Conquer Club

Accused:

bigdaddy40
GeneralFault


The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy (both)
Holding Players Hostage (GeneralFault)



Game number(s):

Game 14904471


Comments:

This is a USA 2.1 game. bigdaddy40 proposed an alliance to GeneralFault early on in chat but GeneralFault never responded, meaning there is no alliance. bigdaddy40 has had multiple 1 borders with GeneralFault for multiple rounds and has not been attacked once by him. bigdaddy40 is also one of the top 2 players in the game right now and has previous accusations of secret diplomacy in his feedback.

I have asked both players to play within the rules, GeneralFault claims he isn't holding anyone hostage and plays how he wants, never addressing the 1 borders or secret alliance.

GeneralFault has had 2 players blocked in for several rounds (one has only one territory with armies, the other has 2 territories but only 1 has armies in it) and has showed no signs of stopping this, putting all his troops into other areas every turn consistently and not attacking the top 2 players, one of which I very strongly suspect he is in a secret alliance with.

By my reading of the rules, both of these players are in violation of them. All I ask for is a level playing field and fair play for all, this is not happening in this game. I have tried to tell both of them in the game chat to follow the rules and they continue with the same strategy.

Bleys wrote:Accused:

bigdaddy40
GeneralFault


The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy (both)
Holding Players Hostage (GeneralFault)



Game number(s):

Game 14904471


Comments:

This is a USA 2.1 game. bigdaddy40 proposed an alliance to GeneralFault early on in chat but GeneralFault never responded, meaning there is no alliance. bigdaddy40 has had multiple 1 borders with GeneralFault for multiple rounds and has not been attacked once by him. bigdaddy40 is also one of the top 2 players in the game right now and has previous accusations of secret diplomacy in his feedback.

I have asked both players to play within the rules, GeneralFault claims he isn't holding anyone hostage and plays how he wants, never addressing the 1 borders or secret alliance.

GeneralFault has had 2 players blocked in for several rounds (one has only one territory with armies, the other has 2 territories but only 1 has armies in it) and has showed no signs of stopping this, putting all his troops into other areas every turn consistently and not attacking the top 2 players, one of which I very strongly suspect he is in a secret alliance with.

By my reading of the rules, both of these players are in violation of them. All I ask for is a level playing field and fair play for all, this is not happening in this game. I have tried to tell both of them in the game chat to follow the rules and they continue with the same strategy.

Well, he has left a gap so they can break out now.
I don't think it's holding hostage at this stage of the game; I see it as concentrating on forces that are a threat, having diminished others to the point where they are not a problem. It's not as if finishing them off will win the game, or get spoils since there are none to be had, so there's no real tactical advantage to eliminating them yet; I think he's entitled to deal with bigger opponents until all are under control before taking out the last one or two.

just because people aren't playing how you want, doesn't mean they are cheating... and there is no way GeneralFault is being held hostage... he can move if he wants... move and get crushed (ha!!)... good luck with this...-Jésus noir

i am in this game as well. I play against bigdaddy40 and GeneralFault in quite a few games and have never had any reason to suspect any issues. I stand as a witness to both that they are not conducting secret diplomacy. I also pointed out to the accuser that there are large troop stacks in GeneralFault's area. It is obvious that the "hostages" their turns and dumping troops in their single spot. For GeneralFault to attack them would require his whole attention and would cost him the game. The hostages can move - they have the troop strength but the are just taking their turn, deploying and then moving on.

again, i fight against both players quite a bit in these maps (and have played, and do play on the same teams with both). they are not doing anything underhanded.

Nailsale

I hink this is very unfair and utterly ridiculous behaviour from Bleys. First of all; i do not have any secret diplomacy with any player. If I make a deal, i will do it openly in the chatbox. Secondly, i have asked my fellow clanmates about the hostage rule and they told me it only applies if you can finish a game and you let your opponent live to wait for the best time to collect. Because someone is not playing the strategy he wants, does not mean that we cheat, lie and commit fraude.

I think it's unfair to provoke us this way and to be honest, in my 7 years of membership, it has never happened. The only thing I want is to play a little game... and i do not wan't to get in any trouble or battle....

unfair and utterly ridiculous? No, that would only be the case if I had no basis for my suspicions.

Maybe if you responded to people in chat when an alliance is proposed instead of ignoring it and then following it for all intents and purposes people wouldn't be suspicious. when they questioned it and you didn't ignore them and didn't play in a suspicious manner these things wouldn't happen.

This is the process that CC has put in place when you suspect someone of breaking the rules. Given the way the game has went and you basically following the border pact/treaty/alliance/whatever that BD proposed to you EARLY on in the game and your lack of talking in chat at ALL until the last day or two when accusations were made and alliances proposed much earlier than that, I see nothing unfair or utterly ridiculous in my suspicions. You're play with bd HAS been suspicious, my concerns are not based on nothing.

In my 8 years of play this is easily in the top 3 of most suspicious games I have played. So I see your 7 years and raise you one.

Look through my feedback and posts. I play fair and follow the rules. I don't go around making accusations for fun. I only do it if I truly believe there is a basis for the suspicions. Then it's up to CC to determine if those concerns have any validity.

So if someone proposed a diplomacy plan, the other person must respond or else do the opposite of what was proposed?

Thanks King!

No you don't have to do the opposite, but if you don't respond and then you leave borders with ONE army on them (which shouldn't be happening for more than a turn or two without an alliance) and the other person is the strongest on the map for several turns and you do nothing to fix that or strengthen your borders, then you are in a suspicious area and reports like this will be made.

Bleys wrote:No you don't have to do the opposite, but if you don't respond and then you leave borders with ONE army on them (which shouldn't be happening for more than a turn or two without an alliance) and the other person is the strongest on the map for several turns and you do nothing to fix that or strengthen your borders, then you are in a suspicious area and reports like this will be made.

I am looking at the map now, sad story you didnt provide screenshots. But you are by far the strongest now. So I guess his plan worked out somehow. It seems the game is still balanced.

Also you should read what is supposed to be holding hostage: "GeneralFault has had 2 players blocked in for several rounds (one has only one territory with armies, the other has 2 territories but only 1 has armies in it) and has showed no signs of stopping this, putting all his troops into other areas every turn consistently and not attacking the top 2 players, one of which I very strongly suspect he is in a secret alliance with.". Since this is not it.

People play different and thats risk, if you dont like it. Foe them and move on! So you dont see them play anymore. Easy life easy going.

Urs

Koganosi

I can see no evidence that supports SD.
As stated in more posts in this thread. To me it seems that the game is in a stalemate and nobody really takes another's bonus. This because they fear to turn out as the victim in a few rounds from now.
If anyone has some evidence that I am wrong, feel free to provide it and I'll look into it.

sniff

Nice to see that some players try to influence a game even at the forum.

What I don't understand is why Bleys isn't taken out one of the hostage people.
Bleys is actually very close to that location as well. If he starts in New York he can go to Denver (2 troops) and via Stirling and North Platte (both 1 troop) he can kick out ruthless1704.

Actually all 4 players with reasonable number of bonusses are able to end the participation of ruthless1704.
In other words if Bleys would like to judge this as a hostage situation, Bleys is actually accusing himslelf as well.

PS.: I don't see this as a hostage situation.

i would like to know if all of you read every chat? A lot of times i am in my care on my smaller ultrapad with an 11 inch screen and 3200 resolution...talk about small! I have to maneuver the map around just to see all of USA 2.1. I do not see the chat lines quite often and do not pick up a lot of the conversation.

am i the only one?

PaulusH wrote:What I don't understand is why Bleys isn't taken out one of the hostage people.
Bleys is actually very close to that location as well. If he starts in New York he can go to Denver (2 troops) and via Stirling and North Platte (both 1 troop) he can kick out ruthless1704.

If you read through the game log you would see I haven't controlled the NY airport at the start of my turn in quite some time. BD has been keeping control of the airports and this is a trench game, so I have not been able to get to them or I would have long ago. Not only to end the hostage situation, but just to speed the game up too. Leaving low players in the game like that only drags it out.

I can still can see nothing that is considered hostage holding. If no further evidence is provided I'll close this on Friday.

sniff

Bleys wrote:

PaulusH wrote:What I don't understand is why Bleys isn't taken out one of the hostage people.
Bleys is actually very close to that location as well. If he starts in New York he can go to Denver (2 troops) and via Stirling and North Platte (both 1 troop) he can kick out ruthless1704.

If you read through the game log you would see I haven't controlled the NY airport at the start of my turn in quite some time. BD has been keeping control of the airports and this is a trench game, so I have not been able to get to them or I would have long ago. Not only to end the hostage situation, but just to speed the game up too. Leaving low players in the game like that only drags it out.

Hi Bleys,
It seems to me that you are the only person who like to get something done about a two weaker players (potentially had they had some bad luck in this specific game). Since it isn't a hostage situation it is only to speed up the game.
It should be clear that if you like to get those two out of the game you have to do it yourself. However it looks like that you are not busy to take those two out. Also in a trench game it will only cost you 4 turns to get the job done. Each turn you get 83 new troops, 26 more than the number 2. So it still is an easy job. 4 turns might look like a lot, but you are already in round 31.

PaulusH you obviously haven't looked through the game logs at all. I tried to push west multiple times to get to them and I keep getting pushed back. You understand how trench games work right?

Hahaha, the hunter dealing with this case is in the same clan as one of the accused. That's a fair system.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hahaha, the hunter dealing with this case is in the same clan as one of the accused. That's a fair system.

Quite frankly that's the way it is indeed. What would you rule though? I think most of us in this topic now it's not holding hostages whatsoever. Secret diplomacy is another thing, but worst you could rule is noted in this case.
And yes, before you point it out, I'm also a member of the same clan.

Extreme Ways wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hahaha, the hunter dealing with this case is in the same clan as one of the accused. That's a fair system.

Quite frankly that's the way it is indeed. What would you rule though? I think most of us in this topic now it's not holding hostages whatsoever. Secret diplomacy is another thing, but worst you could rule is noted in this case.
And yes, before you point it out, I'm also a member of the same clan.

Nearly everyone posting in this thread is part of VDLL, this is what happens when a clan member is accused of something. I'm not taking issue with that, but having someone in the same clan make the official ruling is absurd.

I don't see any holding hostage, just poor play. I also think everyone jumping onto Bleys' back is being a bit ridiculous, especially with irrational defences. He saw something he thinks is suspicious - which it is - and reported it just in case. If there is nothing underhand going on then there's no issue. People jump the gun and act as if a player is being trialled for murder. The way GF played along with the truce but didn't say anything until recently is suspicious and to deny that is ignorant or stupid. Let someone unbiased investigate and go from there.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Extreme Ways wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Hahaha, the hunter dealing with this case is in the same clan as one of the accused. That's a fair system.

Quite frankly that's the way it is indeed. What would you rule though? I think most of us in this topic now it's not holding hostages whatsoever. Secret diplomacy is another thing, but worst you could rule is noted in this case.
And yes, before you point it out, I'm also a member of the same clan.

Nearly everyone posting in this thread is part of VDLL, this is what happens when a clan member is accused of something. I'm not taking issue with that, but having someone in the same clan make the official ruling is absurd.

I don't see any holding hostage, just poor play. I also think everyone jumping onto Bleys' back is being a bit ridiculous, especially with irrational defences. He saw something he thinks is suspicious - which it is - and reported it just in case. If there is nothing underhand going on then there's no issue. People jump the gun and act as if a player is being trialled for murder. The way GF played along with the truce but didn't say anything until recently is suspicious and to deny that is ignorant or stupid. Let someone unbiased investigate and go from there.

The reason you see so many VDLL players in here is indeed clan-related. He personally asked us even before this C&A thread was made if he was at fault and should do something. I do agree though, letting Sniffie decide is a bit stupid. Eventhough GF isn't a 'full' member of our clan yet, it looks unprofessional and always raises the argument whether the judge was biased.

Pretty much.

Extreme Ways wrote:it looks unprofessional and always raises the argument whether the judge was biased.

screw that... that was the only thing that kept the bandits out of perma-bans, back in the day!! if you have mods in your clan, use those connections!!!!-Jn

First of all, everybody can be assured that I'm not corrupt or in favor of my own clanmates in anyway.
But, If people still think I would rule different because it's a clanmate, I'll ask one of the other hunters to take this case over.

sniff

sniffie wrote:First of all, everybody can be assured that I'm not corrupt or in favor of my own clanmates in anyway.
But, If people still think I would rule different because it's a clanmate, I'll ask one of the other hunters to take this case over.

sniff

Personally don't think you would be deliberately biased mate, but it's better for everyone involved if the judge is impartial.