Conquer Club

Accused:

arkansania
wogreen
bhoward1978
mtatman
ShivDogg


The accused are suspected of:
Other:
---Collusion/"Secret Diplomacy": Creating non-team games in which to play as a team; entrapping out-group players to farm points.
---Bigotry / Flaming
---Multi-ing or Account Sitting Abuse

Game number(s):
Game 9044613
Game 9001163

Comments:
Secret Diplomacy:
The former game#(9044613) is the game in question at present; the latter is one of possibly more games to stand as evidence of group familiarity and collusion, ie: team-playing in non-team games(I could look through all five players' game logs for more but I haven't the time). Of the three players in this game that are not familiar with these five suspect players, "out-group players", two are at a severe disadvantage compared to the relatively even troop/bonus spread of the in-group players, while I have eked out the lead. It seems like a formula: damage and kill out-group players first to insure higher yield to at least one certain in-group winner later. It seems like they fell asleep at the wheel in letting me get ahead but this could also be seen as a means to ratchet up points. The whole "let's kill the runaway leader" drama is a rather transparent ploy to justify banding together "as if by chance" to obfuscate their collusive, pre-meditated, team-playing mode.


Bigotry / Flaming:
***I don't appreciate being called a "fagboat" by these players either. This was the first indecent/inflammatory statement made on their part; they cast the first stone.

Multi-ing:
[I wrote the below rather late at night and realized he also falls possibly within the category of "Account Sitting Abuse".]
I'd like to call out mtatman as a multi-account owned in part my arkansania and wogreen if not others to help them enhance their games. "He" seems to be sitting there with 1-on-1 borders with these opponents with no truces stated, no justifiable reason for any of said players to avoid breaking or taking his regions, and his playing is erratic, unsustainable, stagnant, and enabling for other larger scoring players in the accused group.
For example: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8822816 In this game he plays against his teammate's interests by simply not cooperating in the least with his teammate's efforts as stated in the game chat and on mtatman's Wall. I'm going to guess this was a failed attempt at revenge by for a group-member's failed game. I could look for who was done wrong and when (which would be a great task in itself) but the next point I have to make is that this player rarely chats when his friends do...many of the same players accused here are among these friends. He seemed competent and unhurried by other affairs to comment in our game, and lo-and-behold, he even uses the same bigoted phrase against me:

2011-05-23 17:18:44 - wogreen: plus the dude is acting like a complete gayboat
2011-05-24 07:50:13 - mtatman: Yes, I agree to gang bang this gayboat

No one else cared to repeat any such phrase, but here the group-mute feels the urge to repeat this same exact bigoted phrase. This from "someone" who rarely chats in games where his friends all chat.

I find the following comment very insulting. Just because of my sexual orientation I shouldn't have to put up the derogatory name calling.

2011-05-24 13:29:58 - doktur_conkur: like the fagbath you are

arkansania wrote:I find the following comment very insulting. Just because of my sexual orientation I shouldn't have to put up the derogatory name calling.

2011-05-24 13:29:58 - doktur_conkur: like the fagbath you are

You shouldn't have to, more than likely the OP will get a warning for this.

arkansania is outright and brazenly lying about the situation at hand.

Please read the game chat. It starts with wogreen calling me a fagboat out of nowhere. I return fire with the same name mocking their inappropriate attitude. Later, mtatman then calls me a fagboat to which I replied with that line arkansania posted there; if you read the chatlog it is very obvious that I am replying to mtatman.

I'm the insulted and offended one here; these fratboys don't realize what kind of shit I have to put up with on a daily basis.

2011-05-23 17:18:44 - wogreen: plus the dude is acting like a complete gayboat
2011-05-24 02:40:24 - doktur_conkur: that'd be you, cyan[wogreen]
2011-05-24 02:40:26 - doktur_conkur: ya gayboat

2011-05-24 07:50:13 - mtatman: Yes, I agree to gang bang this gayboat
2011-05-24 13:29:14 - doktur_conkur: like mtatman, (...)
2011-05-24 13:29:58 - doktur_conkur: like the fagbath you are

I've only riposted to those that used these derogatory terms against me; I did not initiate this level of indecency. Nor will I sit idly by while these five goons gangrape three strangers of points they never had a chance of winning due to their collusion aka secret diplomacy.

I would like to be removed from this game with no ratings recourse on their part.

I'm not sure if the handling moderator can check game-state history so I'll state the following statistics that refer to my claim of their methodology as colluding entities:

In-group: All happened to have between 80*-95* troops at the time the truce was called. Such a small margin is suspicious in light of the state of their opponents.
arkansania
wogreen
bhoward1978
mtatman
ShivDogg

Out-group:
Eudora: 40
jarheel: 20
doktur_conkur: 160

It's quite clear that they worked the out-group members down while letting one of them rise up as a factor to justify unifying their efforts in the chatlog.

As far as suspicious gameplay, just prior to their truce being called mtatman's(pink) holdings in the lower-left corner were hugging wogreen's (cyan) continents yet he persisted in attacking undeveloped regions on my border in the upper-rigth corner; attacking into wogreen's thin defenses would have easily gained him a foothold yet he threw troops away on me for at least two full turns when no statement of intent to truce had been stated. All this while wogreen had a higher troop bonus coming.

ShivDogg is part of their group yet persists in feigning ignorance of familiarity with these players as well as false embarrassment so as to appear to create distance with them. This in itself is highly suspect.

Let's get on with this: the five guys know eachother and are dominating the spread of an 8 player game. That's essentially FIVE vs 1 vs 1 vs 1. It's not the simplest form of secret diplomacy but it's certainly within the bounds of the spirit of said infraction.

The guys seem to be on a first name basis, too, unless I'm missing some mindblowing popculture references (mac, howard). Come on, Moderator.... let me out of this trap. I don't deserve the ratings these five are going to give me for having uncovered their brand of secret diplomacy.

doktur_conkur wrote:arkansania is outright and brazenly lying about the situation at hand.

Please read the game chat. It starts with wogreen calling me a fagboat out of nowhere. I return fire with the same name mocking their inappropriate attitude. Later, mtatman then calls me a fagboat to which I replied with that line arkansania posted there; if you read the chatlog it is very obvious that I am replying to mtatman.

I'm the insulted and offended one here; these fratboys don't realize what kind of shit I have to put up with on a daily basis.

Just because YOU had bigotry thrown at you, doesn't make it right for you to throw it right back at him.

Dok, if it makes you feel any better, I'll give you a perfect rating. I'll do this b/c your temper tantrum was awesome and this plea to the admins is nothing short of hilarious.

That being said, how do I rate you and what is the best rating? I've never rated anyone, so you'll be my first. But I don't mind doing this small favor for you. This is my first step in an attempt to make you my besty. I think we're going to get to be really good pals.

xoxoxo

bhoward

TheForgivenOne wrote:

doktur_conkur wrote:arkansania is outright and brazenly lying about the situation at hand.

Please read the game chat. It starts with wogreen calling me a fagboat out of nowhere. I return fire with the same name mocking their inappropriate attitude. Later, mtatman then calls me a fagboat to which I replied with that line arkansania posted there; if you read the chatlog it is very obvious that I am replying to mtatman.

I'm the insulted and offended one here; these fratboys don't realize what kind of shit I have to put up with on a daily basis.

Just because YOU had bigotry thrown at you, doesn't make it right for you to throw it right back at him.

I returned fire because if there's anything insulting to a bigot it's the very insults they themselves find insulting enough to use against others. Right or not, I'm pissed because I'm human and I deserve that right. I shouldn't have to shut down simply because I'm being oppressed. And I certainly don't think a couple of insults should effect the fact that they are playing games together with the inherent bias for helping eachother (5 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1). Even the two players that weren't part of their in-group have now joined in two other games which they recently invited me to mock the situation because "this shit is so hilarious! let's get in on the groundfloor and play nice with our captors so all derision is aimed his way tehehee! we might even have a chance now that they're being watched and will back off of their ploy to dominate the board!" These two players might take this lightly but I don't think that makes the scenario any less unethical.

On my wall today:

by arkansania
on Fri May 27, 2011 10:31 am
what? you not want to play with us gimp?

There's also further bigoted abuse in the game chat.

2011-05-25 08:26:02 - bhoward1978: Yes Shiv, my favorite was Pulp Fiction, The Musical. We should keep the Dok as our gimp.
2011-05-25 08:29:15 - wogreen: think he knows the rusty trombone?

2011-05-23 17:18:44 - wogreen: plus the dude is acting like a complete gayboat

2011-05-24 07:50:13 - mtatman: Yes, I agree to gang bang this gayboat

2011-05-24 23:16:30 - ShivDogg: ...i will pay him to be in all our games going forward just for the laugh factor. pls. i have enough money to buy you and keep you as a pet. ...

2011-05-25 09:33:38 - arkansania: well..... He came out of the closet huh. I think the mention of the gag ball is what did it.

2011-05-25 09:54:12 - Eudora: Holy Shit guys! No wonder he wants us to gang-bang him. Lets give him a rogering that would make Richard Simmons wince.

2011-05-25 13:44:35 - arkansania: Hey doktur - wanna form an alliance?
2011-05-25 18:50:47 - Eudora: A butthole ... Alliance?

Let me reiterate that I only returned the same or similar insults to those that used them against me first. I'm very uncomfortable with these players speaking in this manner to me in addition to their further hostile and disrespectful atmosphere in the context of their arrogant and blatant monopolization of the game. (Multi-ing?)

[deleted]

Well, from what I can tell, Game Game 9001163 seems to have progressed normally. Sure, it was the same five players, but atleast to me, it doesn't seem like the other one was preyed on or preyed against in any manner, and no points were illegally taken. I've played plenty of 6,7,8 player games with 4-5 people i know without ever having a secret diplomacy. Part of the fun of any game is to play it with your friends.

More than likely, it seems like your initial comments rubbed them the wrong way, and afterwards, when you started pulling ahead, they truced against you, in a completely legitimate manner via game chat.

Generally, when you return so-called 'bigotry' with some of your own, you can't really expect them not to stick up for their buddies. Oftentimes, its best to ignore the teasing; because honestly... the only reason it kept going was because of your responses.

Most of all, always remember:
HIVE breeds HATRED

I'll leave that up to the moderator to decide. The very nature of having 5 friends playing together with outsiders means there's no need for them to actively hammer or spear into anyone suspiciously; they can whittle away at their leisure. I'm sure if we looked at their games where they played together we'd see that at least one of them won and that they were always the last 5/"x" number of players standing.

2011-05-29 09:12:42 - tennischamp5: This might be the funniest chat I've ever seen in a game log - could not stop laughing reading it; thanks for the entertainment guys :p

Do I sense some bias? I'd hate to think forum-defined Bigotry is lauded here.

doktur_conkur wrote:I'll leave that up to the moderator to decide. The very nature of having 5 friends playing together with outsiders means there's no need for them to actively hammer or spear into anyone suspiciously; they can whittle away at their leisure. I'm sure if we looked at their games where they played together we'd see that at least one of them won and that they were always the last 5/"x" number of players standing.

Why don't you actually demonstrate that instead of making unjustified assertions?

Current standings in the game:
Troops/TroopsDue
arkansania: 129/49*
bhoward1979: 63/22*
Eudora: 35/10
Jarheel: 8/4
mtatman: 76/21*
wogreen: 139/44*
Shivdogg: 85/28*
doktur_conkur: 13/4
The stats weren't much different up until their "truce" was initiated, either (mind for the "unifiying threat" theory I explained above.)
What does someone call this kind of player-loading? I don't see how these site members unaffiliated with the game that have taken the time to check in on their friends' enemy don't see this... I can't think of any analogies that do the nature of this justice...barfight, horserace, etc. It's still five players against three singles so they wouldn't even need to call for a truce due to this bias; how is this within the bounds of fair play?

Also from my prior post:

As far as suspicious gameplay, just prior to their truce being called mtatman's(pink) holdings in the lower-left corner were hugging wogreen's (cyan) continents yet he persisted in attacking undeveloped regions on my border in the upper-rigth corner; attacking into wogreen's thin defenses would have easily gained him a foothold yet he threw troops away on me for at least two full turns when no statement of intent to truce had been stated. All this while wogreen had a higher troop bonus coming.

mtatman had at least two regions alongside wogreen's yet did nothing to lower wogreen's very thin defenses yet threw his troops against my defenses on the completely opposite side of the board with no gain whatsoever as well as wogreen standing as a greater threat what with getting a larger bonus than me. The very troops mtatman was throwing away at me were the ones gained from those cross-board regions wogreen avoided attacking several times, as well. wogreen's thin defenses were at times only 1's with mtatman having a couple 7's and a 6 sitting on his border, yet he made no move against wogreen who was getting 30-some troop bonus while mtatman's bonus was in the mid-teens. mtatman was sitting on prime realestate right in the middle of the continent-set that wogreen was well-situated within yet there was no move to clear him out even when his advances developed around mtatman's holdings.

I'm sure any player that's played this board before or is mildly perceptive knows that you need to get some foothold in a corner or near one and then build outward; there's no possible way this guy(mtatman) is so unaware that he would pull that kind of two-front/cross-board maneuver without an as-yet-to-be stated truce, thus secret diplomacy.

Just because they toss up a shoddy version of justifiable aggressions doesn't mean they aren't biased and colluding. In fact, it would be rather easy to play in a way so as to not draw suspicion since they inherently monopolize the board on the drop and any move would be seen as normal and justified. By joining as five they have already made the unethical move.

The bigotry continues:

2011-05-30 14:49:47 - wogreen: should we beat you in or would you rather be sexed in?

mtatman and wogreen either have a secret diplomacy since they only have 1-against-1 borders with no stated truce or attacks against eachother...or mtatman is account sitting or a multi of wogreen's. How can I prove it? How does anyone prove it? It's all there in between the lines and their actions.

Also, no one seems interested in trucing to topple wogreen's large lead which was comparable with mine earlier.

wogreen recently removed jarheel from the game and had plenty of troops to take me out as well. In fact, he took me all the way down to 1 troop on one region even though he had enough troops to take me out completely having just cashed spoils. He has left my one region there next to a 4-troop region of ShivDogg's who's turn it is after wogreen's and before mine. This is gifting the kill of me and my spoils to another player which wogreen had well within his grasp. In-group, anyone?

doktur_conkur wrote:

2011-05-29 09:12:42 - tennischamp5: This might be the funniest chat I've ever seen in a game log - could not stop laughing reading it; thanks for the entertainment guys :p

Do I sense some bias? I'd hate to think forum-defined Bigotry is lauded here.

That was an honest statement; not meant to be any sort of bigotry. The whole chat log is blown so out of proportion that it's funny, no offense meant. Both sides are provoking each other equally. I'm completely uninvolved in this; don't know any of you, just pointing out what I see.

I see you still refuse to take my advice and stop talking in the chat. They're still only messing with you because you keep responding. Try not responding to their insults and comments, and if they're still continuing without any provoking, then you might also have a case.

Finally, if they're holding you hostage (bringing you down to one region but not killing you repeatedly), then you have a legitimate case, as that is against the cc rules.

tennischamp5 wrote:

doktur_conkur wrote:

2011-05-29 09:12:42 - tennischamp5: This might be the funniest chat I've ever seen in a game log - could not stop laughing reading it; thanks for the entertainment guys :p

Do I sense some bias? I'd hate to think forum-defined Bigotry is lauded here.

That was an honest statement; not meant to be any sort of bigotry. The whole chat log is blown so out of proportion that it's funny, no offense meant. Both sides are provoking each other equally. I'm completely uninvolved in this; don't know any of you, just pointing out what I see.

I see you still refuse to take my advice and stop talking in the chat. They're still only messing with you because you keep responding. Try not responding to their insults and comments, and if they're still continuing without any provoking, then you might also have a case.

Finally, if they're holding you hostage (bringing you down to one region but not killing you repeatedly), then you have a legitimate case, as that is against the cc rules.

I didn't state that you said anything bigoted but you clearly found levity in it. I recognize your advice but the damage was done when their intentions were aligned which might very well have taken place before the game even started.

I'm clearly being harrassed/flamed now with wogreen making statements in the gamechat about *me* being the one making some sort of secret alliances as well as arkansania going out of his way to state the same message in my other active games. The latter has also sent three invites to date for games with players in his circle of friends; this is getting to be too much.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=9077661
2011-05-31 14:23:34 - arkansania: I think we should consider trcuing against grey. he talks way to much
2011-05-31 14:23:46 - arkansania: viewtopic.php?t=145845

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=9104705
2011-05-31 14:20:50 - arkansania: docktur conkur is trying to form a secret alliance against you luc.
2011-05-31 14:21:10 - arkansania: you'd better het albcota on your side and take him out
2011-05-31 14:40:47 - arkansania: viewtopic.php?t=145845

arkansania has also sent three invites to date for games with players in his circle of friends; this is getting to be too much.

Let's keep this on topic, to the point and keep the mudslinging to a minimum - there are other forums to do that in...
Otherwise it will be locked until the C&A team figure it out...

Agreed. If there is any editing for reading's sake just let me know what I can do.

really? pot meet kettle..

You can say what you want and try to twist the situation anyway you want but the game log and chat log speak for themselves.

It was clear you were the troop leader and ponying up your "tactical" advice on others turns in the open, like you were an expert. That tends to rub some the wrong way, and can get undue attention on yourself. The game chat area is just as much a territory to be won as the ones on the map. You lost that bonus in a big way by running your mouth and pissing people off.

Sure teal offered up the first prize in chat with saying you were acting like a gayboat, but only after you accused them of SD, and after he said that you said plenty in return in your rebuttals. (1 example being "raping each other's backsides") You continue on throughout the game...
If you cant take the heat get your ass out of the kitchen.. Calling names to someone else and then running to the forums to cry about how you were wronged by someone "flaming" you shows nothing but your ass.

You had a stronghold on the game and expected it to turn out one way only to see it crushed by others joining forces against you. It happens to everyone, should be used as a learning experience. Don’t get too strong too fast or use the game chat area to draw attention to others so you can grow in strength. As far as flaming, all of you had colorful words to say, and I do thank you cause that was an enjoyable 10 minutes of laughter reading that game chat, but best bet for you all is to FOE & RATE ACCORDINGLY & MOVE ON.

Unless you can find other games in which these friends were aligning themselves together for the good of one another then you have no case here. They made a clear alliance in open chat, and just because they are RL friends doesn’t make it any less justifiable. And the name calling, really, your just as guilty if not more so for that. I suggest you FAMO.

KS

king sam wrote:really? pot meet kettle..

You can say what you want and try to twist the situation anyway you want but the game log and chat log speak for themselves.

It was clear you were the troop leader and ponying up your "tactical" advice on others turns in the open, like you were an expert. That tends to rub some the wrong way, and can get undue attention on yourself. The game chat area is just as much a territory to be won as the ones on the map. You lost that bonus in a big way by running your mouth and pissing people off.

Sure teal offered up the first prize in chat with saying you were acting like a gayboat, but only after you accused them of SD, and after he said that you said plenty in return in your rebuttals. (1 example being "raping each other's backsides") You continue on throughout the game...
If you cant take the heat get your ass out of the kitchen.. Calling names to someone else and then running to the forums to cry about how you were wronged by someone "flaming" you shows nothing but your ass.

You had a stronghold on the game and expected it to turn out one way only to see it crushed by others joining forces against you. It happens to everyone, should be used as a learning experience. Don’t get too strong too fast or use the game chat area to draw attention to others so you can grow in strength. As far as flaming, all of you had colorful words to say, and I do thank you cause that was an enjoyable 10 minutes of laughter reading that game chat, but best bet for you all is to FOE & RATE ACCORDINGLY & MOVE ON.

Unless you can find other games in which these friends were aligning themselves together for the good of one another then you have no case here. They made a clear alliance in open chat, and just because they are RL friends doesn’t make it any less justifiable. And the name calling, really, your just as guilty if not more so for that. I suggest you FAMO.

KS

Thanks.

Supposedly "inflaming pseudo-expert advice" is one thing but when it turns out the moves I was commenting on were directly related to uncovering a multi/accountsitter and collusive gang-playing I shouldn't have to pay for it by suffering the one-star ratings of five players.

Abusive language is also another thing but when people are tossing around the equivalent of 'nigger' and 'spic' and 'gook' and you're on the other end of it? Not good. That's why there's a definition for Bigotry in this forum. Returning "regular abusive language" is, as you've pointed out, within the bounds of fairplay and shouldn't discount the weight of their Bigotry and charges of Cheating.

And no, the game-log doesn't speak for itself. You can't possibly get a picture of the board from only looking at who hit whom. (I'm hoping the admins can roll back visual representations of game states turn by turn.)

doktur_conkur wrote:Supposedly "inflaming pseudo-expert advice" is one thing but when it turns out the moves I was commenting on were directly related to uncovering a multi/accountsitter and collusive gang-playing I shouldn't have to pay for it by suffering the zero-star ratings of five players.

Abusive language is also another thing but when people are tossing around the equivalent of 'nigger' and 'spic' and 'gook' and you're on the other end of it? Not good. That's why there's a definition for Bigotry in this forum. Returning "regular abusive language" is, as you've pointed out, within the bounds of fairplay and shouldn't discount the weight of their Bigotry and charges of Cheating.

And no, the game-log doesn't speak for itself. You can't possibly get a picture of the board from only looking at who hit whom. (I'm hoping the admins can roll back visual representations of game states turn by turn.)

A. You havent uncovered anything. You want to believe these accounts are multi/account sitter abuse, and you may even get lucky with it, but you were given no reason to think this from this game. You were the leader in the game and the rest of the group made an alliance against you. You found out they were real life friends and assumed the rest.

B. Pinpoint to me what you claim as bigotry in that chat.. there was nothing close to being equivalent to what you referenced.. and your "returning of abusive language" doesnt make you any less guilty of doing it. You still typed it in, just because Sally-Jo threw mud at you first doenst make it right for you to put a firecracker in her big wheel or throw mud at her back.

C. Game log does speak for itself, you just have to be smart enough to read it.

2011-05-23 17:12:01 - bhoward1978: everyone should probably take a look at the doktur, he needs to be assaulted from all sides or we're all screwed

That was round 10.
Round 10 imprint looked like this:
Blue 31 regions troop deployment of 11
Yellow 18 regions troop deployment of 6
Pink 52 regions troop deployment of 18
Teal 43 regions troop deployment of 23
Orange 45 regions troop deployment of 22
You 55 regions troop deployment of 30
Red 36 regions troop deployment of 18
Green 38 regions troop deployment of 22

and you only got attacked 3 times in that round.. in round 11 when people started to pay attention to you and attack you a little more, but you still got 30 troops that turn, more then anyone else, even with 3 players in front of you hitting bonuses you owned.

You were growing in strength while everyone else was fighting to keep up, it was noticed in chat and an alliance was announced. This is how it goes.
You were then an arrogant ass and shined the light on you even more by your chat antics. The rest of the players grew smart to your strength and didnt care for your banter and aligned to weaken you. Words were exchanged, 1st one being someone using the word "gayboat" (South Park reference, and not likely a bigotory term) and you then went down the same road with your words you exhanged and even over the top of that one. You got your feelings hurt cause you werent going to win the game and came and made a claim in here. So now everyone gets to see it, but bottom line out of all of it, there was no cheating that went on. Your wrong, so Foe & Move on.
Next time watch what you say in chat, play knowing that growing to be the top dog can get you attention that you may not want.

Just cause these guys are real life friends doesnt make them aligning against you wrong. They had a good reason, and you continued to give them more reasons by the game chat. They may or may not be multi's, you may get lucky.. but I doubt it. Foe them, move on and learn from this experience.

KS

Are these five real-life friends?

If so, then I am 100% behind the OP on this. I absolutely detest this kind of thing...it is the height of disrespect to one's opposition and if there is any REAL evidence at all (realistically we will need to see more than one game's worth of collusion) then they will eventually find themselves blocked from playing in the same game.

Just cause these guys are real life friends doesnt make them aligning against you wrong. They had a good reason, and you continued to give them more reasons by the game chat. They may or may not be multi's, you may get lucky.. but I doubt it. Foe them, move on and learn from this experience.

Sorry old chap, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. If you were presented with say 10 games of this kind of thing you would leap for the banstick (I know, I know...you aren't a mod anymore). You see one game, poorly presented by the OP, and basically say "Hey, their play is completely legitimate."

I quite agree that in this case nothing can and will be done. But the OP may well get his revenge in the end. Anymore public games together (and FIVE friends in a standard 8 man is fucking ridiculous) and he won't be the only one calling for some action.