Conquer Club

Accused:

radioman212
danhulbert
MD212
nhulbert



The accused are suspected of:


Conducting Secret Diplomacy




Game number(s):

Game 9482563



Comments & evidences:

I want to prove secret diplomacy in Game 9482563between team3 and team 4. I uploaded 22 pictures that in my opinion show existance of secret diplomacy . Below are pictures.
Pictures starting with round 6, just after mine (red)elimination. I was trying to take Alsace (+2 bonus), team 4 eliminated me, so I could not. Right after mine elimination,teal from team3 takes Alsace(+2). After teal took Alsace(+2) team4 did not show any more interest in Alasace and started(team4) to prevent team2 from getting their+2 bonus on Brittany....described in pictures...
The last picture is from round 18, where team3 holds 2 bonuses. It would be just too much work for me to take screen pictures of all 50 rounds, because I belive posted pictures shuld be enough to confirm or reject my suspicions. I left a short comments in right bottom corner of almost every picture, that roughly explains where from my suspicions are coming.

In the end none of the teams accused of secret diplomacy won, because "2011-09-28 22:32:00 - nhulbert was kicked out for missing too many turns" in round 33. At that time nhulbert in team4 was holding Alsace (+2) bonus.

I would like to ask Cheating/Abuse Team, to confirm or reject my suspicions.

**about the chat that public can see in Game 9482563...
At 2011-08-20 09:22:10 green player asks a question all teams can see. I remember well, how danhulbert answered with something like that: "We (danhulbert,nhulbert) are brothers , our similar nickname prove that we have nothing to hide. We will fight each other till the end."
Now, as I am writing this, I just cannot find that line on chat anymore. Somebody was editing the chat , to hide evidence! soo not fair, soo not fair.......
I have the whole original chat of Game 9482563 saved.
EDIT1: I wasnt able to see the chat because I had player danhulbert fued at that time. No one was editing the chat.

**About me accusing these players
danhulbert send me lots of PM's , telling me how unfair it was from me to left him a secret diplomacy tag at the end of the game and how I offended him with raiting I left. He wanted me to show him where I saw secret diplomacy in game, so he can prove me wrong. I dont have time to discuss it [write long PMs] with him, I let you decide. He eather does not want to admit it, or just does not know what secret diplomacy is. He provoked me to write this.

EDIT2:Main evidece can be found by answering on this question:
Why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

long story short (for those who did not take 30min and study pictures)...
Team4 and team3 together eliminate me(red) in round6, because I was few moves away from taking Alsace(+2 bonus)(can be seen in log first 6 rounds).Then team3 takes Alsace. Looks like team4 is satisfied by team3 holding Alsace(+2), because they focus on team2 that is trying to have a +2 bonus in Brittany. Team4 deploys reinfocements mainly on only region (Finistiere)they hold in Brittany(+2), just to prevent team2 from having a bonus there . Finistere is on the other side of the map, far away from where team's4 main army is. But team4 does nothing to prevent team3 from having Alsace(+2) (picture 10).Even more, Team4 helps team3 to eliminate blue and green out of Burgundy(picture 12) and Alps(picture(6)). At the end ( picture 18), team4 is fine with team3 holding two bonuses(from round 16 on, see log) Picardy+3 and Alsace+2, but on the other side team4 was fighting relentlessly to prevent team1 and team2 from having one bonus.
picture 1

picture 2

picture 3

picture 4

picture 5

picture 6

picture 7

picture 8

picture 9

picture 10

picture 11

picture 12

picture 13

picture 14

picture 15

picture 16

picture 17

picture 18

picture 19

picture 20

picture 21

picture 22

thank you, Kostko, for posting this.

I am afraid your perspective is rather skewed in your logic above . . . I would be happy to address every statement you make . . .

First, you mentioned editing chat and as far as I know there is no way to delete a chat once it is entered.the best move under the circumstances . . .

#1 why would team 4 sacrifice for team 3 to win? What is the point? Who would do that? You thought team 4 was in position to attack team 3 and should have but the bottom line is they were weak and could not afford to be an aggressor.

#2 You say picture 19 proves 100% of secret diplomacy . . . the fact is that we were not scared of gray because we had him vastly outnumbered and would be able to take him out if he made a move on us . . . on the other hand, there is green collecting 3 every turn unchallenged and we were the only team in position to deal with you before you became a real threat . . . note you eventually built to 31 when left alone . . .
#3 Team 4 was in Britanny because they wanted to keep a foothold in order to eventually win the game rather than be the sitting duck they were by hanging out in the middle.

#4 you mention at 1 point I attacked them in Oise and took a bunch off but that it proves nothing because they eventually get out of my way and give me Picardy . . . again, they could see I was stronger and were avoiding the eventual loss of all armies at my hand . . .

The bottom line is that you saw my brother and I had the same name and thought we were working together . . . everything you saw was framed from that perspective . . . a cheater is not going to use the same last name on 2 teams. . . it just makes no sense.

Admin guy . . . if you can see our private chat, please look at it . . . if not I would be glad to post it and get the other teams chat from my brother . . .

man how many times are these guys going to be accused of s/d

I think the biggest crime here is people can't come up with better player names than their actual names. This internet thing isn't new folks

about the chat in Game 9482563
check out chat at 2011-08-20 09:22:10, than compare next few lines with your saved chat, danhulbert. You will be able to confirm, that there are three of your commets missing, danhulbert. Belive me, somebody has rights to edit everything here, even your mail on CC . And that sombody isnt me or you danhulbert.

My secret diplomacy accusation is not based on you two having similar names (danhulbert & nhulbert) . I never said that. That is not good enough argument to accuse anyone of secret diplomacy. So, I would like to ask all players that did not take at least 30 min of their time to study my posted pictures , not to comment here.My accusation is based on pictures I posted above.And you need to look at them as a whole story.

long story short (for those who did not take 30min and study pictures)...
Team4 and team3 together eliminate me, because I was few moves away from taking Alsace(+2 bonus)(can be seen in log first 6 rounds).Then team3 takes Alsace. Looks like team4 is satisfied by team3 holding Alsace(+2), because they focus on team2 that is trying to have a +2 bonus in Brittany. Team4 deploys reinfocements mainly on only region (Finistiere)they hold in Brittany(+2), just to prevent team2 from having a bonus there . Finistere is on the other side of the map, far away from where team's4 main army is. But team4 does nothing to prevent team3 from having Alsace(+2) (picture 10).Even more, Team4 helps team3 to eliminate blue and green out of Burgundy(picture 13). At the end( picture 18), team4 is fine with team3 holding two bonuses Picardy+3 and Alsace+2, but on the other side team4 was fighting relentlessly to prevent team1 and team2 from having one bonus.


Secred diplomacy is hard to prove. This accustaion is based on everything else, but nhulbert and danHulbert having a similar name. At least read the last line of a chat in this game. Looks like I am not the only one who thinks team3 and team4 were playing quads. I hope that this comment will not delete itself suddenly .

**Answers to danhulbert's reply above.


#1 Team4 sacrificed for team3 to hold better position(picture 22), so team3 could win at the end. Team4 was just a little weaker than team3 because team4 spend lots of reinforcemet on preventing team2 to get bonus on Finistere (Brittany+2). Team4 was also weaker than team2, but that did not stop them from attacking blue in Brittany. So why did, that they were a little weaker from team3 , stop them from attacking Alsace (near where team4 had mjority of all its army), after they spent lots army to prevent me(red) from having it? There is only one answer, team3 helped team4 to get Alsace.

#2 Sure you were not afraid of gray, because he spend all army preventing team2 to get bonus. Because you guys played together. Secret diplomacy, what else.. My color was red in Game 9482563, so dont apply to me as "you" when you are talking about the green player.

#3 Team4 was spending army in Finistere, so they could have an excuse for not attacking team3 on Alsace. Secret diplomacy would be too obvious, if grey was stacking his army near Alsace and not attacking it. Team4 was also weak in Brittany, had no chance taking it, as it can be seen in picture15. But that did not make them hasitate to place&spent reinforcements there.

4# Sure you were stronger(team3), because team4 let you have the bonus and team4 spend all army preventing team2 to get bonus and at the same time protected team3 from loosing one. Team4 also helped team3 to eliminate blue and green player from Burgundy (picture13). Ofcourse grey did get out of your way in Picardy, because you guys played together. And it would be a big no no, to not let an ally have a bonus.


Admit that team3 and team4 played together, danhulber. You will only get warned. Next time play quads with your friends.

And the award for most detailed attempt at proving SD goes to .... kostko. Wow man. This must have taken FOREVER to compile.

Please, for the love of god, put the pictures in spoilers!

wow this is the most detailed report i have ever seen. nice kostko i may not post a lot but i am always reading. i am thinkinh there might be SD here but that is not for to decide

if he foed them, their chat disappears... so, it is possible he can't see the chat now due to his foeing them...-el Jesus negro

Uh yes, my apologies. I had danhulber foed and now when I unfoed him I can see those lines. Looks like no one was editing the chat. owenshooter, thank you for bringing that up. Again, I apologie if anyone with rights on editing game chats had any inconvenience with this.

Just the fact that they are brothers (admitted by the two) can conduct to SD even if they don't say it out loud...

like thinking to myself: «humm.... I got two options here, 1- attack someone I doesn't know.... 2- attack my brothers team... » I would kill the someone I doesn't know, because even if I loose, my points are going to my brothers, which is not bad.

That's a reason why I never played against my brother! (he also used to play on conquer... sadly he stop)

Maybe they don't SD, but I suggest they stop playing multi teams games while playing against. Just to be sure they don't SD!

And kostko... full detail case, long and hard to do lol

QuikSilver,

I see your point but I see no reason for ever shying away from playing against my brother in situations like this because SD will not only never be proven, it will never exist. Neither of us really cares about our points and I just do not care if my brother or anyone else gets the points for a win.

As a matter of fact, I pay to be on this site and there are certain types of scenarios I like to play and it just so happens I like playing with and against my brother(and other close friends). And as I stated in the chat, we tend to unnecessarily hammer on each other in games because we respect each others game.

The bottom line is that because we use our real names in our SN it brought the fact that we know each other to someones attention . . . that mere fact caused Kostko to view the whole game in a biased light . . . and I think it is ironic that our general sense of honesty caused the issue . . . The real cheaters are actually out there and everyone is playing against them but they are far more subtle than loudly announcing with their SN that they know someone on another team. . .

Dan

wtf, this guy's petition should be granted only because of the effort.

you as brothers as a courtesy should play on the same team or avoid playing others in team games where you are on separate teams,that would be courteous to others unless you want everyone you play against to say SD against you if you are not equally attacking each other,The fact that you play each other frequently or with each other says you know each others playing style and your weakness's which should be the first reason you never join as opposing teams unless you plan to wipe everyone else out first,then settle the matter between you,as a sibling there is always rivalry and there is also one's instinct to help your sibling. If one or the other of you is losing instinct would be to ensure the other wins therefore a somewhat win yourself.Joining the same games on opposite teams seems like a bad idea. The other option is to get your friends that you stated you play with together and have at it PRIVATELY, just my opinion and I might be wrong who's to say.

yup really lame; being brothers you should either play in the same team, in 2vs2 or in quads if you both really wanted your partners in. 2 brother teams vs 2 unrelated team does sound like secret diplomacy to me.
the worse thing is that you guys still managed to lose!

jgordon1111 wrote:you as brothers as a courtesy should play on the same team or avoid playing others in team games where you are on separate teams,that would be courteous to others unless you want everyone you play against to say SD against you if you are not equally attacking each other,The fact that you play each other frequently or with each other says you know each others playing style and your weakness's which should be the first reason you never join as opposing teams unless you plan to wipe everyone else out first,then settle the matter between you,as a sibling there is always rivalry and there is also one's instinct to help your sibling. If one or the other of you is losing instinct would be to ensure the other wins therefore a somewhat win yourself.Joining the same games on opposite teams seems like a bad idea. The other option is to get your friends that you stated you play with together and have at it PRIVATELY, just my opinion and I might be wrong who's to say.

Highly disagree with the bolded part. This is exactly what they SHOULD NOT do.

nietzsche wrote:wtf, this guy's petition should be granted only because of the effort.

x2

kostko wrote:**Answers to danhulbert's reply above.


Admit that team3 and team4 played together, danhulber. You will only get warned. Next time play quads with your friends.

Kostko,

Sorry, I thought this whole time that you were the green guy . . .

There is obviously no way to convince you of our innocence no matter how long this is discussed . . . I have done everything I can to convince you otherwise including giving you all of the private chat from BOTH teams.

The reality is that I know what happened and you do not.

You can try to get me to admit SD for a thousand years and I will never do it because it did not happen.

You mentioned you were a freemium and that is why you have not accepted my recent game invites.

If I gifted you premium, would you consider playing enough games with me to get a better idea that I am just not a person who is dishonest.

My friends, family and I have absolutely nothing to hide and I am sure if you got to know us you would come to realize that.

Thanks,
Dan

betiko wrote:yup really lame; being brothers you should either play in the same team, in 2vs2 or in quads if you both really wanted your partners in. 2 brother teams vs 2 unrelated team does sound like secret diplomacy to me.
the worse thing is that you guys still managed to lose!

You people who base judgements on your cynical thoughts and feelings are what is really lame.

Perhaps this is a statement on the world we live in that it is impossible to believe people who know each other and are playing on opposite teams can play unbiased and to win.

This is an online game we are talking about here . . . Not local politics or business or anything where there is anything tangible on the line . . . no money, no power, nothing.

Kostko was making the argument that 1 team was clearly sacrificing themselves so that my team could win . . . HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? under your 'rules' then in order to accomplish the same thing, all they had to do was join the other team in quads and hand us the game. . . . BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

You say '2 brother teams vs 2 unrelated team ' sounds like secret diplomacy . . . no it doesn't . . . it sounds like an area where you might find cheaters.

Bottom line . . . cheaters will find a way to cheat no matter what games they play in . . . I am not one of them so I will play the types of games that I want to play.

And you are correct. we are good players. . . if we were cheating, we would not have lost the game. Period.

danhulbert wrote:

kostko wrote:**Answers to danhulbert's reply above.


Admit that team3 and team4 played together, danhulber. You will only get warned. Next time play quads with your friends.

Kostko,

Sorry, I thought this whole time that you were the green guy . . .

There is obviously no way to convince you of our innocence no matter how long this is discussed . . . I have done everything I can to convince you otherwise including giving you all of the private chat from BOTH teams.

The reality is that I know what happened and you do not.

You can try to get me to admit SD for a thousand years and I will never do it because it did not happen.

You mentioned you were a freemium and that is why you have not accepted my recent game invites.

If I gifted you premium, would you consider playing enough games with me to get a better idea that I am just not a person who is dishonest.

My friends, family and I have absolutely nothing to hide and I am sure if you got to know us you would come to realize that.

Thanks,
Dan

I'll play games with you and admit you aren't the kind of person who is dishonest if you gift me premium.

*reply on danhulbert's 2 posts above

Copy&Pasting the inside chat of one(team3) or other team(4) cannot prove or eliminate existance of secret diplomacy. Because players from different teams are not participating in the same chat. So, dont go saying how you did everything you could to convince me, because giving me an inside chat of team3 &team4 can not prove anything.

Also, the explanation of your moves in one of your previous posts was kind of poor. Grey(team4) player (nhulber) was allways somehow too weak to make an attack on Alsace team3 hold. Look at Picture 4, grey had 25army(in total) and teal(team3) had 26, how weaker is that? (Ofcorse gray became weaker with time, because team4 did not hold any bonus and team3 did.) In moves after(from picture 4 on) orange(team4) began spending army on blue in Alps. For what? Why was orange(team4) spending army on blue(team2) in Alps, if teal(team3) was holding the Alsace(+2 bonus). If team4 really wanted to take Brittany(+2) bonus, why did not at that time orange deploy on Finistere (Picture 6)? why did he(orange) spent his army on blue in Alps +4 bouns, when he could deploy on Finistere and increase chance of getting Brittany(+2) ? Was he(orange ) trying to protect team3's bonus (Alsace) from team2? He(orange) was obviously not trying to take Alps +4 bonus or take a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

I have a feeling that I am trying to prove secret diplomacy to the wrong guy here. Because danhulbert(pink) was more of a passive guy in this game. It would be nice, if we could have orange player MD212 or nhulbert(grey) here to drop some lines of explanation on their move described above, that I have hard time to understand. After all, team4 was fighting for team3 to have benefits. It might be MD212(team4) and radioman212(team3)who had it all planned up and are now hiding in the rear. And I am now accusing poor innocent danhulbert of secret diplomacy. Strange, how danhulbert does not know anything about their secret plans, since they are all good friends and talk alot.
danhulbert metions one time in PM to me, that players in team3& team4 are all good real life friends.
danhulbert PM to me(copy&paste): ". . . in reality, we are good friends and talk all of the time . . . "

Its also unbelivable how well coordinated team3 and team4 were when they eliminated me(red) in round 4,5,6. It really does not give me a feeling that team3 &4 were beeing unbiased as you say, danhulbert.

Can someone from cheat&abuse team please write down the definition of secret diplomacy. And please explain why it is better to play 4vs4 instead 2vs2vs2vs2 , when there are 4 players in the game that are good friends in real life? (It Seems to me jgordon1111 already did explain it, but I dont know if danhulbert doesn't understand, or is he just acting like he does not)

danhulbert wrote:if we were cheating, we would not have lost the game.

You guys team3&4 intentionally lost that game after players in the Game 9482563 became suspicious:
2011-10-14 20:25:55 - Red Truck: Hummm, weird game
2011-08-20 09:22:10 - siddify: Teal, I'm curious why you're so worried about my single stack when you've got grey stacking up against your bonus... Is there some secret diplomacy going on?
You danhulbert are smart enough to know when it is enough and that secret diplomacy will be harder to prove, if you guys lose. This is exactly why gray(nhulbert) in round 33 left the game."2011-09-28 22:32:00 - nhulbert was kicked out for missing too many turns". And exactly why you(danhulbert)missed a turn, "2011-09-04 13:48:11 - danhulbert missed a turn" in round 19 so yellow was able to eliminate you (see log). You(danhulbert) had that bonus +3 Picardy already in round 16(see in log file) and not in 18 as round 16 picture is missing. You saw team3 had two bonuses and team4 was fighting hard to prevent team1&team2 to have at least one bonus . Green player was already asking something about secret diplomacy. Leaving the game by missing turns was a good choise, because you knew secret diplomacy with team4 would become too obvious, if you stayed in the game.

danhulbert wrote:The reality is that I know what happened and you do not.

The reality is that you and I both know what happened(pictures....) and you do not want to admit it.

danhulbert wrote:Kostko was making the argument that 1 team was clearly sacrificing themselves so that my team could win . . . HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? under your 'rules' then in order to accomplish the same thing, all they had to do was join the other team in quads and hand us the game. . . . BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?

If you guys(4 frineds in same team) played quads 4vs4, than that would not be called secret diplomacy. This is why everybody would do that (play quads).
Did he indirectly just admit secret diplomacy?

betiko wrote: 2 brother teams vs 2 unrelated team does sound like secret diplomacy to me.

danhulbert wrote:'2 brother teams vs 2 unrelated team ' sounds like secret diplomacy . . . no it doesn't . . . it sounds like an area where you might find cheaters.

Oh yes, I truly agree with both statements . 2vs2vs2vs2 games are definitly a good place to find cheaters that practice secret diplomacy.

danhulbert wrote:If I gifted you premium, would you consider playing enough games with me to get a better idea that I am just not a person who is dishonest.

I know its christmas, time of giving, but please danhulbert, do not buy me premium. I belive you guys want me to play with me again, just to return me a favour of bad raiting I left you at the end of Game 9482563. I dont want to play with you guys again.
And it was not smart to write that about free premium, you might expect some players to deliberatly give you bad raiting and then blackmail you to buy them premium in return of deliting bad raiting they left.

In my opinion there was secret diplomacy involved in this game, if you like it or not, if you admit it or not, if c&a team confirms it or not. There is no way team3 could get and hold two bonuses (Alsace & Picardy) in round 16 without the help of team4. And I posted pictures to prove it. I am shure you guys would go all the way(not quit like you did) and winn, if green player did not warn you with his suspicions in chat at round12.

EDIT: players, please dont write comments that are not contributing to the discussed subject, like chapcrap(above) did. I believe there is enough text to read already.

I will see if any of the other guys will come and give their 2 cents but I can tell you now that they will agree with me.

I was the one calling the shots for my team in this particular game and secret conversations with another team was not part of the agenda.

Your judgements and decisions are all based on feelings rather than logic. You are presented with facts and are coming to conclusions that are just not warranted .

#1 Perception: You are saying one team was sacrificing themselves for my team to win . . .
Reality: This goes againt human nature and many thousands of years of human interaction . . . it just does not make sense.

#2 Perception: You say nhulbert dropped out after we were called out to prevent us from getting caught
Reality: That was one of the last games he played, missed many turns in games after that and is NOT currently playing in any games . . . (Does this mean we are the same person? . . . Ha Ha . . . No)

#3 Perception: You say I am inviting you to play games because I am going to "get even" and give you a bad rating
Reality: You choose not to see the mountain of evidence to the contrary, including a myriad of messages and otherwise uniformly positive ratings. It is beyond me to even understand a person who would pay the $25 to gift premium membership so that they could turn around and pass on a bad rating . . . again, is this really what logic is telling you? If I really wanted to do it, I would have done it already.

#4 Perception: You are "concerned" I will be blackmailed into gifting others premium
Reality: I don't care about the bad rating as much as the fact you think I am a cheater and a liar. The rating is just a reflection of that. I would laugh at someone who tried that.

#5 Perception: There is no way team3 could get and hold two bonuses (Alsace & Picardy) in round 16 without the help of team4
Reality: We took both countries because we played better than you and better than my friends on team 4. Radioman212 took you down and I built an army in the other in order to eventually take it. Team 4 moved out of there because(as you pointed out in your pictures) I was attacking them and they could see that they would be wiped out by me if they did not move out of my way.

And regarding the rating you gave me, do you really think I have a bad attitude? Can't you at least give me that? Please?

agent the part you highlighted was sarcasm on my behalf.Not me saying that is what they should do lol. And I stick to what I have said to the brothers play together or play privately as a courtesy to others,then you would never have to explain or even worry about this coming up again. On a note from the same page just how many times have you guys been accused of SD or being multi's in the last year alone? 3,4 0r 5. If it was me I would be tired of it and adjust my play because of that alone. Just my opinion I may be wrong

You are right jgordon1111. agentcom must read your post to quickly and did not understand it correctly. Do stop adding "I may be wrong" at the end of your posts, because you are not.