DirtyDiaperDicky claims that HappyFunBall is a coworker of his, and is new to diplomacy, though they registered just one day a part, and HappyFunBall has in fact played more games than DirtyDiaperDicky. DirtyDiaperDicky has been committed to keeping HappyFunBall barely alive, while DDD gets the win. They did this in another game as well.

So you're saying that I could go around to my coworkers, ask them to play diplomacy, and get them to form an unbreakable alliance with me going into the game to help me win? That's how this game is played?

Or I could form another account, and say that he's my "coworker?"

Well, unless evidence comes up that they are multi accounters, then there is no official moderation, as it's not an official breach of rule.

HOWEVER, it's a terrible show of sportsmanship, and while it's not officially in the rules, good sportsmanship is just as important as adhering to the rules. I would say you should take them down in game and post a warning in the forums which you've just done, so that they can be unofficially punished.

I am with you in considering that unfair: it is not about unbreakable alliances (that can be formed and they can be the basis of a draw), but is about having a pre-defined unbreakable ally. If the guy one would like to help the guy two, I would let him play on its own and comment his moves after he does them. Alternatively, I would invite him to play another game, but monitor the situation and discuss his plans with him... but the way it is being done it is clearly unfair, IMO.

This, without considering the possibility of calling "co-worker" or "flat mate" or "close friend" the second account of yours...

Yes, it's one thing for two people to stick by each other through thick and thin, but what bothers me is when two people who know each other well enter a game with a pre-defined agreement to help another player win, putting the rest of the players at a significant disadvantage, and essentially dooming them before the game even begins. This takes the strategy out of the game. Had I been aware of that, I would not have joined this game.

I admit I know HFB. And yes, he is truely a "coworker". This is a great game and wanted to introduce him to it. Sorry, if I have upset anybody. But, compare "having an alliance with somebody" to "backing out of territories so another player can win". Isn't that about the same. Widehedwanderer was close to winning until we stalled him. Now it appears as though he is allowing Germany to take his sc's. Check out the game moves. Just recently, he backed out of Bulgaria.

DirtyDiaperDicky said that this was HappyFunBall's first game, though HappyFunBall has been registered since July. Why is he only playing his first game now? This sounds much too suspicious. I do believe this could be evidence of multi-accounting.

As for what DirtyDiaper said, I see no correlation whatsoever in how that relates to this topic. I do believe he is trying to change the subject and confuse people.

DirtyDiaperDicky, I just had a look at that game. It has all the hallmarks of unethical play. HFB does not look like he is playing his "own game". His only purpose seems to be to help you win, with no thought to his own game. Looks like multi-accounting to me.

If a player admits to playing with a friend. The game is fair. If the other players doens't like their alliance. They can just ally themselves and attack.
Abusing new players - so they work for you - can be done without cheating or knowing the other player.. That is what the game is all about.

EdiBirsan suggested an addition to the site rules. It's on another thread but for convenience sake I'll post it here.
Edi? I hope you don't mind:
The player is asked to acknowledge that in order to play the following is expected:
a. that the player has only one position in the game
b. that the player has no pre arranged alliances with players herein
c. that all games are to be treated as separate and
cross game deals are unethial
d. the player is expected to get orders in and play the position till eliminated without dropping out except in extraordinary circumstances and is to inform the moderators/players of any resignation.
e. foul language and personal attacks are not welcome
f. remember that we play the game to have fun and make it fun for others.
or something less wordy than that.

The player admitted to playing with a friend only recently, and the game is already almost over. It's far too late any of the other players to do anything about it. To me, this sounds more like multi-accounting. I could create another account, say it's my coworkers, make up some explanations, and use it to help myself win too, but that would remove the point of playing the game in the first place.

The fact that this isn't illegal is ridiculous. All we need is a large message saying you will be banned if you play more than one account and you will be banned if you make unbreakable alliances with people you know in reallife.

Then we enforce it. Problem solved. I have no sympathy for these people.

Don't start new games without passwords. Post in the forum about the upcoming game and accept applications. Once you have 6 other legit players, contact everyone through their email and send them a link to the game.
It's a pain to do it that way, but at least you can keep the meta-assholes out...CDers too.

But what if someone posts and you aren't sure? You can't turn them down can you? If so, how will new people get involved in the site?

If the meta-gaming continues unchecked, you're going to lose people anyway.
You could list the players that have been chosen so that everyone can check each other out before-hand. If the person starting the game invites one or two people that they always play with, you can simply not join. It's not fool-proof unfortunately.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Yes, I do think from now on I will only be playing password protected games, in which I have good reason to believe all the participants to be honest.

Thats a pretty tough game you're in, Chem4. I wonder who will win, Chem1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7?

So... I'm guessing the moderators aren't going to do or say anything about this situation? Do they even look at this?

Look at their other game in common:
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=4896

HFB supports DDD on one front getting stabbed

sorry that should have read:
HFB supports DDD on one front while getting stabbed on another

I think game 4896 qualifies for a ban. Turkey (HFB) rolled over to let Italy (DDD) win the game.

Autumn 1909:
Italy: 11 SCs
Turkey: 10 SCs
France: 12 SCs

Autumn 1914:
Italy: 18 SCs
Turkey: 1 SC
France: 15 SCs

BTW, France was Rait...

Yes, I think that is a good point, thank you for bringing that up.

It's perfectly legit to roll over and throw a game to someone else. It sucks for the losing side, but it's not unethical. However, doing it repeatedly for the same player shows an obvious metagame relationships that is unethical and shouldn't be allowed.

Keep in mind that DDD said that this was HFB's first game. HFB has been registered since July. Why would he only be playing his first game now, unless he made that up as an excuse. It seems to me this is a case of multi-accounting.