I am having an argument on another website about a practice they allow. Please feel free to share your opinions here.

The topic at hand does not affect Redscape, it affects computer run games so whatever you think, it does not affect us and our human run games.

They have some games that allow players to select their own power.
when this feature is allowed, it shows who is playing what power as the game is filling. It is possible to situation yourself in advantageous positions based on who you do/do not know. This also allows players to communicate with one another before the game starts. Now, granted they claim negotiations would be considered cheating yet it is not written anywhere, few seem to realize this and even if so, it's incredibly easy to do so anyways. One of the moderators there even went so far as to say dropping out of the game based on who your opponents are and re-joining in a more advantageous position is not cheating (because everyone can do so).

My argument there is this is cheating and the feature should be disabled and allowed for special situations only. Most there disagree and think nothing wrong with getting buddies to play in games with you in predetermined powers, to drop out and rejoin in better positions, to sign on as a power that is situated in an advantageous position. What do people HERE think, it's blowing me away that this is not considered blatant cheating!

"Cheating"? No.

But I'd run a mile from it.

dropping a game as a nation you selected then rejoining immediately later to better situate yourself next to other players isn't cheating in your book?

and joining with 2 friends and selecting positions that best work to your mutual benefit is not cheating ?

...the ruls state nations are to be assigned randomly, this is quite the opposite of that and does give one an unfair advantage, you wouldn't call that cheating?

and if not, that's cool, I asked your opinion!
and yes, I would also run far from that situation and I also think that stink affects all other games as well!
we allow cheaters in THOSE games, other games we don't allow cheating

I wouldn't say that it's cheating per se, but it does seem rather unethical. I don't really understand why anybody would want to have that feature. Where's the fun in signing up to a game of Dip with a pre-formed alliance ? I don't understand how you could any satisfaction out of winning that game

Not all games on Redscape allocate powers randomly.

no but you can't pick who will or will not be your neighbor either! That part was actually called "perfectly acceptable"

I guess ultimately the game runs on trust. If two or three guys want to game the system by coming together to form a cabal before a game begins then no system can prevent them from doing it. Why they'd want to do it is something I can't really answer, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like that kind of thing. Automated sites are going to be more vulnerable to it because there's less contact with the other players a lot of the time and because with there being a much larger player base you're much less likely to come across the same opponents again. Also, when your game is human adjudicated there's that bit more of a guilt trip associated with cheating. Not that I'd do it anyway, but I'm pretty sure I'd feel much worse about cheating in a game where somebody has dedicated so much of their spare time to running it for the benefit of the rest of us than I would if it were just an automated game. That may just be me though.

Point is, Tom, the way that these games on the site you describe (and I think I know the one, and no longer play there myself) are set up is known, and anyone can see quite easily how it happens.

Which means that it's not really cheating - it's almost too open to be that. But it's not a way I'd want to play a game, and so I avoid that kind of site. Because it is poorly designed.

Just don't play there, and in the meantime champion a better way.

I'm simply playing my WW4 game there is all. Yet another game was forming and they asked if I would join that game as well. I said one at a time was plenty for me but I gave the game a quick peek and was shocked to find the game half full, I could see who was playing what position and could pick and choose who I wanted my neighbors to be, and shocker, they have links to each power...fully functional so the early signees could negotiate before the game even started (they claimed this was illegal but others assured me it happened often). So, me being me, I complained about it (loudly) and after several pages of nonsense one of the moderators said that bit about dropping and rejoining being a perfectly acceptable tactic...don't like your neighbor, no problem drop your power and pick a different one that gives you an advantage.

This allows you to pick your power = Good
But you can pick who is/isn't a neighbor = Bad
It makes cheating far easier = Bad
it allows prestart alliance making = Bad
Game integrity is lost = Bad
This type of nonsense certainly does flavor even those games that do not allow it = Bad

oh, and a moderator who agreed with me agreed to do assignments after the game filled based on a ranking of powers you preferred, how can anyone argue with that?
They did!
Good news, they are now going to still allow this but are thinking of making the assignment choices unknown and secret until the game started, you can get an idea of who might have what nation but it's a guess and things are more secretive (as they should be) so my bitching may have done some good after all?