Cheating game# 4587358 and others [cleared and noted]

[Woodruff]

Ok, Night Strike, you are a spanker of naughty comments fine. I do apologize for the the utterly obscene comments directed at these, umm, errr......gentlemen.
How long does it take before C.C. Gestapo makes a finding on these crimes against humanity? Cause, I'm ready and willing to use these same brilliant methods against my fellow players here and raise my rankings in a hurry.

There was no need for you to make a public statement regarding your lack of integrity, but I suppose this will make the moderator's job easier in the future.

Woodie, you are just a waste of bytes on this thread.

Particularly in contrast to the exceptionally fruitful insights that you've given us, I'm sure!

[ngleichman]

GENERAL STONEHAM did you not read my post?

They have admitted to knowing each other off site, and have played in 52 games together in all different kinds of settings.

morelikethemoon7 has won 8 of those games that included more then 2 players
and 1 one on one battle between them

ngleichman has won 13 of those games that included more then 2 players

21 out of 52 games played together at least 1 of them is the victor is a descent %, the mods will have to look at some of the trends in those games to see if they have conducted themselves in a way that helped benefit one another, but given the games I checked it looks like they play honest games.

Its a reach, and most likely will be NOTED in case this occurrence ever happens again.

I found a relatively high % of wins between the 2 when they are in games with other users. This will get taken into consideration by the hunters and most likely get NOTED as I said.

Be patient

KS

What an all around pwning.

Sam, as I'm sure your mods will tell you, the reason one of the two of us wins 50% of our games is because we generally play 4-5 player games, so that percent makes sense. Also, we are individually bad ass at this game. You might note that too. In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense. Thanks for a just ruling.

[Woodruff]

I found a relatively high % of wins between the 2 when they are in games with other users. This will get taken into consideration by the hunters and most likely get NOTED as I said.
Be patient
KS

What an all around pwning.
Sam, as I'm sure your mods will tell you, the reason one of the two of us wins 50% of our games is because we generally play 4-5 player games, so that percent makes sense.

That actually doesn't make sense at all, truthfully. In fact, that would make things highly questionable.

Also, we are individually bad ass at this game. You might note that too.

Thank you, Phil Helmuth. Don't you have a poker table waiting for you?

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense. Thanks for a just ruling.

Sam didn't make a ruling.

[king sam]

Sam didn't make a ruling.

Nope just gave my opinion based off of your games together.

And like Woody said a high % of wins between the two of you in multi player games would work against the fact of "no collusion" not for it.

[FireStar]

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense.

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

[ngleichman]

Sam didn't make a ruling.

Oh then I misunderstood.

And like Woody said a high % of wins between the two of you in multi player games would work against the fact of "no collusion" not for it.

My point is, if you look at the games that we play you will see that the % is not high, its normal. If you have four people of equal skill playing a game, they'll each win 25% of games. meaning any two of them together will win 50% of the games. i.e., we do not have a 'high win percent.'

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

I'm unclear as to why teaming up with another superpower is even remotely 'questionable'. red was the only player on the board who could possibly bust my bonus, and I was confident that after two turns of safety, my build up would be enough to stomp red- which is exactly how it played out. Is it merciless to team up against the little guys? Ok- but it's definitely not dirty. If stoneham or any other player was in the position that red was in, i would have asked THAT PLAYER for the truce. We're playing a game to conquer the world, don't tell me my strategy is too merciless.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Your strategy involves scheming and cheating.

[morelikethemoon7]

Quite a few folks have added their opinions here, so I've got to go ahead and throw in my comments again. General Stoneham is making a LOT of implications by looking at the fact that ngleichman and I:

1) play a lot of games together
2) are usually ordered one after the other in the game
3) many times take turns within a few moments of each other

He believes that ngleichman and I have an elaborate strategy where, in these games, we're coordinating all our attacks to eliminate all the other opponents and gain "precious points" as he put it.

Ngleichman and I have admitted to being friends outside of CC. We enjoy playing games against each other for the competition against each other as much as anything else.

When either of us creates or joins a game, we will email the other (as we are both at our respective places of work during the day) so that the other can join. Sometimes games have a tendancy to fill up quickly, so we try and be quick about it since, once a game is full, you can't drop out, and both of us have regular accounts and are limited to four games. The fact that we are quite often one after the other in the order has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with the the fact that we alert the other to the game we've created or joined so that person can jump in before the game fills up.

Yes, we both have a tendancy to take turns quickly after the other, but this is, again, because we both online during the work hours of the week. If you look at game logs you'll probably find that ngleichman and I take our turns quickly after WHOEVER is before us during the 9-5 hours of the day.

I believe that a very telling thing to also look at would be the activity that happens during all the times ASIDE from 9am-5pm monday through friday. In the evenings and on weekends, for example, it takes a while for me to take my turns because I usually am not at a computer during these times. In fact on several occasions on weekends I have missed my turns, because ngleichman and I are NOT in constant communication about the games we play together coordinating our moves. We live several states apart, and this would take quite a bit of time and effort on our parts to coordinate our strategies in our games in an effort to try and gain points and boost our status.

To be fully honest, I cannot beleive that this has become such a large issue. The fact that there are people that believe ngleichman and myself are really spending THAT much time and energy in our lives to try and gain points and status in an internet game really surprises me.

I've won only 13% of the games I've played. I have one medal. I am by no means the greatest player on the Conquer Club website. Does this bother me in the least? Absolutely not. I could remain a cook on this website the rest of my life and I would be perfectly content to play a few games here and there and just HAVE FUN. That's why I (and ngleichman, I'm sure) joined this website in the first place, not to come up with a way to exploit or take advantage of it.

Unfortunately sincerity doesn't come across well in text on the intenernet, but I felt compelled to state my case.

Thanks for your input, everyone.

[Suzy1]

[quote="GENERAL STONEHAM"]Ok, I'll explain. These two cheaters, so-called friends, play seperately and as partners.

They say they're friends.

They play together in most of their games, seperately got it? They play a lot of games in sequence, as in player 2 and 3 or player 3 or 4, got it?

Now look at how often they work together, to make sure one or the other wins.

They also play with-in seconds or minutes of each other, which invites collusion!

If this is allowed here at C.C. then I'll form a "friendship" with someone and watch how I'll roll over opponets in games. Especially in "fog of war" games.

So, to the moderator Night Strike, who finds my language offensive. I'll play by THEIR rules, since it's ok!



I have had reason to think that players were cheating before and filled out the correct form, etc. Good luck getting anything done. I was politely told, to add them to my foe list, that although it did seem suspicious, there was no concrete evidence of any wrong doing. I have lost in games where I am sure this has taken place, but to go through the headache of getting anything done isn't worth bothering. The rules here do not seem to apply to everyone. Good Luck!

[Dardobul]

I am from the US, and if this dude wasn't a d-bag, i wouldnt have a problem with his avatar.

So your definition of "offensive avatar" actually only relies on what you think of the user? Hmmm...

i think his point was because of the incredibly PC world we live in his avatar is another stick to beat him with.

Having read the game chat, I'd say GENERAL STONEHAM just misunderstood the rules, and thought no secret alliances meant no alliances. does seem to have an anger problem though..... maybe instead of a block or ban, just one on CAPITAL LETTERS for him?

[Woodruff]

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense.

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

Agreed.

[ngleichman]

I am from the US, and if this dude wasn't a d-bag, i wouldnt have a problem with his avatar.

So your definition of "offensive avatar" actually only relies on what you think of the user? Hmmm...

i think his point was because of the incredibly PC world we live in his avatar is another stick to beat him with.

Having read the game chat, I'd say GENERAL STONEHAM just misunderstood the rules, and thought no secret alliances meant no alliances. does seem to have an anger problem though..... maybe instead of a block or ban, just one on CAPITAL LETTERS for him?

AMEN.

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense.

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

Agreed.

Feel free to ignore my post.

[TheBro]

This guy's nuts-

Also his avatar is offensive perhaps you could remove it for him.

you're probably from united states of america to think that his avatar is offensive ....

We're not talking avatar, we're talking about CHEATING.

Actually, we're talking about both.

It's really nice to hear from an empty headed alien, but you're wrong.

This thread is about cheating, you know....how your sister left you for your older brother.

Best quote ever! All the ranting you've been doing, you finally pulled out a good one!

That being said, these guys look innocent.

[jonsieboy]

I am from the US, and if this dude wasn't a d-bag, i wouldnt have a problem with his avatar.

So your definition of "offensive avatar" actually only relies on what you think of the user? Hmmm...

i think his point was because of the incredibly PC world we live in his avatar is another stick to beat him with.

Having read the game chat, I'd say GENERAL STONEHAM just misunderstood the rules, and thought no secret alliances meant no alliances. does seem to have an anger problem though..... maybe instead of a block or ban, just one on CAPITAL LETTERS for him?

AMEN.

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense.

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

Agreed.

Why wouldn't he make an allinace with the person who was a threat to him? You don't make allinaces or NAPs with people who you could flatten.

[morelikethemoon7]

In the game in question, we were undoubtedly the two biggest powers, and as such, a legal alliance made sense.

In such an instance it is less fair to make an alliance... i see lots of times when the weaker players team up to try and stop the larger powers, but the larger powers teaming up to crush the smaller ones..... fair, but questionable

Agreed.

Neither of us could have flattened the other without being flattened ourselves. Both of us were facing threats on our left and right, and if we'd used troops to attack each other we wouldn't have had enough to defend from either of those sides. Therefore we publicly agreed not to attack each other so we could focus on those threats, at which point both of us were able to use troops that were defending against each other to defend more effectively against those other two threats. This is a perfectly reasonable strategy considering that circumstance.

I'd also like to note that I don't think the strategy behind the truce is the issue here. The truce was made public on the board and therefore was within the rules of the game. Therefore the strategy behind it, albeit sound, is irrelevant.

The issues at hand are the accusations made by General Stoneham, which I have done my best to respond to above:

Quite a few folks have added their opinions here, so I've got to go ahead and throw in my comments again. General Stoneham is making a LOT of implications by looking at the fact that ngleichman and I:

1) play a lot of games together
2) are usually ordered one after the other in the game
3) many times take turns within a few moments of each other

He believes that ngleichman and I have an elaborate strategy where, in these games, we're coordinating all our attacks to eliminate all the other opponents and gain "precious points" as he put it.

Ngleichman and I have admitted to being friends outside of CC. We enjoy playing games against each other for the competition against each other as much as anything else.

When either of us creates or joins a game, we will email the other (as we are both at our respective places of work during the day) so that the other can join. Sometimes games have a tendancy to fill up quickly, so we try and be quick about it since, once a game is full, you can't drop out, and both of us have regular accounts and are limited to four games. The fact that we are quite often one after the other in the order has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with the the fact that we alert the other to the game we've created or joined so that person can jump in before the game fills up.

Yes, we both have a tendancy to take turns quickly after the other, but this is, again, because we both online during the work hours of the week. If you look at game logs you'll probably find that ngleichman and I take our turns quickly after WHOEVER is before us during the 9-5 hours of the day.

I believe that a very telling thing to also look at would be the activity that happens during all the times ASIDE from 9am-5pm monday through friday. In the evenings and on weekends, for example, it takes a while for me to take my turns because I usually am not at a computer during these times. In fact on several occasions on weekends I have missed my turns, because ngleichman and I are NOT in constant communication about the games we play together coordinating our moves. We live several states apart, and this would take quite a bit of time and effort on our parts to coordinate our strategies in our games in an effort to try and gain points and boost our status.

To be fully honest, I cannot beleive that this has become such a large issue. The fact that there are people that believe ngleichman and myself are really spending THAT much time and energy in our lives to try and gain points and status in an internet game really surprises me.

I've won only 13% of the games I've played. I have one medal. I am by no means the greatest player on the Conquer Club website. Does this bother me in the least? Absolutely not. I could remain a cook on this website the rest of my life and I would be perfectly content to play a few games here and there and just HAVE FUN. That's why I (and ngleichman, I'm sure) joined this website in the first place, not to come up with a way to exploit or take advantage of it.

Unfortunately sincerity doesn't come across well in text on the intenernet, but I felt compelled to state my case.

Thanks for your input, everyone.

[ngleichman]

Why wouldn't he make an allinace with the person who was a threat to him? You don't make allinaces or NAPs with people who you could flatten.

And there you have it.

[neanderpaul14]

This guy's nuts-

Also his avatar is offensive perhaps you could remove it for him.

you're probably from united states of america to think that his avatar is offensive ....

Excuse me........I'm from the USA and I don't find his avy offensive in the least

[king achilles]

As far as being multi accounts, ngleichman and morelikethemoon7 are cleared.

As for a secret diplomacy, they did announce a truce in the game chat. There is no rule that players should be the strongest or the weakest in a game to form a truce, nor is there a rule that friends or relatives should not be allowed to play in open standard games. Playing at the same time is not enough to indicate some form of cheating nor is having a history of games played together.

However, this report is still noted for future reference.

[lancehoch]

Side note: jonsieboy is Busted with IssaTram31, Mr.Milwaukee, Zombie say what?, Wewerestoned, and 133t 15 1361t.

[king sam]

Side note: jonsieboy is Busted with IssaTram31, Mr.Milwaukee, Zombie say what?, Wewerestoned, and 133t 15 1361t.

wow wish I could say I didn't see that one coming

[ngleichman]

Side note: jonsieboy is Busted with IssaTram31, Mr.Milwaukee, Zombie say what?, Wewerestoned, and 133t 15 1361t.

how did that happen?

[SirSebstar]

careful investigation

[ngleichman]

careful investigation

was it the result of this post, or did he have his own pending investigation.

[king sam]

careful investigation

was it the result of this post, or did he have his own pending investigation.

the result of his post. everyone should get an IP check that posts in here. Im guessing he did and was found Guilty