bfunny27 and DBandit70 [CLEARED] KRK

[IR1SH ACE]

I to am in this tournament viewtopic.php?t=136933

just thought I would point out a couple of things here....

there is a few mad rules with this tournament, i.e. special objectives but there is also a team finale to play for..........

"Presentation of the tournament.

Tournament starts with 256 single players + 8 reserves.
Most of them can also form 4 players teams, and try to qualify for team finals.
Most of the map have special objectives to reach to get more points (see details)."

if you check the list of 4 man teams you can see that both DBandit70 and bfunny27 are on the same team in this tournament.

"bfunny27 USA Essex of CC
DBandit70 USA Essex of CC
dustin800 USA Essex of CC
Sam02 N. CAL Essex of CC"

and there is a logic behind working together for the benefit of the team....

"+ TEAM FINALE
The top 4 teams (totalizing points of each players in single tournament) will play the team finale.
Finale is split into doubles, triples, and quads."

I also ended up in my second round game with a team-mate, which we acknowledged in game chat 8870048 (sorry don't know how to link that still new to this) and then proceeded to make sure we came 1st and 2nd so we would both go through and gain more points for our team.

"bobzimmerman USA Gael Force
Conchobar IRE Gael Force
IR1SH ACE IRE Gael Force
VestedPower USA Gael Force"

The only thing that I can see wrong is that they should have mentioned it in the chat....

[bfunny27]

Thank you for all the clarifications and for those who sought to get more information and to those who came to our defense.

I'm utterly shocked and dismayed that BB would report us here for this.
Just to be clear there was no secret diplomacy here on DB's and my part. As stated we have played hundreds of doubles matches together and are friends that's no secret. We typically don't play against each other as we don't see the point. This tournament just happened to randomly place of as enemies so you better believe I want to kick his butt for a little bragging rights.
If you looked at the Map Fairman had Paris locked up and Fairman and BB were trading single territories easily. BB would have only had one defensive point to protect his two bonuses. As fairman statged in the log he wouldn't make a move as he had already won. Then when I start seeing a large stack on BB's one defensive point it's a huge threat that needed to be taken out. Eventually I was able to kill Fairman and also broke both of DB's bonuses unfortunately I was unaware of a huge stack DB had and he owned us both.

I definitely don't appreciate my name being tarnished as I have always played fairly and just try to have fun. If you can't have fun while playing a game what's the point.

My $.02,
-Bfunny27

[Belgian Blue]

The problem was that my stacks was no bigger threat than the stacks DB held next to it.

The comments by IR1SH ACE just proves how sick the situation was. To combine single and double competition in the tournament with players in the double part playing together in games with others not in that part is a problem that you cannot solve.

And finaly misher has read the log and as he says my complains are obviuos.

/BB

[SirSebstar]

2011-05-06 01:37:00 - Belgian Blue: That much I understand but anyone with some maths knew they where there and that was my point all the time
2011-05-06 01:40:26 - Belgian Blue: Still believe I was right but you ended up in a situation you didnt wanted to be in and you seems to be good fellows. Just wished you had admitted it and let me win
2011-05-06 01:46:54 - Belgian Blue: Just wanted to make a remark regarding that I didnt informed that I had put you on the cheating and abuse report. That is because when you do that (and it is really cheaters) they attack you like hell while the matter is handled and you end up loosing

i think this closes the case

[jefjef]

2011-05-06 01:37:00 - Belgian Blue: That much I understand but anyone with some maths knew they where there and that was my point all the time
2011-05-06 01:40:26 - Belgian Blue: Still believe I was right but you ended up in a situation you didnt wanted to be in and you seems to be good fellows. Just wished you had admitted it and let me win
2011-05-06 01:46:54 - Belgian Blue: Just wanted to make a remark regarding that I didnt informed that I had put you on the cheating and abuse report. That is because when you do that (and it is really cheaters) they attack you like hell while the matter is handled and you end up loosing

i think this closes the case

No it doesn't...

Nothing in what you just quoted from BB diminishes or withdraws the complaint.

He obviously feels there is collusion play going on.

[murphy16]

SMH, after all the year I have been on the site, never have I ever seen such an accusation on such a great player as DBandit and bfunny.

SMH, that's all I got to say to this one.

[danfrank]

2011-05-06 01:37:00 - Belgian Blue: That much I understand but anyone with some maths knew they where there and that was my point all the time
2011-05-06 01:40:26 - Belgian Blue: Still believe I was right but you ended up in a situation you didnt wanted to be in and you seems to be good fellows. Just wished you had admitted it and let me win
2011-05-06 01:46:54 - Belgian Blue: Just wanted to make a remark regarding that I didnt informed that I had put you on the cheating and abuse report. That is because when you do that (and it is really cheaters) they attack you like hell while the matter is handled and you end up loosing

i think this closes the case

No it doesn't...

Nothing in what you just quoted from BB diminishes or withdraws the complaint.

He obviously feels there is collusion play going on.

it clearly does diminish , that last statement from him states it , he was expecting a different result from his complaint as far the game stratedgy went. He didn`t get it.. I have a long time dubs partner , we try not to play singles games together , It is a natural instinct to favor your partner in these type of games . I dont see anything wrong with it , thats why you build relationships.

[jefjef]

2011-05-06 01:37:00 - Belgian Blue: That much I understand but anyone with some maths knew they where there and that was my point all the time
2011-05-06 01:40:26 - Belgian Blue: Still believe I was right but you ended up in a situation you didnt wanted to be in and you seems to be good fellows. Just wished you had admitted it and let me win
2011-05-06 01:46:54 - Belgian Blue: Just wanted to make a remark regarding that I didnt informed that I had put you on the cheating and abuse report. That is because when you do that (and it is really cheaters) they attack you like hell while the matter is handled and you end up loosing

i think this closes the case

No it doesn't...

Nothing in what you just quoted from BB diminishes or withdraws the complaint.

He obviously feels there is collusion play going on.

it clearly does diminish , that last statement from him states it , he was expecting a different result from his complaint as far the game stratedgy went. He didn`t get it.. I have a long time dubs partner , we try not to play singles games together , It is a natural instinct to favor your partner in these type of games . I dont see anything wrong with it , thats why you build relationships.

That much I understand but anyone with some maths knew they where there and that was my point all the time
Still believe I was right

[greenoaks]

i take great delight in eliminating my CC 'friends' early.

i always say gg <insert friend's name> in chat, even though it wasn't.

[kennys777]

Irish Ace pointed out what I was going to say. The games were made randomly, and in the first round a couple of "team" players ended up in the same game. The Jules Verne tournament has two outcomes, 1 for individuals and 1 for team play. Team points are accumulated through the individual play stage. I know the CC rules regarding Secret Diplomacy, but if 10 points are going to the winner of the game, which also adds to the overall team points, and three of the four teammates happen to be in this 2nd round game, that is just pure coincidence.

I have checked into all my opponents as the game starts just to make sure this same situation wouldn't happen to me. In my 2nd round game, I was the only one who was knowledgeable of the tournament rules. The flaw is really in the tournament, not their play. With three of the four players being on the same team, I would automatically assume I would have a target on my back and that I would be the first one knocked out.

Bottom line: CC says there can be no secret diplomacy, but it is not if it is stated in game chat. Well, nothing is stated in game chat for this game, but I am sure all the teammates knew what the outcome of the game would give them per the tourney. If there was no literal collusion, is it still secret diplomacy?

Just knowing what the tourney rules are, and knowing you have 3 of 4 teammates in a four player game, wouldn't the objective be to eliminate the one not on the team? If it was never talked about just assumed, is that secret diplomacy?

[chapcrap]

Irish Ace pointed out what I was going to say. The games were made randomly, and in the first round a couple of "team" players ended up in the same game. The Jules Verne tournament has two outcomes, 1 for individuals and 1 for team play. Team points are accumulated through the individual play stage. I know the CC rules regarding Secret Diplomacy, but if 10 points are going to the winner of the game, which also adds to the overall team points, and three of the four teammates happen to be in this 2nd round game, that is just pure coincidence.

I have checked into all my opponents as the game starts just to make sure this same situation wouldn't happen to me. In my 2nd round game, I was the only one who was knowledgeable of the tournament rules. The flaw is really in the tournament, not their play. With three of the four players being on the same team, I would automatically assume I would have a target on my back and that I would be the first one knocked out.

Bottom line: CC says there can be no secret diplomacy, but it is not if it is stated in game chat. Well, nothing is stated in game chat for this game, but I am sure all the teammates knew what the outcome of the game would give them per the tourney. If there was no literal collusion, is it still secret diplomacy?

Just knowing what the tourney rules are, and knowing you have 3 of 4 teammates in a four player game, wouldn't the objective be to eliminate the one not on the team? If it was never talked about just assumed, is that secret diplomacy?

It was not 3 of 4 on the same team. Two were on the same team. There was a third from the same clan. Not on the same team in the tournament. The host (DJENRE), I can assure you, did not do this on purpose. It was random.

[kennys777]

Irish Ace pointed out what I was going to say. The games were made randomly, and in the first round a couple of "team" players ended up in the same game. The Jules Verne tournament has two outcomes, 1 for individuals and 1 for team play. Team points are accumulated through the individual play stage. I know the CC rules regarding Secret Diplomacy, but if 10 points are going to the winner of the game, which also adds to the overall team points, and three of the four teammates happen to be in this 2nd round game, that is just pure coincidence.

I have checked into all my opponents as the game starts just to make sure this same situation wouldn't happen to me. In my 2nd round game, I was the only one who was knowledgeable of the tournament rules. The flaw is really in the tournament, not their play. With three of the four players being on the same team, I would automatically assume I would have a target on my back and that I would be the first one knocked out.

Bottom line: CC says there can be no secret diplomacy, but it is not if it is stated in game chat. Well, nothing is stated in game chat for this game, but I am sure all the teammates knew what the outcome of the game would give them per the tourney. If there was no literal collusion, is it still secret diplomacy?

Just knowing what the tourney rules are, and knowing you have 3 of 4 teammates in a four player game, wouldn't the objective be to eliminate the one not on the team? If it was never talked about just assumed, is that secret diplomacy?

It was not 3 of 4 on the same team. Two were on the same team. There was a third from the same clan. Not on the same team in the tournament. The host (DJENRE), I can assure you, did not do this on purpose. It was random.

Yeah, You are right, just 2 of 4 in that game...And I said it was random, but it also happened in round 1...

[murphy16]

It should be the same outcome of this....
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=138479&p=3022928&hilit=+murphy16+brandoncfi#p3022928
It was for a tournament, and such rules of CC don't imply to tournament games. But since it was a tourney his intent of throwing the game was for him to win. So if the others worked together with nothing said between them, everyone knowing that their intent was for one of them to win the game to help them further in the tournament, why is it such a big deal. Honestly, CC needs to figure something out with the rules of CC in general and the tournaments that have out comes like this one. Either implement the rules of CC into the tournaments or make a new set of rules for the tournaments, or even go as far as have the TD's make sure a clear set of rules are layed out by the organizers to make sure this is prevented in the future. Just my thoughts.

[Serbia]

i take great delight in eliminating my CC 'friends' early.

i always say gg <insert friend's name> in chat, even though it wasn't.

I have to say, I do not understand the whole concept of favoring your clanmates or your regular team mates in singles games. That's not how I play at all. If it's a singles game, and I'm playing against 2 clanmates and 3 random "other" people, I'm going after whoever is most advantageous for me to go after, whether you're in my clan, you're a "buddy", or you're my wife. (Hi, Tripitaka!)

I have a long time dubs partner , we try not to play singles games together , It is a natural instinct to favor your partner in these type of games . I dont see anything wrong with it , thats why you build relationships.

See, this... no offense, but I don't have that "natural instinct". I have a natural instinct to win. I'm not going to help anyone else win at my expense, or try to keep a clanmate around longer because "we R frendz YAY!" I'm going to play to win, regardless of who's against me.

[kennys777]

It should be the same outcome of this....
viewtopic.php?f=239&t=138479&p=3022928&hilit=+murphy16+brandoncfi#p3022928
It was for a tournament, and such rules of CC don't imply to tournament games. But since it was a tourney his intent of throwing the game was for him to win. So if the others worked together with nothing said between them, everyone knowing that their intent was for one of them to win the game to help them further in the tournament, why is it such a big deal. Honestly, CC needs to figure something out with the rules of CC in general and the tournaments that have out comes like this one. Either implement the rules of CC into the tournaments or make a new set of rules for the tournaments, or even go as far as have the TD's make sure a clear set of rules are layed out by the organizers to make sure this is prevented in the future. Just my thoughts.

I was thinking about this to Murph, but I just couldn't come up with a clear way to state it...On a different note, not messing with the thread here, but there should be threads for this type of circumstance. Another one is when I am at another CC player's house I have the same IP address, if there was a thread where I stated it, so later if someone were to accuse me of being a multi, at least I would have stated I am heading over to so and so's house. I plan on traveling to Europe this summer, so I will be crashing on a lot of my gamer friends' sofas. Which means I need to be careful with the log-ins??? Anyway, there are multiple reasons for infractions to occur, and I don't think there was any foul play here...The tournament set the rules, the players just are playing to win it! That's just my opinion, but I do agree with Murph, that this is a VERY grey area. O'Doyle Rules!

[BoganGod]

belgian, have you thought that maybe its a case of hit the hat(well in your case hit the eagle). Often even experienced players will view the person with the highest rank as a threat and make their life difficult...... It happens and is part of strat.

[stahrgazer]

I don't understand why this is still pending.

My understanding of the rule of "Secret Diplomacy," is that, actual discussion/coordination that took place outside of the game chat is Secret Dimplomacy.

A tendency to favor one person or another but nothing ever arranged to do so outside of gamechat, means it's not Secret Diplomacy.

And, frankly, I doubt either dude would have to arrange something outside of gamechat to share a region for spoils. Whether the OP likes "sharing regions" for spoils or not, it's a valid, viable part of strategy. While it's more typically used in escalating games, it's not unheard of. In fact, several of the Games Strategy Guides suggest sharing a region for spoils in multiplayer games and try to dissuade players from trying to suicide.

Further, it sounds like whichever of the two tried to make a move on the other, the OP wanted to be able to move in. Smart of neither of them to fall for it.

So, instead, they built and shared a region.

I recently was covering a multiplayer game for a clanmate who's not part of this. A flat rate game. Despite it was flat rate, not escalating, regions had built to the hundreds. It seemed no one wanted to make a suicide move. And, to ensure no one had to be the one to suicide, all four players were sharing a few regions for spoils.

And, it was obvious that some of those numbers that had built could've broken one of the opponents' bonuses. But no one moved.

Unless the OP has evidence that these guys communicated outside of gamechat to actually PLAN a joint strategy against the OP, it's not secret diplomacy.

So, really, why is this pending instead of Cleared and Closed?

[murphy16]

I don't understand why this is still pending.

My understanding of the rule of "Secret Diplomacy," is that, actual discussion/coordination that took place outside of the game chat is Secret Dimplomacy.

A tendency to favor one person or another but nothing ever arranged to do so outside of gamechat, means it's not Secret Diplomacy.

And, frankly, I doubt either dude would have to arrange something outside of gamechat to share a region for spoils. Whether the OP likes "sharing regions" for spoils or not, it's a valid, viable part of strategy. While it's more typically used in escalating games, it's not unheard of. In fact, several of the Games Strategy Guides suggest sharing a region for spoils in multiplayer games and try to dissuade players from trying to suicide.

Further, it sounds like whichever of the two tried to make a move on the other, the OP wanted to be able to move in. Smart of neither of them to fall for it.

So, instead, they built and shared a region.

I recently was covering a multiplayer game for a clanmate who's not part of this. A flat rate game. Despite it was flat rate, not escalating, regions had built to the hundreds. It seemed no one wanted to make a suicide move. And, to ensure no one had to be the one to suicide, all four players were sharing a few regions for spoils.

And, it was obvious that some of those numbers that had built could've broken one of the opponents' bonuses. But no one moved.

Unless the OP has evidence that these guys communicated outside of gamechat to actually PLAN a joint strategy against the OP, it's not secret diplomacy.

So, really, why is this pending instead of Cleared and Closed?

[fairman]

I'm a bit surprised that the topic is still open.
It's clear that they were no common strategy to maximize their point as DBandit kill bfunny before Belgian Blue.
So Belgian Blue scored 7 points and bfunny 3 (and by the way me 0.)
So DB killed first a clanmate, then his teamate and at last the player that have no link with him ...
So please let's closed this case ...

[SirSebstar]

2 players who favor eachother in non teamgames can be blocked from playing with eachother. SD is simetimes inferred, and it can be enough to assume you do not get attacked, even if it is not expressed

[stahrgazer]

2 players who favor eachother in non teamgames can be blocked from playing with eachother. SD is simetimes inferred, and it can be enough to assume you do not get attacked, even if it is not expressed

But that's not my understanding of the complaint.

My understanding of the complaint is, they shared a region for spoils and failed to hit small stacks to break each other's bonus while they built higher; which ticked off the OP because if they had, the OP could've swooped in to kill one of them.

Then, when they felt they had enough troops, they went for it.

Further, apparently it was a tournament where, if they'd each been placed in two different games, they would've had the chance for more points than if only one of them won, so I'm sure they'd have RATHER be placed in 2 different games, but they weren't. So, each played to the best of his ability to win the thing, which included not assaulting too weak to make it work; and included the frequently-suggested strategy of sharing region for spoils till one of them dared. If the OP had requested a spoils share (it's apparent he did not) I bet any of them would've willingly done it.

Finally, my understanding is, even if you foe someone, you have to unfoe them in a tournament or not play, so why is this "player block" that you're threatening, any different?

[kennys777]

2 players who favor eachother in non teamgames can be blocked from playing with eachother. SD is simetimes inferred, and it can be enough to assume you do not get attacked, even if it is not expressed

WOW!
That is a pretty bold statement Sir. So what you are saying is, that CC mods can now ASSUME people are doing something? Is this similar to Minority Report? Just curious, because you are stating here that Secret Diplomacy can be inferred because of the "lack of action"?

Is this also similar to "The Good Samaritan" law from the final episode(s) of Seinfeld?

The system of rules that are in place, do not state anything of inference or mind-reading!

"Rule #2: No secret diplomacy

Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. Diplomacy includes, but is not limited to: proposing truces, negotiating alliances, and coordinating assaults. Secret diplomacy can be hard to prove, but if you suspect it you should leave the players in question appropriate ratings. If you feel certain about players engaging in secret diplomacy consider reporting them in the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum by posting a new topic."

Is the lack of discussion, considered discussion??? Please clarify this for me Sir Seb. Like I said, my concern then becomes rulings and punishments based on people's feelings instead of evidence!

[Karl_R_Kroenen]

bfunny27 = CLEARED
DBandit70 = CLEARED

While some might want the C&A team to rush to judgment(s), vote via popular community demand or personal internet vouching as a friend/clan mate/etc - that STILL isn't the case nor will it be an influence.

After reading the game logs, this report, the game chat: If one is actively looking for any hint/shred/sniff of secret diplomacy, you might see it, as you don't know what the other player(s) is/are doing or planning. For some, FOW tends to enhance that feeling/suspicion of SD.

Not to explain all the details of the game play and/or this tourney rules, but fairman accomplished the main goal of that slice of the tournament - hold PARIS for 3 rounds to advance and collect points. The remaining advancement spot was for the overall winner of that game, which accuser/accused had the same fair opportunity to win.

The "let me win" type of game play goes against sportsmanship of the game and the tourney, in general.

[waseemalim]

this is after the fact. I am clanmates with bandit and I know him very well. Dbandit plays to win, and I have sometimes hated him for that. Here is a game in which he bombed me to stoneage when he had almost no shot at winning:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4773240