ImperialPower [noted]
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:03 pmAccused:
ImperialPower
Lord Comedy
The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy
Other: Attempting to throw game
Game number(s):
Game 3230396
Comments:
ImperialPower decided that he couldn't hold his continent by himself so he offered Lord Comedy an alliance in public chat, which was never accepted. He then claims he has an alliance, which was never agreed upon and complains that I attacked him instead of his ally. He says he can't attack his teammate because it would be unfair, but his "teammate" never made it clear they were on a team. I made it clear he could break his "teammate" and the next time around he doesn't attack again, and throws the game for his "teammate" and calls off the alliance for the next round. Meanwhile, his "teammate" has never responded one way or the other to any of this.
The funny thing is, he is being extremely hypocritical, since in his feedback, he makes references to the same argument that I'm making now: that since he never agreed, there's no alliance, yet in the game I'm in with him, he takes the stance that he has an alliance since it's been offered but never agreed to.
This is all in the chat logs, and if there is no public agreement, then there is a secret alliance happening, and he's helping to throw the game towards his "teammate", which is also against the rules.
ImperialPower
Lord Comedy
The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy
Other: Attempting to throw game
Game number(s):
Game 3230396
Comments:
ImperialPower decided that he couldn't hold his continent by himself so he offered Lord Comedy an alliance in public chat, which was never accepted. He then claims he has an alliance, which was never agreed upon and complains that I attacked him instead of his ally. He says he can't attack his teammate because it would be unfair, but his "teammate" never made it clear they were on a team. I made it clear he could break his "teammate" and the next time around he doesn't attack again, and throws the game for his "teammate" and calls off the alliance for the next round. Meanwhile, his "teammate" has never responded one way or the other to any of this.
The funny thing is, he is being extremely hypocritical, since in his feedback, he makes references to the same argument that I'm making now: that since he never agreed, there's no alliance, yet in the game I'm in with him, he takes the stance that he has an alliance since it's been offered but never agreed to.
This is all in the chat logs, and if there is no public agreement, then there is a secret alliance happening, and he's helping to throw the game towards his "teammate", which is also against the rules.