing people of cheating, and complaining about cheating, if two sign-ons always work together, informing everyone in a forum is good enough, no need to whine. I don't need you armchair analysts saying "well they do have a suspiciously strong alliance." It shouldn't be suspicious, it should be apparent that germany and france haven't moved in forever, you already (I assume) read my and coemgenus' posts that germany is an idiot accusing us of cheating, egging us on, claiming we couldn't win unless we were the same person. Why wouldn't we decide that our primary goal was to get rid of him?

By the way, thats my last post to this ridiculous thread, i welcome your comments in game (if your in a game with me), but i'm not reading this anymore.

Seriously I agree with djineygpt. People really need to stop with this stupid cheating thing. Wolfyboy is the main complainer for cheating. Wolfyboy hasn't even been playing Diplomacy for a month yet and is here complaining about cheaters and demanding that Kestas should do something about it. I suppose he just got pissed off at a cheater (or maybe just losing) and comes here in the forums to complain about it. In fact, this entire cheater forum "fad" wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Wolfyboy.

you guys are completely wrong about the fact there is no cheating

-----------------
huh? I am not here to win man..I am a Diplomat..click my name so to me its..pointless I am letting (name deleted) win this lol b/c he true trust me..and that he is one of my good friends lmao
28 Apr 07 so the three of you are friends and joined the same game?
28 Apr 07 England - Turekey - Austria = Those are us and I join (name deleted) to help him out but if we are on the other side of the map then we wills till be allies but I wont support him in the game unless I can help him anytime I can - Get friends and you have the chance to win just make sure they are TRUSTY FRIENDS and be like "Hey I am going to let you win this one" and vis versa
28 Apr 07 u do realize that is cheating right?
28 Apr 07 its called meta-playing and its specifically ruled against in diplomacy tournaments.
29 Apr 07 lol OH WELL - I am here to support there is really nothing anyone can do about it =_=
-------------------------------------

It occurs, however there must be a distinction between frivolous accusations of cheating and actual cheating, which the above paragraph illustrates.

Again my position which i have repeatedly stated was to prevent a person from joining a game which contains a player which he is already playing with. This will limit the extent of metagaming.

Agreed.

And I'll reiterate, I did not accuse anyone of cheating djinn. I simply stated that watching the moves from the outside it seemed as though something fishy was going on but without knowing the conversation that went on there is absolutely no way to know.

If one can choose to play a passive diplomatic game, I dont see how friends helping friends is cheating. The only way it seems as though there is "special" alliance is if the player tells you they're allied for good. Unbreakable alliances is an effective way to conquer the entire map. Then, when 2 players share the board 50/50 you let someone win. I had an alliance once with a player who helped me until everyone else was gone, then we squared off for the victory. I read the rule book for Diplomacy and it encourages "cheating." Not the altering moves while nobody is looking kind of cheating, but spying on other people's conversations and creating strong alliances. If 3 friends want to play together then the other four should gang up on them. I see any coalition against be as a challenge and makes the game more fun.

Therefore there is no such thing as cheating in Diplomacy if the site is secure with the ONLY acception of playing as 2 countries in 1 game.

It's about the spirit of the game. If you have two (hypothetical) players involved in multiple games, and in every single one of them they are allied to the end, to me that's effectively the same (as far as the other players are concerned) as one player controlling 2 countries. In every game they have a common interest, in every game they face 1 less opponent than all their other rivals before the game even begins.

Look at any one of the games individually and there's no reason why they wouldn't ally; anyone is free to ally with anyone else, and people frequently make alliances that do not appear to be in both their interests. But look at the bigger picture and you know they are allied only because they always ally, and that takes away opportunities from other players.

In an ideal world you would get everyone else to ally against them. Unfortunately phpdiplomacy is full of idiots, malingerers, absconders and the downright confused, it is rare you are in a game with 6 other tactically spot-on players who realise straight away what is happening and how to counteract it without lapsing into short-term opportunism.

The main thing I want to say is why do friends come in here and then refuse to fight each other until they are the last ones left? That's against the spirit of the game, gives them an unfair disadvantage, it takes a lot of the fun and unpredictability out of it, and at times it can work to the detriment of one or both of them. Any players who fall in this category should try bashing seven bells out of each other instead, be just as devious, sly and backstabby to your mates, if not more so, because at the end of the day that is what the game is all about, not cuddling up with your mates!

If you know about these alliances you should be able to spot them early and form a coalition against them. Look, Im not condoning cheating in anyway, but I believe that a strong alliance doesn't need to make sense. I just hope that when it comes down to the end, both players want to win the game. To anyone else reading this who has a "friend alliance" situation just form a private game so no one will question the integrity.

I am going to be honest. I have a friend who plays in 1 or 2 games with me and we aim to take control of the map together in those games. We both want to win but we can use our strong trust to cordinate our moves to outmanuver our enemies. However when push comes to shove we will fight for victory. I dont consider that cheeting do you?

Whether you call it cheating or not, I would rather play in a game where I am not disadvantaged and other players are not advantaged. Where diplomacy and skill are the only factors that will affect the outcome.

zxylon,

its evident you don't think its cheating, because you do it. I would leave the judgment of whether this action is "cheating" to those who aren't biased which such a burden.

I would also like to point out that if you are a metagamer, which means you let influences outside of the actual game itself affect your decisions unfairly, e.g. creating a dummy account so as to let a friend take over your SCs after clearing the board together , you wouldn't doubt it was cheating would you?