SkyCaptain/Kid_A: Undeclared secret alliance? [cleared]

[SkyCaptain]

Hey guys, i didn't notice this topic until now. I didn't mean to let Kid_A win. What happened was I was rushing through my games (since i have like 30) and i had forgotten to maximize my window. So since i obviously can't remember who my target is with like 10 assassin games, i glanced to the side and saw a target next to pink. I looked at the map and was like, ha! because he only had 2 territories and they were right next to me. so i cashed in and killed him, and looked over at the thing and realized that the target was actually above pink, because the target part of cyan's name (Who was my real target) had curled around and ended up above pink's. I'm really sorry for this happening, I didn't mean to cause any fuss.

[Nephilim]

so we're back to my point: there is no way to prove secret alliances. we have an experienced assassin player who is highly ranked and respected. one of the best players on the site (mm17) testifies to skycaptain's assassin skill. so, again, the case for his innocence is that he made two totally boneheaded mistakes. there's no way to know if an alliance happened (unless there's a hidden provision in the patriot act somewhere). we just have to believe that skycaptain made two crazy mistakes which benefitted the same person. i guess there's nothing we can do about this case or any others like it, and just live w/ it.

[Kid_A]

Not 2 mistakes, 1 mistake. and it happens. I've made careless mistakes that set up other players for easy wins; and like ive said, sky wouldve been very close to making colonel if he won that game so I can't imagine why anyone in that position would throw a game like that.

I've been complaining about cheaters since the week I joined!!

[Nikolai]

To be fair, Nephilim, one of the more important points of your original commentary has been addressed. You originally said that it was difficult because we basically had to assume that SkyCaptain did something really dumb. He says yeah, I did something really dumb. While that doesn't lessen suspicion, it does reduce it in this case. However... I think you have a point. Proving an alliance in this game type would be really hard.
That said... I have to add that I'm lmao that Kid_A is being accused of cheating because someone else attacked two countries belonging to his target at some point during the game. This is ridiculous. Are we really going to start saying that any action that, in the long run, helped the winner of a game to win could be proof of an alliance? The idea is such hogwash that I really can't do much besides laugh at it.

[Nephilim]

To be fair, Nephilim, one of the more important points of your original commentary has been addressed. You originally said that it was difficult because we basically had to assume that SkyCaptain did something really dumb. He says yeah, I did something really dumb. While that doesn't lessen suspicion, it does reduce it in this case. However... I think you have a point. Proving an alliance in this game type would be really hard.
That said... I have to add that I'm lmao that Kid_A is being accused of cheating because someone else attacked two countries belonging to his target at some point during the game. This is ridiculous. Are we really going to start saying that any action that, in the long run, helped the winner of a game to win could be proof of an alliance? The idea is such hogwash that I really can't do much besides laugh at it.

why is suspicion reduced just b/c someone claimed the only excuse available to them? with all due respect nikolai, suspicion is only lessened here if you believe everything you're told (also, is there a difference between lessening and reducing? you seem to say so). and i think i should reiterate: i'm not saying these guys are guilty. it's basically impossible to tell. i just want to debate the process of catching someone for secret alliance.

also, i think i agree w/ incandenza. skycaptain eliminated kid's opponent in one game. in the other game, he killed the only 2 countires kid could not reach, and on kid's next turn, he finished off the opponent for the win. so nikolai's indignation seems misplaced: skycaptain didn't attack kid's target at some point during the game. his attacks led directly to kid's victory on the next turn. this is actually quite clear in the logs, and in roadwarrior's original post. so there were 2 "mistakes."

[SkyCaptain]

Well I don't imagine there's anything i could say that would make you believe me, but it just seems to me to be really farfetched to assume that two very good players (I was #8 on the scoreboard at one point) would randomly decide to throw games to each other, without ever playing before. Additionally, if we were in fact cheating, we certainly would have each won a game for each other, rather than kid_a winning both games. I mean, usually one cheats to get something that he shouldn't get, not to give something to someone else.

[wicked]

These guys are cleared. Mistakes happen.

[SkyCaptain]

And besides that, in our first game you accuse me of killing the only ones he couldn't reach. Kid_a went through the very country i had just taken on his way to other territories he needed to kill. So it's not as though I killed the territories in the corner he never could have reached. Except for that one round, i had attacked yellow every single time i attacked, in fact I had gotten him down to one country. And anyway, blue had 8 territories when Kid_a started attacking. He wasn't exactly the weakest player at that point, so i wasn't thinking about protecting him from anyone.

[SkyCaptain]

Oh ok, thanks wicked