I want to prove secret diplomacy in game 9482563 [noted]

[Qwert]

hello everybody,now its time for me to solve these case -(elementary mine dear wotson)
Ok, if you look pictures,what kostko present,and in first ball,you can say "hey these look like secret diplomacy, and hes brother are in other double team", so Cheat moderator have clear case,,,,,,,,,,,but.
When you go deep, and investigate all other games,then you can come with new evidence,who can give you picture,that these are not a case of secret diplomacy.
First evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play together in 105 games.
Second evidence-danhulber and nhulbert play together in team games 53 times.(double,triple,quads)
third evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play 5 games of 3 double teams,where in all 5 games they play together.
Fourth and final evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play only 4 games of 4 double teams,where in 3 games they play in same double team. So what left? First time,in only 1 games( where kostko try to prove secret diplomacy),they play in oposite double teams.
When you take all these evidence, its clearly show that i prove that these is not case of secret diplomacy, and you can not prove,only in 1 game that someone are gyilty,where hes entire previous biography are clear.
Ofcourse decision are in jury.

[kostko]

reply to danhulbert's post above

I was the one calling the shots for my team in this particular game and secret conversations with another team was not part of the agenda.

Now when you wrote that it definitly became more clear why you did not make your turn in round 19.

Your judgements and decisions are all based on feelings rather than logic. You are presented with facts and are coming to conclusions that are just not warranted .

Who or what did I judge? I expresed my opinion:

In my opinion there was secret diplomacy involved in this game, if you like it or not, if you admit it or not, if c&a team confirms it or not.

I do have right to express my opnion, right? no final judgemt here. I know what I saw, I played the game.
And about my logic... I provide evidence(pictures) and concrete examples of you guys doing secret diplomacy. I explaind my accusation in details with good arguments based on pictures, not feelings. Now lets have a look on your arguments...

#1 Perception: You are saying one team was sacrificing themselves for my team to win . . .
Reality: This goes againt human nature and many thousands of years of human interaction . . . it just does not make sense.

Oh yea, those are some solid argumetns! not. What kind of a defence statement is this? how about an answer to my question in my biggest post here?

#2 Perception: You say nhulbert dropped out after we were called out to prevent us from getting caught
Reality: That was one of the last games he played, missed many turns in games after that and is NOT currently playing in any games . . . (Does this mean we are the same person? . . . Ha Ha . . . No)

You guys already been cleared of beeing multi. I am accusing you of secret diplomacy not beeing multi. Why are you bringing that up?

#3 Perception: You say I am inviting you to play games because I am going to "get even" and give you a bad rating
Reality: You choose not to see the mountain of evidence to the contrary, including a myriad of messages and otherwise uniformly positive ratings. It is beyond me to even understand a person who would pay the $25 to gift premium membership so that they could turn around and pass on a bad rating . . . again, is this really what logic is telling you? If I really wanted to do it, I would have done it already.

Yes , its my opinon you guys wanna give me bad raiting. Please show me that moutan of evidence, to prove you are innocent. I showed you mine moutan of evidence. You are avoiding my question.

#4 Perception: You are "concerned" I will be blackmailed into gifting others premium
Reality: I don't care about the bad rating as much as the fact you think I am a cheater and a liar. The rating is just a reflection of that. I would laugh at someone who tried that.

Why would I be concerned about you beeing blackmailed? How does this prove your innocence?

#5 Perception: There is no way team3 could get and hold two bonuses (Alsace & Picardy) in round 16 without the help of team4
Reality: We took both countries because we played better than you and better than my friends on team 4. Radioman212 took you down and I built an army in the other in order to eventually take it. Team 4 moved out of there because(as you pointed out in your pictures) I was attacking them and they could see that they would be wiped out by me if they did not move out of my way.

And they were not worried about beeing whiped out by team2 in Brittany far away from their main concentration of team4's army, right? Because they(team4) knew team3 wont attack them in Burgundy, correct? Again that does not answer my question:
If team4 really wanted to take Brittany(+2) bonus, why did not at that time orange deploy on Finistere (Picture 6)? why did he(orange) spent his army on blue in Alps +4 bouns, when he could deploy on Finistere and increase chance of getting Brittany(+2) ? Was he(orange ) trying to protect team3's bonus (Alsace) from team2? He(orange) was obviously not trying to take Alps +4 bonus or take a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

And regarding the rating you gave me, do you really think I have a bad attitude? Can't you at least give me that? Please?

where did that come from? When did I say you have a bad attitude? The only thing bad about you here are your arguments , thats all.
EDIT: Uh, you meant rating attitude, sorry I been reading too fast. I just cannot change it, we would have to play another game to change that and that wont happen. And even if I could change it I wouldnt, I cannot give you 5 stars attitude for secret diplomacy. c'mon. I believe you are a nice and polite person in real life, I was able to see that in PMs we have been sharing. But I am not removing the rating I gave you, as it is my impression of that game. Yes, seeing how many players rate you with 5* made me think "Am I right?". I remember that game well and there is no way I am mistaking. I would not be writting this , if I wasnt 100% sure and had it all backed up with pictures. Maybe this was the only game where you guys played together, I dont know. I guess this was some kind of secret diplomacy that QuikSilver described well in his post here at the end of a first page.

[kostko]

*reply to qwertpost above

hello everybody,now its time for me to solve these case -(elementary mine dear wotson)
Ok, if you look pictures,what kostko present,and in first ball,you can say "hey these look like secret diplomacy, and hes brother are in other double team", so Cheat moderator have clear case,,,,,,,,,,,but.

Thank you , yes pictures show secret diplomacy good, yes its obvious, thank you. Pity I dont have pictures of first 5 rounds, when team 3 and 4 eliminated me.

When you go deep, and investigate all other games,then you can come with new evidence,who can give you picture,that these are not a case of secret diplomacy.
First evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play together in 105 games.
Second evidence-danhulber and nhulbert play together in team games 53 times.(double,triple,quads)
third evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play 5 games of 3 double teams,where in all 5 games they play together.
Fourth and final evidence-danhulbert and nhulbert play only 4 games of 4 double teams,where in 3 games they play in same double team. So what left? First time,in only 1 games( where kostko try to prove secret diplomacy),they play in oposite double teams.
When you take all these evidence, its clearly show that i prove that these is not case of secret diplomacy, and you can not prove,only in 1 game that someone are gyilty,where hes entire previous biography are clear.
Ofcourse decision are in jury.

Hmmm. This is, like if one person went to the store 104 times and when he enters the store 105th time, seller see he is trying to steal a bag of potatoes and yells: "Put that bag of potatoes back on the shelf! police, police, police!". Then a security guy(that works in store, knows this person and knows he never stole) would come to the seller and said: "Calm down, he never stole anything before , close your eyes and let him go."
Is this how things work, qwert?

We are trying to prove or invalidate my accusation of secret diplomacy in Game 9482563. Not in other games.I dont know how they played in other games, my accusation is based on Game 9482563.Why would you go "deep, and investigate all other games" if I am trying to show secret diplomacy Game 9482563? Yes, looking at their raiting I believe they play fair most of the time, maybe this is their first time. I Also think you, qwert, might be looking too deep for evidence where there arent any ?
Maybe you can "go deep, and investigate" Game 9482563 , than answer my question that danhulbert was clearly avoiding to, qwert.

Why was orange(team4) spending army on blue(team2) in Alps, if teal(team3) was holding the Alsace(+2 bonus). If team4 really wanted to take Brittany(+2) bonus, why did not at that time orange deploy on Finistere (Picture 6)? why did he(orange) spent his army on blue in Alps +4 bouns, when he could deploy on Finistere and increase chance of getting Brittany(+2) ? Was he(orange ) trying to protect team3's bonus (Alsace) from team2? He(orange) was obviously not trying to take Alps +4 bonus or take a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

Go deep and investigate that, Sherlock Holmes.

[chapcrap]

hello everybody,now its time for me to solve these case -(elementary mine dear wotson)

[Dukasaur]

Just the fact that they are brothers (admitted by the two) can conduct to SD even if they don't say it out loud...

like thinking to myself: «humm.... I got two options here, 1- attack someone I doesn't know.... 2- attack my brothers team... » I would kill the someone I doesn't know, because even if I loose, my points are going to my brothers, which is not bad.

I dunno. If the game was for real-world money or something, then maybe. But if it's only for bragging rights then I think sibling rivalry is more powerful than you realize.

[Qwert]

mine dear wotson(kostko), if some person have clear record,then its hard withouth more evidence,only in one game to say"hes guilty ,hang hem high!! ", no,no,no.
We only have suspicion that maybe are secret diplomacy.

Hmmm. This is, like if one person went to the store 104 times and when he enters the store 105th time, seller see he is trying to steal a bag of potatoes and yells: "Put that bag of potatoes back on the shelf! police, police, police!". Then a security guy(that works in store, knows this person and knows he never stole) would come to the seller and said: "Calm down, he never stole anything before , close your eyes and let him go."
Is this how things work, qwert?

These story its correct, but seller are witness,he see that person who went in store 104 time,in 105 time try to comite crime.
reasonable suspicion that these is not a secret diplomacy, withouth clear evidence. You need to find in previous 104 games, more evidence who will give some weight,and will show that these is not first suspicios behaviour of suspects.
You need to find hiden weapons( in game chat,private messages, or some guys who are ready to testify against dhulbert and nhulbert of hes aleged crimes ).
So i give you task mine dear wotson, find more evidence,and judge( Moderator), can bring these people to justice.
Now lets find some new case to solve, first i go to playing on violine

[danhulbert]

Kostco,

You say you have not judged me but you have. By giving me the rating that you did, you you esentially carved into stone your judgement.

If you really have not then you would be willing to change your rating based on the outcome here.

And I am not avoiding any questions. I will answer every single one I can but your biggest one has nothing to do with me or my team. Until I talk to the other team again, I have no idea why they split their armies between 2 spots. I can agree with you that as we were playing, I did think they were not making very good decisions but it was not just my team that benefitted, it was also blue/yellow. By splitting their armies, they were most likely destined to be eliminated by both blue/yellow and my team.

Your complaint originates because you thought we eliminated you in a coordinated attack . . . You were eliminated because Radioman on my team wiped you out(great move by the way) leaving you with a couple armies which nhulbert finished off the next turn. Both of those were good moves regardless of who knows whom . . . if you have a chance to eliminate a team easily, you should take it.

Again, I will talk to the other guys when I get a chance to see about them weighing in. I will see my brother on Christmas so it will be a couple days.

Dan

[kostko]

*reply to qwert above

mine dear wotson(kostko), if some person have clear record,then its hard withouth more evidence,only in one game to say"hes guilty ,hang hem high!! ", no,no,no.
We only have suspicion that maybe are secret diplomacy.

Hmmm. This is, like if one person went to the store 104 times and when he enters the store 105th time, seller see he is trying to steal a bag of potatoes and yells: "Put that bag of potatoes back on the shelf! police, police, police!". Then a security guy(that works in store, knows this person and knows he never stole) would come to the seller and said: "Calm down, he never stole anything before , close your eyes and let him go."
Is this how things work, qwert?

This story is a comparison to your conclusion in previos post, not mine. You are the one who is not sure , not me. I asked you a concrete question and you are avoiding it, just like danhulbert did. You probably spent like 3 or 4 hours counting those games and it is a big insult for you if I do not to accept it as a some sort of evidence.

These story its correct, but seller are witness,he see that person who went in store 104 time,in 105 time try to comite crime.
reasonable suspicion that these is not a secret diplomacy, withouth clear evidence. You need to find in previous 104 games, more evidence who will give some weight,and will show that these is not first suspicios behaviour of suspects.

After seller fired the security guy and police officer arrive, do you really believe police would be more interesteed to see all 104 security video where he is not stealing, to prove seller he is wrong? Or do you think police might be more iterested in videotape where he is stealing and prove seller he is right? To make it clear to you: Do you think c&a team will go looking for evidence in pictures of all 104 of danhulbert's games(this is what you are doing) to prove him innocent, or will they search for evidence to confirm or denie secret diplomacy in games where secret diplomacy can be proven?

You need to find hiden weapons( in game chat,private messages, or some guys who are ready to testify against dhulbert and nhulbert of hes aleged crimes ).

There are clues in game chat, maybe you should go and see them. I cannot find evidence in private messages as I dont have access to other players mail. And they are all deleting their wall history.

So i give you task mine dear wotson, find more evidence,and judge( Moderator), can bring these people to justice.
Now lets find some new case to solve, first i go to playing on violine

All available evidence are here published in my first post. And as you mentioned in your previous post, yes secret diplomacy is easy to see in pictures.

[danhulbert]

You need to find hiden weapons( in game chat,private messages, or some guys who are ready to testify against dhulbert and nhulbert of hes aleged crimes ).
There are clues in game chat, maybe you should go and see them. I cannot find evidence in private messages as I dont have access to other players mail. And they are all deleting their wall history.

I have never deleted a single PM, wall post or anything else for all time and I am confident none of the others have either . . . we just rarely communicate on this site . . .

And your simile comparing this to shoplifting is invalid . . . you have not provided a single shred of proof but a couple examples of circumstantial evidence that SEEM to indicate(to you, not me) that a "crime" has been committed.

A video of someone stealing is real proof . . . there is something missing from the store and a video of a person picking it up, hiding it and walking out.

You cannot even prove something is missing from the store let alone that anyone is responsible for taking it.

You FEEL like you were cheated and so are bending the facts to fit into your unprovable theory.

[kostko]

*reply to danhulber's post above

Kostco,

You say you have not judged me but you have. By giving me the rating that you did, you you esentially carved into stone your judgement.
If you really have not then you would be willing to change your rating based on the outcome here.

Raiting is there to stay forever. Unles you guys somehow manage to explain your moves in my question. I already told you how I feel, if c&a decelar your innocence. If c&a team could invalidate my accusation they would already do it and if they could confirm it they would also already do it. I guess they are somehow stuck in the middle between a freemium guy who isnt completely wrong and a quad of premium players with a good raiting, that arent completely right. Or they just dont wanna close this thread, because they are having too much laughs at us arguing here. I understand c&a has a hard time confirming four premium players of doing SD and its not my goal to talk trash about you guys here. I will be completly satisfied if this thread closes it self by c&a team saying something like:"there was suspicion of secret diplomacy that we could not invalidate nor confirm because none of the accused team won".

It sure is hard for them to explan MD212's moves in picture 2 and picture 6, into your advantage danhulbert. Why did MD212 spent two rounds , helping team3 to eliminate blue player out of Alps, instead placing it all in Finistere so team4 can take and hold Brittany+2, or instead stack on Cher for better defenece or to attack Alsace+2 bonus from team3? explain it. Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 out and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them? saying this was a bad move or that "this goes against human nature and many thousands of years of human interaction . . ." just doesnt explain it.

And I am not avoiding any questions. I will answer every single one I can but your biggest one has nothing to do with me or my team. Until I talk to the other team again, I have no idea why they split their armies between 2 spots. I can agree with you that as we were playing, I did think they were not making very good decisions but it was not just my team that benefitted, it was also blue/yellow. By splitting their armies, they were most likely destined to be eliminated by both blue/yellow and my team.

Yes, there were some strange moves.How had blue/yellow(team2) benefit, if team4 was constantly preventing them to hold Brittany+2 by deploying on Finistere in round 8, 9, 10. Team4 deployed on Finestere just enough to prevent blue from having it, but yet not enough to take it by spending some army on blue in Alps+4. Giving team3 a time to stack and protecting it at the same time.
I will be waiting for your answer. And please avoid any explanation based on "human nature and many thousands of years of human interaction . . ." . I hope we both agree this was kind of strange answer that did not answer the question.

Your complaint originates because you thought we eliminated you in a coordinated attack . . . You were eliminated because Radioman on my team wiped you out(great move by the way) leaving you with a couple armies which nhulbert finished off the next turn. Both of those were good moves regardless of who knows whom . . . if you have a chance to eliminate a team easily, you should take it.

True, this is where I started taking screenpictures. You guys are soo lucky I dont have screen pictures of first six rounds. Have a look at log, there are only two attacks between team3 and 4 in first 6 rounds and as I remember both on 1 army field. "good moves", yes it was a good move not to attack each other while eliminating me. Ooo how I wish I had screenpictures of round1to 6.

Again, I will talk to the other guys when I get a chance to see about them weighing in. I will see my brother on Christmas so it will be a couple days.

Sure take your time, there is no need to hurry.

And about my story. Video are my pictures, I am the seller , qwert is the security guy, c&a team are the police officer. I wasnt trying to prove you did secret diplomacy with that story, I just wanted to show qwert how he was collecting evidence where there are none. Maybe someone else threw a bag of potatoes into accused guy's lap on his way out and it wasnt him stealing. Who knows...

[ubcman64]

all this over 1 game?.....get a life

[kostko]

all this over 1 game?.....get a life

Players, please don't write comments that are not contributing to the discussed subject, like ubcman64(above) did. I believe there is enough text to read already.

[lindseyland78]

First let me say that I have been following this thread for a couple of days now so I feel I am pretty up to date. Also let me say that I was falsely accused of secret diplomacy so I know how it feels. (I have yet to be cleared, not official has commented on it yet). As for your guys little tit for tat.

1. Kostko- the point that the other 104 games makes is that this is not a trend, but one circumstance and in the unwritten rules it clearly states that abuse is only proven in multiple games so even if they think you are right the only thing that will happen is that it will be noted and no punishment will occur. Worse case they get a warning.

2. Innocent until proven guilty- you are dead set that they were cheating and whether you like it or not that is based of the feelings you have about the game. The anger and frustration makes you feel like you are 100% sure when really unless it is clearly written or stated somewhere that they agreed to help each other there is no way to know if it is 100% true and as the accuser it is your job to find that evidence. Like you said, since that is not possible than frankly you are out of luck. This was the first time this has happened and even if you are right I don't see them doing it again after going through all of this.

3. Danhulbert's attitude- Let me just say that you must never have been accused of something you know you didn't to in a public forum because let me just say from experience it pisses you off. I was so mad that someone would be so determined to prove I was this horrible player and villainous person when they didn't know shit about me that writing a calm response was extremely difficult, and that is coming from a pacifistic girl. The fact that he as met every single one of your very long list of demands openly and gone out of his way to make the other players do the same is amazing. He doesn't have to prove shit to you. Your the one that has to prove it to the Mods.

4. Kostko's attitude- As I read your post I envision a little kid sticking his tongue out and going "nananana I'm not listening". No matter how reasonable people are with you are sit and attack them as if you can't believe they are stupid enough not to think you know everything. Forgive us for being ignorant.

5. Store analogy- This is how the analogy really fits. The security guard and the clerk know the man has been in the store 104 times without ever committing a crime and on the 105th time the store clerk realize the a bag of potatoes MIGHT be missing and goes "It must be that man, he most have done it." The security guard uses some logic and goes "Just because he was here when the bag MIGHT have gone missing doesn't mean he did it, ESPECIALLY since he has never done it before."
You believe the bag MIGHT be missing because they both tried to kill you early and your pissed. (BTW, I have attempted to kill another player and failed only to have the next person kill him. OF COURSE the next person would kill you. Wow you were weak and getting you out of the game would weaken your team. So what they happened to go one after another.) You the clerk, are clouded by your anger and insist that you know more than everyone else and it most be this man because he happened to be there when it happened. The security guard, aka everyone else that reads this post, is sitting here going, "really, he has never done it before and you can't prove it."
And I already know what your response will be, "I do have proof, you don't know what you are talking about" but guess what I have read and reread everything here so I know your so called proof and I know what others have said and what both you and danhulbert have presented and if from that I don't have a clear view whats going on then no one does.

So finally the conclusion I have drawn from the plethora of time I have spent reading your bickering- I am not convinced from the pictures. Then I am really not convinced when you start ranting cause you loss credibility in my eyes and danhulbert just is working to appease you which gains him favor. He goes from being the villain to the bullied. I don't think the Mods are going to grant you this one honestly.

[jchamp]

4. Kostko's attitude- As I read your post I envision a little kid sticking his tongue out and going "nananana I'm not listening". No matter how reasonable people are with you are sit and attack them as if you can't believe they are stupid enough not to think you know everything. Forgive us for being ignorant.

x2

[QoH]

1. Kostko- the point that the other 104 games makes is that this is not a trend, but one circumstance and in the unwritten rules it clearly states that abuse is only proven in multiple games so even if they think you are right the only thing that will happen is that it will be noted and no punishment will occur. Worse case they get a warning.

Um no. See Rule #2

So finally the conclusion I have drawn from the plethora of time I have spent reading your bickering- I am not convinced from the pictures. Then I am really not convinced when you start ranting cause you loss credibility in my eyes and danhulbert just is working to appease you which gains him favor. He goes from being the villain to the bullied. I don't think the Mods are going to grant you this one honestly.

That's not really the way things work. If I was accused of cheating, I'd try and ingratiate myself into everyone's favor so that I wouldn't look as suspicious. SOP.

That's all, since those 2 tings just really stuck out of your post.

My $0.02

[Qwert]

""Rule #2: No secret diplomacy
Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. Diplomacy includes, but is not limited to: proposing truces, negotiating alliances, and coordinating assaults. Secret diplomacy can be hard to prove, but if you suspect it you should leave the players in question appropriate ratings. If you feel certain about players engaging in secret diplomacy consider reporting them in the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum by posting a new topic."""
Hmm, well i dont know what to say, its hard to prove all these, also if you take into consideration that bouth-danhulbert,and nhulbert lost a games, then hes secret diplomacy whas quite bad coordinate, and when you know that they brother and play together 104 games, then its quite supprise that they lost these game. These is another evidence who show that they dont conduct any secret diplomacy.
Wotson,in your example security guard have camera, but in these case camera are shut down,only you know that someone are stolen,and that like lindseyland78 say,you belive that only person who are 104 time been in store, are guilty.
With all these what you present, its going to be very hard to be in favoure to announce these secret diplomacy, but maybe moderators have some instruments to investigate better these case.
Well i need to find moriarty,maybe he know something abouth all these mess here?

[kostko]

*reply to lindseyland78 post above, you need to read it to fully understand my answers

1. Them to be noted is all I want. I dont wannt anyone to get banned or to lose premium, that must be clear. And if you are really reading from begginng, I am sure you noticed one line where I say to danhulbert that they will only get warned. Again,I will be completly satisfied if this thread closes it self by c&a team saying something like:"there was suspicion of secret diplomacy that we could not invalidate nor confirm because none of the accused team won.

2. I am not angry and even less frustrated , please . I am giving danhulbert a chance to explain himself on concrete move I presented, I will remove my raiting if he convinces me. This is not one way conversation we are having with danhulbert.He asked me to provide my point of view and I did. Now I am waiting for his explanation. I am not making some random accusation. My accusation isnt based on my feelings, its based on my pictures and c'mon how many times do I have to mention that. Secret diplomacy is hard to prove, specialy here where, grey and pink player quit. If green player did not warn them in round 12, I am sure they would go all the way and win. And yes, I have nothing else but my pictures to prove it, what other clues was I able to collect? I could be able to have this conversation on private base (PM's) with danhulbert, but I decided to write everything here so I can see what others think about it. What else can I do? Go and see Game 9482563 chat, I am not the only player in this game who thinks team3 and team4 played quads. I am now waiting for explanation. No angy feelings here, I am trying to prove him wrong as much as he is trying to prove me wrong.

3.

I was so mad that someone would be so determined to prove I was this horrible player and villainous person when they didn't know shit about me that writing a calm response was extremely difficult,

Hmmm, it might not be me who is writing this based on feelings. c'mon man

4. I read every post written in this tread carefully and all my answers can be checked in pictures. You must understand that I cannot agree with opinion that is not based on pictures. Danhulber wrote to me: "This goes againt human nature and many thousands of years of human interaction . . . it just does not make sense.", when I said team4 was helping team3 to get two bonusses . How can I accept this as an answer or any argument on his deffence? How does this statment proves him innocent ? Yes , pictures might not be enough, but this is all I have. I played the game I know what I saw, and I am not angry, please . danhulbert said they are not using wall, I couldnt find anything there. But they might not need a wall if they are frineds and talk on regulary bases. If you really did read everything, you probably saw that danhulbert agrees with me about some moves from team4 not beeing quite good.

I can agree with you that as we were playing, I did think they were not making very good decisions

5.

You believe the bag MIGHT be missing because they both tried to kill you early and your pissed. (BTW, I have attempted to kill another player and failed only to have the next person kill him. OF COURSE the next person would kill you.

You should definitly make a movie, this scenario is pure gold.

So finally the conclusion I have drawn from the plethora of time I have spent reading your bickering- I am not convinced from the pictures. Then I am really not convinced when you start ranting cause you loss credibility in my eyes and danhulbert just is working to appease you which gains him favor. He goes from being the villain to the bullied. I don't think the Mods are going to grant you this one honestly.

This is your opinion based on your feelings of previous expiriences and not pictures in Game 9482563. Again, that "bag of potato" story wasnt written to prove secret diplomacy, it was written to prove qwert how he was searching for evidence where there arent any. Nothing else, its in no way conected to danhulbert.
Again, I believe danhulbert is a nice person, I dont want any of them to lose premium or be banned in any way. And again, I am writing this only because danhulbert provoked me with his many PM's about telling me how unfair it was from me to left him a secret diplomacy tag at the end of the game and how I offended him with raiting I left. I would not be writting this accusation on my behalf, this is all because he wanted to know why I left him bad raiting. I am writing this publicly so we can also get an outside opinion. I believe this might be their first time playing together. There is no way team3 could have two bonuses without help of team4. Team4 was fighting relentlessly to prevent team 1 and 2 from having one bonus.Team3 hold two bonuses for three rounds(16,17,18), danhulbert saw team3 had two bonuses and team4 was fighting hard to prevent team1&team2 to have at least one bonus . Green player was already asking something about secret diplomacy. Leaving the game by missing turns was a good choise, because he knew secret diplomacy with team4 would become too obvious, if he stayed in the game. Danhulbert would recieve +6 army in round 19, enough to prevent yellow eliminating him. This can all be seen in pictues/log and is not based on my emotions. As I said before, this might be kind of secret diplomacy based on QuikSilver post near the bottom of the first page. They did not need to have any conversation, if it was this way.

Instead using my pictures to prove or rejected my accusation of secret diplomacy in Game 9482563 ,as I do, you guys are using all other games but this one to reject SD qwert. Or you make opinions based on your previous expiriences of beeing accused lindseyland78. Or you just agree with what feels best jchamp. And at the same time you guys are all telling me that I make my accusations based on my feelings, c'mon.

Those two moves described below made by MD212, are for me pure evidence team3 and team4 were playing together. I want you all to find any other explanation different than mine. I want your answers precise as is my question.

Can anyone explain why did MD212 spent reinforcements two rounds to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence agains team3 that was holding Alsace+2? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

[agentcom]

agent the part you highlighted was sarcasm on my behalf.Not me saying that is what they should do lol. And I stick to what I have said to the brothers play together or play privately as a courtesy to others,then you would never have to explain or even worry about this coming up again. On a note from the same page just how many times have you guys been accused of SD or being multi's in the last year alone? 3,4 0r 5. If it was me I would be tired of it and adjust my play because of that alone. Just my opinion I may be wrong

I hate it when people don't pick up the sarcasm in my posts, so I apologize for doing the same to you.

Also, how is this thing still going on?? I have 2 theories: (1) Every mod who starts to look at this says F that, after seeing the initial complaint or (2) This is as much a source of entertainment for the mods as for everyone else who checks in on it every couple days or so.

Cue kostko telling me to stay on topic or not post at all ...

[Geger]

Interesting case...

I have a simple question regarding to picture 9 :

"Could MD212 (orange), who had only 9 troops near radioman212 (teal) bonus, to break the bonus, which was guarded by 6+11 (19 total) troops?"

Let's say he tried it and deployed in Cher, then attacked Marne (1 troop) and Meuse (11 troops). The chance was 44,6%. Said he was lucky, could break the bonus, but what he would have after the attacks. With 27% odd (must be very lucky), he would have max 5 troops (in 3 regions), or with more believable odd, he would have max 4 troops for 3 regions.

Next turn with only 6 troops plus 3 deploys it would be easy job for teal to take his bonus back plus other 2 regions from orange (86% chance).

So I agree with teal move there, he had nothing to worry with orange stack of 9 troops in Cher.

---

Maybe I'll give other comments later

[kostko]

Interesting case...

I have a simple question regarding to picture 9 :

"Could MD212 (orange), who had only 9 troops near radioman212 (teal) bonus, to break the bonus, which was guarded by 6+11 (19 total) troops?"

Let's say he tried it and deployed in Cher, then attacked Marne (1 troop) and Meuse (11 troops). The chance was 44,6%. Said he was lucky, could break the bonus, but what he would have after the attacks. With 27% odd (must be very lucky), he would have max 5 troops (in 3 regions), or with more believable odd, he would have max 4 troops for 3 regions.

Next turn with only 6 troops plus 3 deploys it would be easy job for teal to take his bonus back plus other 2 regions from orange (86% chance).

So I agree with teal move there, he had nothing to worry with orange stack of 9 troops in Cher.

---

Maybe I'll give other comments later

Yes, he(teal) had nothing to worry on his move in round9 (this was not the question, the question was, Had orange(team4) anything to worry about teal(teal3)?), because orange player was pointlesly spending his reinforcements on blue(team2)region Alps, for the past two rounds(round6,7 and even in round 8 he spends one on attacking blue in Savoie) . If insted pointlesly spending army on Alps(orange) in round 6 and 7, orange would deploy on Cher or Finistere or Osie he could take Brittany+2 or had 15 on Cher or 15 on Osie. But he did not do that. Instead taking a bonus (Brittany+2) or make a stack on Cher to defent himself he spent his army on blue in Alps for no reason. He(orange) was not trying to take a spoil and was also not going for Alps+4 bonus. The only explanation left for me is that orange was helping teal to eliminate blue(team2) out of Alps, and he somehow knew teal wont attack him. Similar story taking its place in picture 12, round 9, where orange(team4) attacks green(team1) on Paris, and right after teal(team3) attacks green on Corsica. But they dont attack each other on regions with more than 1 army.
You did not answer my question:

Can anyone explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to keep the bonus safe from blue and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

[Geger]

Yes, he(teal) had nothing to worry on his move in round9 (this was not the question, the question was, Had orange(team4) anything to worry about teal(teal3)?),

No, kostko. If we look at the red box picture 10, this is really your concern. "Teal attacks blue on Savoie, Leaving 7 armies there. Looks like Teal nothing to worry about Orange's 9 stack on Cher."

My answer was, that by leaving 6 armies on Doubs (or leaving 7 armies on Savoie like you said) was enough for teal to protect his bonus in Alascae.

because orange player was pointlesly spending his reinforcements on blue(team2)region Alps, for the past two rounds(round6,7 and even in round 8 he spends one on attacking blue in Savoie) . If insted pointlesly spending army on Alps(orange) in round 6 and 7, orange would deploy on Cher or Finistere or Osie he could take Brittany+2 or had 15 on Cher or 15 on Osie. But he did not do that. Instead taking a bonus (Brittany+2) or make a stack on Cher to defent himself he spent his army on blue in Alps for no reason. He(orange) was not trying to take a spoil and was also not going for Alps+4 bonus. The only explanation left for me is that orange was helping teal to eliminate blue(team2) out of Alps, and he somehow knew teal wont attack him. Similar story taking its place in picture 12, round 9, where orange(team4) attacks green(team1) on Paris, and right after teal(team3) attacks green on Corsica. But they dont attack each other on regions with more than 1 army.

You did not answer my question:

Can anyone explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to keep the bonus safe from blue and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

I must miss this question before (but like I said before, I wanted to give another comments later).

Ok, I'll give my answer for this question. I have really no idea, what was orange's plan. Maybe he wanted all Alps regions.

But your argument, that the reason for orange's action was to eliminate blue from Alps, so blue could not break Teal bonus in Alascae, is far from logic. Blue had only 2 troops in Alps and 2 in Savoie. And with only 1 troops added in those regions by blue, I can say, blue had no attention to break teal's bonus from there. And I think, blue had no problem being attacked in Alps. You had the problem.

Because what? Because you really wanted that someone broke teal's bonus. Because the bonus was taken from you. You wanted a vengeance, wanted to attack teal, but silver eliminated you before your turn. Then you looked for an answer, why silver eliminated you. And here we are.

[kostko]

*reply to Gegerabove

Interesting case...

I have a simple question regarding to picture 9 :

"Could MD212 (orange), who had only 9 troops near radioman212 (teal) bonus, to break the bonus, which was guarded by 6+11 (19 total) troops?"

Let's say he tried it and deployed in Cher, then attacked Marne (1 troop) and Meuse (11 troops). The chance was 44,6%. Said he was lucky, could break the bonus, but what he would have after the attacks. With 27% odd (must be very lucky), he would have max 5 troops (in 3 regions), or with more believable odd, he would have max 4 troops for 3 regions.

Next turn with only 6 troops plus 3 deploys it would be easy job for teal to take his bonus back plus other 2 regions from orange (86% chance).

So I agree with teal move there, he had nothing to worry with orange stack of 9 troops in Cher.

---

Maybe I'll give other comments later

Yes I agree with you. Red box on picture 10 shold definitly be deleted. I will leave it there, so every one can see you proved me wrong on this one.

But your argument, that the reason for orange's action was to eliminate blue from Alps, so blue could not break Teal bonus in Alascae, is far from logic. Blue had only 2 troops in Alps and 2 in Savoie. And with only 1 troops added in those regions by blue, I can say, blue had no attention to break teal's bonus from there. And I think, blue had no problem being attacked in Alps. You had the problem.

Yes, blue(team2) was not a threat for teal's(team3) bonus, Yes blue did not want to attack Alsace+3,(notice my sarcasm in red box on picture picture6).I never said blue was going for Alsace. So why was orange speding his army on him in Alps and Savoie? Wouldnt it be more logical if orange(team4) deploy on Finistere if team4 was fighting at that time to hold Brittany+2?

My question still remains unanswered.

[Geger]

Yes, blue(team2) was not a threat for teal's(team3) bonus, Yes blue did not want to attack Alsace+3, so why was orange speding his army on him in Alps and Savoie? Wouldnt it be more logical if orange(team4) deploy on Finistere if team4 was fighting at that time to hold Brittany+2?

Good, that we can agree in some points

For the question, I don't have an definite answer now. Maybe later.
And the answer that orange attacked blue to prevent blue breaking teal's bonus in Alsace, can't be used to prove a SD here. We have to look in an other place.

All the proofs in 1st post (perhaps due to long) need a long time to understand. And the fact that red was eliminated by silver and silver has brother on the other team, raises the presumption that the proofs are not neutral.

Like I said before, this is an interesting case.

[kostko]

And the answer that orange attacked blue to prevent blue breaking teal's bonus in Alsace, can't be used to prove a SD here. We have to look in an other place.

Who provide the statement "that orange attacked blue to prevent blue breaking teal's bonus in Alsace" to prove SD here? How would that prove SD? I never said that. please notice the sarcasm in red box picture6.
Yes there are alot of pictures, do focus on first 16 reather than on last few, because green player warned them of SD in round12. So little can be found later.

my question again( underlined is a correction):

Can anyone explain why did MD212(team4) spent reinforcements two rounds6&7 to eliminate blue player out of Alps (picture2 and picture6),near Alsace+2 bonus that team3 holds. Instead placing them all in Finistere so team4 could have more chance at taking and hold Brittany+2, or stack on Cher for better defence against team3 that was holding Alsace+2, or stack on Osie(grey(team4) was stacking on Osie in round 7,8) to take Picardy+3? Can there be any other posible explanation than team4 helping team3 to eliminate blue out of Alps and team4 somehow knowing team3 wont attack them at the same time? Orange was obviously not going for Burgundy+4 bonus or a spoil as it was a no spoil game.

EDIT: uhhh, ok I wrote it in my question " ...helping team3 to keep the bonus safe from blue... ", I corrected my question. Please notice the sarcasm, ofcourse blue was not going for Alsace+2 its is obvious blue is going for Brittany+2.

EDIT 2: And Gegerthank you , you are first reasonable&normal person here trying to prove me wrong.

[Geger]

I think I see something!

Look at the pictures 12 :

Team 4 : Orange just moved from Cher to Paris (captured from green), Silver had 10 in Oise
Team 3 : Pink had 12 in Eure, Teal had 11in Meuse and 9 in Doubs.
And from some previous turns, we can see team 4 dropped either in Finstere or Oise.

The question : What was the best move from team 3 to make their position stronger?

The answer is clear : Reduce and then kill silver's troops in Oise , Pink from Eure and Teal from Meuse via Marne.

If team 3 did that, they would gain 2 advantages :
1. Eliminating a stack near their bonus >> they could take Picardy and Burgundy later
2. Forcing team 4 to drop only in Finstere >> blue's job to take Brittany would be harder

But instead that, teal attacked green in Corsica from Savoie via Alps (Picture 13). With only 20 troops, green wasn't a thread at that time. Team 3 should give more attention towards team 2.

But I don't know, that was a SD or a bad Maneuver. Hm...

.