Well If I used my money "assets" to up a port for buydowns and c1 gridded over it and used it, is that considered sharing assets? ROFL Or how about this one, if cruncher was dirty with a limp, and we got their base sector off it, thats could be seen as sharing Info, or TR blow a port in their base and it was posted in the logs, so that could be seen as "sharing" info. ROFL

Not if I gridded over it. But if another corp told me where that port was then yes it would be a violation of the rule I ask about. Just a different form of mega corping than most think about but data/resource sharing none the less.

We've never had a no information sharing rule in any tournament because it is darn near impossilbe to prove. The only way to abolutely prove it would be by using illegal means such as monitoring everyones pc that was in the tournament.

Logs are always incriminating, publicly even if they can be "faked".

With all assumtions aside. There is always a level of MC in big games. Even if it could never be proved. I also think we have to look at it from the stand point of more then one definition of MC. Sharing assets, info on cash cow ports, whatever the "material" value is right.

I see it as MC as well if two corps decide only to attack each other AFTER one other corp is taken care of. A bit of a "truce", or temp "truce"..right?

Im not referring to BOTE so don't come after me, I havent seen any chat logs Ive played in enough tournies to have my own opinion though.

So your saying that sharing a corps info between 2 large corps, to eliminate a 3rd weaker corp via ports, figs, planets, sdt area is acceptable?
Here is the kicker, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Maybe in some distant future if more than 2 corps play in a tournie they can all stand on their own merit. (highly doubtful with today's perma corps)

I'm saying that if it can't be proven, then it cant' be enforced. If it can't be enforced then it shouldn't be a rule. Pretty simple eh?

This is the problem with the current player base, win at all costs even if you have to side with the devil. You can live in an alternate reality if you want, sharing info is a resource and a violation of the rule. Some rules should just be followed and not lay the burden on the sysop to prove it.

Simple disclaimer can solve this issue D. ANYTHING can be enforced if a sysop wants to. If a sysop puts two and two together even if there isn't a recorded conversation saying, "Lets MC".

This whole mentality if its not in the logs then its fair game is nonsense. Ive proved this many times when Krakken used bugs a few years back to ruine a game I was in. The only reason that "rule" excists is becuase the sysops DO NOT GET PAID to go the extra mile to say someone is possibly cheating. Sometimes you just have to say you know what, your game play is questionable this is a warning, take a % of their assets and see if they do it again. IF they leave, well...as a sysop you can be more worried about your popularity or the quality of game play.

Let me make this point. We got two "well known" corps. GZ and Krakken right? Right. So point of tourny is to knock others out and call victory right? Right.

We got Krakken or GZ moving in on iSilver Surfers. So one of the heavy hitters going after "the weaker" corp (Not my words I can find the quote from someone if wanted).

WITH ALL THESE "elite" players and groups in one game. Why didn't the corp that was not part of the initial attacks go after the other "heavy hitter"?

It would only make sense that one of the "better prepared" corps are using resources to attack another corp making them infact weak as well. Why would BOTH "elite" corps go after the small then say OK now lets get each other. Makes no sense...sorry

I believe it's in the eye of the beholder Mob.
Some believe that two strong corps going after a weak corp is bad ethics, but two weak teams going up against the stronger is ok. Two sides of the coin.

Now in this case, as a sysop, I'd have to say there was information sharing going on, and some might argue information, is an asset, and I'd have to agree from a military point of view.
Situation A: One team attacks, other team sees it in logs, and says "I'll come help you if you won't shoot me" an agreement and plan is made, and the attack continues. Locations and times have been shared.
Situation B: Locations and times have already been shared, and two teams come in attacking.
Either way, information (assets?) have been shared.
Now, there is a rule about asset sharing in this game, however no complaint was filed so nothing is going to change. I'm looking to establish what the community feels is acceptable or not for future games
The original question about MC still stands. We've kinda started two seperate discussions here.

Allow me to go one further here.
I'll step up and say I do believe that the event of GZ and Kraaken attacking iSilver Surfers in BOTE (2011) was indeed MC. It was two teams working for a common cause, and therefore MC in my book.
However there was no rule against it, therefore it's not an issue, only a discussion.

Absolutely, I could have used names like corp A and corp B. Only reason I used BOTE as an example is because the players of the tourny decided to use it as one.

I have NO information against anyone and let me make it clear I am not accusing anyone. Im using the current events as an example.

Im just making points to just because there isn't "proof" of MC doesn't make it right or make it allowed unless a sysop says MC and asset sharing allowed. During a normal game....WHY not? In real life situations different sides share info and assets all the time. Some to make an advantage some to take it away from others. I agree, it is in the eyes of the beholder. I also believe there are other ways to win a game then MC. Imagination is needed though.

On RP last point I also agree.

haha, no offense we knew going in we had little chance knowing the other corps track record of data sharing to remove a weaker opponent. I have corped with 1 from GZ and all but 1 on Kraaken I knew full well what to expect. But I got to reconnect with some old friends and made a couple new ones. So all in all it was good.
Sorry slight derail.

For some thats what its about TM. Nothing wrong with that. Derail done.