Conquer Club

Accused:

Louis the Great
Kelson



The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy




Game number(s):

Game 13327677



Comments:Louis the Great admits in chat they have a truce/alliance, but no mention of it by either prior in the chat.

-- This is secret diplomacy. As You mentioned Purple, No truce chat between Them in war chat, Louis admits He's not going to break truce with Kelson even though there is no truce agreement in entire chat-log. Kelson holds Indies bonus with all single troops while He boarders Louis's bonus with single troops, They've held those bonuses for two rounds with no defense against each-other. Unless They have evolved with superior brain power to use telepathic links to converse truce, I believe there was bogus conduct being relayed via pm. This is def. a bloody red flag situation.

This is the 2nd time I have been accused of cheating and this is the 2nd time it is not true. Why the heck would I cheat? What purpose to cheat by playing a game like this? There would be no victory you would know you cheated to win so why play it? I did not make secret diplomacy. In the early rounds of the game I was tuck between Pink and blue. I made a reference that I was the meat in a sandwhich and that I had no intention of hitting the bread aka Pink and blue. I did not hit them through out the game and hadn't planned on hitting them until they hit me. Pink parked a large stack of troops on my border so on my turn I was going to address that when I read the message that pink was going to South America so I didn't hit him. Blue and i had maintained our borders by putting the same amount of troops in our held lands. I was going to ride this as long as I could and blue never made a move so why should I?? I proceeded to eliminate opponents gaining strength and in what I hope would be a victory. To win a game by cheating is not a win and why of why would I have such a low score if I was a cheater? What purpose would I have to cheat now?

Looks like secret diplomacy.

I thought Louis was referring to a truce with red, but after rereading, he's referring to a previously unmentioned agreement between him and guess who? kelson.

WHY? Why cheat? There is no freakin reason to cheat in a game it means nothing if you win. Nothing.

I did not have secret diplomacy with blue. Why isn't Pink being accused? It was the same deal with him and I took him out after he requested so he could play another game. I didn't hit him once until then. Is he a cheater as well? I am frustrated because my good name is being linked to cheating and I have not.

-- You say You've been linked to cheating before, Let Me advise You Kelson, That if You and another player are going to have neighboring bonuses protected by single troops, You better first make sure somewhere in the war-chat it states Your sharing bunk beds, A comment about meat and sandwich's is not a truce, and Louis never responded at all to Your meat and sandwich remark. And if an enemy lines singles to protect his boarder from You, It's up to You to break his bonus if there is in fact no truce, that goes for both of You.

He responded by not attacking me and matching our border defense. I read that as meaning he was good with it so I played that way. What about pink? He never responded either but understood what I meant. Also, if you look at feedback left for the accused I left him poor feedback in a prior game we played due to him being a deadbeat. I don't know what else I can say to prove to you and PC that I did not have secret diplomacy.

I will take your advice and make it abundantly clear next time what is meant by a sandwich remark. I thought it was rather obvious but as stated above it was not.

-- You sound sincere Kelson, For sure the fact You don't want Your name tarnished because You've come to defend Yourself, where as Louis decides to hide and ignore Your plea to come forth. I say overcome this Kelson, Forget about using references like food for truces, Use words that can be identified 100% by all, Get responses to Your truces from enemies, Never assume there is a truce or You could be in the frying pan yet again. I'm sure this isn't over for Louis, And if I were You I'd Foe him for ignoring this. Fly as str8 as You can Kelson, CC is a privilege as I see it, become premium, and lets see what You can do. GL2U In Life & War--

So I am being accused of cheating and pm, however I will like to say that it is all false and untrue. Kelson early on in the game had said " I am the meat in this sandwhich and to both of you I have no intentions to eating the bread". I had not respond, yet I played off that remark and matched his troops along the border. At this point it should be obvious that our borders had stayed the same turn after turn. So my empire began expanding.. yadayada and then Red had mentioned he was feeling intimidated and wanted a truce, so I offered truce with Red. Instead Purplechest and Red form a truce thus leading them to attacking me. I did not intend on going to war with Purplechest or red, but they left me no choice but to retaliate. At this point in the game Kelson had started to gain more troops due than myself, thus taking the lead. I was even contemplating attacking Kelson because I never officially agreed to a truce but Purplechest started becoming bothersome. Purplechest then made the remark "suicidally stupid" and that's when I started to gun for him. I would also like to add that I play off my phone so it makes it difficult to communicate. Sorry for the late respone.

Louis the Great wrote:So I am being accused of cheating and pm, however I will like to say that it is all false and untrue. Kelson early on in the game had said " I am the meat in this sandwhich and to both of you I have no intentions to eating the bread". I had not respond, yet I played off that remark and matched his troops along the border. At this point it should be obvious that our borders had stayed the same turn after turn. So my empire began expanding.. yadayada and then Red had mentioned he was feeling intimidated and wanted a truce, so I offered truce with Red. Instead Purplechest and Red form a truce thus leading them to attacking me. I did not intend on going to war with Purplechest or red, but they left me no choice but to retaliate. At this point in the game Kelson had started to gain more troops due than myself, thus taking the lead. I was even contemplating attacking Kelson because I never officially agreed to a truce but Purplechest started becoming bothersome. Purplechest then made the remark "suicidally stupid" and that's when I started to gun for him. I would also like to add that I play off my phone so it makes it difficult to communicate. Sorry for the late respone.

Seems like total cook logic, seems fair.

Urs

Koganosi

MagnusGreeol wrote:-- You say You've been linked to cheating before, Let Me advise You Kelson, That if You and another player are going to have neighboring bonuses protected by single troops, You better first make sure somewhere in the war-chat it states Your sharing bunk beds, A comment about meat and sandwich's is not a truce, and Louis never responded at all to Your meat and sandwich remark. And if an enemy lines singles to protect his boarder from You, It's up to You to break his bonus if there is in fact no truce, that goes for both of You.

Didn't realize it was a requirement to break someones bonus if they have a 1 on your border. So anyone who doesnt hit a one on their border is guilty of secret diplomacy? Hummm

a6mzero wrote:

MagnusGreeol wrote:-- You say You've been linked to cheating before, Let Me advise You Kelson, That if You and another player are going to have neighboring bonuses protected by single troops, You better first make sure somewhere in the war-chat it states Your sharing bunk beds, A comment about meat and sandwich's is not a truce, and Louis never responded at all to Your meat and sandwich remark. And if an enemy lines singles to protect his boarder from You, It's up to You to break his bonus if there is in fact no truce, that goes for both of You.

Didn't realize it was a requirement to break someones bonus if they have a 1 on your border. So anyone who doesnt hit a one on their border is guilty of secret diplomacy? Hummm

Let's be real here, If Your in a standard war and Your supposed enemy leaves single troops to protect his bonus and You boarder it, isn't it logical with no truces in chat to attack and break that bonus? Requirement- No it isn't a requirement, But most would take it as 1 of two things-> (1)-Secret diplomacy or (2)- Dumb ass player. So which is it here? If there is no mention of a truce, others will take it as secret diplomacy, and the cheat abuse reports will continue to flood in. This is war here, Your objective is to gain bonuses and break bonuses right or wrong? So tell Me a6mzero, Do You protect Your boarders with singles in a standard war with no truces? If You do, can I join some wars with You?

(3)I won't break that bonus in hope this player has enough power (troops due), so he can do more damages to other opponent(s). I did it btw in my last finished game.

Geger wrote:(3)I won't break that bonus in hope this player has enough power (troops due), so he can do more damages to other opponent(s). I did it btw in my last finished game.

- Question is--> Would You line Your bonus boarders with singles and push the mass of Yourself else-where forward in hopes that without a truce Your neighboring enemy won't break Your bonus? I understand what You did Your last finished war Geger, And without a truce between You and him, You gambled that "He" wouldn't use his power (troops-due),,,on You, Would You say that's--> true?

MagnusGreeol wrote:

Geger wrote:(3)I won't break that bonus in hope this player has enough power (troops due), so he can do more damages to other opponent(s). I did it btw in my last finished game.

- Question is--> Would You line Your bonus boarders with singles and push the mass of Yourself else-where forward in hopes that without a truce Your neighboring enemy won't break Your bonus? I understand what You did Your last finished war Geger, And without a truce between You and him, You gambled that "He" wouldn't use his power (troops-due),,,on You, Would You say that's--> true?

No, I won't left my borders with 1's, because I can't trust my opponents can think like I'm.

For the 2nd question : I didn't gamble. I can say, blue wouldn't attack me, because he simple couldn't do that. I had about 12-15 men in western australia to protect oceania. If he attacked me but failed to break Oceania, he would face 2 opponents (there was a hard battle between him and orange over Africa), that would be a quick death for him.

Anyway I usually (>95%) break bonuses with 1's on border. But I wrote the previous post just to show, that there is the third possibility.

- Then a fourth possibility is both members being blind in one of the same eyes and never notices he/ she's left singles to protect unwritten truce bonuses ")

To be honest here's what i think happened.

Kelson and Luis the great have played together before. And been allies before, explicitly stated in the chat of the game. And that alliance was a success and honourably handled.

Here they both assumed the same relationship. But the communication to the rest of the game wasn't clear, and in no way continued, or was formalised. otherwise people would have been urging them to break it, or ally against it. that didnt happen. They became the 2 strongest factions and as no one knew they felt they were allied, no one treated them as such, thinking that they limited each other and kept each other in check.

Finally it was them and me, with Luis having no chance at all of either totally taking me out, to assume bonuses and cards, or of taking kelson on without me. Yet he attacked into me. Ruining his only chance in the game, and mine. And handing an incredibly easy victory to kelson.

I am not sure either MEANT to cheat, but i do think their actions were unfair, and contrary to the rules. Kelson has at all other times acted reasonably (well, as reasonable as any human acts, we can all be dicks, especially in games) and has been polite yet very firm in his requests to me to cease this accusation.

I have no rights or powers here, but i am an admin on another game site of similar size. My worry here would not be kelson, who seems contrite and likely to have learned from this, but it would be Louis the great, who possibly also needs to acknowledge the same lesson.

But it's not my call.

PurpleChest wrote:To be honest here's what i think happened.

Kelson and Luis the great have played together before. And been allies before, explicitly stated in the chat of the game. And that alliance was a success and honourably handled.

Here they both assumed the same relationship. But the communication to the rest of the game wasn't clear, and in no way continued, or was formalised. otherwise people would have been urging them to break it, or ally against it. that didnt happen. They became the 2 strongest factions and as no one knew they felt they were allied, no one treated them as such, thinking that they limited each other and kept each other in check.

Finally it was them and me, with Luis having no chance at all of either totally taking me out, to assume bonuses and cards, or of taking kelson on without me. Yet he attacked into me. Ruining his only chance in the game, and mine. And handing an incredibly easy victory to kelson.

I am not sure either MEANT to cheat, but i do think their actions were unfair, and contrary to the rules. Kelson has at all other times acted reasonably (well, as reasonable as any human acts, we can all be dicks, especially in games) and has been polite yet very firm in his requests to me to cease this accusation.

I have no rights or powers here, but i am an admin on another game site of similar size. My worry here would not be kelson, who seems contrite and likely to have learned from this, but it would be Louis the great, who possibly also needs to acknowledge the same lesson.

But it's not my call.

So Kelson and I have played games before with each other, so have Purplechest and I. I don't keep tabs on who I play games with being that I hardly play on the site. I played off of Kelsons very first remark in the game chat "kelson: I am the meat in this sandwhich and to both of you I have no intentions to eating the bread". What Kelson meant by that was he had no intentions on striking mine and PINK'S empire. Why isn't pink in this conversation room since Kelson and G-cook also never officially agreed to it??

Anyone playing the game could see it progress and see that Kelson and my own borders matched troops. Purplechest's and Red's border was along my own and decided to both attack me. That's when I started to engage war with both Purplechest's and Red. I would have possibly attacked Kelson at this point of the game, however if Purplechest and Red wouldn't have attacked, I would've followed through with it. So Kelson takes the clear lead, while I'm still preoccupied with Purplechest and Red taking my territory. Kelson eventually came to my aid and eliminated Red and got his spoils, thus solidifying my alligance with Kelson(in my head). At this point it left a few players, one being Purplechest. Eventually Purplechest knew he was next and made the silly suggestion that I attack Kelson. I mean c'mon, really dude?? You really didn't see this coming, you would have to be completely oblivious to the fact that I played of Kelson's very first remark of the entire game.

Lastly I feel like Purplechest went over board, I can't help the way the game progressed, but I could assure you there was no secrecy involved. I hope from this Purplechest could learn to deal with a lose and quit harassing other players who are here just to play a fun simple game. I now have to take the time out of my day to reply to this annoying nuisance. Maybe Purplechest could take it easy on pointing the finger, situations and strategies like this occur.

nonsense. I lose all the time here, and used to pay and play 40+ games at a time. This one felt wrong and was wrong.

You may not have intended to, but you cheated. You lay down and fed kelson an easy victory. i know you arn't very good at the game, but still, no one is THAT bad. And clearly learned nothing from it and are totally unapologetic.

Yeah, I handed Kelson the game because I found YOU annoying. What part do you not get? Maybe if you strategies as much as you talk you might actually get a victory. So yeah no one is that bad, but sometimes getting second place isn't that bad. At least I could handle a lose... If an apology is what you want Purplechest then I'll give you one. I, Louis the Great, am sorry for eliminating purplechest's army and going against his wishes. If you want an apology for 'cheating' you're not going to get one. Didn't happen, pure tactics and that's that.

I have looked at this quite a few times trying to make a decision. I don't see any deliberate attempt at forming a secret alliance. The familiarity the accused have with each others game play can cause suspicion. I would suggest for the accused to be more clear in their actions. That being said I am going to NOTE this for future reference.

I will say it again, Louis and I don't know one another outside of this game, we have never communicated prior to this game, he read exactly what I meant in my posting and so did PINK who is not being accused of the same game play. Purple Chest and Blue were feuding so why not take advantage of that. We did not cheat. I did learn to make my references to any sort of alliance more clear .