Conquer Club

Accused: ML46 and 1stSplatter[warned and blocked]es

All previously decided cases. Please check here before opening a new case.

Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]

Accused: ML46 and 1stSplatter[warned and blocked]es

Postby Deepfryer on Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:27 am

Accused:

ML46
1stSplatter

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 9665521

Comments:
These are the two most powerful players in this game, yet they will not attack each other, despite sharing multiple borders. 1stSplatter is not even bothering to leave any defenses: he only has 1 army on all of his borders with ML46. They never declared a truce, yet they are not attacking each other at all, and 1stSplatter even said that they have a "de facto truce" (WTF is that?!).

1stSplatter's play seems the more egregious of the two because he is not bothering to leave any defenses around his territories that border ML46, and he is allowing ML46 to take over the game without any resistance.
User avatar
Colonel Deepfryer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:14 pm

Re: Accused: ML46 and 1stSplatter[pending]es

Postby Deepfryer on Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:22 am

To add some additional thoughts: I certainly hope that their play is considered "secret diplomacy", and I hope this isn't dependant on finding some hidden communication between the two. They could be emailing each other outside of this site, for all we know.

For guidance, I suggest that Conquer Club should look to other competitive games that have dealt with similar issues. For example: in poker tournaments, it is perfectly normal to disqualify players at the first sign of "soft play". They don't need to have any evidence of communication between the two players: their play speaks for itself.

Such an obvious example of "soft play" should not be tolerated on this site. This is a competitive game, and that means you need to play in a competitive manner against everyone.
User avatar
Colonel Deepfryer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:14 pm

Re: Accused: ML46 and 1stSplatter[pending]es

Postby Evil Semp on Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

After watching this game and the game chat since this report was filed it appears that ML46 and 1stSplatter were working together. ML46 and 1stSplatter have been WARNED for secret diplomacy and have been BLOCKED from playing any more games together. They will be allowed to finish any games that they have together.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Evil Semp
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 8401
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:50 pm

Re: Accused: ML46 and 1stSplatter[warned and blocked]es

Postby 1stSplatter on Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:24 pm

Pardon me for not responding sooner; I wasn't aware of the full procedure for this sort of thing. Since, as Deepfryer pointed out, it would be impossible to determine whether ML46 and I had been communicating, let me explain why I was playing the way I was.

Deepfryer's contention that I was simply "letting ML46 take over the game" is a ludicrous assertion. He and I had a cease-fire, though not an official truce, and, seeing that he had the ability to retaliate swiftly and decisively were I to attack him, I embarked upon what I saw as my best course of action: gobbling up as many territories as I could so that when the dam finally broke down south, I might have enough deployments to stay in the game. This naturally came at the expense of Deepfryer's vast empire. His accusations of my handing the game to ML46 depend on ignoring the fact that, until I was attacked and decimated, I had had more deployments than ML46 for something like 8 turns. Building a huge bonus was my only hope of defeating him, so I was using our cease-fire to my advantage as I attempted to do so.
Lieutenant 1stSplatter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:38 am


Return to Closed C&A Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users