Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [retracted]

[Risktaker17]

Your allowed to let someone with more points win, if it is significant enough

[madmort0]

this is so much better than in the flame wars!cuz its really pissin him off.

[luckywar]

disliking someone isn't a valid reason to post and say that they're a cheat- but i know that there are gonna be players that do that for an example road, a player that has been proven a cheat, but thats ok, take this opportunity to be vindictive. i don't expect anything less from those types of people.

nothing i can say will change anyone's opinion of me- so i wont say anything except it's ridiculous- an idiotic and utterly false accusation. those of you who think i've cheated will remain to think that. for the rest of you that know im a damn great player and how much i hate cheaters... well that's all that matters. ive accomplished almost everything i set out to.... outside of being short a few points of hitting 4K.

take this chance to post how much of an asshole and cheater i am-- and i hope it makes you feel better about your inadequacies.

What are you talking about...it is you that is being investigated and I believe the mods will carry out a thorough investigation here.
There are 2 witnesses saying the same things about you from different games..so there are reasonable grounds to suspect.

This is more than can be said of you who falsely accused me out of some personal liking of luckywar, your friend and you were not even in the game.

For the record, I don't dislike just that you exhibit certain arrogance and tend to smear people (just look at your posts, they are damning you) and this should be stopped. Now that there are suspicions of you being a cheat, you should be investigated like everyone else.

The initial game in question, obviously not cheating. Comments by all the other regular players know it's not cheating. Have Scott investigated. Who cares, the regulars know he isn't a cheater, your name is not truly dragged in the mud Scott. Don't worry. Innocent. Even code, who doesn't get along with you backs you up. Funny sh*t.

I wasn't going to comment b/c a bunch of respectful players came out to back you up, but I find it hilarious that "roadwarrior" is accusing you of cheating. That nut. I turned him in for cheating once before and a MOD investigated him and found it to be TRUE! LOL. ps. Road, you moron, it didn't matter if Scott was in the game or not, you cheated, your PM proved it and is available for all to see in a thread. Here it is:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36344

And oh yeah, the MOD ruled against you! Scott is not to be compared or grouped with your kind.

[roadwarrior]

luckywar quit lying...the mods never ruled that....man when are you going to stop this childish behaviour?

It is known that Scott will support what you say and you will support him. What a load of crap from both of you.

You should look at what a sneak you are....no good character!

[wrestler1ump]

I've got more evidence of scott-land being an arsehole. He had me on his ignore list for some reason back in 2007, but did his little thing at the start of 08 where he emptied his entire ignore list. I played many 8 player escalating freestyle speed games with him, and never was a problem. I didn't even win one of them, as I know he likes to ignore-list people if they win. Well recently I found myself on his intimidation list after I went down to cook. I didn't complain, but eventually I made it back up to Corporal. Just now I Pm'ed him politely letting him know that I was a corporal again. This is what he responded with:

i dont give a shit about rank-- GFY

All of the complaints sum it up. Don't join any games with him and his secret alliance mates, and maybe we should consider getting everyone to put this disease on ignore. People like him bring down the tone of this website. The fact that he's got multi's and secret alliances makes him even more outrageous. Ignore him now and don't turn back.

that shit is so ignorant that i can't help laughing hysterically. we don't need evidence that i'm an asshole-- ill concede that fact. however we are looking for EVIDENCE that im a cheat. if you come up with any, please post here.


you're so transparent-- why would you want to play in a game with me when you've posted that i cheat ? let alone pm me and say that you're a corporal now..... i don't give a shit if you're a colonel- you're never coming off. nice little post after i slammed the door shut in your face-- lmao

Well at least he admits to being a prick. So tell me, why am I not coming off? Or are you going to choose the no-explanation route on that one?

As for cheating, the original post provides plenty of evidence of you cheating.

[TheTrust]

Let me give a hypothetical scenario.
1. prank, enelra and Scott-Land have agreed to split Game A, Game B and Game C respectively and is declared in the game chat of Game A only.

2. Unfortunately, there is no declaration in the game chat of Game B or Game C, so others can perceive this collusion as secret alliance when they play suspiciously. In this case, 3 of them would avoid each other and finally, give the game to the agreed "winner" which was decided earlier in the game chat of Game A.

My objective is to point out the flaw in Scott-Land justification about breaking a deadlock which he'd so described. I'm sure Scott-Land is a great player and does not intentionally cheat but he is just an innocent victim of circumstance.

I would like to respond to this because I believe this is at the heart of what is being discussed. Your scenario basically appoints that in game A, players W, X, Y, and Z make final 4 in a stalemate. Then players X, Y and Z decide that through manner of suicides, player Z will be the one to win and end the game. Game over, it's done, player W may feel left out but it was agreed in chat by majority that it would happen as such.

When game B comes along, you are assuming that Players A, B, C, X, Y, Z are back in. That is a fair assumption. Now, the unfair assumption you are making is that at the entrance of game B, players X, Y and Z have already agreed to give the game to player X this round. If that were the case, then I could see your complaint, however... that is not what is happening.

Your hypothetical situation needs to leave room for error that each game has a seperate setting, These guys could play hundreds of games together and only have to make splits like this for 8 or 9 games. When Game B starts.... the deal that was in game A is no longer relevant because at the beginning of Game B, the triggering event (which would be stalemate) has not occured. The game B may very well be over in 10-13 rounds with game leaders emerging and no stalemate locking in. Until the stalemate becomes an issue, there is no reason to treat game B like game A.

And as such game C will follow the same principle. Now say Games A through C (where a, b and c are simply games where suiciding were an issue) are spread out over a 15 game sample test. In 15 games played 3 have hit stalemates and have been ended in that way, the way a stalemate goes about being ended has nothing to do in games that play out normally as during normal play, they are not defending each other.

This 3-way even distribution system in light of stalemates is very flimsy because you never know when the next game will hit stalemate, player X may get a game first, and not hit another stalemate for a month, in which case players Y and Z will not be on the recieving end of victory via suicide. However they will not complain because nobody wants the stalemate anyway.

This is a system developped as a last resort in a game that is going nowhere, I'm sure if needed for that game, they will announce it inchat but until its needed, it is irrelevant as nobody intends on defending "whoever should win the next game"

I really dont think either of the 3 people in your hypothetical situation are trying to win the game for each other. All the more reason for them to knock each other out. But in the end each player does what is best for themselves. Scotty doesnt play for enelra's wins and enelra doesnt play for Scotty's wins. They both make the best out of what they're given to try to get the win, if the board goes in a way that nobody can win, they then have to establish a way to end it. Then it is no longer applicable or heard of until the next time the situation arises (which nobody plans for)

[hulmey]

maybe if you posted in a normal colour , i might read your lovley poem

[Scott-Land]

I know its frustrating hun lol.

however... When this is all done and over with I'd like to see these players apologize to Scotty boy. They dont necessarily have to like him but hiding behind this whole "I thought it was suspicious so I posted it" won't cut it. Scotty gave his explanation and I can understand where games go into those types of stalemates that actions could be taken to end them quick, but it does nothing to show that they intentionally work together, especially throughout the game.

We all hear cases of: "This person suicided into me and gave the game to Player X" and whether you call it boredom, failed strategy or both, it is a part of the game, to openly coordinate a game ending after it goes on too long should be fine, you get the accusations of secret alliances if you don't.

So if he's innocent, you guys should own up and apologize, if not, he needs a really big spanking

If I'm innocent? pfft. although I'm beginning to like the if not part-- especially if it involves spanking

[codeblue1018]

I've got more evidence of scott-land being an arsehole. He had me on his ignore list for some reason back in 2007, but did his little thing at the start of 08 where he emptied his entire ignore list. I played many 8 player escalating freestyle speed games with him, and never was a problem. I didn't even win one of them, as I know he likes to ignore-list people if they win. Well recently I found myself on his intimidation list after I went down to cook. I didn't complain, but eventually I made it back up to Corporal. Just now I Pm'ed him politely letting him know that I was a corporal again. This is what he responded with:

i dont give a shit about rank-- GFY

All of the complaints sum it up. Don't join any games with him and his secret alliance mates, and maybe we should consider getting everyone to put this disease on ignore. People like him bring down the tone of this website. The fact that he's got multi's and secret alliances makes him even more outrageous. Ignore him now and don't turn back.

Whump, you are a convicted cheater who should have been permanently banned ages ago. Why are you trolling in this forum spewing garbage and outrage for something that you condoned at one time if not still do? Do us all a favor, leave the site as I mentioned before and go play with your dolls - this is much more suited for you. As far as ignore lists; if someone places you on their ignore list, they don't need a reason. The mere fact that you were and possibly still are a CHEAT is grounds enough. Now beat it, this topic is for adults unless you have some meaningful information to share. I will take you off my ignore list once you attain Field Marshall - a mere 3,882 more points. There is still hope for you.

[firstholliday]

why don't u read it all..it's not three people pming eachother behind others backs





msn...

you're starting to piss me off with your insinuations -- now that i have an msn account im cheating. if you have some facts, please share them. i'd like to see anyone i mean anyone come forward to say that i've msn'd them to have a secret alliance, have them make a particular play or conspire against any players in the game or otherwise.

i have players pm me for advice on a regular basis-- and i tell them specifically that i can not advise them if i am in the game with them speed or otherwise.

unless you have some type of proof-- back the f*ck off First.....

EDIT: further more fyi-- i hate that blessed orange light when im in a freestyle game, it distracts me... you won't find me on msn after a game starts.

Well i don't call it cheating.. For instance you cash, a major has 3 cards and a corporal has 3 cards, they have equal ammount of armies, and you can take either one of them... who would you attack? It is called pointprotection, and i find it logic. You can call it cheating if you want, but i don't. This issue has been here for ages, and speedgames did not help it. It can only be resolved in another pointsystem. lets say 20 points a game.

[Scott-Land]

why don't u read it all..it's not three people pming eachother behind others backs





msn...

you're starting to piss me off with your insinuations -- now that i have an msn account im cheating. if you have some facts, please share them. i'd like to see anyone i mean anyone come forward to say that i've msn'd them to have a secret alliance, have them make a particular play or conspire against any players in the game or otherwise.

i have players pm me for advice on a regular basis-- and i tell them specifically that i can not advise them if i am in the game with them speed or otherwise.

unless you have some type of proof-- back the f*ck off First.....

EDIT: further more fyi-- i hate that blessed orange light when im in a freestyle game, it distracts me... you won't find me on msn after a game starts.

Well i don't call it cheating.. For instance you cash, a major has 3 cards and a corporal has 3 cards, they have equal ammount of armies, and you can take either one of them... who would you attack? It is called pointprotection, and i find it logic. You can call it cheating if you want, but i don't. This issue has been here for ages, and speedgames did not help it. It can only be resolved in another pointsystem. lets say 20 points a game.

first of all, you didn't respond at all to your msn accusation. i'll take it that you concede that nonsense. and secondly, i've always stated that if i don't win, i don't care who does... i couldn't say that when i originally started playing public speed games- to lose 60-70 points was a hard and bitter pill to swallow. since then my average loss per game is 50+ and ive lost over that so many times that i've now come to accept it and more importantly i have no problem winning them back. with that being said-- your question about who i would take out.

assuming i had 5 cards when i cashed? it's rather simple actually and i've come across it quite often.... i kill the easiest player. if i have to trek across 15 terr's to kill a private versus 5 terr's for a major i'm going to kill the [fill in the blank] i can see how a player that doesn't play freestyle may have a problem with such a tough and difficult question.

ok ok -- let me save you from posting another question. they both have 3 cards.... both have exactly 12 terr's , yada yada.

i'd then kill whomever gave me a better lead into my next kill- that means where my armies end up after the first kill (just in case that's above your strategic level of thinking) EDIT: ohh and how fast they are to avoid a kill would also be another determining factor.

[Scott-Land]

woops-- double posted

[MOBAJOBG]

Let me give a hypothetical scenario.
1. prank, enelra and Scott-Land have agreed to split Game A, Game B and Game C respectively and is declared in the game chat of Game A only.

2. Unfortunately, there is no declaration in the game chat of Game B or Game C, so others can perceive this collusion as secret alliance when they play suspiciously. In this case, 3 of them would avoid each other and finally, give the game to the agreed "winner" which was decided earlier in the game chat of Game A.

My objective is to point out the flaw in Scott-Land justification about breaking a deadlock which he'd so described. I'm sure Scott-Land is a great player and does not intentionally cheat but he is just an innocent victim of circumstance.

I would like to respond to this because I believe this is at the heart of what is being discussed. Your scenario basically appoints that in game A, players W, X, Y, and Z make final 4 in a stalemate. Then players X, Y and Z decide that through manner of suicides, player Z will be the one to win and end the game. Game over, it's done, player W may feel left out but it was agreed in chat by majority that it would happen as such.

When game B comes along, you are assuming that Players A, B, C, X, Y, Z are back in. That is a fair assumption. Now, the unfair assumption you are making is that at the entrance of game B, players X, Y and Z have already agreed to give the game to player X this round. If that were the case, then I could see your complaint, however... that is not what is happening.

Your hypothetical situation needs to leave room for error that each game has a seperate setting, These guys could play hundreds of games together and only have to make splits like this for 8 or 9 games. When Game B starts.... the deal that was in game A is no longer relevant because at the beginning of Game B, the triggering event (which would be stalemate) has not occured. The game B may very well be over in 10-13 rounds with game leaders emerging and no stalemate locking in. Until the stalemate becomes an issue, there is no reason to treat game B like game A.

And as such game C will follow the same principle. Now say Games A through C (where a, b and c are simply games where suiciding were an issue) are spread out over a 15 game sample test. In 15 games played 3 have hit stalemates and have been ended in that way, the way a stalemate goes about being ended has nothing to do in games that play out normally as during normal play, they are not defending each other.

This 3-way even distribution system in light of stalemates is very flimsy because you never know when the next game will hit stalemate, player X may get a game first, and not hit another stalemate for a month, in which case players Y and Z will not be on the recieving end of victory via suicide. However they will not complain because nobody wants the stalemate anyway.

This is a system developped as a last resort in a game that is going nowhere, I'm sure if needed for that game, they will announce it inchat but until its needed, it is irrelevant as nobody intends on defending "whoever should win the next game"

I really dont think either of the 3 people in your hypothetical situation are trying to win the game for each other. All the more reason for them to knock each other out. But in the end each player does what is best for themselves. Scotty doesnt play for enelra's wins and enelra doesnt play for Scotty's wins. They both make the best out of what they're given to try to get the win, if the board goes in a way that nobody can win, they then have to establish a way to end it. Then it is no longer applicable or heard of until the next time the situation arises (which nobody plans for)

I've told the story in as few paragraphs and sentences skimming a lot of goodies along the way which is the brief version while you'd taken the time and put in the effort to narrate a comprehensive version of what I'm incapable of explaining in so much detail.

So, it's up to Scott-Land to let us know where he stands; the fair or unfair assumption.

[firstholliday]

first of all, you didn't respond at all to your msn accusation. i'll take it that you concede that nonsense





Actually i don't. I do NOT say that you are using it. BUT don't you agree that it is a way more quicker and easier thing to discuss things?
You might feel attacked here, but i,m not talking about you cheating, i,m just saying there are holes in the system with the current pointawarding.


Now i brought that up 3 times now... You as a real real real high ranked. What do you think of the pointsystem?

[Scott-Land]

first of all, you didn't respond at all to your msn accusation. i'll take it that you concede that nonsense





Actually i don't. I do NOT say that you are using it. BUT don't you agree that it is a way more quicker and easier thing to discuss things?
You might feel attacked here, but i,m not talking about you cheating, i,m just saying there are holes in the system with the current pointawarding.


Now i brought that up 3 times now... You as a real real real high ranked. What do you think of the pointsystem?

you're posting in a thread created by someone accusing me of cheating- i can only assume you are directing it at me. if you're not directing it at me then go post in Suggestions.

[Scott-Land]

I've told the story in as few paragraphs and sentences skimming a lot of goodies along the way which is the brief version while you'd taken the time and put in the effort to narrate a comprehensive version of what I'm incapable of explaining in so much detail.

So, it's up to Scott-Land to let us know where he stands; the fair or unfair assumption.

nah-- she pointed out several flaws in your hypothetical situation. i don't see how you can say that they are the same.

[MOBAJOBG]

lol [1st Edit]...the unfair assumption is always in my mind but just not able to put the thought into concise words until TheTrust came along doing a marvellous job.

[2nd Edit] Furthermore, I came here to debate so that the truth shall prevail.

[firstholliday]

first of all, you didn't respond at all to your msn accusation. i'll take it that you concede that nonsense





Actually i don't. I do NOT say that you are using it. BUT don't you agree that it is a way more quicker and easier thing to discuss things?
You might feel attacked here, but i,m not talking about you cheating, i,m just saying there are holes in the system with the current pointawarding.


Now i brought that up 3 times now... You as a real real real high ranked. What do you think of the pointsystem?

you're posting in a thread created by someone accusing me of cheating- i can only assume you are directing it at me. if you're not directing it at me then go post in Suggestions.

NO!

Nobody reads that.

People advertise in popular magazines.

[Scott-Land]

lol [1st Edit]...the unfair assumption is always in my mind but just not able to put the thought into concise words until TheTrust came along doing a marvellous job.

[2nd Edit] Furthermore, I came here to debate so that the truth shall prevail.

to be honest-- the majority of what's been discussed has no relevance to the original accusation. i mean dandrobie went after aussie so Jan suicided on him- then i get lumped into a secret alliance. i suspected something wasn't right with the game and put Jan on ignore even before seeing this thread. it would be nice if he would come in here and post about the game to denounce that i had any communications with him prior or during the game-- hell if i've ever had a conversation with him period.

stalemate issue should have it's own thread and everyone that has practiced it should be accused-- how am i the scapegoat ?

[firstholliday]

To make things more intresting, buizer and jan are giving their poits away while we speak. Jan is corporal and buiz allmost captain. They are both playing 1v1 and doodle 8 assasin.

[MOBAJOBG]

Well, look it up for yourself people ...Buizerd and jan1976 may be up to no good. They are both doubles teammate who enjoys playing standard games against each other.

[TheTrust]

first of all, you didn't respond at all to your msn accusation. i'll take it that you concede that nonsense





Actually i don't. I do NOT say that you are using it. BUT don't you agree that it is a way more quicker and easier thing to discuss things?
You might feel attacked here, but i,m not talking about you cheating, i,m just saying there are holes in the system with the current pointawarding.


Now i brought that up 3 times now... You as a real real real high ranked. What do you think of the pointsystem?

For what it's worth... I've been in speed games with Scotty and when I made that transition from 1-1 freestyle slaughtering to actually going into 8-player games, I actually (gasp) had trouble. After seeing scotty win the game and make some rather colourful comments on my play I added him to msn.

I had a series of questions to ask in regards to the next speed game we began playing together. I pointed out my strange position and that I had recieved a set early on. On msn I commented on his history of saving guys moreso that attributing value to bonuses early on (unless he could easily hold it).

During the msn convo (limited as it was) He answered questions regarding general strategies in 8 player games, why people do what they do, what a "splitter" was and such. When I mentioned that I was holding a set and wondering when the best time would be to cash, he kindly ask that I wait until one of us was eliminated before discussing more about this particular game and that he truly disliked being distracted during his freestyle games.

8 players is a new world and scotty's quickly becomming my tour guide answering any questions I have in some form of serious manner but when in a game together, it's just that, a game and Scotty makes it clear that he's playing. He's never once asked me to specifically do 1 thing in any game, he's never once tried to sway or influence my move in any game. If he speaks at all during playing it is answering general questions and steering clear of current games.

I will say this now for whatever its worth, anytime I play against scotty, I can have full confidance that he is not on msn with someone else talking over game details.

Points system? I would love to see a set ammount of points taken from the loser given to the winner each game regardless of rank unless the player falls (as I've seen) to litterally 15 points. This set ammount of points would be the same if a Cook beat a Colonel or if the Colonel beat the Cook.


PS: Hulmey, why don't you like my colour hun?!?!?

[nesterdude]

Now this is just plain funny
poor scott
LOL

[KoE_Sirius]

Now this is just plain funny
poor scott
LOL

Poor Buizerd and jan1976.

[ABSOLUTE_MASTER]

Now this is just plain funny
poor scott
LOL

Poor Scott?.... He's enjoying it... and most important.. I'm enjoying it... this is so much fun...

Now really... this thread has been up for many days now, shouldn't one of the mods clear or bust him already? If such a decision is not relevant to this thread, shouldn't they lock it?