69er and clangfield[Cleared]e84

by **AlbroShlo** on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:21 pm

Accused:

69er
clangfield

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis

Game number(s):

Game 9689223

Comments: As soon as I made a move against one of them they both attacked only me and stopped attacking each other completely despite having easy opportunities to do so. They also have 8 other games together.

by **clangfield** on Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:55 pm

Complete and utter nonsense, born of paranoia. Some facts:
It's a 3 player game. 2/3 of the time, you're going be attacked. Just because you're a higher rank doesn't mean it can't happen.
This report was made after round 5. Hardly a large sample of moves.
AlbroShlo was the largest single player, and occupying the middle of the board. It is really that surprising to be attacked on both sides?
69er and I had attacked each other for the first couple of moves; but AlbroShlo had become the biggest, and nearest threat, to both of us. Therefore, out of tactical sense but entirely independently, we attacked our most obvious opponent. I had already broken 69er's bonus in an earlier round so had no need to attack further at this point.
I have played 69er on a few games, but that's because we like to play the same type of game. Have you never played a player more than once? If you check you'll find I've played quite a few players several times in my 1300 plus games.
Oh, and let's not forget that my alleged multi invariably makes moves 12 hours after I do, at what would be 3am my time, what with us being on DIFFERENT CONTINENTS. Not exactly classic multi, is it?

Frankly, I feel that anyone making this sort of frivolous accusation should be docked points to deter them from wasting everybody's time.

by **chapcrap** on Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:39 pm

clangfield wrote:Complete and utter nonsense, born of paranoia. Some facts:
It's a 3 player game. 2/3 of the time, you're going be attacked.

False.
On average, you should get attacked 1/3 of the time. If you take yourself out of the equation, and only count the other 2, then you should be attacked 1/2 of the time.

by **clangfield** on Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:19 am

I based that on the principle that I can do one of 3 things: attack player A, attack player B, or attack both.
In two of those three situtations, player A gets attacked.
Certainly my equation never considered the possibility of attacking myself...

by **clangfield** on Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:34 am

Oh, and before I forget :"They also have 8 other games together." Somewhat misleading... we have HAD 8 other games, stretching back to February 2010. 8 games in 18 months. We can't actually have 8 current games since I'm only allowed 4.
Can we just close this and get on with playing? It really isn't worth wasting any more time on, apart from adding AlbroShlo to your foes list. I notice that this isn't the first such post he's sent (unsuccessfully); clearly he has a problem with being attacked by the other two players in a 3 player game.

by **KoolBak** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:19 am

lol...this one was very entertaining....I'd think, Albro, that someone with as much CC experience as you have would have realized this was an asinine accusation.....lol. Being multis from thousands of miles apart would be a neat trick :lol: