You posted as game admin in charge of making sure game rules were followed this in Newspaper:
"To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner"
Now I don't know if you had a real NAP, or just an unwritten "understanding". But it is certainly clear by your own words you did in fact make a hidden alliance beyond the 3 player limit. Soft unenforceable rule i know, and I am happy to get the chance to try and beat 7(8) players at once with my coalition mates. I consider it a high honor that you felt I was that dangerous.
However, please don't do this again to anyone else. While common in regular games it certainly goes against the intended spirit for players league. Expected from a regular player maybe, but you were the mod for the game. Dancing that razors edge between what is allowed and what isn't. If anyone should follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules, it should be you. Or if everyone feels hidden alliances and military planning of joint ventures above the limit of 3 players, then don't post this as a rule in Newspaper, So everyone has the opportunity to be allied with 1/2 the map according to their diplomatic ability.
PS Multiple people did actually approach me in the hopes of doing the same. I rejected them and tried to figure out a way to do it within the spirit of the rules. Silly me.
This is exactly what I faced in the July match...an unenforceable "soft" rule that even the mods won't really follow. And, like Baron, I stared down that barrel of opposition and said "pull your trigger".
It takes guts to take on so many opponents. In the July round, I defeated three other opponents before nearly taking down those other four. So, I can sympathize with what you are facing.
For once, I wish they'd decide EXACTLY what the rules are PRECISELY so that there can be no question as to what is and is not allowed.
So, by making military plans with a NAP partner it is only considered using land for attacking third player. It is not forbidden to talk with other players about joint operaitons like mutual declaration of war against third party. That would be both impossible to enforce and stupid. After all, didn't our coalition in july match do similar things? We talked with other people, had different arrangements, sharing information about common enemies? That is all normal and expected.To avoid hidden alliances it’s not allowed to make military plans with a NAP partner, i.e. NAP partners must not use your land to attack other players and vice versa.
ps. miech really loves turning other people against those who he considers the threat, or at least trying to do that
To be fair, the full quote includes "i.e." which stands for "in example". THAT implies that the following is ONLY an example of what might happen but what CAN happen isn't necessarily restricted to the given example. If it is meant to show exactly what may be allowed but restrictive of any other interpretation, then it should be precisely written and not as a general example but as one that is indicated otherwise.
I brought up several of these types of questions during the early days of the match and barely got any responses by the tournament bosses. I guess you've got to make up your own rules and follow your own honor and code.
I guess that makes this tournament to be just like the Old West, but with bigger guns.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.