Blue Baron and NicTheFish [noted]

by **MarathonMax** on Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:53 am

Accused:

Blue Baron
NicTheFish

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 4025774

Comments:
This is the first time that I post in this forum. I do not want to flame mail anyone. And of course, I have no proof, other than "circumstantial evidences". And I do find the word use "Accused" to be stronger than what I want to say; "Suspected" would be more appropriate.

Here's the situation:

In game 4025774 (Italia), Blue Baron is holding the "Isole" zone (+3) and not defending "Isole Eolie" against his suspected ally, NicTheFish. He has a single army there. NicTheFish goes first and does not attack "Isole Eolie" from "Calabria"! That's is clue #1. Next, Blue Baron receives spoils and puts all of it on "Sardegna" to attack me in "Liguria" to take away my "Nord-ovest" zone (+2). No armies to defend his precious Zone bonus. That was clue #2. Further to my claim, he did not attack NicTheFish in "Roma" who is also holding "Napoli", thus receiving spoils for holding two cities. This is clue #3.

I understand the idea, I am (was?) leading in this game and it is OK to league yourself against the leader at the time (me). What is not OK is to do this with a secret diplomacy deal.

Again, I have no proof, just "circumstantial evidences" - three of them!

Max

by **king achilles** on Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:41 am

If you feel that these two had a secret diplomacy in this game, feel free to give them the ratings you think they deserve. Based from your analogy, they could have. They could also be avoiding to assault one another and start a personal battle until they weaken each other for the others to assault them at the right time.

Also, this is their first game played together so far. We would need more than one game of strong evidence of malicious plays involving the same players to warrant a block. Still, this is noted for future reference.

by **MarathonMax** on Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:16 am

thanks for the reply.

i am playing another game with Blue Baron where he is "behaving"... maybe that is because he is leading and has no one to ally with LOL :-)

by **NicTheFish** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:15 am

What the hell is this?! I guess you have the option to see the entire log as I do, so just take a look at how often we fought each other. I don't think that's the way 2 "allies" are playing together. Oh and you can see also that I've never played with this guy before. And about that capital city on which I only kept 1 army, I didn't noticed first that it was linked to that other guy territory. When I saw that he hadn't attack me, I needed my armies elsewhere.

I don't know if you accuse people often or just when you lose, but that's some stupid accusations from you.

by **MarathonMax** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:18 pm

Hey Nick,

I understand your reaction. Read my post. See how careful I am with my choice of words. I do believe that their was the "smell" of an alliance although I can't prove it.

Also, I do note that fighting against the current game leader is OK and natural, gearing up two against one in a secret alliance is not.

As to loosing, well, I did loose that game, but not against you nor against Blue Baron. Notsosmart, was "smart" enough to stay under the radar of this fight and escape out to win.

I am currently playing against Blue Baron in a Benelux game where he his winning and I did ally myself with an opponent to take him out. I least I did so publicly.

Max

PS: Can't wait to get my revenge on you, in a friendly manner that is

by **NicTheFish** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:05 pm

The reason why I'm upset is that I've always played this game the best I could and I've always tried to be friendly with everyone. And I think my rating can prove so.. you're the only one giving me shitty ratings. Now let's point out few things:

2009-01-21 10:23:01 - maximegousse: hey green(notsosmart), if you go for blue(NicTheFish) i will not go for you the next turn
2009-01-21 12:03:36 - notsosmart: i'm trying to go for blue(NicTheFish) but it's proving difficult
2009-01-21 17:43:47 - NicTheFish: Hum, I think red(maximegousse) should be the target much more than me.. just do a quick army count
2009-01-21 20:37:54 - maximegousse: hey blue(NicTheFish) that was almost right, except that this was BEFORE yellow(Blue Baron) played and captured Isole

As the game log can say, you were the one not able to shut your mouth all game long, always trying to influence others to attack one or another. I remember blue baron not taking my second capital territory (+1), and I was really suprise. So when my situation was getting really bad, I had no choice than to bet that he wouldn't attack me since he was busy with you. My only hope was to gather the most fleet as I could on Abruzzo, letting him have his bonus for a round. If we are automatically obligated to take away each and everyone's bonus every turn, well I'm guilty. But when that person is busy with the leader, it might be PART OF THE STRATEGY than to let him have his bonus. If there was a secret alliance, well it was so secret that I didn't heard about it myself.

Btw don't try to be friendly with me, I don't have respect for those people who uses the chat to coordonate the attacks against players that earns bonuses.I really think they should remove the chat from those games so that people like you will shut up and play individually for the whole game. That's all I have to say.

by **Royal Panda** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:25 pm

Calm down NicTheFish! You're acting childish; everyone's entitled to report suspicious activity and have it looked at. I've reported someone before who turned out to be clean because they looked suspicious, and they were only polite to me about it.

I've been reported for similar but was still polite to my accuser because I could understand why they thought something was suspicious, and I calmly explained why they might think how they did.

You were reported because of some odd moves in a game and it turns out you also are clean; don't take it as a slight against your person!