vampypants vesperlynn [Cleared]

[shearer]

Accused:
vampypants
vesperlynn


The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

[king sam]

Accused:
vampypants
vesperlynn


The accused are suspected of:
Being Multis
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game Number(s):
Game 4459127
Game 4463508

Comments: None

4459127 (vampypants, vesperlynn)
2 player Standard Classic Map
Flat Rate, Unlimited Forts, No Fog
vesperlynn won

1 vs 1 is very hard to analyze if one was allowing the other 2 win or not. Simply cause its all about the luck of the dice, drop and cards. I can tell both made efforts to attack each other and break what bonuses they could from the log and that the winner vesperlynn received more territory and spoils bonuses throughout the game.


4463508 (vampypants, vesperlynn, shearer)
3 player Freestyle Classic Map
Flat Rate, Unlimited Forts, No Fog
vesperlynn won

Multiple account accusation most likely false because:

2009-03-14 17:23:01 - vesperlynn deployed 2 troops on F5
2009-03-14 17:23:03 - vampypants reinforced E6 with 2 troops from A9
2009-03-14 17:23:06 - vampypants reinforced E6 with 2 troops from A10
2009-03-14 17:23:08 - vesperlynn deployed 2 troops on F2

Time interval between both users turns in this freestyle match leads one to believe that either

• its 2 accounts (most likely)
• its 1 account using several computers or web browsers to simultaneously take turns in a game

A secret diplomacy is hard to prove. It will take more then 2 games that were suspicious to determine this. Especially when the actions in this game by both the accused can be explained.

Explanation of actions by accused:
Sometimes when someone comes out in chat as forceful as you did shearer it can result in other players especially those you abuse verbally to do nothing but attack the aggressor of that situation.

2009-03-14 17:31:38 - shearer: alright blue, u just lost the game for both of us
2009-03-14 17:32:28 - shearer: hard to play when u two are friends, fuckin secret alliance bullshit

At or right before this statement

• you had 10 regions and were receiving 3 troops in round 3
• vesperlynn had 13 regions 3 troops for holding Africa for the first time (7 troops in round 3)
• vampypants had 15 regions 5 troops for holding Europe for the first time (10 troops in round 3)

In the 2 rounds before your accusation vampypants attacked vesperlynn twice. Once to claim a territory within Europe and the 2nd one was to break his Africa bonus. He attacked you 3 times, all to claim territories in the Europe bonus.

In the 2 rounds before your accusation vesperlynn attacked you 9 times. Twice in round 2 to try to get the Africa bonus, and 7 times in those 2 rounds to try beat you out for the Australia bonus. He attacked vampypants 0 times in those first 2 rounds.

It appears to me that both players were doing what was beneficial for them and it just so happens that in the beginning rounds of this game you gave them the opportunity to jump out to a lead by doing whatever you did to appear weaker for them to be able to both claim bonuses that early on.

After your accusation in chat all critiques of their gameplay goes out the window cause like I said you drew a target on your back by jumping to those conclusions in the chat log.

Most likely I see this one going as not getting Noted for either, but I also don't have the tools the mods do, and have been wrong before. My advice would be to FOE them and rate them accordingly and if you strongly feel foul play is going on and its not deemed at this time to keep an eye on these two and provide more proof for diplomacy when it is warranted.

Best of Luck
King Sam

[Fireside Poet]

Suspects:
vampypants
vesperlynn

Verdict: Cleared of multiple accounts. Cleared of secret diplomacy. Please use the foe list and the feedback ratings as viable alternatives at this time. Thank you.