Conquer Club

Accused:

vodean
x-raider


The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy



Game number(s):

Game 11415217

Comments: Conducting diplomacy in live chat, carving up territories and talking about deceiving their opponents. What is said in live chat reveals far more than what is said in game chat...






2012-07-22 09:45:51 - farinelli: Have a good game.
2012-07-23 01:21:47 - x-raider: GG and GL
2012-07-27 09:35:55 - x-raider: aba for x-raider
2012-07-29 00:40:16 - x-raider: Vodean: Alliance...
2012-07-29 07:50:08 - x-raider: or truce in (see mini-map: Dark gray, green, red areas)
2012-07-29 07:54:22 - vodean: sure

actually, check out game chat.

2012-07-22 18:45:51 - farinelli: Have a good game.
2012-07-23 10:21:47 - x-raider: GG and GL
2012-07-27 18:35:55 - x-raider: aba for x-raider
2012-07-29 09:40:16 - x-raider: Vodean: Alliance...
2012-07-29 16:50:08 - x-raider: or truce in (see mini-map: Dark gray, green, red areas)
2012-07-29 16:54:22 - vodean: sure
2012-07-29 17:01:05 - vodean: i will take osterreich though

4 minutes before that was posted (so NOT to correct the mistake based on this report), i added the rest of the conversation as it was concluded.

07:57:52 ‹x-raider› the only the thing that's dodgy is that anyone trying to work out what you took won't know that ostereich was part of our agreement
07:58:02 ‹vodean› yes
07:58:08 ‹vodean› but that is too bad for them

07:59:05 ‹Dibbun› how is it not secret diplomacy?

2012-07-29 08:01:05 - vodean: i will take osterreich though

You only posted about Osterreich after and as a result of me bringing up the secret diplomacy issue.

dont misquote.
the chat read

16:57:52 ‹x-raider› the only the thing that's dodgy is that anyone trying to work out what you took won't know that ostereich was part of our agreement
16:58:02 ‹vodean› yes
16:58:08 ‹vodean› but that is too bad for them
16:58:19 ‹vodean› its not secret diplomacy
16:58:21 ‹vodean› so its fine
16:58:22 * maxfaraday joins Social
16:59:05 ‹Dibbun› how is it not secret diplomacy?

i brought the secret diplomacy issue up. then when two others commented, i fixed it. then you decided to post this thread. so no. this is not secret diplomacy, because everything relevant is in game chat.

You're talking about troop stacks, cannons, and bonuses, with zero intention of posting these things in game chat. Go play a doubles game, otherwise enjoy your warn because this is undoubtedly diplomacy and unquestionably secret.

im assuming you are talking about the part where i am trying to tell him where to look. but he resolved that in game chat with this: 2012-07-29 16:50:08 - x-raider: or truce in (see mini-map: Dark gray, green, red areas).
i assented, and posted the exception.
thats all we discussed (other than that the truce would hold everywhere else), and so everything is posted. so this is definitely NOT secret. it is diplomacy. but its perfectly public

Dibbun... please, you post way too many C & A reports... just give it a rest. This is not secret diplomacy...

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dibbun... please, you post way too many C & A reports... just give it a rest. This is not secret diplomacy...

can we post a C&A report about him spamming up C&A?

vodean wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dibbun... please, you post way too many C & A reports... just give it a rest. This is not secret diplomacy...

can we post a C&A report about him spamming up C&A?

Spuriousness is the word that comes to mind.

Jdizzle can you gtfo my threads? You add nothing and have a very obvious agenda.

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.

07:52:23 in live chat, "@vodean you mean cut through yellow into osterreich"

That sure sounds like coordinating an assault to me.

07:53:14 in live chat, talking about specifically what bonuses each player would keep, and about whether osterreich was on the table.

And of course x-raider knew that deception was occurring, that people would not know that osterreich was part of the agreement, since by utilizing diplomacy secretly in live chat instead of game chat those in the game would not know precisely what the "alliance" entailed. Essentially you have a 2v1v1 game.

I would once again pull up the dictionary definition of spurious but why bother? Not like you're literate anyway sizzle.

Dibbun wrote:Jdizzle can you gtfo my threads? You add nothing and have a very obvious agenda.

I would once again pull up the dictionary definition of spurious but why bother? Not like you're literate anyway sizzle.

What would my agenda be? Lol. To prove you are 12, which you have already done yourself? No need. I'm just stating the obvious... This isn't secret diplomacy.

And I'm illiterate? Wow.

I don't think this is secret diplomacy.
Once they announce they're allied, why would they share info with their opponents?
I mean, do you say "next turn I will take this territory" when you play?

Their opponents knew they were allies, therefore they knew they were working together.

Besides, it was foggy, so they could have been lying.

I just can't be bothered to post anything here. Why anyone else would be is beyond me.
Please, Dibbun. Give it a break.

All i'll say is in LC: I did express my concern and vodean re-assured that there shouldn't be an issue. We were discussing that when you popped up and decided to send it here.

Ok, guess I was bothered to post.

maxfaraday wrote:I don't think this is secret diplomacy.
Once they announce they're allied, why would they share info with their opponents?
I mean, do you say "next turn I will take this territory" when you play?

Their opponents knew they were allies, therefore they knew they were working together.

Besides, it was foggy, so they could have been lying.

Thanks Max, but I don't think it's necessary. I think it'll just stir things more

Lol holy shit it's like explaining things to 4 year olds.


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.

I am certain that this is secret diplomacy. If you want to throw a tantrum and say "NUH UH!" then good luck with that. If you have some logic to back it up (hint: use precedent or quote the rule on secret diplomacy) then come get some. Lolol noobs.

One more point to clear up. I had realized that turn that I wanted to truce and I announced it in game chat and just wanted to wait to see if vodean would accept. Then I saw vodean in LC, so I pointed them to the game. We discussed the terms of the agreement in LC and then posted the information in game chat. END OF STORY

Dibbun wrote:Lol holy shit it's like explaining things to 4 year olds.

Excuse me. I used to be a 4 year old and I'm deeply offended.

x-raider wrote:One more point to clear up. I had realized that turn that I wanted to truce and I announced it in game chat and just wanted to wait to see if vodean would accept. Then I saw vodean in LC, so I pointed them to the game. We discussed the terms of the agreement in LC and then posted the information in game chat. END OF STORY

There are a LOT of details in live chat that never made it to game chat. EVERYTHING you said about that game, about bonuses, cannons, specific territories and attacking specific enemies should have been in GAME CHAT and not LIVE CHAT. If you don't understand that then a moderator will help you understand.

I have to say, reading the written definition does prove it was secret diplomacy, but I have to say that vodean and raider did end up posting for an alliance in the game and I think that should clear it up. The details that were discussed in LC instead of game chat could be bad, but if they really wanted to keep the plans a secret and KNEW that it would come this far, I think they have the brains to either take it to PMing or take it to the game, dont you think? I mean right now you have caught these two doing something that they obviously didnt think broke the rule, so I dont think this will get too far. A warning probably.

Dibbun wrote:

x-raider wrote:One more point to clear up. I had realized that turn that I wanted to truce and I announced it in game chat and just wanted to wait to see if vodean would accept. Then I saw vodean in LC, so I pointed them to the game. We discussed the terms of the agreement in LC and then posted the information in game chat. END OF STORY

There are a LOT of details in live chat that never made it to game chat. EVERYTHING you said about that game, about bonuses, cannons, specific territories and attacking specific enemies should have been in GAME CHAT and not LIVE CHAT. If you don't understand that then a moderator will help you understand.

actually, that since that all became irrelevant due to the terms of our agreement, it would have been pointless to post. and dude, i even forwarded them here so that they can weigh in if they want

oh. and also, there was no co-ordination of troop movements. x-raider did some speculating about what I would do, but i neither confirmed nor denied. so there was no discussion.

new guy1 wrote:I have to say, reading the written definition does prove it was secret diplomacy, but I have to say that vodean and raider did end up posting for an alliance in the game and I think that should clear it up. The details that were discussed in LC instead of game chat could be bad, but if they really wanted to keep the plans a secret and KNEW that it would come this far, I think they have the brains to either take it to PMing or take it to the game, dont you think? I mean right now you have caught these two doing something that they obviously didnt think broke the rule, so I dont think this will get too far. A warning probably.

Aye, pretty much my thinking. Vode knows how this stuff works, but this is pretty clear too. It doesn't seem like fair play, but it doesn't seem bad enough for a stricter punishment. Warning seems fair, if this is a first case.

Get a life dib nots and wake up go play halo or call of duty

Gonna lock this while I take a look

vodean and x-raider have been warned for secret diplomacy.

All discussions need to take place in the game chat. It is not ok to talk outside the game and then post in the game chat after the fact.