This is a question about whether something is right. I'm not going to name names or anything. I just want to know whether you think this is okay or not.
This summer I was playing in a game on a different site. I was allied with two other nations that claimed to be supportive of honesty and all-game, long-term alliances and claimed to hate backstabbers. These two players clearly knew and trusted each other, and they implied that they tried to talk to each other for alliances every game. I was in the alliance but I was rather paranoid of a backstab both because of this and because of my being almost directly in the path of one nation's progress. I frequently suggested moves that did not endanger me further to a stab, and every time I was scolded for paranoia.
At one point in the summer, I went on vacation. Like in every active game I was playing, I requested a pause a day before. It was only for 2-3 days. The other players immediately agreed. I was sure that my allies would do the same. However, when I came back I was shocked--they had not voted pause, and neither had they continued their alliance. I was crippled and was eliminated soon after. They waved off my complaints and said they had "ended the alliance" (not stabbed) because I was a nuisance to it. When I asked why they did not do it after they paused, they argued that they never paused because it is unfair for a person to affect a game like that, despite the fact that my request came a day earlier and they had not replied. I felt cheated but of course could do nothing. Currently they are finishing off the other two and drawing. Later one of them said in the global chat that it "felt good to slap him [me] aside like the nuisance he was."
So, over to you, my fellow webdippers--do you think that was fair, both the metagaming aspect and the pause aspect? I sure don't.
)
Internal Server Error 500
)
)
)