Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:46 am**

Accused:

takingmyshare

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 4129301

Comments: I received the following PM from takingmyshare:

Ey,

Sorry to bother you, but I want to point something out. To be specific, in europe you have C6, the oppotunity also involves pink, and, breaking a bonus. Not that I like you so much, but hey, I got more than 1 enemy.

Greets,

Takingmyshare

I did not take him/her up on his/her offer and asked the other players in the game what I should do. Presumably this is at least an offer of secret diplomacy.

Thanks, thegreek.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:58 am**

thegreekdog wrote:Accused:
takingmyshare

The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):
Game 4129301

Comments: I received the following PM from takingmyshare:
Ey,
Sorry to bother you, but I want to point something out. To be specific, in europe you have C6, the oppotunity also involves pink, and, breaking a bonus. Not that I like you so much, but hey, I got more than 1 enemy.
Greets,
Takingmyshare

I did not take him/her up on his/her offer and asked the other players in the game what I should do. Presumably this is at least an offer of secret diplomacy.

Thanks, thegreek.

They way I perceive the meaning of the message that you have quoted above with what was said in the game chat is that takingmyshare is saying that he was ganged up on in the beginning of the game, seeing as he was the biggest threat and now that he no longer opposes a threat he doesn't understand why you or other players are not taking notice to other players who are growing strong. (pink for example)

I don't think he was offering a truce or trying to conduct secret diplomacy, rather trying to rationalize with you to quit doing others bidding. And he also said this in chat.

Game 4129301 Game Chat wrote:2009-02-14 07:19:06 - takingmyshare: ok...haha...don't t get angry guys...Listen...I was good, or had much luck at start, so I got a big bonus. It is normal/logical that you guys came after me. And because I have/had to much borders to cover, you crushed me.
2009-02-14 07:21:07 - takingmyshare: And now, Honestly, I think the ones who attacked me should look around, because I'm not the biggest threat arounde here anymore. I have to cut my losses, defend myself to survive. If I look at the map and the stats, I see people with a bonus of 15
2009-02-14 07:26:26 - takingmyshare: Oh.....and those people are the ones who are talking a lot. Those two should be killing each other, and then let me win this game ....ok?
2009-02-14 07:27:58 - takingmyshare: As you all know, in many games it is always that you have to attack the strongest player at the moment, otherwise you lose, together with the other players....
2009-02-15 05:20:30 - artur1: yeah agree with you orange and thx to blue and yellow who steped up and helped
2009-02-15 05:21:26 - artur1: even though I look elsewhere I do somethimes look east as well
2009-02-20 06:15:29 - BigBallinStalin: artur, you're in the best spot
2009-02-22 16:52:22 - artur1: something personal green?
2009-02-22 16:52:41 - artur1: why is I inthe best spot?

But his message is hard to understand.

Best of luck

King Sam

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 am**

King Sam,

I would agree with you, except that the particular conversation you quoted was in approximately Round 2, when the relative positions on the map had not been set. I attempted to assist another player in weakening takingmyshare because it was in my best interest at the time, and it was a one time thing. I think takingmyshare was attempting to get me to do to the other player what the other player got me to do to takingmyshare. The problem is that (1) it was many rounds later and (2) it was done by PM, rather than in the game chat.

I'm not trying to get takingmyshare banned. As you can see I asked the opinion of the other players in the game chat (without revealing names) so as to get a sense of what I should do. I want as much transparency as possible in my games, and I wanted to make sure the other players agree.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:18 am**

thegreekdog wrote:King Sam,

I would agree with you, except that the particular conversation you quoted was in approximately Round 2, when the relative positions on the map had not been set. I attempted to assist another player in weakening takingmyshare because it was in my best interest at the time, and it was a one time thing. I think takingmyshare was attempting to get me to do to the other player what the other player got me to do to takingmyshare. The problem is that (1) it was many rounds later and (2) it was done by PM, rather than in the game chat.

I'm not trying to get takingmyshare banned. As you can see I asked the opinion of the other players in the game chat (without revealing names) so as to get a sense of what I should do. I want as much transparency as possible in my games, and I wanted to make sure the other players agree.

I disagree with any player sending a private message to anyone in a game that is not a teammate, in no way am I condoning his actions.

Just merely stating that however it is hard to understand the message he did write to you, it sounds like to me the meaning behind it is nearly the same thing he said in chat.

Meaning I take it as maybe he is trying to push the fact that he is not the only player in the game to be getting attacked, and that by continuing on those courses of actions will only help others grow stronger.

Seeing as the message in his PM to you was also in chat and he wasn't asking for an alliance on territories I don't see this as conducting secret diplomacy, rather just bad form.

If I were you though I would forward the PM to a Hunter, or screen capture it and post it here.
And then at the conclusion of the game I would rate him accordingly.

Best of Luck

King Sam

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:34 am**

Hmmm... I think there is a misunderstanding. His chat message was on February 14th (Round 10), when relative spheres of influence (for lack of a better phrase) were not yet determined. His PM was on Febraury 26th (Round 17), when relative spheres of influence were determined.

I agree with you, his chat message was completely appropriate. He was indicating that there were other persons to worry about than him. His PM was completely inappropriate. It indicated that he would like me to take a 3-spot I had in a territory not within my sphere of influence and attack his main rival to break his bonus. I would not have done this anyway because it would have helped my immediate enemy (takingmyshare), but that's a strategic point that may or may not be correct.

In any event, your advice is sound and appreciated.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:40 am**

i dont think it is cool to pm someone and not put it in gamechat that you did.

i will pm someone and say something to that nature, but i will also write in gamechat that i pm'd that person, and write down what i pm'd them.

some dont read game chat. sometimes, i will send a pm stating, READ GAME CHAT in game 43423423

if someone pm's you, and does not tell people in the game about it, i think that is trying for an alliance outside the game and cheating.

the other day i was in a game and someone suicided me. i pm'd poptartpsycho and told her to try to kill me.
i also put the same thing in game chat and told people i pm'd her though.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:52 pm**

I've lightly perused through this thread, so please correct me if I'm mistaken.

If you're trying to convince someone in a standard game to team-up or at least have some concerted effort against one other person through only a PM, then isn't that secret diplomacy? No one else knows about it, and this happened after what takingmyshare said in the game chat, much later. It's a different issue altogether. Had takingmyshare posted this pm in the game chat then it wouldn't be secret now would it? So, he's making things more aware to thegreekdog? That's nonsense; if I had ever made certain things more aware to other people in any of my games via PM, then I'd feel like I'd have committed something wrong because that has to be secret diplomacy.

king sam, please tell me how this is not at all secret diplomacy.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:54 pm**

Some further evidence of secret diplomacy provided by artur1:

Re: Joint Venture - Europe
Sent: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:39 pm
From: artur1
To: thegreekdog

takingmyshare wrote:
Ey,

I have a proposal. In our game in Europe, me orange, you pink, we have an opponent which is yellow. Lets take him out, because if we don't do that together, he will be serious threat to you after he killed me. So I say, lets join my fight against him, you will be better afterwards.

If will mean that put my troops that are on the border with you back, and put them at the orange/yellow front.

Let me know what you think about it. I won't be the backstabbing person you might think I am, just that you know.

Takingmyshare

here it is
artur1

Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:12 pm
Private message

If this is hard to follow, essentially takingmyshare PMed artur1 to attempt to get a secret alliance against me. This is pretty damning evidence in my opinion. artur1, of course, did not take takingmyshare up on his proposal, so no problems with artur1. By the way, this is the same game for those not really following.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:08 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Some further evidence of secret diplomacy provided by artur1:

Re: Joint Venture - Europe
Sent: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:39 pm
From: artur1
To: thegreekdog

takingmyshare wrote:
Ey,

I have a proposal. In our game in Europe, me orange, you pink, we have an opponent which is yellow. Lets take him out, because if we don't do that together, he will be serious threat to you after he killed me. So I say, lets join my fight against him, you will be better afterwards.

If will mean that put my troops that are on the border with you back, and put them at the orange/yellow front.

Let me know what you think about it. I won't be the backstabbing person you might think I am, just that you know.

Takingmyshare

here it is
artur1

Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:12 pm
Private message

If this is hard to follow, essentially takingmyshare PMed artur1 to attempt to get a secret alliance against me. This is pretty damning evidence in my opinion. artur1, of course, did not take takingmyshare up on his proposal, so no problems with artur1. By the way, this is the same game for those not really following.

This is hard concrete evidence that shows diplomatic talk that was not said in the game chat for all to see, therefor a clear violation of Rule #2.

I would recommend as I did before either have artur1 forward this PM or do a screen capture and post it here, just to show there were no changes in the text of the message.

Nice job, I never said this guy was any good just that the evidence presented in the 1st post I didn't think warrant an action done cause my perception of his message was the same as that which he posted in the game chat. However, with this new evidence you have a clear cut case on your hand to prove his unwillingness to abide by the rules.

King Sam

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:24 pm**

Who is king sam, and where am I able to find the people who will investigate this mather? I really do not mean no behaviour that could be called as not being respectfull towards king sam. He do not have the colours as I have seen the mods should have. If he is not one of those who are qualifided then why have not the one of those who are spoken?

I personally would be greatfull if this could be taken care of by one who have some sort of authority, instead of as it seems right now a random discussion

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:32 pm**

artur1 wrote:Who is king sam, and where am I able to find the people who will investigate this mather? I really do not mean no behaviour that could be called as not being respectfull towards king sam. He do not have the colours as I have seen the mods should have. If he is not one of those who are qualifided then why have not the one of those who are spoken?

I personally would be greatfull if this could be taken care of by one who have some sort of authority, instead of as it seems right now a random discussion

King Sam is working on becoming a multi-hunter himself, and helps others provide a clear look at how the rules work. The Hunters won't post in this thread themselves, no, except when to say he's busted.

Original poster, forward the PM to Fireside Poet, telling him that this was a PM about a game, and that this wasn't put out in the public game chat. Since that's a violation of rule 2, it'll be handled quickly, I think, with a warning.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:56 pm**

artur1 wrote:I personally would be greatfull if this could be taken care of by one who have some sort of authority, instead of as it seems right now a random discussion

Its posted in a forum to do exactly that, to excite the public's interest in the matter and even collect different points of views on it.

On most of my threads I don't proclaim to know all or be the deciding authority, but just try to give insight. I see that I forgot my disclaimer in this thread and apologize.

However the advice that Kotaro has given you below is very sound. I suggest you do this and I also think this matter will get resolved with the result that you are wishing for soon.

Kotaro wrote:forward the PM to Fireside Poet, telling him that this was a PM about a game, and that this wasn't put out in the public game chat. Since that's a violation of rule 2, it'll be handled quickly, I think, with a warning.

And thanks Kotaro for the kind words.

Best of Luck
King Sam

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:13 am**

dirty politics right there.

hey, I PM'd all of you guys in my games, alliances across the board, eh?

Posted: **Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:33 am**

takingmyshare has been warned.

Conquer Club

takingmyshare [warned]

takingmyshare [warned]

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare

Re: takingmyshare