The best response in this thread is agentcom
's "Wow, definitely against the rules." Okay... you're a global moderator. Which rule? You're so certain.
I should clarify from the start that my primary "area" is Suggestions. I haven't done anything in C&A except express my opinion. So, what follows is my understanding of the rules.
Tiebreaker games are discouraged because they technically involve game-throwing. You play one game and then the loser(s) has (have) to throw the other game to the winner of the tiebreaker game. Thus, the rulings that I have seen have indicated that this is a very narrow exception where game throwing is allowed or at least overlooked. It is my understanding (and I think the right way to do things) that all of the players in the deadlocked game should agree to any tiebreaker games. I'm 80% sure that I've read all this in previous C&As, but I'm on vacation, so I'm not gonna go digging through cases to find precedent.
Anyway, in the instant case, there were some players in a deadlocked game that did not agree to (weren't even part of) the tiebreaker game. This would not be a case of secret diplomacy as one of the commentators seems to address:
bamage wrote:Exactly. My understanding is that the deal just has to be public in the game chat.
This would have been a case of game throwing. But here, the throwing was unsuccessful. Perhaps that is the reason that they have only been "noted" and not "warned." I do not claim to know the C&A protocol for this situation, as I do not recall ever seeing an "attempted game throwing" case.