Misiek and Roefs Secret Alliance

[Greycloak]

These two are suspected of having a Secret Alliance in game # 293828

Suspect users: Misiek and Roefs

Game number: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=293828

Comments: These two are doubles partners and are in a singles game with me. They have attacked me alone for many turns, leaving undefended borders to do so. I was in a stronger position in the game so understood their attacks until the latest round when one of them smashed my position, which was fine, but then the other one followed up with attacking me nearly to the last man while not defending his own borders.

These two have been in a dozen singles games together and have been doubles partners 4 separate times. I'm usually not one to complain but this doesn't pass the smell test.

~Greycloak

[Misiek]

Very understandable GreyCloak,and you are right you have been slowly rising to power since round 1 hence why I alone have been on your tail.As far as undefended borders go I always had more then 1 guy on mine.Roefs controlled a territory for two or so rounds before losing it until the last round and only regaining it after he turned his cards in.

[Greycloak]

After reviewing their other "Singles" games, I feel that this isn't the only game in which these two have preferentially attacked the other players in a statistically suspicious manner. Maybe they were in a subconscious secret alliance rather than a conscious one but they obviously shouldn't be playing in singles games together without disclosing what they're up to.

[Greycloak]

I'm not sure if anyone actually reads these secret alliance complaints or whether they are just for venting but Misiek as much as admitted to choosing who he attacks based on the criteria of whether they are or are not his doubles partner.

[Misiek]

I have admitted that?Wow now you are putting words in my mouth. Give the mods time "Colonel" , and show me where I said that I choose who I attack based on on the criteria of them being my doubles partners or not.

You searched all my games,posted in one that Im cheating even though you are not a part of that game. If you looked at what was actually going on you wouldve noticed that I was nearly wiped out and I was brooding.When one of the players was kicked out,I decided to make a move for his region. And your accusing me of not trying to attack my doubles partner?I would think that your rank would reflect you overall knowledge and basic comprehension of this game. I am not going to go on a suicide mission against my doubles partner just because I have not attacked him and to prove to everyone else that we are not in a secret alliance. You might as well accusse the other two players of secretly allying because ,well , they have not attacked each other right?

[Greycloak]

That game fits the pattern of all the other "singles" games you have played with your partner. You like to pretend this is an isolated incident but you have played 12 games with your partner and only 4 as a double games. It is glaring obvious that your number of attacks versus your partner is significantly less than the other players, and vice versa. You have been ganging up on other players in a secret alliance and it took me to call you out for it.

The facts are undeniable:
1) You have played a number of singles games with your friend and doubles partner.
2) This is an explicit conflict of interest because you did not disclose your relationship. While this is not against the rules, acting on this conflict of interest is a form of a secret alliance.
3) Once it was down to three of us in our game, you and your partner attacked me to the exclusion of each other, leaving borders open to do so. I could not leave empty borders against either of you but you two, knowing each other, could. This was an unfair advantage and thus a secret alliance.
4) Your partner pursued this strategy even at the expense of his own position, ignoring the easy break against the stronger player to work on wearing down while being unable to eliminate the one who wasn't his friend.

[Misiek]

Playing singles and doubles with the same person does not break any rules
Not disclosing that we have played a couple of doubles game also does not brake any rules. You and Donkey have played this way too,and even once did not disclose such a fact,which again is not REQUIRED.You even went as far as getting out of each others way and forming a truce in the starting rounds way before you controlled anything.Yea it took a disgruntled "Colonel" who apparently likes to boss people around,judging from your feedback, to see this.No one else had a problem. I realize it hurts losing to a lower ranked player but we've all been there and you suck it up.What were you doing in a game with a private,and some other lower ranked guys anyways?
Roefs only held his region for about 3 rounds.So he never needed to protect them especially given the size of the region.My borders were always protected.I went after you from every position meaning even before I controlled any regions.You were being attacked by Pink too so why don't you accuse him of having a secret alliance with us.

[b.k. barunt]

I looked at the game in question, and it looks like a normal game to me. But hell, i'm just a guy who was accused of the same thing by a similarly whining cheesewanker, so what do i know? Stop taking the game so damn serious and try having fun at it.

[Greycloak]

"You and Donkey have played this way too,and even once did not disclose such a fact,"

Untrue.
Donkey and I did disclose our relationship in both the game that was accidentally a singles game rather than a doubles game (237572), and in our singles tournament game where we met each other (232861). Furthermore, in the accidental singles game, I agitated all game for people to work with me destroy him because he was in the stronger position, to the point where I annoyed another player into giving me a bad rating. Read the chat before you spout untruths.

"Roefs only held his region for about 3 rounds.So he never needed to protect them especially given the size of the region.My borders were always protected."

Again you lie.
1) Roefs didn't even try to hold his area because he knew you wouldn't break it. If I had been in his position, you know that I would have had to defend it.
2) Your area was "defended" by a 2 and 3 stack that he could have broken at will but didn't because of your secret deal.

The point is, I needed to play defence while you and your partner didn't because you were playing a doubles game. I really don't care about whether I win or lose points and I am here to have fun so I like to join games with players of a variety of skill levels and I like to make games and play with whomever comes along.

Playing against cheaters who play with secret alliances is not fun.

[Greycloak]

b.k.: it's kinda tough to judge from the log when you can't see all those turns with undefended common borders.

Even after I called them out and was in a downhill slide, they continued to press the attack when the strongest strategy would have been to: break the guy with the undefended borders nearby and wear down the weakest one. Neither of them had a real chance of killing me in one turn for my cards so that strategy was out.

I've lost lots of games against superior and inferior strategy and don't care about that, and have never complained. It's this underhanded practice of playing singles games as a twosome that I object to.

[b.k. barunt]

There's all kinds of friends who play together here on CC. Hell you make friends here on the site and play with them in different games. With this being as it is, there are two things that should be observed: 1. Play the game honestly and don't favor your friends, and 2. Don't make frivolous assumptions and accusations just because friends are in the same game. Oh and 3. Stop taking the game so damned seriously!

[silvanthalas]

This needs a bump.

Game 293826

They can hide it all they like, but Misiek and Roefs have been favoring each other all game, where one would only attack the other to secure a continent early on, and now Roefs refuses to finish off Misiek even when Misiek was down to one army.

[Greycloak]

Silvanthalas is referring to a different game in which these two are playing singles as de-facto doubles.

I'm not sure whether anything ever happens with these secret alliance complaints but it is pretty clear that these two are unrepentant about favoring each other in singles games. I'm confident that my/our negative feedback will help to hurt their chances of pulling this trick on others in the future but it would be more appropriate to drop any implication of dealing with Secret Alliances if this forum only serves to be a place to bitch about them.

b.k.'s objections are well noted and I don't contest that some people can't play with friends as opponents, but lots of people will (intentionally or not) favour their friends over someone they don't know and when it is reciprocal, that is the definition of a secret alliance.

Whether these two are twisting their thin black mustaches and laughing evilly over cognac in their endangered baby seal smoking jackets while they do it or whether they do it unintentionally is beside the point. They have and are currently operating in an unannounced alliance and that is a violation of Rule 2.

[Misiek]

You are still complaning about that game Grey? and Silver you were favouring yellow too even when there was no incentive for you to go after the weakest players so I did not know better maybe you two have a secret alliance too now hmm?

Umm Roefs finished me off, so what are talking about anyways?

[Greycloak]

I wasn't actively complaining but now that you have bumped it up to the top of the cheating thread, I will respond again.

I still think you and Roefs broke one of the two rules of this site.

You left common undefended borders to make strategically questionable attacks. I am not the only victim of your shady behavior and you deny that playing games with a buddy and then ganging up on the other players is wrong. You admitted in the chat that you considered who was and who was not your doubles partner plays a role in who you attack or don't.

You cheated and deserve censure for it but apparently this forum only addresses multiple accounts. That's fine and I can only hope that people read my negative rating and you don't fool other people with your skulduggery.

[Bigfalcon65]

is really cheap and unacceptable thats what it is

[Misiek]

I bumped it up?Your the one adding polls and whatsonot.I said "Why would I attack my doubles partner,or anyone really, if I DONT NEED to. Stop putting words in my mouth as you have been this whole time. Its true what they say-the better your rank the whinier you get and your a fine example of that.