[Magflag12]

Ok, so here is the thing. Everyone knows that in a multiplayer game it is sometimes more important that you get second rather than do any futile attempts to get first. However, there is controversy here.

Say for example, some guy gets lucky and is able to obtain all 3 greens while everyone is low on cash, and he is able to upgrade immediately. If it is early in the game, the chances of anyone winning but that person are very low. So, you are faced, basically, with going for second. The question is this:

Is it ethical, or should it be considered unfair, to purposely block players or work against players that are not clearly in first (such as guy described above), while not even attempting to work against the player that is in first.

Of course there is 2 sides. 1 side says that its unfair, and that it is almost like teaming up against other players with one person. I mean, to sell a white or something for a really cheap price to the guy who is winning, so that you can get some extra cash to get an edge on the other players, but then when another player offers you MORE cash for that same peice and you refuse so that he cannot get the monopoly or peice seems unfair.

On the other hand, I am not sure it is unfair to hold each person to different standards in each game. If you are trying to get second and one player is about to obtain a monopoly who did not have one before, it is not unfair to make him pay high prices. If a player who is in first and is probably trying to end the game as fast as possible is buying a peice will easily give the item away if you work against him too much. So it may not be unfair to simply not even attempt to work against the player in first, while being ruthless to other players.

Your thoughts?
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[palabra]

Non-issue here. This is not cheating.

Going for second sometimes is the best you can do. If you realistically know that first place is out of reach, you should try your hardest to get second place, or third, or fourth (if it is better than fifth ). If a person is truly trying their hardest to get second place, then I say its ok. If that means blocking all but one player, so be it.
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes

[Magflag12]

Yeah I agree, but I have seen people give ridiculous properties to a clear 1st place person to knock out players that are low on cash that just got a monopoly. I could see where it would seem that the two players were conspiring against another player.

You see what I mean?
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[palabra]

Yes. I see what you mean, but I (respectfully) don't care

If someone is clearly going for second, and there is nothing else to indicate that they are in cahoots with the person in first place, then they cannot be proven to be cheaters anyways.

If they say something in chat like, "I'm cheating with the guy who is in first,", and you find their IP address is the same, then that is different. Otherwise, going for second is not cheating. Thanks for the thoughts.
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes

[Magflag12]

Very true, thats what I would say as well in regards to someone's accusations of another player conspiring with another player in those circumstances.

But, my question is not neccesarily limited to the definition of 'cheat' as defined on this forum for this game. Think for example, the reccession is just hit, and you have the pink monopoly and the green monopole, but you have no upgrades and you have 0 cash with 900 credit. there are 3 other players. 2 players have weak monopolies such as orange and brown and have 2 blacks and 2 whites. However, the two players have 0 cash such as you. The other player has gotten lucky and has 2 monopolies full upgraded, the monopolies are red and dark blue and he has 4000 in cash. Clearly the last player mentioned is winning, and it is pretty likely you are in a last place situation. Would it be fair for you to sell the green peices for exactly 1200 cash (way under market value) so that you can upgrade pink and have have the advantage over the two weak monopoly players?
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[MrCrabbs]

Palabra is right here. It is a non-issue. Anyone who considers it cheating is wrong, according to the definition of cheating.

I would also say that the law is morally right in this matter. If you can't get first, it is only correct that you should be fighting for second. And if you can't possibly come second, that you should not waste time trying to, but instead aim for 3rd, if that is feasible.

[Magflag12]

I agree, but I have been accused of cheating far in the past for giving players that were clearly winning a bigger advantage so I could squeeze a second. Just wanted to see other opinions.
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[palabra]

sorry magflag

you are right now
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes

[Magflag12]

Kind of confused by that last comment palabra, but whatever.

I think people literally felt I believed what I was trying to say. I thought I made it clear, but maybe I didn't.

I wasn't saying that it was wrong to do the above described, I was asking other opinons. Let me quote myself chronologically to show you.

"Of course there is 2 sides. 1 side says that its unfair, and that it is almost like teaming up against other players with one person. I mean, to sell a white or something for a really cheap price to the guy who is winning, so that you can get some extra cash to get an edge on the other players, but then when another player offers you MORE cash for that same peice and you refuse so that he cannot get the monopoly or peice seems unfair.

On the other hand, I am not sure it is unfair to hold each person to different standards in each game. If you are trying to get second and one player is about to obtain a monopoly who did not have one before, it is not unfair to make him pay high prices. If a player who is in first and is probably trying to end the game as fast as possible is buying a peice will easily give the item away if you work against him too much. So it may not be unfair to simply not even attempt to work against the player in first, while being ruthless to other players. "

This long quotation shows you I was laying out the two sides of the issue. I referred to the first side (the side that thinks its unfair) as a side seperate from me. The second side I described it in first person (I.E. "I am not sure it is unfair to hold each person to different standards in each game.")

Next: "Yeah I agree, but I have seen people give ridiculous properties to a clear 1st place person to knock out players that are low on cash that just got a monopoly. I could see where it would seem that the two players were conspiring against another player."

The words "Yeah I agree" should indicate here that I am in total concurrance to your belief, once again confirming my opinion. My point all along was to try to understand the other side of it, as I have seen it come up before.

AGAIN:
"Very true, thats what I would say as well in regards to someone's accusations of another player conspiring with another player in those circumstances."

Once again, you have failed to see the point of my question. You keep saying "Its a non-issue" it is not cheating to go for second. Agreed. Again, agreed. My point is to see the other side, but mostly, show you how differentiating between teaming and a person going for second may be problematic[b/]

LASTLY:

"I agree, but I have been accused of cheating far in the past for giving players that were clearly winning a bigger advantage so I could squeeze a second. Just wanted to see other opinions."

You will see for the 4th time the words that show you I agree.

As I said I was accused of cheating, because of this very ethics issue, I am not saying that it was wrong for me to go for second the way I did, I am saying it can be miss read as such.

Also, I was actually not sure how many people thought the way I did, so I figured it would be good to ask. I guess my fault here was assuming there might be people who thought it was unethical... must be an axiom I did not know was an axiom.

_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[palabra]

mcrabbs and i gave our opinions.

the last comment was a joke.

chillax
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes

[Magflag12]

chillax is not may nature when an argument has been presented... can't help it, I am not mad thought, its just my source of intellectual entertainment even though its not very intellectual.
_________________
If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

[palabra]

lol
_________________
if seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes

[theunknownamus]

Going for 2nd, 3rd, etc has long been a testy issue. I don't consider it cheating so long as the player going for 2nd does not blatently help or hurt any other player. However, I'll always go for first regardless what postion I'm in.

[mikefuson]

If you have no option but to try for second it is fair. Afew roll of the dice can change everything. The luck factor is still there I always play for first. No reason to accept or offer a stupid trade just for second.
Mike

[theunknownamus]

Very noble Mike. Of course that brings up the whole depending on luck controversry again. lol