Jeffbroomhead [Cleared] KS

[Machiavelli39]

Accused:

Jeffbroomhead

The accused are suspected of:

Other: <Gross Abuse: Pretending to go on vacation with the intention of disrupting the flow of the game; taking advantage of the said disrupted flow >

Game number(s):

Game 6361932


Comments:

Jeffbroomhead stated in the game chat that he was going on vacation for one week and did not expect to be able to continue playing due to the fact that he would, without any doubt, be kicked for missing too many turns (the flow of the game allowed for at least 3 rounds to pass per day; so it was obvious he'd be kicked within 3 days, which is well within a week). With that in mind, everyone adjusted themselves according to the now Fact that he would soon be an army of neutrals; as everyone would assumable do in such a situation. Within two days of him announcing his vacation, he PM's me the following in response to me calling him out on his deviant move (he claims he would try to let me win Within his parameters of what he would deem to be "fair" (which was not to claim any spoils, anymore regions, or expand, which is very unrealistic):

---------------------
*Beginning of PM:

What I mean by letting you win is that I will patiently not earn any cards or regain territories.

As far a strategy, there really isn't any Geneva convention for ethics in Risk other than not team playing or having multiple accounts. I considered it to be a pretty good bluff that I haven't used before but when read your concern about ethics, I didn't want you to feel badly.

Between you and NapolianRags, you were ahead anyway.

Jeff

*End of PM.
---------------------

This is evidence of his intentions: his "vacation" was certainly a lie to get ahead in the game, which is on par with deadbeating for the purpose of gaining advantage, or disrupting the flow of the game because one is not satisfied with how it is playing out.

Furthermore, he stated on the game chat:

2010-06-04 14:47:27 - jeffbroomhead: Please see my note in email
2010-06-04 14:47:55 - jeffbroomhead: You basically don't have a choice to win or lose -- it's my choice. You can trust it or not. Doesn't matter.
2010-06-04 14:48:25 - jeffbroomhead: Also, is there a difference between bluffing and lying?

Once more, he admitted his devious intentions.

In closing, my argument is quite simple: if one is allowed to deviantly disrupt the flow of the game by means parallel to deadbeating (as explained above), then genuine strategy and diplomacy holds no value in this game. I am merely attempting to be a champion for the integrity of Conquer Club: appreciate this (to me) unique situation and provide Jeffbroomhead with appropriate consequences, which ought to be nothing short of kicking him for violating the "Unwritten Rules" heading under the "Rules" tab.

Thank you,

Machiavelli39

[TheForgivenOne]

This is real unsportsman, but i do think this is where a Foe and Move On is ruled, but... hm.


This has me stumped. This very well could be an "Unwritten Rule". I don't think he would be kicked for this, but more along the lines of a warning. Either a FAMO, or a Warning.

[Machiavelli39]

This is real unsportsman, but i do think this is where a Foe and Move On is ruled, but... hm.


This has me stumped. This very well could be an "Unwritten Rule". I don't think he would be kicked for this, but more along the lines of a warning. Either a FAMO, or a Warning.

Hello,

What is FAMO?

And as well, this (as I've stated) should NOT be treated lightly. If this goes without any serious consequence, then this paves way for anyone to take this devious route to win a game -- Yes, the slippery slope argument applies here: this is an opportunity to clarify that Missing Turns Intentionally for the purposes of gaining an advantage should Not be allowed; furthermore, it Ought to be displayed as a formal rule, in my opinion.

Continuing my slippery slope argument, consider this as an equally condemnable situation:

Player 1 strikes up a diplomatic solution with Player 2: Player 1 will not attack Player 2 on the condition that Player 2 attacks Player 3. Player 1 does not attack Player 2, thus fulfilling his end of the contract: Player 2 then misses his turn intentionally, not being able to fulfill his end.

This devalues the art of diplomacy, and is parallel to Secret Diplomacy, in my opinion: How? -- Player 2 secretly Yet blatantly deceives player 1 by means outside of the game chat.

If this were to become a solid Law of Conquer Club, one Very significant fact of the case would be the Guilty Mind: The admitted intention of missing a turn for advantage.

Please, consider my concern for the integrity of CC and the expectations all paying customers of your product.

Thank you,

Machiavelli39

[TheForgivenOne]

FAMO = Foe and Move On.

Also, in the past, when someone would purposefully missed a turn, for a tactical purpose, they have been punished.
This isn't exactly the same, but take the case for b00060
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=97871&p=2234910&hilit=b00060#p2234910

He was given a warning for purposefully missing turns. Due to the fact that the accused Lied and purposefully missed a turn, just so you would not be worrying about him, and leave him alone, i do believe he will be warned for his actions.

They aren't setting a precedent that they are allowed to do this, they are setting a precedent, that this is NOT ALLOWED. Your opponent did not know that something like this was not allowed. He thought it would be a good tactic.

But of course the Multi Hunters may have a different view then me. I also want you to know, just because they didn't post in here, doesn't mean they haven't looked at it.

I personally think that they will NOT be kicked out for violating rules, as lots of people are caught breaking Rule #2, and aren't. CC will be setting a precedent to NOT do this in the future. If he does it again in the future, he may be given a stricter punishment then a Warning

[Machiavelli39]

Hello,

I read the case you referred me too: interesting and unique situation; however, the difference between my case and that particular one is that it was Not a "direct game deciding intentional deviance". The shallow nature of that case, suitably so, deserved such a minor punishment: a warning.

Wherein the intentional deviant circumstances were so final as to end an entire game for several people, And the player in question has absolutely no remorse, certainly ought to have a greater resulting punishment than a simple warning. Furthermore, a simple warning would leave the victims in undeserving loss of points.

To elaborate on my concern for why a mere "warning" would be ineffective, I say this:

Jeff knows it was a deviant move, hence the "guilty mind". He also now knows he is on notice informally; to give him a formal "warning" is essentially saying "we know you did it, so don't do it again" -- The brilliance of his deviant move, if a warning is only permitted, is that one can only use it once, and he certainly applied it towards gaining a hefty amount of points.

As well, for citation purposes, if we are to rule this with a punishment of a Warning, one could easily cite this case and claim that their punishment should not exceed the preceding situation.

Once more, I respect your insight, and I thank you for your responses, but I believe deeply that it is imperative the precedent be set with this case -- the precedent being kicked from the game due to the reasons I provided -- and applied formally to the rules for future similar issues.


Thank you,

Machiavelli39

[Machiavelli39]

As well, How would I be able to view/discuss/attract responses from other moderators? -- or do they come and go on these forums per their leisure?

Not to disrespect your opinions, I would just enjoy a second or third opinion on the matter, as this does appear to be a precedent setting case.

[TheForgivenOne]

Well, as said in the thread, if you start a City Mogul game first, you win 80% of the time.

But, i truly don't think that CC wants to go to such extremes for something like this. I do get where you are coming from, this was a real low trick to win the game. He lied, so you gave him a chance to build up a bit. Also, i don't know if it is possible to kick a player out of 1 of their games. They would have to kick him out of all their games (don't quote me on this, it's what i think).

But i think that all you can really do is wait for a Multi Hunter to make a ruling. Due to the extent of this case, and the fact he said this in his other games, they may have to look into it a bit more. May go into his past games to see if he used this tactic before.

Only the Multi Hunters really post in here, since this is their territory. I don't think too many mods really look through here, unless they are reporting someone. And currently, i don't see any of the Multi Hunters online

[Machiavelli39]

Okay, I understand. For the purposes of the exigency of this match, is it possible for you to relay me to a Multi-Hunter for them to review this ASAP whenever they get online? I would greatly appreciate it

Thanks for your help,

Machiavelli39

[Machiavelli39]

Well, as said in the thread, if you start a City Mogul game first, you win 80% of the time.

But, i truly don't think that CC wants to go to such extremes for something like this. I do get where you are coming from, this was a real low trick to win the game. He lied, so you gave him a chance to build up a bit. Also, i don't know if it is possible to kick a player out of 1 of their games. They would have to kick him out of all their games (don't quote me on this, it's what i think).

But i think that all you can really do is wait for a Multi Hunter to make a ruling. Due to the extent of this case, and the fact he said this in his other games, they may have to look into it a bit more. May go into his past games to see if he used this tactic before.


Only the Multi Hunters really post in here, since this is their territory. I don't think too many mods really look through here, unless they are reporting someone. And currently, i don't see any of the Multi Hunters online

He in fact did attempt this in every game that he is active in which is an important point (that I missed) towards favouring in kicking him from his games.

And I apologize for my persistency, but at the same time give me credit for trying to put up a good case that requires an even better looking-at.

Thanks,

Machiavelli39

[king sam]

I have looked over the case and can tell you that no matter the outcome he is not in vioaltion of rule number 1, being a multi so he will not be kicked from the game, so you should continue your turns and try to win. Which is highly unlikely that you could.

The case with b00060 was different because he was using a loophole in the system by missing the troop placement turns on purpose to allow himself the first turn, over a lot of games.

This guy faked left and went right, he said he would be gone and waited for the fake to be taken before he made his move. Unfortunatley I had this happen to me when I first joined the site and I was very heated as well, but it wasnt against the rules. Just cheap play. I will concur with the other staff members in here so we can get you a unifed front but to me it looks like a Foe & Rate Accordingly result.

Now as far as offering to give the game to you, that would be agaisnt the rules so if that somehwo happens let us know. But in my honest opinion saying your not going to be here to take your turns and then actually be there to take them after everyone has moved their forces is just cheap, but isnt in violation of any rules. It would be like me telling you the red player has massive armies up north in a fog game so I can build my armies to take you out. Its a war game, all is fair, including lying. Very cheap, but within the rules.

That of course is my opinion, and seeing as this could spark others to do this I will concur with the rest of the C&A team and get you exactly where we stand on this.

Continue the game, the worst that will come out of this will be a Warning not to do it again. And of course if we dont get the verdict to you before your done Please Foe and Rate Accordingly.

KS
Pending

[Machiavelli39]

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my case, KS - It's appreciated.

As I've stated, I simply do not want this type of behaviour to happen again to anyone. It is unfair, and provides exact advantages as being a multi/secret diplomacy/ etc. which is why I've attempted to be vocal on the severity of the punishment.

And you certainly do have a point, KS, when you say that lying is a part of the game, but in my opinion there is a very fine line between what happened here and secret diplomacy/PM deviance, in that the strategy went outside of the game, an area I have no control over, and then brought back in, which to me is the Essence of what secret diplomacy is: an uncontrollable factor that determines victory, is it not? It is very hard for me to fathom a simple FAMO ruling at the least, due to the remarkable advantage such a deviant move provides.

As for the Fog of War reference, that is a factor that calls on pure in-game judgement, and lacks the essence of outside-of-game/out of control sentiment, I'd believe.

My main concern here is that this issue of missing turns intentionally to curve the flow of the game in favour of the "turn-misser" appears to be an unpopular deviance, yet it is extremely dangerous and, according to what I've heard through reaction of this thread, the punishment for such a game-determining abuse, in my opinion, does not suit the offense, especially considering it does not only affect one single game: for it to be effective, it must be used in every active game that the "turn-misser" is in; thus enhancing the impact of the abuse.

Perhaps what I'm also saying is none of the current rules apply to this gross abuse directly, therefore how to deliver the proper consequences may seem a bit awkward, does it not? -- And I'm sure you will agree that the deviance (as explained above) does parallel many of your indictable offense.

What is the opinion of you and your fellow regulators on that specific note?

Once again though, I appreciate your thoughtful insight, and I hope you enjoy mine.

Machiavelli39

[perchorin]

Just wanted to point out the irony of this thread--a guy named Machiavelli39 complaining about someone using an 'end-justifies-the-means' win at all costs strategy.
The accused sounds much more Machiavellian to me

[Machiavelli39]

Just wanted to point out the irony of this thread--a guy named Machiavelli39 complaining about someone using an 'end-justifies-the-means' win at all costs strategy.

Haha trust me, I already pointed it out myself in the game chat of the game in question

This is an interesting issue though, eh?

[perchorin]

Just wanted to point out the irony of this thread--a guy named Machiavelli39 complaining about someone using an 'end-justifies-the-means' win at all costs strategy.

Haha trust me, I already pointed it out myself in the game chat of the game in question

This is an interesting issue though, eh?

Interesting, but I tend to think there were no rules broken here. It's been done to me before and I just foed the guy and left a cheap tactics tag on his rating (happens in speed games quite often) It's not any more or less dishonest than giving false information in a fog game, and I believe that issue has been resolved a few times already.

[Machiavelli39]

Indeed. I'm just trying to tease the issue that its rewards parellel secret diplomacy, and so does it's level of deviancy. Manipulation outside of the game, in my opinion, just isn't acceptable, and it would be a shame for this one to get away considering I have the spotlight.

[jefjef]

Cheap tactics is all this is.

It seems his pm was to soften you up towards him possibly hoping you expend yourself against others.

Sneaky. But all the same I can't even seem to squeeze a rules violation out of this.

[mgconstruction]

We are the victim of our own greed. We want to win so bad we take the word of another that we have never met, seen, spoken too or know nothing about. We are the victim of our own greed.

Machiavelli39, you knew he was lying.
You said

2010-06-03 18:50:35 - Machiavelli39: Consider I see his "Last visited" times are constantly updated, I wonder what the truth is here.

And you admit here that you were willing to take an unfair advantage as well

2010-06-02 02:36:46 - Machiavelli39: Sorry... "Conquer Club"
2010-06-02 02:45:22 - Machiavelli39: If Red's word turns out to be genuine, I'll admit this game has taken a very unfair turn Green

The risk you were willing to take to gain this advantage is no different then what this guy did. Your just making it out to be that you can wash the dirt off your hands easier by reporting it.
What respectable players do in these situations is talk in game chat & come up with a plan to let everyone even out before attacking one another. Then the game continues as normal, by this time everyone has built up & you all would have known if he was lying about leaving & not got caught with your pants down.
By coming to this alliance during his 3 turn grace period, his chances of being successful are severely diminished.

We are the victim of our own greed.

GAME CHAT
2010-06-01 16:06:36 - jeffbroomhead: Sorry people. Going on vacation in the hills tonight. Won't be back for a week. I guess I'll be forfeited by the time I get back
2010-06-02 00:45:52 - Machiavelli39: Fair enough Red - Good game if we don't catch you.
2010-06-02 00:50:34 - Machiavelli39: Tempting situation now
2010-06-02 02:36:39 - Machiavelli39: Well, the name of the game is Risk
2010-06-02 02:36:46 - Machiavelli39: Sorry... "Conquer Club"
2010-06-02 02:45:22 - Machiavelli39: If Red's word turns out to be genuine, I'll admit this game has taken a very unfair turn Green
2010-06-02 02:46:35 - Machiavelli39: I checked Red's other games and he left the same messages there, so I'm pretty much putting myself on the line here
2010-06-02 02:46:39 - Machiavelli39: We'll see what happens.
2010-06-02 13:50:08 - Machiavelli39: I also saw you and Jeff have played quite a few games together - are you two friends?
2010-06-03 09:46:49 - NapoleanRags: he shouldn't have given notice
2010-06-03 09:47:07 - NapoleanRags: that gave you first strike advantage
2010-06-03 09:48:07 - NapoleanRags: but if he's lying and comes back to wipe us out, then I guess it's a clever move
2010-06-03 18:44:44 - Machiavelli39: Haha.. "Clever" is not how I would put that.
2010-06-03 18:48:35 - Machiavelli39: Good game Green - It's a shame it had to come down to this.
2010-06-03 18:49:03 - Machiavelli39: But who knows what will happen now.
2010-06-03 18:50:35 - Machiavelli39: Consider I see his "Last visited" times are constantly updated, I wonder what the truth is here.
2010-06-04 10:57:10 - jeffbroomhead: Now that I'm back, I propose a solution. I will let you win. It will take a while, but I'll do it.
2010-06-04 13:53:44 - Machiavelli39: What do you mean
2010-06-04 13:54:27 - Machiavelli39: I had a gut feeling I shouldn't have trusted your announcement...
2010-06-04 14:01:33 - Machiavelli39: You've been an honest player so far, Jeff. I can only hope you'll live up to your word

[king sam]

As I stated before it was unfortunate that this indivdual played a cheap tactic move by saying one thing and doing the opposite. But this isnt against the rules.

Missing 3 turns and getting kicked from the game when you were obviously present is called intetionally deadbeating and would be a vioaltion.
Purposely throwing a game is a vioaltion.

But missing turns to deploy troops in a round (deffered troop tactic), Saying you will be absent and not really meaning it, Lieing about someones status in a fog game or even giving positions in a fog game, or breaking an alliance unannounced are all cheap but are all fair in the game. As of now. If you wish to spark a conversation for changing those aspects of this gaming site make a thread in suggs & bugs for it. But as the rules state now this person did not vioalte a rule.

For clarification on the b00060 thing, he over a large amount of games was using a loophole in the system for a tactical gain. This guy lied for a tactical gain in a minimal amount of games, and had you not bought into the lie and tried to use it to your advantage by moving troops away then it wouldnt have made a difference.

So we as a whole (C&A Team) stand and say Foe & Rate Accordingly. If you feel this decision is an error take the proper channels to discuss it, and please use your ideas in the suggs & bugs forum to invoke change on policies that you feel may be outdated or not in the best intrest in its CC players.
Cleared
KS

[Machiavelli39]

We are the victim of our own greed. We want to win so bad we take the word of another that we have never met, seen, spoken too or know nothing about. We are the victim of our own greed.

Machiavelli39, you knew he was lying.
You said

2010-06-03 18:50:35 - Machiavelli39: Consider I see his "Last visited" times are constantly updated, I wonder what the truth is here.

And you admit here that you were willing to take an unfair advantage as well

2010-06-02 02:36:46 - Machiavelli39: Sorry... "Conquer Club"
2010-06-02 02:45:22 - Machiavelli39: If Red's word turns out to be genuine, I'll admit this game has taken a very unfair turn Green

The risk you were willing to take to gain this advantage is no different then what this guy did. Your just making it out to be that you can wash the dirt off your hands easier by reporting it.
What respectable players do in these situations is talk in game chat & come up with a plan to let everyone even out before attacking one another. Then the game continues as normal, by this time everyone has built up & you all would have known if he was lying about leaving & not got caught with your pants down.
By coming to this alliance during his 3 turn grace period, his chances of being successful are severely diminished.

We are the victim of our own greed.

GAME CHAT
2010-06-01 16:06:36 - jeffbroomhead: Sorry people. Going on vacation in the hills tonight. Won't be back for a week. I guess I'll be forfeited by the time I get back
2010-06-02 00:45:52 - Machiavelli39: Fair enough Red - Good game if we don't catch you.
2010-06-02 00:50:34 - Machiavelli39: Tempting situation now
2010-06-02 02:36:39 - Machiavelli39: Well, the name of the game is Risk
2010-06-02 02:36:46 - Machiavelli39: Sorry... "Conquer Club"
2010-06-02 02:45:22 - Machiavelli39: If Red's word turns out to be genuine, I'll admit this game has taken a very unfair turn Green
2010-06-02 02:46:35 - Machiavelli39: I checked Red's other games and he left the same messages there, so I'm pretty much putting myself on the line here
2010-06-02 02:46:39 - Machiavelli39: We'll see what happens.
2010-06-02 13:50:08 - Machiavelli39: I also saw you and Jeff have played quite a few games together - are you two friends?
2010-06-03 09:46:49 - NapoleanRags: he shouldn't have given notice
2010-06-03 09:47:07 - NapoleanRags: that gave you first strike advantage
2010-06-03 09:48:07 - NapoleanRags: but if he's lying and comes back to wipe us out, then I guess it's a clever move
2010-06-03 18:44:44 - Machiavelli39: Haha.. "Clever" is not how I would put that.
2010-06-03 18:48:35 - Machiavelli39: Good game Green - It's a shame it had to come down to this.
2010-06-03 18:49:03 - Machiavelli39: But who knows what will happen now.
2010-06-03 18:50:35 - Machiavelli39: Consider I see his "Last visited" times are constantly updated, I wonder what the truth is here.
2010-06-04 10:57:10 - jeffbroomhead: Now that I'm back, I propose a solution. I will let you win. It will take a while, but I'll do it.
2010-06-04 13:53:44 - Machiavelli39: What do you mean
2010-06-04 13:54:27 - Machiavelli39: I had a gut feeling I shouldn't have trusted your announcement...
2010-06-04 14:01:33 - Machiavelli39: You've been an honest player so far, Jeff. I can only hope you'll live up to your word

Welcome to the thread, and thank you for your insightful post.

I appreciate the time you've invested in attempting to discredit my efforts to unearth a serious and growing issue in Conquer Club. As far as I'm concerned despite the fact that I recognized the risk, that does not mean I knew he was lying:

Allow me to break down my thought process even further for those in need of their blanks being filled:

1. I checked his "Last visited" timing; this could mean:
- He is lying OR
- He is checking his game via a mobile device where he cannot make his turns;
- He only has enough time to quickly check and not take his turns; or
- He has someone else who does not know how to use the functions of the game to take a turn to simply check up on his games progress.

2. I checked his consistency based upon his other games; this means:
- I checked his consistency based upon his other games.

Therefore, I'm unsure what credible set of ethical values we have today in the 21st century would say that recognizing a risk indicates you are practically begging for the negative to happen, and in fact deserve said negative (i.e. walking to a bus stop late at night in a sketchy part of town means you deserve to fall victim to, well, whatever that part of town is infamous for -- to put a very flavourful twist on the dull logic that has been created here). And if said ethical values exist, tell me where they govern so that I can avoid having to risk my life for my nightly jogs.

Thanks again for your insight, it is well appreciated.

Machiavelli39

[eddie2]

if this message is real then they he is talking about hiswait for it
moves = diplomacy=usual warning
so should it not be that copy of pm from first page



What I mean by letting you win is that I will patiently not earn any cards or regain territories.

As far a strategy, there really isn't any Geneva convention for ethics in Risk other than not team playing or having multiple accounts. I considered it to be a pretty good bluff that I haven't used before but when read your concern about ethics, I didn't want you to feel badly.

Between you and NapolianRags, you were ahead anyway.

Jeff

*End of PM.

[king sam]

once again I haven't the slightest as to what your talking about.
But this case is closed any new information like a PM that somehow found its way to eddie should be reported via the proper means.

I haven't a clue how your relating this to diplomacy .
Diplomacy is fairly simple, as long as players aren't conversing with other players in the same active game about diplomacy outside the game chat area in a language all can comprehend then your good.
If i tell you my strategy eddie in a game I'm in that your not in then there is nothing wrong with that.
KS

[eddie2]

once again I haven't the slightest as to what your talking about.
But this case is closed any new information like a PM that somehow found its way to eddie should be reported via the proper means.

I haven't a clue how your relating this to diplomacy .
Diplomacy is fairly simple, as long as players aren't conversing with other players in the same active game about diplomacy outside the game chat area in a language all can comprehend then your good.
If i tell you my strategy eddie in a game I'm in that your not in then there is nothing wrong with that.
KS

ok ks please read the ops first post the game they are in together is the complaint the pm is in the ops first post all i am saying is if hye still has there is proof of diplomacy.

or do you only half read the posts i will quote it below have highlighted them in red.

like i say all the time admit mistakes because all you are doing is making people not report cheats

[eddie2]

Accused:

Jeffbroomhead" onclick="this.href=this.href.replace('Jeffbroomhead',encodeURIComponent('Jeffbroomhead'));" onmouseover="this.href=this.href.replace('Jeffbroomhead',encodeURIComponent('Jeffbroomhead'));">Jeffbroomhead

The accused are suspected of:

Other: <Gross Abuse: Pretending to go on vacation with the intention of disrupting the flow of the game; taking advantage of the said disrupted flow >

Game number(s):

[game]6361932[/game]


Comments:

Jeffbroomhead stated in the game chat that he was going on vacation for one week and did not expect to be able to continue playing due to the fact that he would, without any doubt, be kicked for missing too many turns (the flow of the game allowed for at least 3 rounds to pass per day; so it was obvious he'd be kicked within 3 days, which is well within a week). With that in mind, everyone adjusted themselves according to the now Fact that he would soon be an army of neutrals; as everyone would assumable do in such a situation. Within two days of him announcing his vacation, he PM's me the following in response to me calling him out on his deviant move (he claims he would try to let me win Within his parameters of what he would deem to be "fair" (which was not to claim any spoils, anymore regions, or expand, which is very unrealistic):

---------------------
*Beginning of PM:

What I mean by letting you win is that I will patiently not earn any cards or regain territories.

As far a strategy, [color=#FF0000]there really isn't any Geneva convention for ethics in Risk other than not team playing or having multiple accounts. I considered it to be a pretty good bluff that I haven't used before but when read your concern about ethics, I didn't want you to feel badly.

Between you and NapolianRags, you were ahead anyway.

Jeff
[/color]
*End of PM.
---------------------

This is evidence of his intentions: his "vacation" was certainly a lie to get ahead in the game, which is on par with deadbeating for the purpose of gaining advantage, or disrupting the flow of the game because one is not satisfied with how it is playing out.

Furthermore, he stated on the game chat:

2010-06-04 14:47:27 - jeffbroomhead: Please see my note in email
2010-06-04 14:47:55 - jeffbroomhead: You basically don't have a choice to win or lose -- it's my choice. You can trust it or not. Doesn't matter.
2010-06-04 14:48:25 - jeffbroomhead: Also, is there a difference between bluffing and lying?

Once more, he admitted his devious intentions.

In closing, my argument is quite simple: if one is allowed to deviantly disrupt the flow of the game by means parallel to deadbeating (as explained above), then genuine strategy and diplomacy holds no value in this game. I am merely attempting to be a champion for the integrity of Conquer Club: appreciate this (to me) unique situation and provide Jeffbroomhead with appropriate consequences, which ought to be nothing short of kicking him for violating the "Unwritten Rules" heading under the "Rules" tab.

Thank you,

Machiavelli39

[king sam]

ok ks please read the ops first post the game they are in together is the complaint the pm is in the ops first post all i am saying is if hye still has there is proof of diplomacy.

or do you only half read the posts i will quote it below have highlighted them in red.

like i say all the time admit mistakes because all you are doing is making people not report cheats

lol..

there was no mistake this is the ruling and it was ruled upon based on our collective opinions. It has already been said if you feel the ruling is an error then open an E-Ticket. Tis really not that hard to understand.

The proper way to report a PM is by clicking the exclamation point in the corner. Tis not that hard to understand that either. If that PM were reported via that or a screen shot I still see nothing in it that talks about diplomacy. It appears to me know as it did when we reviewed the case that the accuser had messaged the offender about his gameplay and the offender responded.
Nowhere in that respond did it say anything along the lines of any kind of tactical sovereignty between the two to cause the game to be uneven for others.

Unless you think a guy explaining what he meant by "letting him win" and defending his move with a poor excuse on Geneva Conventions is a diplomactic resolution between two players in the blind.. Maybe you do.

Either way I know you will complain about this getting locked, but you got no point here and this thread is ruled upon and Closed. Take it elsewhere, or dont.
KS