Dobbler said:

I'm not overwhelmingly concerned about overarching collusion and alliances in melee. As I said, I had a very positive experience last year, and all of you seem like very honest, decent people. The comments I've posted here are more of an appeal to the community (and probably an unecessary one): when you play for yourself, everybody wins (in that all players get an equal shot in an excellent game), and that giving new players this kind of experience (in-game treachery included!) is the best way to get them hooked.

I have no problem with cheating, bribing, stealing and general backstabbery within the game and within the mechanics of the game. That is the nature of melee. It's what makes it so exciting. If I promise you I'll go after player B after you go after player A, and then once you've commited all your characters, I turn around and attack you instead... well, that's the game. It's Game of Thrones. Trust at your own risk.

But I think any implication that "anything goes, only victory matters," should come with the caveat "within the game." Obviously, literally cheating during a game, bribing a TO, stealing someone's deck when they're not looking, or literally stabbing someone in the back are all unacceptable forms of behavior (and I've never witnessed any of these forms of behavior in any AGoT game). But I think in-game alliances/emnities based on out-of-game elements (such as being from the same meta, having a personal grudge against another player) exist on the fringe of unacceptable behavior: not really policeable, but capable of creating a negative play experience.

So that's all I hope for: that players, in as much as possible, leave everything at the door when they sit down for a game of melee. That they play for themselves, and, within that particular game, employ all their treacherous cunning to grasp that particular throne and that particular crown. And that afterwards, they shake hands, and move on the the next round of unspeakable backstabbery.

And if they don't... well, as Dobbler said: there's an asterisk out there waiting for them.

Karazax said:

Actually all they have to do is stall you out if they don't think they can beat you cleanly. Two one point matches and you are going to have a hard time making the final cut, heaven forbid you should get three draws.

And to answer the question, I don't believe anything short of playing the game and making the best decisions you can within the game itself should be allowed at anytime as a means to determine your or anyone else's standing. But I suspect that because of Nate's rule on ID there is absolutely no reason to believe that any form of collusion outside of the game is against the rules of the OP system. They are not fundamentally different, morally or ethically.

I personally find both abhorrent. Play the game to the best of your ability and make in game decisions that best serve your chance to win the game, or achieve the highest point total possible.

The logical disconnect for me is it is okay to decide outside of game play that a draw is in your best interest and to make that happen, but to do so by play in game is considered stalling and is reasons for warnings and possibly even censorship.

I was one of the people very vocal about Dobbler's placement after the concession. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Greg, bu the situation was one, that though out of his hands, did definitely "taint" his standing.

If I'm okay with the idea of trying to play to a draw, why do I have issues with someone just agreeing to do so, and then not playing (similar to saying you are going to filibuster, and then simply taking it for granted that someone is going to keep the floor open and use procedural shennanigans to prevent a vote)? Because this is thrones, and truly competitive player who sees the chance to seize victory mid-game, may end up taking it anyway... and when you see someone having that chance open up before them, you might decide they are not as trustworthy as you originally thought and try to strike hard before they get the opportunity to exploit you. In short, human nature always makes any such concepts of an ID suspect when you are forced to play it out.

Dobbler said:

If that's been the case (I wasn't around for 04, 05 or 09) but I found it curious that the event description specifically listed only a single elimination top 4. I'd assume this is only a carry-over from last years numbers, but it seems like the # of swiss rounds and # of finalists should be based on a based on a formula using the total # of entrants. Do they have that announced/listed anywhere?

RIght here is the announcement

http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=1307

I'm officially extending an open invitation to anyone who wants to join a melee alliance. So far its just me! Any takers? I really think we can rig the results here! We'd need like 8 people. Also our number 1 goal would be to stop finitesquarewell from making the final table. Our number 2 goal will be to make me win.

Wait, now if you guys are willing to join Staton on this, but weren't willing to unanimously crown me king, I'm going to be a sad panda.

Staton said:

A one person alliance currently? What about the significant other? Is she not part of your alliance?

~I'm not sure how I feel about joining an alliance where even your girlfriend doesn't join.

Kennon said:

I don't know you personally, Kennon, but I can't have a sad panda moping around, sobbing over his half-eaten bamboo. I guess I'm allying with you.

We should give our alliance a flashy, frightening, shock n' awe kinda name, like "The Jazz Hands!" The exclamation mark will be compulsory.

Fear the Jazz Hands!

Bwahahaha. Awesome. I'm in. That's the first time I've really laughed out loud due to something on these boards in quite awhile.