Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.
IcePack wrote:Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.
This isn't what happened. He did NOT take the turn against himself. Him happy and bush are RL friends.
He saw happy was about to miss, so since he COULDN"T take happy's turn - he asked their mutual RL friend bush to cover.
IcePack
Symmetry wrote:IcePack wrote:Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.
This isn't what happened. He did NOT take the turn against himself. Him happy and bush are RL friends.
He saw happy was about to miss, so since he COULDN"T take happy's turn - he asked their mutual RL friend bush to cover.
IcePack
Essentially the same thing.
Flow520 wrote:Perhaps a better course of action for chapcrap would have been to wall message happyfeet instead of an account sitter. It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions.
Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.
Moreover, happyfeet (friends with chapcrap as claimed by both parties) made the comment that chapcrap has previously engaged in this behavior.happyfeet wrote:he [chapcrap] asked others in our clan to cover games for me in which we were against each other
If happyfeet is correct, this is not chapcrap's first offense.
chapcrap wrote:GoranZ wrote:Question: Why chap left 2 units on Bogota before he was eliminated by his teammate if he knew what cards you had? Risky according to me.
Can someone provide us with picture of the actual units distribution after happyfeet's problematic turn or something useful so we wont guess what was going on from game chat?
Is this relevant?
Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
Flow520 wrote:IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
I'll repeat.
It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions. Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.
Flow520 wrote:IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
I'll repeat.
It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions. Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.
Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
Symmetry wrote:happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.
Symmetry wrote:happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.
happyfeet wrote:Symmetry wrote:happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.
and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flow
Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
chapcrap wrote:happyfeet wrote:Symmetry wrote:happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.
and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flow
If that was our plan, happyfeet could have just thrown the game himself...Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
It's a tournament game. It's not like we planned ahead of time to have this setup. The assignment was random. You aren't even making coherent points here. And bush isn't a clan mate either. Try looking at everything before you post.
Symmetry wrote:chapcrap wrote:happyfeet wrote:Symmetry wrote:happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.
and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flow
If that was our plan, happyfeet could have just thrown the game himself...Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
It's a tournament game. It's not like we planned ahead of time to have this setup. The assignment was random. You aren't even making coherent points here. And bush isn't a clan mate either. Try looking at everything before you post.
He's pretty clearly associated, but you're nitpicking at my central point now. You were all tied together, and shouldn't have been involved in the obvious screwing over of a third party.
You guys are missing something here. Had chapcrap not meddled with his opponents turn by soliciting a sitter, Bogota would likely have been taken from red. Flow's turn shows the rest of red was taken with a set trade. Whatever happened afterwards is a mute point. happyfeet's turn was altered due to the intervention of a member of the opposing team.Flow520 wrote:Game Board: Round 8. Green's turn. Set at 15.So, I added a link to the picture:
As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
happyfeet wrote:and yes i would have made this one
happyfeet wrote:i do admit i probably would have taken the turn different.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users