Cleared scott6574/feastert - Suspected alliance or multi[ES]

[Zelena]

Accused:

scott6574
feastert

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis
Or
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 14087858


Comments:
In the game linked above, it appears as though the account belonging to "scott6574" is being played solely for the purpose of blocking my armies. At first, I thought it was just very poor strategy or an attempt at intimidation. However, given that a couple turns have gone by with the same results - it seems clear that, in this game at least, this account has no intention of conquering, gaining spoils, etc.
The main reason I suspect "feastert" on the other side of this accusation is that he is the most obvious beneficiary of this tactic.
More than anything, I would love this accusation to be proven unfounded. However, I am at least certain that something suspicious is going on with "scott6574". Please look into this. Thanks!

-Liz (Zelena)

[Serbia]

Multis probably isn't likely, as scott is displaying a British flag, feastert an American one. I can't tell too much else from the log, so it's good someone smarter than I am will look into this further.

Bollocks.

[Zelena]

That is one of the first things I looked into, and I do suspect an alliance over a multi - however, we both know that they could be lying IF it's a multi-account
Um, that's assuming that the flags are linked to the location ppl say they're from. Am I wrong? Bet I'm wrong

[Koganosi]

That is one of the first things I looked into, and I do suspect an alliance over a multi - however, we both know that they could be lying IF it's a multi-account
Um, that's assuming that the flags are linked to the location ppl say they're from. Am I wrong? Bet I'm wrong

Linked to ip. They still could use some proxies, but it makes it highly unlikely!

Urs

Koganosi

[Zelena]

Yeah, that's what I figured (linked to IP address) once I thought about it. Now I'm seriously considering that perhaps the Scott guy really had absolutely no clue what he was doing. But his gameplay was so suspicious and nonsensical I still can't help but wonder.

[Koganosi]

Yeah, that's what I figured (linked to IP address) once I thought about it. Now I'm seriously considering that perhaps the Scott guy really had absolutely no clue what he was doing. But his gameplay was so suspicious and nonsensical I still can't help but wonder.

They are 2 lower rankers I think the guy has no clue what he is doing untill it went "TO FAR"!

If you wanne get more pressure on the case, you should look up if they played more games with eachother and if there was any suspicion in those games, chat is a good one for that sometimes. If not it might be noted or they are cleared.

Urs

Koganosi

[Evil Semp]

Taking a look at this.

[Zelena]

Yeah, I looked at a couple of pages of scott's games (which I should have done beforehand) and it doesn't appear that he teamed up with feaster anywhere else. Guess I'll just have to chalk this up to poor gameplay and my subsequent frustration Sorry to have wasted anyone's time on this silliness!

-Liz (Zelena)

[Evil Semp]

Just because he doesn't make the moves that you think he should or that you would do doesn't make it secret diplomacy. You said "this account has no intention of conquering, gaining spoils, etc." He did get spoils each turn and it even looked like yellow tried to keep him from killing you.

The accused are CLEARED of secret diplomacy and of being multi's.

[Zelena]

I'm completely in agreement with your verdict.
However, just to be clear: when the game first began, it did appear to me as if his gameplay was lacking in ambition, to the point of being ridiculous. Looking back at the game log, it does appear that he gained spoils every time - I can only imagine that I must have missed a turn in of his - so that's an error on my part. Also, although I no longer suspect any foul play on yellow's part, I assure you he didn't attempt to help me out with the situation (not to be construed as meaning I would have expected it).
On a side note, I resent the general tone of your response, which came across very snide and condescending. I filled out the suspect form in good faith, not frivolously or to stir something up. I am fully willing to admit fault on my part when it comes to my suspicion, but people make mistakes. My mistake, however, most certainly does not excuse your tone. I expected more from someone representing this website, even if only as a volunteer....

[Razorvich]

Zelena, don't be offended by the tone. This response given from a multi hunter is a standard explanation of your situation that I have seen used many times in this forum.

A standard answer, nothing more.

Hope this helps.

[Zelena]

Hmm. If indeed it is a standard response, perhaps it needs to be revised I would be being less than honest if I said that I don't understand bluntness - I myself can be admittedly tactless when I'm at my most straightforward. But it almost goes without saying that a little tact now and then can go a long way. My point being that when someone comes to this forum with a sincere concern of dishonest gameplay, they shouldn't go away feeling as if they're being accused of 'crying wolf' out of bitterness or poor sportsmanship (although, I'm sure, that is the case occasionally). Just my two cents Carry on, dear hunters & other admins - keep up the good work

[Evil Semp]

My response wasn't meant to be snide. No I wasn't accusing you of crying wolf. Many times in my game I ask WTF was so and so thinking. I tell myself that he/she is playing their game and I am playing mine from different view points. When I said it looked like yellow tried to clear blue out of NA on the turn before you were eliminated.

[Zelena]

Gotcha - I understand your intention in your response was more about being concise No harm, no foul - as I said in my previous post, I have no room to judge anyone else for sincere bluntness, given my natural inclination towards being candid