Conquer Club

These two are suspected Secret Alliance, Conspirors and Cheats.

Suspect users: Dixie & Fireside Poet

Game number: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1433335

Comments: Its been a long time since I posted one of these. I used to have a good eye for multis, before CC got so big and found itself with proper multi/cheat hunters. anyway ...

Yes Dixie & Fireside Poet are vets. So am I. The game listed started in good faith. However it quickly became apparent to me that Dixie & Fireside were going very easy on each other. The only countrys they took were so they could get complete continents or bonus up. Not once in the whole game have they even made attempts to look like they were threatening each others borders.

I put this to them early on in the game chat. Obviously they denied it. "Look at my games...look at my feedback, never been accused etc etc" After this they backed off me a little and took a couple of non-meaning countrys off one another.

I left it, said I wouldn't flame them.

However, I have to go back on that im afraid as the conspiring has been so blatant. Fireside got himself europe and dixie had been in South America. Me in Aus and DC in Africa.

Now for the whole time Dixie had South America, she has had no more than 2 armys on central america. and lots of singles in america. (at one stage earlier fireside had 15 armys on southern europe. north africa had 1 on it and dixie was down to 2 or 3 on brazil. no attacks.)

Given Firesides position as the strongest later on i have to question why he hasnt took the 1r's in america for more bonus. why, even when i didnt deploy on ural bordering ukraine, why did fireside deploy on uklraine and threaten me instead of making any approach on dixie and the single countrys in america?

this allowed dixie to put all her armys on brazil and also constantly attack DC. which suited fireside just fine. now if they were doing this , they could at least announce there 'silent' alliance in game chat.

However, final confirmation came for me when i had 2 armys on kamchatka. dixie had 5 on alaska. i didnt deploy any there. thinking maybe she'll concentrate on the biggest player, Fireside, he's getting a bonus of 8, 2 more than any of the rest of us.

But no she deploys all on alaska and takes out three countrys in russia from me. on the same round Fireside then deploys on ukraine and hits all the armys i had ural. now they were bordering him but were less than what he had and he must have know id have used them to take back the countrys dixie just took.

why would you do that? to help dixie thats why. i now have nothing to attack either fireside or dixie and they can turn attention to DC. they both border him with large armys ... but they ignore each other still.

dixie had just increased her bonus..mine had gone down...fireside faced 4 armys (a 1, a 2 and a 1) to walk into South america and break Dixie if you wanted to from greenland. you could have had 15 to do it with. but you didnt.

this is when i knew you two were at it again.

now some people will say, there's no real way you can prove secret allicances etc. that's true i guess. but i know whats been going on in this game. you two know it aswell. so though you'll get away with it and deny it verily in here denouncing me as a bad loser or whatever, i have to do the one thing i can do - inform the community of your corruption.

ive now taken myself out of the game. after this round i forted nearly all my armys to yakutsk to attack dixie. i left 3 on india and 6 on siam i think. surprisingly (sarcasm on) dixie attacked my 19 on yakutsk and fireside tried to bust me in Aus!! so my 9 to Aus looks plausible to bust, but not the 4 to South America eh Fireside?? haha, pathetic. I used all my army to try to break dixie ... unfortunately i had 14 vs 2 on northwest territory and lost them all!

so poor DC now has to face the two cheats alone. but im sick of it. i coulda went on for bit longer , but id sooner spend time on here playing decent people.

both are now on my very very short ignore list. i would never play against them again. and i would advise others to be wary of playing them in singles games. they will team up against you.


Hairingtons

If dixie uses the 2 army defence and the huge stack so ill break your bonus as well, so back off cause its not with it method. well thats one I use a lot too. its sometimes effective. As far as I can see, north america is loose, but its not for dixie to captuer, and fireside wont be able to hold it together if he tried.
ofcourse I am a noob, but so far i can see its slightly out of normal vet play, but effective and not relaying on 'buddies' but a solid knowing of threaths and carrying them out.
Or is that overthinking?

what do you other people think?

the map as it stands now doesnt mean much 'cos i just blew my load all over it.

i guess its hard for neutral observers. you often have to watch it happening to see it happening. hard to look back through game log and decide.

but ive been struggling against two players for the majority of that game. turns were taken in which they would hit me. all nicely timed and culminating in the double attack when dixe entered russia and inexplicably fireside took me down to 1 army on ural from ukraine. why they both struggling to get into russia which will be harder to hold when they have america on their doorstep with lots of singles in it?

because they wanted to be the last two in the game and ignore each other until then.

lmfao

ha ha ha

your joking right...lol u think they would of looked at fireside b4 making him a mod

not expecting anything to come of it. just posting my concerns.

No way Dixie or FP are cheats.
Your concerns are fruitless...Go sit down and make yourself a cup of coffee.

that's your opinion. i'm just putting forward whaty i've witnessed. not an easy thing to do, when you are likely to be shot down because the accused are a vet and a mod.

but that shouldnt put them above suspicion.

hairingtons wrote:but that shouldnt put them above suspicion.

It most certainly doesn't. It'll be investigated like every other claim here. Sometimes it's hard for people who team together so much to get out of that "us against them" mentality in non-team games. I'm not saying that happened here, I haven't even looked at it yet, but it's always a possibility.

i know these players. both have a thing about cheating. they have always been honorable players and could be you got things wrong or you mistook something.

i have played both these players on several occasions and, have never had any problems.

very hard to believe

But the OP has made a very strong case by giving specific examples.

Fireside is old school , the idea that he would cheat for a few points is laughable, the whole thing is sour grapes.

I'd put a watch on them. You just can't tell.

Rebuttal to this tripe is in the works. Hold on.

Wow, big words. He must really be a Fireside Poet.

I have read the accusation in its entirety and can actually understand where hairingtons is coming from, however, he is wrong and I will try and put things into perspective with this rebuttal. I am aware of my "status" on Conquer Club and I will say this: I would not have been given a position on here if the admins thought my play was corrupt (in your words).

With that said, I would like take this time to go through your "points" and lay out some facts instead of insinuations. I'd be stupid not to rely on the track record that is already VERY well established on here. If this is such a bad thing, then the feedback system needs to go out the door.

Fact: I do play doubles, a LOT, with DIXIE.
Fact: I do play singles, a LOT, with DIXIE.
Fact: We are both in the same clan.
Fact: My reputation is clean after 100s of games with DIXIE.
Fact: DIXIE's reputation is clean after 100s of games with me.
Fact: Never had a cheating accusation in over 4500+ games (except with wicked)
Fact: Points are of NO concern to me - I play cooks, I play Colonels.

Now with the preliminary volley complete, let's get down to the crux of the game being questioned.

Fact: 61 rounds and hairingtons attacked dcowboys055 a whopping 1 time.
Fact: hairingtons has had ample opportunities to break dcowboys055's stranglehold on Africa, but chose not to, so guess who did? ME.

The questions that have to be asked are...

Why would I sacrifice armies going after Central America (which isn't even of value to me) when I have to watch for hairingtons continual build up in Ural and threatening Europe?

Want proof?

Round 40: hairingtons deployed 6 armies on Ural (and took Ukraine on the attack)
Round 41: hairingtons forts 3 more armies to Ural
Round 42: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural (after I took Ukraine back)
Round 43: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural (and took Ukraine on the attack)
Round 47: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural (after I took Ukraine back)
Round 47: hairingtons brings in 2 more armies into Ural
Round 48: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural
Round 49: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural
Round 50: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural
Round 52: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural
Round 53: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural
Round 55: hairingtons brings in 3 more armies into Ural
Round 57: hairingtons brings in 3 more armies into Ural
Round 58: hairingtons deploys 6 armies on Ural

Does anyone really think that I'd go after DIXIE when my armies in Ukraine are continually getting picked on? My number one concern is: REMOVE THE THREAT. This is a NO cards game, not escalating like I am used to playing, so all bonuses are important to hold onto. It is no wonder he wants me to go after DIXIE in Central America (like that would make a difference)

Now, let's examine another aspect here. hairingtons is picking up 6 armies per turn and DIXIE is picking up 5 per turn and has to worry about dcowboys055 in Africa, so why should I worry about DIXIE's 5, when hairington's 6 is continually building next to me? Let's ALSO not forget that DIXIE is TWO CONTINENTS AWAY FROM ME.. That's right, I'd have to go through NA to get to SA or through Africa to SA - What is that going to gain me other than to appease hairingtons' suspicious mind?

Now, let's break down the accusations in his post and address each one:

hairingtons wrote: "Now for the whole time Dixie had South America, she has had no more than 2 armys on central america. and lots of singles in america."

Are we forgetting the 20-40 something in Brazil? Why unleash those armies against me? They were there to protect South America from North Africa.

hairingtons wrote: "Given Firesides position as the strongest later on i have to question why he hasnt took the 1r's in america for more bonus. why, even when i didnt deploy on ural bordering ukraine, why did fireside deploy on uklraine and threaten me instead of making any approach on dixie and the single countrys in america?"

After 15 rounds of deploying to Ural and threatening Ukraine, you think my concern is over some piddly 1's in North America? Why do you think I deployed to Ukraine - rather obvious.

hairingtons wrote: "this allowed dixie to put all her armys on brazil and also constantly attack DC. which suited fireside just fine. now if they were doing this , they could at least announce there 'silent' alliance in game chat."

Why wouldn't I mind DIXIE taking on DC? Any logical thinking person would go for this! There was no "silent" alliance, it all has to do with board position.

hairingtons wrote: "However, final confirmation came for me when i had 2 armys on kamchatka. dixie had 5 on alaska. i didnt deploy any there. thinking maybe she'll concentrate on the biggest player, Fireside, he's getting a bonus of 8, 2 more than any of the rest of us."

I'm not sure, but maybe she got tired of you continually coming into NA?

hairingtons wrote: "But no she deploys all on alaska and takes out three countrys in russia from me. on the same round Fireside then deploys on ukraine and hits all the armys i had ural. now they were bordering him but were less than what he had and he must have know id have used them to take back the countrys dixie just took. why would you do that? to help dixie thats why."

Wrong! I removed the threat... 15 rounds of Ural and I had enough and got some great rolls taking you down to 1 without losing any. It happens ... like your 14-2 loss. Deal with it.

hairingtons wrote: "dixie had just increased her bonus..mine had gone down...fireside faced 4 armys (a 1, a 2 and a 1) to walk into South america and break Dixie if you wanted to from greenland. you could have had 15 to do it with. but you didnt."

Again, taking Central America does nothing, I'd have to take Venezuela and I wasn't going to unleash those 20-40 armies in Brazil ... that is just plain stupid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I have laid out things, perhaps a bit overboard, but complete none-the-less. I look forward to being cleared and will immediately place hairingtons on my very short ignore list. I have played honorably and with integrity since I came to Conquer Club almost 2 years ago. Anyone who knows anything about this site knows that points are insignificant to me and I play because I like to play, so losing 40 to you versus gaining 15 means ZERO. Congratulations hairingtons! Maybe now you can go on and prove we were on the grassy knoll (where we buried Hoffa)...

You were right on when you said Im gonna call you a sore loser on this one,Up until now you have ranted in the game until I stopped hitting you rounds ago,its none of your concern if i hit North Affie or not

Everyone has there own style of play,dc having that border next to mine,Im gonna hit it if I want I dont think thats wrong,as for FP,,he has for the most part been in Europe,me in South America,its no cards why do i want to waste armies going after him and weaken myself doing it?you act like he has held that Euro bonus the whole game when its been me and YOU who have had the bonuses at times FP was low on armies

You said the thing about 2 armies in Kam and me hitting you,which i touched and me not hitting FP's bonus,you cant hit Euro?You were not drawing a bonus?I could have hit FP,I could have hit dc,If I was against you the way you say,would I have not let you keep that bonus,and I hit you because you had a 19 in Yak(i think)and am I not stupid to not try to take that down?
I think you dont like my gameplay and are sore about the sucky dice,thats fine we have all been there ,but dont come in here tell these people I am corrupt,a cheater thats shit lastly I am so above cheating in a 4 player game which Im gonna say when I joined I was the highest rank at that time?which I know changes daily but come on wtf Im getting what 30 points out of it If I even win,so Im doing all this and with one of the most respected players at this place?Hes going to ruin his reputation over a 4 plyr game?

I have to mention you hit dc once in like 60 rounds,dont see me bitching about that,and come to think of it dont hear him bitching either
Probably 500standard/terminator games Ive plyd with FP and you are the first to ever accuse of cheating,you at least owe him an apology I dont want one from you

sry to whoever had to read this mess its long i know,go have a look at the game I have nothing to hide

Okay do you guys seriously expect me to read all that??????

spearfish wrote:Okay do you guys seriously expect me to read all that??????

If you're going to come in and say they need to be watched, you'd better at least read their rebuttal.

spearfish wrote:Okay do you guys seriously expect me to read all that??????

If you aren't a multi hunter/mod, no, not really...but you should if you want to actually contribute meaningfully in this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I did, and they both made very strong arguments.

Just a lot to read.

I think a lot of people should cool off. Hairy makes good points, even if they are wrong, and they deserve better rebuttal (which FP has given) than "you're a bad loser ... " (which dixie has given).

However, these couple of defences don't seem to be particularly valid for me:

"I don't play for points"

Wonderful, then what do you play for? Winning? I hardly think the basis of this accusation is that this is a scam to rank-climb.

"Why ruin my reputation after X number of games"

Evidently, the aforementioned reputation is here granting some level of popular immunity from suspicion.

The1exile wrote:"I don't play for points"

Wonderful, then what do you play for? Winning? I hardly think the basis of this accusation is that this is a scam to rank-climb.

Then perhaps the basis of the accusation is wrong!

Honestly I don't see the point in 'playing for points'. This is a game, in fact it's against the rules to lay anything more than pride on the line.

I play for fun, which is apparently how FP plays too.

I think Wicked hit it on the head. You might not realise it but your mind is till set in an us against them mentatilty. You more than likely wont even realise it........

I never play singles games with my doubles partner or clansman!!!! Problems like this always arise.

Furthermore,l what does it matter if some1 is old school. Who posted thta needs a lesson in life!!

driskmaster wrote:I think Wicked hit it on the head. You might not realise it but your mind is till set in an us against them mentatilty. You more than likely wont even realise it........

I never play singles games with my doubles partner or clansman!!!! Problems like this always arise.

Furthermore,l what does it matter if some1 is old school. Who posted thta needs a lesson in life!!

With your 4 game limit, it would be tough. It should be that you can play with whomever you want, whenever you want, regardless of partners or clansmen. I don't buy the "won't even realize it" spiel. We're grown up enough to know better.