Arent alliances meant to be broken?

Cyron try to think again. and take into consideration that you're dealing with a prisoners dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

That doesn't overly help. The only way for me to survive the situation involves accepting and betraying an alliance. Given that I was effectively blackmailed in to said alliance, would people consider my actions right or wrong.

Obviously people are going to disagree, but I'm trying to get a general idea of what people think

cyron. try to widen your perspective. see an alliance is a bound for the benefit of both sides. your benefit would have been him not crippling you and probably getting you first with him 2nd. His problem therefor was to show you that hes actually one who would go rather for kamikaze on you than wait to be dependant on your mercy. its better for you not to surrender to blackmail in the first place than betraying an alliance you agreed upon earlier. A backstabber stays a backstabber regardless if he agreed on the alliance feeling comfortably or not. His word is simply not to be trusted. period

You´re right, MadWilly.

If no alliance was made
How was one betrayed?

I don't understand the title of this post or what it has to do with you not using diplomacy wisely.

Maybe everyone will jump on me now, but if you, Cyron, don't like alliances and don't make them. Simply give a shit on people calling you a backstabber. On low ranked tables you will often not play against same people again. So don't care. It's different on high ranked tables though. Nobody will truce you again once you backstabbed or even worse, make people jump on you next game.

So my advice for you: If you feel blackmailed, do like the blackmailer says, once you are comfortable enough to take him out. Do it.

ps: lower tables are evil because there are so many different opinions about ethics.

That was what i was writing until reading the initial post again.


1. Answer: Betraying is evil.

2. Answer: Following to answer one, yes.

Cyron you made a decision now bear it. You will often get in situations where an alliance is beneficial for you. Either give up your ideals or stay strong and lose to people who build up 8 stacks.

<i>If no alliance was made
How was one betrayed? </i>

No alliance was made. I was asking what people would think if I had have made an alliance in that situation and then betrayed it.

I just find it frustrating that people aren't able to simply let me play without joining alliances. I choose not to use them, and I've been forced in to a situation where someone is saying "join my alliance or I'll suicide to take you down with me". So my options are betray my own standards, get fucked over or be the bad guy. The guy forcing me to make that choice is the bad guy, but no one seems to agree with that. The consensus seems to be that his actions would simply be "part of the game" but mine would make me the bad guy if I betrayed him.

<i>your benefit would have been him not crippling you and probably getting you first with him 2nd.</i>

And that's exactly it. How on earth did he deserve second? He played badly enough or had enough bad luck that he was down to one stack. The only thing he had to offer was blackmail. There is simply no way I would reward someone like that with 2nd place on my coattails, I'd rather lose myself and make him lose points than validate that kind of shitty behaviour

Also, please be aware, this is not a rant about alliances. I don't like them, I wish people wouldn't use them, but I understand that they do. This is specifically a question (with a bit of a ranty element to it) about people who offer truces when the only thing they have to offer is not suiciding to take you down

<i>Simply give a shit on people calling you a backstabber. On low ranked tables you will often not play against same people again.</i>

Again though, I try and play the game with a modicum of "honour" if you want to call it that. I don't join alliances, I flag so that people who played better than me score higher than me if they would otherwise be wiped out by the winner etc. I have no interest whatsoever in being seen as a "backstabber". I'd rather lose to the blackmailer every game than that. Ideally, I'd rather people saw betrayals of such alliances as "justified vengeance" than backstabbing, but it appears as if that's not the case. In that case, I will go on letting them suicide, and live with taking them down before myself

There is nothing more satisfying than betraying someone and annihilating them.