spdrcr105 ard88 [Noted] ks

[firth4eva]

Accused:

spdrcr105
ard88

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis

Game number(s):

Game 6353004




Comments: Borders are undefended, not attacking each other. Look like multis. This spurious king achilles?

[steve066]

by the way this game is in progress

those 2 have undefended borders and are attacking yellow and myself
for second consecutive turn

biggest man has big bonuses with only ones defending them
and is ignored by green

also this is greens first game on cc
i would guess almost 100% of people would start with classic
his choice of 2.1 world questionable


s

[gcwca_4_life]

by the way this game is in progress

those 2 have undefended borders and are attacking yellow and myself
for second consecutive turn

biggest man has big bonuses with only ones defending them
and is ignored by green

also this is greens first game on cc
i would guess almost 100% of people would start with classic
his choice of 2.1 world questionable


s

It's either they are multis, or having secret alliances. Best to let the mods deal with it from here. Can't rush it.

[king sam]

Comments: This spurious king achilles?

Is this really necessary? If you feel a wrongful assessment was made on you then open up an E-Ticket to get it reviewed, don't bring this childish behavior in my C&A forum.

This is pending...

KS

[king sam]

Cleared at this time, ard88 and spdrcr105 are more likely friends.

Foe & Rate as you see fit.

KS

[steve066]

sam,

i am very surprised at your decision in viewtopic.php?f=239&t=108029&p=2428678#p2428678


whether they are friends or multis they are playing as 1
you appear to be saying it is ok if they dont attack each other
and work together against others

i'm going to lose 50 points for starting an open game
i'm very unhappy at this outcome

btw i have screen shots from earlier play
if you checked log you would see they left 1's on their bonus borders
and didnt attack each other. how can you close complaint with a
" they are likely friends" ?

s

[king sam]

sam,

i am very surprised at your decision in viewtopic.php?f=239&t=108029&p=2428678#p2428678

whether they are friends or multis they are playing as 1
you appear to be saying it is ok if they dont attack each other
and work together against others

i'm going to lose 50 points for starting an open game
i'm very unhappy at this outcome

btw i have screen shots from earlier play
if you checked log you would see they left 1's on their bonus borders
and didnt attack each other. how can you close complaint with a
" they are likely friends" ?
s

We ran an IP scan and checked them to see if they were multis and they are not so they are Cleared.
For a Secret Diplomacy case to be ruled we would need more evidence then what is in this game and the other game that they are in together. SD is hard to prove, we look at the moves made by the accounts in question in numerous games to help prove a pattern of one or 2 players consistently making moves that would suggest that they would be working together. And as I said unfortunately for you there isn't enough as of yet, I meant to say I Noted these accounts earlier and forgot to. That's my bad, it is Noted for future reference so it may be used against these accounts at a later date.

Sometimes you will see the higher ranked players being targeted in games with players of lesser ranks, sometimes you will run into players that lack the concept or tactical knowledge, foe & rate accordingly and file a complaint if you feel abuse is going on. You filed the complaint and we don't have enough on them at this time to warrant a disciplinary action.

If you still feel this is an error please feel free to open up an E-Ticket on the matter.

Regards,
KS

[steve066]

while i disagree with your conclusion
i thank you for your courteous reply

i believe i said i had screen shots
you didnt ask to see them before you ruled
they show from round 3 a consistent pattern of leaving the mutual borders of their bonuses
without defenders while loading up on territories that bordered on the 2 other colors. they also attacked in a sensible manner to break bonuses of opponents. while ignoring undefended 1's on "friends" bonus

it is not poor tactical sense or lack of any other skill
these just screams "secret diplomacy"
cant you question them?
or look at screen shots?

s

[king sam]

by all means send them to me, I am not perfect, and I missed that comment about screen shots in your earlier reply.

Even if the screen shots do pan out and prove to be enough for a secret diplomacy ruling you would still lose the points, as the punishment would be for them 2 to be Blocked from playing together in the future.

Sorry, & looking forward to seeing them. Thanks

KS

[gcwca_4_life]

sam,

i am very surprised at your decision in viewtopic.php?f=239&t=108029&p=2428678#p2428678

whether they are friends or multis they are playing as 1
you appear to be saying it is ok if they dont attack each other
and work together against others

i'm going to lose 50 points for starting an open game
i'm very unhappy at this outcome

btw i have screen shots from earlier play
if you checked log you would see they left 1's on their bonus borders
and didnt attack each other. how can you close complaint with a
" they are likely friends" ?
s

We ran an IP scan and checked them to see if they were multis and they are not so they are Cleared.
For a Secret Diplomacy case to be ruled we would need more evidence then what is in this game and the other game that they are in together. SD is hard to prove, we look at the moves made by the accounts in question in numerous games to help prove a pattern of one or 2 players consistently making moves that would suggest that they would be working together. And as I said unfortunately for you there isn't enough as of yet, I meant to say I Noted these accounts earlier and forgot to. That's my bad, it is Noted for future reference so it may be used against these accounts at a later date.

Sometimes you will see the higher ranked players being targeted in games with players of lesser ranks, sometimes you will run into players that lack the concept or tactical knowledge, foe & rate accordingly and file a complaint if you feel abuse is going on. You filed the complaint and we don't have enough on them at this time to warrant a disciplinary action.

If you still feel this is an error please feel free to open up an E-Ticket on the matter.

Regards,
KS

sam, i'm sorry to say this, but you out of all people should know that an ip scan won't show shit if they are using a proxy. they are cheaters, and because of bullshit tools like your soo called multi catcher, the ip scan, too many cheating fucks get away with it.

[king sam]

sam, i'm sorry to say this, but you out of all people should know that an ip scan won't show shit if they are using a proxy. they are cheaters, and because of bullshit tools like your soo called multi catcher, the ip scan, too many cheating fucks get away with it.

there are a lot more tools at our disposal then just the IP scan... cheaters are caught everyday by our methods and if we don't get them today then we will get them tomorrow or the next as more evidence builds up against them. don't worry about our ways, we got plenty of tricks and we use them all to help keep the site rid of cheaters.

Obviously Im not going to divulge into details as to what we do. Just trust us.

KS

[firth4eva]

I'm sorry steve, these 2 were cleared because of me. King sam only cleared them because he dislikes me. Once again, sorry that you lose points because of incompetent mods.

[king sam]

I'm sorry steve, these 2 were cleared because of me. King sam only cleared them because he dislikes me. Once again, sorry that you lose points because of incompetent mods.

I could care less about you, and really don't take a liking or disliking to anyone on this site nor do I let anything influence me in a case.

The 2 accounts aren't mulits if they were then they would be Busted and eliminated from all active games.

At this time there is evidence to suggest that their is a possibility of them working together but it can also be perceived as 2 players that aren't that understanding of tactics or threatened by the rank of the others in the game. Meaning their is doubt. Hence in my decision I said we would need more evidence to sell this as a diplomacy case. So seeing as their is doubt the account was Noted for future involvement between the 2 of them. I repeatedly have asked for the screenshots of proof that I was not able to see because I wasn't in the game at the time of the no defense on borders thing but I have not gotten any yet.

Even with all the evidence in the world to support a diplomacy case the rules clearly tell you that the actions taken by us, not just me but any mod, would be to Block the 2 accounts from playing together in future games, meaning it wouldn't be a freebie on that game.

I am often correcting you and your off the wall concepts of what you think are the rules and punishments on this site, perhaps you should finally listen to me and read the community guidelines before you go make another silly post firth.

KS