But is it teaming?

I've a simpler razor, which I think properly captures both the spirit of the game and the letter of the rules as written:
1.  Cooperation is permitted

2.  Collaboration is forbidden

"Permitted" is too weak a form for rule 1.  Cooperation with another player is what creates the social dynamic that makes the game really interesting.  It is almost ... almost ... a virtue.  It ought to be considered the normal state of play.

Tactically every player must look first to their own self-interest and what will lead to the most optimal ranking at the end (there are game situations where this means duking it out for 2nd spot, which might entail playing wing-man for the player in #1.  Or it might mean fighting not to place last, which might entail cannibalizing another very much alive player while someone else is occupying their attention by attacking them, which is of course in the mutual interest of both attacker and opportunist cannibalizer. 

At other times, given the social nature of the game, two players might, without communicating it, both realize that a third player must be taken down.  It may be for social reasons or it may be for practical reasons.  For example I once promoted several pawns early in a game against three players < 300 points below me, ending up with 3 queens by about move 15.  I thought I had it in the bag.  But all three launched simultaneous assaults and I learned something:  multiple Qs in FFA does not confer as much advantage as in regular chess, because you can only move one Q at a time, and having a vast material advantage while other players are still at full strength is a good way to paint a target on your back. 

Did those players cooperate against me?  You betcha!  Did they collaborate?  I doubt it.  There was nothing in the chat, I don't suspect them of offline communication, and everything they did could easily be attributed to social dynamic and self-interest.

Thought all three were much weaker than I, together they destroyed me on the board.  And good for them. I learned a lesson, they gained rating points.  That's how FFA should go.

As for "loyal opposite", this is bandied about as if it were a sin.   I don't think it is.  It is only a violation if  players deliberately plan, before or during the game, to do so.  If you're not guessing when your opposite will stab you in the back, or not plotting when you will do it to them, you're not doing it right.  Loyal one layer deep ... traitorous the next layer down.

Of course you could do the same with any player on the board, but the geometry of the board lends itself to opposite-player pairings.  So I would advise beginners to always assume there will be loose cooperation with their  opposite, and that the other two players will do the same.  A good player will know when to betray.  Each game is a Shakespearean play and at some point Othello must smother Desdemona.  Or possibly attempt, only to find that Desdemona has already put poison in his cup.  Know this going in.

Establishing a pattern of partnership may suggest teaming (collaboration).  But I would look first to the prima facie evidence:  Is the player openly sending instructions in chat?  That's collaboration, and clearly against the rules.   I challenged a player recently, who was doing this in a game.  They said it was of no consequence. I looked at the chat in his history:  He'd been doing the same in most of his prior games "everyone attack Green!" that sort of thing.  I told him this is not permitted and have noted it in case I encounter the same player doing the same thing in the future.  That will be reported.  Again, I look to the pattern.  One outburst in a game is super annoying but probably not worth trying to get someone banned.  But if it's a pattern over multiple games ... it's teaming.

Anyway, it was a long ramble, but that's my approach.  Cheers, all!

Love everything about your post Robert.

Hi everyone! I agree with all those debators who regard collusion as a serious problem that threatens the whole wonderful game of FFA. Of course, setting a fixed limit between the general, darwinistic tendency of FFA and unethical cooperations over the board is not simple. The debate seems to be locked between those who only see obvious preconcieved teaming as a problem, and all those of us who see hanging pieces and total concistent fidelity between two players, even in one game, as very problematic. (It is frustrating for us that you don't see that this is not FFA at all, because if two players cooperate in this way, then there is NO game, but you are totally doomed by simple kindergarden maths). 

Let me at least be constructive enough to give a suggestion, so that the debate can move on. There are perhaps ways to change the rules, rather than going after "cheaters" and banning them from the site. Possible rule alterations, along with either of two lines: 

1. Functions where you are forced to capture hanging pieces. This of course alters the game considerably, but maybe it's worth it? 

2. Functions that make it possible for an engine to detect unethical collusion. Hanging pieces and refrained attacks would then always risk ANNULING the game and all points in it. 

Having said this, I send here my high regard for all of you who especially love the FFA where you must always count on SHIFTING fidelities, and where you can still count on the principle of bellum omnia contra omnes, so that noone dares leaving a queen dangling in the hands of another player's arbitrations. For the rest of you, no greetings. 

/Spartak.  

i was just in a game where i got the two players to admit they were teaming... a few seconds later i saw i was chat banned for accusing players of cheating lol... i get it... i'm not even mad... but they admitted they were teaming... is there no room for context when interpreting the rules??? now i know... the players got salty and reported me, and it was probably a bot not a human that banned me... but still, i find it annoying that admitted cheaters can report legit players out of spite... i respect the admins, but accusing someone of cheating being the reason i am chat banned when the person admitted they were cheating seems a tad redundant to me...

i will wait out the chat ban and go on with my life... i just wanted to get that off my chest

question: how many times can we reasonably expect two players that are friends to not attack each other when they can capture a piece and not lose one in return? isn't continually refusing to attack each other evidence of teaming?

Also, people can be spiteful towards others from past games. For these reasons, most high-rated FFA games (2300+) are anonymous

watching video now... will give you a like and subscribe... [word of warning... all the fans of my channel are trolls so avoid making contact with them unless you have a thick skin] [not a fat joke]

Really interesting thread. I've just played a game (FFA) where someone asked if anyone 'wanted to team-up'. I immediately turned off chat, and that player resigned a few moves later. Obviously they didn't know (or care) what 'FFA' means.
A few years ago I was in a game, and I was holding my own against the other three players, being ahead on material, position and points (the chat window was closed so I could focus on the game.) In the later part of the game I started to feel as though I was being victimized, (other players not exploiting obvious weaknesses in the others or ignoring free pieces instead all focused on me.) I was soon taken apart by all of the other players working together. When I opened the chat window I discovered all the other players had indeed been openly planning together to co-ordinate their game to take me out! I double checked to make sure I WAS in a Free For All game, (I was).. incredibly frustrating, but it taught a valuable lesson!
My feeling is that in a FFA game, open team play shouldn't happen, because if you WANT to team, there's a game mode to allow you to do that! However, as long as you don't pre-plan to team, anything goes! I've been victim to having material taken while in check by another player, but I've also happily exploited others in the same unfortunate position! It's a unique part of the four player game, and that ruthlessness is one of the reasons I love it. (Even if it DOES sting when you're the victim!

Thanks for reading!

i just block people now... and add any players who beat me fair and square to my friends list... i also block people who join a game and then fail to play... not sandbagging... just rude... but that's an entire thread in its own right...

i think one obvious solution is to make every player have a feedback section on by default that they can't disable... no comments [because that way trouble lies] just a star based rating system that other players can vote on including things like "friendly" good sport" "polite in chat" 

kinda like the uber rating system or the star system they use on online stores like ebay to rate sellers

Lots of teaming and collusion like these two players from states made it so obvious that you can ban em immediately for life.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=9125074

Banning for life does not really work, because people just make new accounts. As far as I know, short bans with an explanation/warning/rating reduction are the way our admins try to handle these cases.

hows this for irony.... I GOT CHAT BANNED FOR TEAMING!!!

i haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate people who team, and have never done any such thing... just fired of an email DEMANDING proof of any such actions... this is just further proof that the reporting system on this otherwise fine website is BROKEN... i am all kinds of annoyed right now, but mostly because it turns out the only penalty for teaming is a temporary chat ban... i would expect that annoyed as i would be my account would be BANNED for such an offense... not just a silly 24 chat ban... no wonder people abuse the report system and continue to cheat... there is no justice here

you'd think they'd at least send me a message saying why i was banned [what teaming i supposedly did] but i received zero notifications or emails... i had to send an email to find out why... will post any reply i get here when i get one

Jeez man relax, people do get play banned for prearranged teaming, there isnt a blanket punishment for all infractions it just depends on what. You likely broke one of the CoC accidentally in chat hence the response is no more than a nudge.

this issue will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction sadly... but i do have a solution... just block anyone you suspect is teaming... at least that way you will never encounter them again... it's still annoying when it happens... but the way i see it if i block enough of them, they will all end up in their own little dark corner of this server... and i can go back to playing with the real players who know how to play fair/nice... the truth is there are far more good players and friendly players than bad... it's a nice community... so best way to keep it nice is if we all self police and just block anyone that doesn't play by the rules... i can't imagine those types of players stick around for long anyway... once they realise their fake rank still doesn't stop them from stinking at chess... i'm pretty sure they leave

so... in the short time they are here... don't let them ruin your fun

When 2 players are "working together" but not protecting each other and they will both get rewards then it is not enough proof for teaming, but when they are hanging pieces more than once and use "teammates" protection to checkmate or eat pieces, then, well, obvious teaming.