Conquer Club

Accused:

Stalker01
Lucyjack

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s): 7245482

Comments:

In game 7245482, Stalker01 admits to secret diplomacy with LucyJack.

In the gamechat window, Stalker01 says:
"2010-08-24 05:19:24 - stalker01: blue or teal..I'm not..our truce is still intact"

However, there is no prior reference to any truce between Stalker01 and Lucyjack ("blue or teal") in the gamechat. It appears to be a public continuation of a private conversation / secret diplomacy. Stalker01 is now winning, so the secret truce was a decisive factor.

barfield wrote:Accused:

Stalker01
Lucyjack

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s): Game 7245482

Comments:

In game Game 7245482, Stalker01 admits to secret diplomacy with LucyJack.

In the gamechat window, Stalker01 says:
"2010-08-24 05:19:24 - stalker01: blue or teal..I'm not..our truce is still intact"

However, there is no prior reference to any truce between Stalker01 and Lucyjack ("blue or teal") in the gamechat. It appears to be a public continuation of a private conversation / secret diplomacy. Stalker01 is now winning, so the secret truce was a decisive factor.

fixed

fixed

eddie2 - what does that mean? thanks -

barfield

ok barjack you played a game of truces with all these players who all agreed 2 truce with you in the game. so they were all truced with each other because they were part of your truce. you yes they were truced and because you did not win this you report for sd? this report is spurious

this is the craziest game i have ever been in. First barfield makes a truce with every single player left in the game and then he reports us for secret diplomacy (behind our backs no less)? What the heck? Take a look at his ratings...

Not spurious. My truces were all public. The other truce wasn't. Private truces are a violation of secret diplomacy rules.

i dont think there actually was another truce. I believe he was making an obscure reference to another point in the chat. Where, I cannot say, as i dont know the whole context. but that's just my opinion. let's see what the hunters have to say.

barfield wrote:Not spurious. My truces were all public. The other truce wasn't. Private truces are a violation of secret diplomacy rules.

ok you had a truce with player a b c d e

player c asks player b who are part of your truce if it is still on because you are playing silly games with them that has backfired

I owe everyone an apology. I completely misread the gamechat discussion in my game, and after clarifying with other gameplayers, I'm realizing that I was completely wrong in my interpretation.

Sorry again.

I owe everyone an apology. I completely misread the gamechat discussion in my game, and after clarifying with other gameplayers, I'm realizing that I was completely wrong in my interpretation and in my accusations.

Sorry again.

Merging this with your other thread.

I haven't been this dizzy since I was on a merry go round as a kid. This is CLOSED.