roadwarrior [noted]

[MOBAJOBG]

There wasnt a secret alliance from what i can see. Accused was asking for information where other parties where in a fog game! this is not an alliance. Simply an exchange of information. If accepted by other player than it still wouldnt be alliance becuase they arent attacking an other player or joing forces to attack another player.

Furthermore, maybe after swapping information the said players might have declared it in chat. Who knows. Nobody coz an alliance wasnt formed and information wasnt swapped!

lets stop draggin up old topics and move on. whoever dragged up this topic should be forum banned or warned for TRolling

can we have a ruling on this trolling , please mods?

The mods ruled this as an "attempted secret alliance". This means, that roadwarrior tried, but failed to make a secret alliance. The fact that RW was asking for information in a FoW game isn't against the rules, but the fact that he used pm's to try to achieve this, is. Theres no other way around it. Roadwarrior tried to cheat by pming people in his games for FoW information.

Who knows, maybe he actually did end up with a secret alliance with someone? This, in my opinion is more likely than your suggestion about a player and roadwarrior declaring in the gamechat that they had exchanged pm's regarding the positions of people in a FoW game (which is against the rules).

Well, the mods erred on their decision in pertaining to this matter [edit: start] LOL [edit: end] and you are entitled to your opinion which is incorrect.

[MOBAJOBG]

There wasnt a secret alliance from what i can see. Accused was asking for information where other parties where in a fog game! this is not an alliance. Simply an exchange of information. If accepted by other player than it still wouldnt be alliance becuase they arent attacking an other player or joing forces to attack another player.

Furthermore, maybe after swapping information the said players might have declared it in chat. Who knows. Nobody coz an alliance wasnt formed and information wasnt swapped!

lets stop draggin up old topics and move on. whoever dragged up this topic should be forum banned or warned for TRolling

can we have a ruling on this trolling , please mods?

The mods ruled this as an "attempted secret alliance". This means, that roadwarrior tried, but failed to make a secret alliance. The fact that RW was asking for information in a FoW game isn't against the rules, but the fact that he used pm's to try to achieve this, is. Theres no other way around it. Roadwarrior tried to cheat by pming people in his games for FoW information.

Who knows, maybe he actually did end up with a secret alliance with someone? This, in my opinion is more likely than your suggestion about a player and roadwarrior declaring in the gamechat that they had exchanged pm's regarding the positions of people in a FoW game (which is against the rules).

Surely that's after the fact Poo ? If any one of them accepted Road's offer, it wouldn't had been declared in chat. It was a way to cover his own ass when he got rejected?

I think you're being paranoid.

[MOBAJOBG]

Ha. Well if this was a legitimate attempt to form an alliance it was an incredibly incompetent one. Why weren't these proposals made in chat? Why over PM? If two or three players had agreed and then it was announced in chat, as roadwarrior claims would have happened, it's only natural that everyone would be pissed off to realize they were all suddenly feeding info to one player. And what are the terms? There ain't nothing here but a vague promise of quid pro quo. There properly ought to have been a proposal to share info of a definite value, e.g. troop number for troop number, enemy position for enemy position, with specific countries and frequency of occurrence e.g. one info for one info. Otherwise disagreements on relative information value are inevitable. You basically asked a player to let them be taken advantage of.

Seriously, roadwarrior, if you are legit learn to make better alliance proposals in the future. It's no surprise at all that people find this fumbling attempt shady.

Game #1358911 was roadwarrior's last and only 6-player standard FoW game. I'm quite sure that roadwarrior does not strike up any form of alliance whatsoever after this feeble and imprecise attempt of an accusation.

If I don't believe in roadwarrior's innocence, I wouldn't be here to waste my time to erect impregnable defence on roadwarrior's behalf.

[ZawBanjito]

Game #1358911 was roadwarrior's last and only 6-player standard FoW game. I'm quite sure that roadwarrior does not strike up any form of alliance whatsoever after this feeble and imprecise attempt of an accusation.

If I don't believe in roadwarrior's innocence, I wouldn't be here to waste my time to erect impregnable defence on roadwarrior's behalf.

Well, if this is the case and he really simply didn't know, then the fact remains that he accidentally broke the rules, learned his lesson, and it's been noted.

Why not just apologize, never do it again, and move on? This entire defense is entirely pointless.

[MOBAJOBG]

Game #1358911 was roadwarrior's last and only 6-player standard FoW game. I'm quite sure that roadwarrior does not strike up any form of alliance whatsoever after this feeble and imprecise attempt of an accusation.

If I don't believe in roadwarrior's innocence, I wouldn't be here to waste my time to erect impregnable defence on roadwarrior's behalf.

Well, if this is the case and he really simply didn't know, then the fact remains that he accidentally broke the rules, learned his lesson, and it's been noted.

Why not just apologize, never do it again, and move on? This entire defense is entirely pointless.

Why should roadwarrior apologize? I've stated earlier that the mods have erred in their decision of roadwarrior's attempted secret alliance. In addition, roadwarrior believes that he's in the right.

This kind of absurd ruling only convinces me further that the mods in CC does not have air-tight and full proof methodology in establishing whether people are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty or honestly innocent in such similar cases which has dragged roadwarrior's humble name into the mud.

Therefore, "This entire defense is entirely pointless," as you've pointed out ...I think we've to agree to disagree.

[comic boy]

Yes the ruling was absurd - he clearly attempted to cheat and your silly attempts at justification simply make you a tool if not something more sinister.

[poo-maker]

There wasnt a secret alliance from what i can see. Accused was asking for information where other parties where in a fog game! this is not an alliance. Simply an exchange of information. If accepted by other player than it still wouldnt be alliance becuase they arent attacking an other player or joing forces to attack another player.

Furthermore, maybe after swapping information the said players might have declared it in chat. Who knows. Nobody coz an alliance wasnt formed and information wasnt swapped!

lets stop draggin up old topics and move on. whoever dragged up this topic should be forum banned or warned for TRolling

can we have a ruling on this trolling , please mods?

The mods ruled this as an "attempted secret alliance". This means, that roadwarrior tried, but failed to make a secret alliance. The fact that RW was asking for information in a FoW game isn't against the rules, but the fact that he used pm's to try to achieve this, is. Theres no other way around it. Roadwarrior tried to cheat by pming people in his games for FoW information.

Who knows, maybe he actually did end up with a secret alliance with someone? This, in my opinion is more likely than your suggestion about a player and roadwarrior declaring in the gamechat that they had exchanged pm's regarding the positions of people in a FoW game (which is against the rules).

Well, the mods erred on their decision in pertaining to this matter [edit: start] LOL [edit: end] and you are entitled to your opinion which is incorrect.

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. The evidence in this case shows that roadwarrior sent pm's to 3 different people asking for information in a FoW game- MOBAJOGB, I don't really understand what you think of this. Do you think that these 3 people lied? Look, we see buddies sticking up for each other all the time on this site no matter what the circumstances are, this is obviously one of them...

Game #1358911 was roadwarrior's last and only 6-player standard FoW game.

So, it looks like the mods ruling actually worked.

[drewman222]

Game #1358911 was roadwarrior's last and only 6-player standard FoW game. I'm quite sure that roadwarrior does not strike up any form of alliance whatsoever after this feeble and imprecise attempt of an accusation.

If I don't believe in roadwarrior's innocence, I wouldn't be here to waste my time to erect impregnable defence on roadwarrior's behalf.

Well, if this is the case and he really simply didn't know, then the fact remains that he accidentally broke the rules, learned his lesson, and it's been noted.

Why not just apologize, never do it again, and move on? This entire defense is entirely pointless.

Why should roadwarrior apologize? I've stated earlier that the mods have erred in their decision of roadwarrior's attempted secret alliance. In addition, roadwarrior believes that he's in the right.

This kind of absurd ruling only convinces me further that the mods in CC does not have air-tight and full proof methodology in establishing whether people are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty or honestly innocent in such similar cases which has dragged roadwarrior's humble name into the mud.

Therefore, "This entire defense is entirely pointless," as you've pointed out ...I think we've to agree to disagree.

I think we can all agree that you are doing a fine job sucking off your doubles partner. Whole lotta man-love going on.

[hulmey]

Ha. Well if this was a legitimate attempt to form an alliance it was an incredibly incompetent one. Why weren't these proposals made in chat? Why over PM? If two or three players had agreed and then it was announced in chat, as roadwarrior claims would have happened, it's only natural that everyone would be pissed off to realize they were all suddenly feeding info to one player. And what are the terms? There ain't nothing here but a vague promise of quid pro quo. There properly ought to have been a proposal to share info of a definite value, e.g. troop number for troop number, enemy position for enemy position, with specific countries and frequency of occurrence e.g. one info for one info. Otherwise disagreements on relative information value are inevitable. You basically asked a player to let them be taken advantage of.

Seriously, roadwarrior, if you are legit learn to make better alliance proposals in the future. It's no surprise at all that people find this fumbling attempt shady.

A high ranker making such a big mistake! Alliances can be forged by Pm, but when done so must be announced in chat. I very rarley make alliances and my honour/respect has never been brought into question. But, depending on the circumstances i mgith approach some one for an alliance by PM and then if forged announce it in chat. Sometimes players suicide you just for thinking of having an alliance with some1 else!

[KoE_Sirius]

From: The Cheater Society
To: KoE_Sirius
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 21:39
Subject: quid pro quo
You can not always believe what people claim is a PM,but the Mods take it for gratis.
Keep this in mind

[MOBAJOBG]

Yes the ruling was absurd - he clearly attempted to cheat and your silly attempts at justification simply make you a tool if not something more sinister.

comic boy; Are you flaming me outside of the FW? For your information, you do not deserve any kind of response for your inappropriate comment but you are entitled to your malicious opinion.

If you can't debate in an orderly manner, then don't force yourself.

[MOBAJOBG]

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. The evidence in this case shows that roadwarrior sent pm's to 3 different people asking for information in a FoW game- MOBAJOGB, I don't really understand what you think of this. Do you think that these 3 people lied? Look, we see buddies sticking up for each other all the time on this site no matter what the circumstances are, this is obviously one of them... .

It's 2 persons only and not 3 ...according to roadwarrior, negoeien was not PMed at all. negoeien did not provide any tangible evidence except unsubstantiated or unsupported claim as far as I can gather. As I've stated already a few times before, roadwarrior would declare it in the Game Chat when a deal has been made but in this case, roadwarrior was accused before any deal was even finalised or hatched yet.

So, it looks like the mods ruling actually worked.

As far as I'm concerned, the innocent has been found guilty that's all. I may decide to debate for those who have been mistakenly or falsely oppressed if I know they are innocent.

[MOBAJOBG]

I think we can all agree that you are doing a fine job sucking off your doubles partner. Whole lotta man-love going on.

You're right but only up to a certain extent as roadwarrior is my brother and that's me (I'm on the left) in my avatar.

[comic boy]

Yes the ruling was absurd - he clearly attempted to cheat and your silly attempts at justification simply make you a tool if not something more sinister.

comic boy; Are you flaming me outside of the FW? For your information, you do not deserve any kind of response for your inappropriate comment but you are entitled to your malicious opinion.

If you can't debate in an orderly manner, then don't force yourself.

There is no debate - your defence consists of saying he is a nice chap which is absurd, its interesting that you take umbrage at my so called inapropriate comments yet remained tight lipped when roadwarrior made wild accusations that he was asked to back up but couldnt. Go find a dictionery and look up the word hypocrite and the phrase 'selectively myopic',they sum the pair of you up perfectly.

[ZawBanjito]

Why should roadwarrior apologize? I've stated earlier that the mods have erred in their decision of roadwarrior's attempted secret alliance. In addition, roadwarrior believes that he's in the right.

This kind of absurd ruling only convinces me further that the mods in CC does not have air-tight and full proof methodology in establishing whether people are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty or honestly innocent in such similar cases which has dragged roadwarrior's humble name into the mud.

Therefore, "This entire defense is entirely pointless," as you've pointed out ...I think we've to agree to disagree.

No, we may be able to agree very easily.

We might agree that roadwarrior made an incompetent attempt at an alliance. We might agree that this attempt accidentally violated the rules, without that being roadwarrior's intention or even entirely with his knowledge, since he doesn't know anything about making alliances. We might agree that it is understandable that this looks suspicious and so the Mods [NOTED] it in case further, similar cases came up in the future, and that no other penalties were levied against roadwarrior. We might agree that now, since roadwarrior has learned his lesson and is not making alliances or even playing that kind of game anymore, such incidents will not occur in the future, and therefore roadwarrior is in the clear.

We appear to theoretically agree on all of these points already, in principle. Am I wrong?

Then what is left to agree on is the idea that if roadwarrior had, in the very first instance, said, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize, it won't happen again," then the issue might have ended at once, and if any of the other affected parties were to continue carping they would begin to look like assholes punching on the penitent. We might, at a stretch, agree that you and your brother's continuous carping on honor and justice and throwing of wild accusations and invective are keeping this issue alive longer than it might otherwise warrant...

were roadwarrior in fact to be innocent.

Do you agree?

[MOBAJOBG]

Yes the ruling was absurd - he clearly attempted to cheat and your silly attempts at justification simply make you a tool if not something more sinister.

comic boy; Are you flaming me outside of the FW? For your information, you do not deserve any kind of response for your inappropriate comment but you are entitled to your malicious opinion.

If you can't debate in an orderly manner, then don't force yourself.

There is no debate - your defence consists of saying he is a nice chap which is absurd, its interesting that you take umbrage at my so called inapropriate comments yet remained tight lipped when roadwarrior made wild accusations that he was asked to back up but couldnt. Go find a dictionery and look up the word hypocrite and the phrase 'selectively myopic',they sum the pair of you up perfectly.

It's dictionary and you're not worthy of my time to debunk. [1st edit] It seems to me that you're an instigator.

[joecoolfrog]

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. The evidence in this case shows that roadwarrior sent pm's to 3 different people asking for information in a FoW game- MOBAJOGB, I don't really understand what you think of this. Do you think that these 3 people lied? Look, we see buddies sticking up for each other all the time on this site no matter what the circumstances are, this is obviously one of them... .

It's 2 persons only and not 3 ...according to roadwarrior, negoeien was not PMed at all. negoeien did not provide any tangible evidence except unsubstantiated or unsupported claim as far as I can gather. As I've stated already a few times before, roadwarrior would declare it in the Game Chat when a deal has been made but in this case, roadwarrior was accused before any deal was even finalised or hatched yet.

So, it looks like the mods ruling actually worked.

As far as I'm concerned, the innocent has been found guilty that's all. I may decide to debate for those who have been mistakenly or falsely oppressed if I know they are innocent.

You are incorrect, Negoeien confirmed in the original game chat that he was also sent a PM, why would 3 people make this up ? As Zaw Bandito says all the guy had to do was admit his error and it would all have been forgotten, instead he carries on with these vomit inducing pleas of innocence and worst still attempts to blacken the good name of other players.

[MOBAJOBG]

No, we may be able to agree very easily.

We might agree that roadwarrior made an incompetent attempt at an alliance. We might agree that this attempt accidentally violated the rules, without that being roadwarrior's intention or even entirely with his knowledge, since he doesn't know anything about making alliances. We might agree that it is understandable that this looks suspicious and so the Mods [NOTED] it in case further, similar cases came up in the future, and that no other penalties were levied against roadwarrior. We might agree that now, since roadwarrior has learned his lesson and is not making alliances or even playing that kind of game anymore, such incidents will not occur in the future, and therefore roadwarrior is in the clear.

We appear to theoretically agree on all of these points already, in principle. Am I wrong?

No complaints.

Then what is left to agree on is the idea that if roadwarrior had, in the very first instance, said, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize, it won't happen again," then the issue might have ended at once, and if any of the other affected parties were to continue carping they would begin to look like assholes punching on the penitent.?

I know that you are right on target.

We might, at a stretch, agree that you and your brother's continuous carping on honor and justice and throwing of wild accusations and invective are keeping this issue alive longer than it might otherwise warrant...

were roadwarrior in fact to be innocent.

Do you agree?

You are incorrect, Negoeien confirmed in the original game chat that he was also sent a PM, why would 3 people make this up ? As Zaw Bandito says all the guy had to do was admit his error and it would all have been forgotten, instead he carries on with these vomit inducing pleas of innocence and worst still attempts to blacken the good name of other players.

roadwarrior should be the person to address the above identical matter as I don't know his stance for sure.

[Scott-Land]

Say what you want- I don't buy the [sorry officer, I didn't know defense]. Grab any noob off the streets and he will tell you that communication via PMs is against the rules aka Secret Alliance.

[roadwarrior]

In fact, nego was not sent a pm and as explained he was just tricking luckywar...i do not know why nego felt it was amusing to trick luckywar as i already explained the matter.

Therefore I will not dignify wild accusations. I appreciate those who have come to my defence. They know what a load of rubbish is being cooked against me.

An aside
"Go find a dictionery and look up the word hypocrite and the phrase 'selectively myopic',they sum the pair of you up perfectly." quoted by comic boy

comic boy: I know you are such a mean character based on the above. You are now casting aspersions on MOBAJOBG who is one of the most respected players in cc. You are way out of line here. I know him to be a highly principled person in real life and he carries on like this in cc too.

Remember eventhough I disagreed with joe, your father yet I knew how to respect the bounds of age and the fact that he is your father. Shame on you for your ill temper and manners!

I fully agree that it is not worthwhile to debunk any of those wild accusations and have refrained myself eventhough I am furious. I believe the mods will act against those culprits like the cheating Scott-Land and his fellow conspirators like mean and miserable comic boy.

[Scott-Land]

Scott-please read the thread and avoid putting out misinformation like this. The mods have ruled in your case and based on your own standards, you are a cheat. Remember by the measure you mete out on others, expect the same to be meted out you. I shall not dignify your malicious accusations further[/quote]

Hehee-- by your own reasoning.... noted is guilty?

For me- there are games that are supposedly in question- this noted is because it was your first time being caught. A huge difference-- where no evidence but allegations were put forth against me, you on the other hand were found guilty and because it was your first time , they gave you a slap on the wrist as JR put it.[/quote]

I'll quote myself-
You have yet to respond to your opinion that I'm a cheat. What evidence are you basing this judgment on? I'll ask the question again: by your own reasoning is [noted] guilty? You don't have 3 players tricking you into sending them PMs do you? What player(s) have come forth with evidence against me? In your case, I can name 3 players......

[Twill]

OK, for one thing, why on earth was this dug up 3 months after the initial complaint and ruling with no further evidence, complaints or, well reason?!

Blitz, expect a PM coming your way.

On the topic of the ruling - because we do not go into private PMs in an attempt to respect your privacy, we cannot verify the existence or content of the accusation to 100% certainty and it essentially becomes "he said, we said". Now, if you would like to petition us to begin digging through your inboxes, violating your privacy and finding all sorts of dirt on you, you are welcome to try it - but this is not the place for it.

Now, that does not mean that roadwarrior is innocent, nor does it mean he is guilty. We have noted it so that in the future if we get similar complaints - if this becomes a trend which we can identify - then we can take certain action against a user.

To all those who say "but 3 people said he did it!" well I promise you I can find 3 people to condemn you as well. Yes, it is very damning and looks bad, but you do not know the details and so are making an emotional rather than fact based ruling.

Roadwarrior, I suggest you apologize for whatever crimes you may have tried to commit and move on with your life

Everyone else, it looks HIGHLY suspicious that so many people so uninvolved in this particular case are being so quick to condemn a player - it almost looks like to have an ulterior motive Leave accusations to those who have been wronged, those who do the wronging and the mods who's job it is to keep the peace.

The ruling will stand, roadwarrior is suspected of trying (and failing) to form an alliance via PM. Because we do not know a) what the exact contents of the PM was to 100% certainty, and b) what would have happened if the "form of collusion" had been agreed to (it may have ended up a publicly announced alliance) then technically no rule has been violated yet but we will continue to watch for further accusations which may hold merit.

Add him to your ignore list if you choose, but be done with this pointless argument.

Twill

[GabonX]

I'm not commenting on this but it might be good if the policy regarding PMs was that you guys would request to view a player's messages. Each player could give you permission to veiw their inbox.This would allow people to verify their claims without violating their privacy.

Sorry to post about that in this topic, especialy since you said that this isn't the best place for it, but it seems like it would be a strange thing to put in the suggestions and bug reports forum. I feel like it is most on topic here.

[Twill]

I'm not commenting on this but it might be good if the policy regarding PMs was that you guys would request to view a player's messages. Each player could give you permission to veiw their inbox.This would allow people to verify their claims without violating their privacy.

Sorry to post about that in this topic, especialy since you said that this isn't the best place for it, but it seems like it would be a strange thing to put in the suggestions and bug reports forum. I feel like it is most on topic here.

This would be a policy shift that affects everyone and as such it would actually be most appropriate in the sugs/bugs forum.

We're not going into user's inboxes because even if I give Lack permission to view my inbox to read a PM that You sent me, You did not give permission to do so and as such we are violating You's privacy...along with anyone else who has ever PM'd that person because we would see their PMs as well.

It's a tricky situation and we just don't want to violate our users' trust like that.

[joecoolfrog]

I wasn't even asked by a mod to clarify what was sent to me, I would certainly have been happy to pass on the relevent PM.