Kiron & xiangwang[banned/blocked]sn

[mc05025]

LOL. First of all they are not roomates.

As I have played many games with both of them I think I know better that anyone how they are playing and in addition I know how to play third crusade freestyle. So from my experience these two players are playing very well and I am not really surprised from their score.

But they do play very friendly to each other. For exmple they are ready to backstub anyone to gain an advandage but never each other. If one can not win he is helping the other one a lot. On the other side I have never notice at my games a clear pass of the game to each other even if it might have happened when I am not in.

At the last game with them they helped each other so much that I told them that they are cheating and I will not play again with both of them at the same time.

But it is completely imposible to provide evidence for two reasons

a) there was fog
b) what they were doing was not extremely obvious. A weak player might have done the same not in purpose but just because he is not playing well. But from my experience of how good their gameplay is I know that when someone couldn't win he was helping the other in purpose and not because he does not know how to play

[Metsfanmax]

Coordinating when you take your turns, in a non-team game, is secret diplomacy regardless of whether you're doing it on or off the site. Anyone who was coordinating turns without explicitly announcing every single step in game chat would also be in violation of the rules. How can you not see that sitting next to your mate and taking your turns together is secret diplomacy?

Wait a second.

I can understand that if one roomate says "let's play our freestyle CC turns now".

But the way you're phrasing it, if two roommates are watching TV in the living room and one of them open his notebook and logs into CC without so much as a word being spoken between the two of them, the other is forbidden to do the same or else it would be secret diplomacy?

xiangwang was the one who used the phrase "coordinating turns." I interpreted that to mean that they were intentionally agreeing when to take turns, and presumably to take them at the same time. This is much different from two people who live in the same house coincidentally playing at the same time. xiangwang's use of the word "coordinating" suggests that this latter scenario is not what is happening; rather, it is the former.

[Rodion]

xiangwang was the one who used the phrase "coordinating turns." I interpreted that to mean that they were intentionally agreeing when to take turns, and presumably to take them at the same time. This is much different from two people who live in the same house coincidentally playing at the same time. xiangwang's use of the word "coordinating" suggests that this latter scenario is not what is happening; rather, it is the former.

Oh, that is clarified then. Thanks, Bones and Mets!

For exmple they are ready to backstub anyone to gain an advandage but never each other.

Do you think that has to do with that prisoner's dilemma scenario we've discussed a couple years ago?

To all others: I'd pay real attention to what MC has to say: he actually knows what he is talking about, unlike people who do not realize Malta->Krak des Chevaliers->Antiochia is an effective path for breaking the objective.

[nietzsche]

When I played this gang I always felt suspicious that they were sort of playing in team.

I did not say anything because I have no proof, but they do seem to play in a way that makes it that one of them wins. By team I mean these two and a few others, including mc05025 and Gonakurutu.

[freakns]

When I played this gang I always felt suspicious that they were sort of playing in team.

I did not say anything because I have no proof, but they do seem to play in a way that makes it that one of them wins. By team I mean these two and a few others, including mc05025 and Gonakurutu.

well, yeah, but those things are not forbidden. im not sure why, but they arent. for example, mc05025 clearly doesnt play CC for enjoyment, but to have as much points as possible proving to himself he isnt what his last attempt of having a girlfriend called him. thus, when its clear to him he has no chance of winning a game, and there is a shot between you and Kiron, he will do whatever it takes for Kiron to win, because if you win, he will lose more point...
that would probably go up until the moment he gets to 5000 points after whichhe will take print screen and show it to his last failure of having real converastion with a women, after which she will laugh in his face, getting him to abandon CC, and new version of him will soon join the site...

its called circle of life i think

[Qwert]

well in situation that last 3 player in game are kiron, xuangwei and player x, what are odds that these player x have chance to win against kiron and xuangwei?
answer could be -zero chances?

[xiangwang]

Coordinating when you take your turns, in a non-team game, is secret diplomacy regardless of whether you're doing it on or off the site. Anyone who was coordinating turns without explicitly announcing every single step in game chat would also be in violation of the rules. How can you not see that sitting next to your mate and taking your turns together is secret diplomacy?

Wait a second.

I can understand that if one roomate says "let's play our freestyle CC turns now".

But the way you're phrasing it, if two roommates are watching TV in the living room and one of them open his notebook and logs into CC without so much as a word being spoken between the two of them, the other is forbidden to do the same or else it would be secret diplomacy?

xiangwang was the one who used the phrase "coordinating turns." I interpreted that to mean that they were intentionally agreeing when to take turns, and presumably to take them at the same time. This is much different from two people who live in the same house coincidentally playing at the same time. xiangwang's use of the word "coordinating" suggests that this latter scenario is not what is happening; rather, it is the former.

Okay coordinating was not the best wording i could have used. But it's REALLY obvious when kiron goes onto CC, he doesn't bother hiding the fact he is playing in the house (aka, full screen CC on the monitor for all to see, but doesn't say i'm playing CC) and vice versa. If I know if he is going to play and there is an advantage of me going immediately i will take it and vice versa.

[jsnyder748]

When I played this gang I always felt suspicious that they were sort of playing in team.

I did not say anything because I have no proof, but they do seem to play in a way that makes it that one of them wins. By team I mean these two and a few others, including mc05025 and Gonakurutu.

well, yeah, but those things are not forbidden. im not sure why, but they arent. for example, mc05025 clearly doesnt play CC for enjoyment, but to have as much points as possible proving to himself he isnt what his last attempt of having a girlfriend called him. thus, when its clear to him he has no chance of winning a game, and there is a shot between you and Kiron, he will do whatever it takes for Kiron to win, because if you win, he will lose more point...
that would probably go up until the moment he gets to 5000 points after whichhe will take print screen and show it to his last failure of having real converastion with a women, after which she will laugh in his face, getting him to abandon CC, and new version of him will soon join the site...

its called circle of life i think

stop flaming.

I think MC finds enjoyment from playing other skilled strategists. He is very smart from what he has told me about his schooling. He plays team games for a clan. What is more fun than being in a clan?

He can defend himself of course.

[jimboy]

So these guys claim to be roomates now? At what point does CC just draw a clear line saying 1 account per household, end of story? Seems that everyone tries to get around being multi's or SD's by saying they are roomates or family or from the same frat house or whatever. The whole concept seems absolutely rediculous. Why don't we just accept it for what it really is..... 85% of these claims are cheaters. Look at GO and Waterman..... they exploited the loop hole in the system and didn't get caught until Waterman had over 5000 games? Completely rediculous.

[Kiron]

So these guys claim to be roomates now? At what point does CC just draw a clear line saying 1 account per household, end of story? Seems that everyone tries to get around being multi's or SD's by saying they are roomates or family or from the same frat house or whatever. The whole concept seems absolutely rediculous. Why don't we just accept it for what it really is..... 85% of these claims are cheaters. Look at GO and Waterman..... they exploited the loop hole in the system and didn't get caught until Waterman had over 5000 games? Completely rediculous.

We have ALWAYS maintained that we are housemates (or roommates, is there a difference?). There is NO rules that says housemates CANNOT play in the same game as each other and everything we do is said over chat so there is NO secret diplomacy. Xiangwang's choice of words regarding coordinating was a bad choice lol. But it's not hard to see when each of us is online in the house, no words are necessary considering the monitor is fairly large and visible, but that is NOT against the rules.

[eddie2]

ok i thought i would not comment on this case or the other one. But i see everyone saying this is secret diplomacy i see this case as something else.

i see this as a new form of glg's ranching which was classed as a major site infraction..

why i am saying this is that when you have 2 players joining a game like this(and not joining next to each other but further apart after stating and showing they play at the same time) with the experience they have on settings they can manipulate the game play. this is making it that others who join literally stand no chance of winning... also taking into account that even lose 1 win 1 gives them a average of 40 point gain between the 2 of them losing.

So i would hope this will be classed as a major infraction kiron is striped of his conquer title and they are blocked from playing together. and like with the blitz case if these are proven

1)ranching
2)point dumping (this one because they are purposely losing the games and there is more than 1 example so makes it they are purposely dumping there points in 1 game to gain more in another)
3)manipulation of the scoreboard..(same gaining mass points but also the others they play losing points that could make them look lower ranks than they actually are..)

add all this together and tell us what a fair punishment is for it.

[codeblue1018]

So these guys claim to be roomates now? At what point does CC just draw a clear line saying 1 account per household, end of story? Seems that everyone tries to get around being multi's or SD's by saying they are roomates or family or from the same frat house or whatever. The whole concept seems absolutely rediculous. Why don't we just accept it for what it really is..... 85% of these claims are cheaters. Look at GO and Waterman..... they exploited the loop hole in the system and didn't get caught until Waterman had over 5000 games? Completely rediculous.

We have ALWAYS maintained that we are housemates (or roommates, is there a difference?). There is NO rules that says housemates CANNOT play in the same game as each other and everything we do is said over chat so there is NO secret diplomacy. Xiangwang's choice of words regarding coordinating was a bad choice lol. But it's not hard to see when each of us is online in the house, no words are necessary considering the monitor is fairly large and visible, but that is NOT against the rules.

You are correct; feel free to re-read Chariots post and if you can come up with a concise, legitimate response regarding the shenanigans that he uncovered, you ll win a premium membership. Thing is, you can't. It's damning proof of foul and cheap play. I'd be interested in the Waterloo games as well in that if the same practices listed in the op were utilized there as well. If you can't see from the lay persons point of view that things look extremely suspicious/shady then, you ought not waste your time in responding to any of this. The fact that you guys are housemates, roommates or whatever, is not the issue here; not in the least. It's purely based on using each other to guarantee wins based on the coin flip or whose turn it is to win a game. Pretty simple really. So in essence, playing to ensure a win for either one of you and discussing in chat eliminates secret diplomacy? Perhaps, this is the loophole that you discovered. How you guys are playing is absurd and bottom line, it's cheating. Read the rules and as KA said, " each player is to play the game to achieve a win" unless in cases of a stalemate, which your games aren't. Bottom line, you guys play to ensure that one of you wins, period!

[jsnyder748]

why i am saying this is that when you have 2 players joining a game like this(and not joining next to each other but further apart after stating and showing they play at the same time) with the experience they have on settings they can manipulate the game play. this is making it that others who join literally stand no chance of winning... also taking into account that even lose 1 win 1 gives them a average of 40 point gain between the 2 of them losing.

I won one Game 12246204, but I see what your saying.

KiIIface as well Game 12190942

there was no deal making like what they did earlier in these 2 games. Just good play from other freestyle specialists. They aren't unbeatable.

[kentington]

1.I think it's been stated a lot of times prior. Not attacking each other is quite normal when A. We announced truces, B. There is a greater threat, C. We both are well fortified that it's pointless to attack each other guaranteeing mutual destruction, or D. we're no where near each other.

2.Regarding dovetail our turns, yes, it helps that in RL i know when kiron is taking his turn, but people on the site can coordinate that too. There are many games that I seen players do it. 3.To ban two players from playing with each other because they are friends in RL and can coordinate turns easier, well, that's absurd because that is something that the site CANNOT control. To ban every RL friend from playing each other bc they can coordinate turns easiers is absurd and would be detrimental to the site as a whole.

4.Again every truce we have is ANNOUNCED in chat. 5.We BOTH play to win, we don't need secret diplomacy for that. An honestly, regarding the end of turns K/X/K or X/K/X, we both have greasemonkey that once objective is captured, we just put a weight on the B button and game is as good as won. There was no point in attempting to stop it, so we usually just do the courtsey of ending the game. I have RARELY seen games last when a player has the objectives and don't win the moment someone else start their turn (yes, there is odd cases when I don't have my laptop to spam B, but rarely).

1. Yes this is a common argument from you guys and it doesn't seem to be easing anyone's minds as to your overall gameplay. View my post in the other thread that Kiron had a hard time responding to. I don't think he responded to my second one.
2. This is why I suggested that you should be playing team games with room mates.
3. Strawman - The argument is not that you can coordinate turns easier, it is because you are coordinating turns.
4. The truces you have start before the game starts. It doesn't help people get out of the game.
5. You both play so that one of you will win. That is different then just playing to win.

[rishaed]

I don't really think that they can make an argument convincing enough for me. The OP is extremely detailed, and the fact of the matter is that the Conquerer medal is tainted by this kind of play. It's supposed to show who the best player is, not who can farm the most people without being caught. Its blatantly, done in a way that disgraces the name of risk. It not only removes the strategy from the game for the most part, its things like this that discourage others to come to the site.
Why would I come to a site where I hear that the Conquerer is someone who farms/ranches others? As said from Spiderman, "With Great Power comes great responsibility" in the sense that as the conquerer you are representing everyone else on CC.

[40kguy]

guys i think were forgetting what we learned in kindergarten

if you don't like the way someones doing something than don't participate in it.

so if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

[kentington]

guys i think were forgetting what we learned in kindergarten

if you don't like the way someones doing something than don't participate in it.

so if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

The point is people who don't know them wont know to not join their games. They pretend to not know each other in game.

[Kiron]

I don't really think that they can make an argument convincing enough for me. The OP is extremely detailed, and the fact of the matter is that the Conquerer medal is tainted by this kind of play. It's supposed to show who the best player is, not who can farm the most people without being caught. Its blatantly, done in a way that disgraces the name of risk. It not only removes the strategy from the game for the most part, its things like this that discourage others to come to the site.
Why would I come to a site where I hear that the Conquerer is someone who farms/ranches others? As said from Spiderman, "With Great Power comes great responsibility" in the sense that as the conquerer you are representing everyone else on CC.

Those are not detailed enough. They are all circumstantial evidence, which is not enough. Can Chariot make an argument, yes u can make any argument with circumstantial evidence, but Chariot doesn't know the map very well and some of those games he listed i was actively trying to prevent Xiangwang from winning, and how is it ranching, i open a game, people are free to join, i don't actively go invite beginners to come join. I have won plenty of games without Xiangwang and he without me on the same map regardless. We just found it more of a challenge with better players. Most high ranks don't play freestyle and flatrate.

furthermore Chariot most of the examples were X/K/X or opposite, it was called courtsey since attempting to break after holding objectives is pointless. Even in game Game 7370815 as you quote - "xiangwang holds the Objective. This is despite Kiron playing the last turn and having a 25 deploy, knowing X had the objective, and being quite capable of hitting Antioch and/or Jerusalem. Instead Kiron just went harmlessly to Malta and let X win." my army was going on malta to krak to attempt to break antioch...how else am i to reach it????

Chariot most of ur examples are just circumstantial and lets think rationally, on a map with difficult settings, most people are NOT used to, does it NOT make sense that the top two ranking players with the most experience have a greater chance of winning? Our odds are not 1/8 of winning, even playing alone our odds are around 40%, so basic logic will be probability of either X or K winning is the PK+PX or 80%. Of course when u add in more experienced players, it goes down accordingly, nothing fishy, just basic logic.

[40kguy]

guys i think were forgetting what we learned in kindergarten

if you don't like the way someones doing something than don't participate in it.

so if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

The point is people who don't know them wont know to not join their games. They pretend to not know each other in game.

than let the guys who play in the games fill out the report.

So far everyone that is against this doesn't play with them. JSN plays with them all the time and didn't fill out the report and if you look through there games there are people that play with them over and over again.

MC didn't like what they were doing now he doesn't play with them. simple as that.

[jsnyder748]

they do not pretend. They have told me in chat they know each other.

[Kiron]

Referring players by colours is the formal way to say it since that seems to be the norm. Of course in a game with new people, it's proper to be formal, that's like going a cocktail party with ur best friend, u don't refer to ur best friend by their first name, but by their surname for formality. It's only into the game once everyone is more comfortable do i refer by actual names. If people ask if we know each other, we tell them yes, just like u would at a party. It's not deceptive, it's being polite.

[kentington]

Kiron did respond to my second post in that thread.

[Shannon Apple]

guys i think were forgetting what we learned in kindergarten

if you don't like the way someones doing something than don't participate in it.

so if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

The point is people who don't know them wont know to not join their games. They pretend to not know each other in game.

than let the guys who play in the games fill out the report.

So far everyone that is against this doesn't play with them. JSN plays with them all the time and didn't fill out the report and if you look through there games there are people that play with them over and over again.

MC didn't like what they were doing now he doesn't play with them. simple as that.

So are you saying that makes it all okay?

If I suspect two people doing this, I would foe at least one of them, but it's not the point. People who play to win are the people we all want to see on CC. People who play to help each other win while stealing points off other players is not something we wanna see. It defeats the purpose of having a scoreboard.

[Kiron]

guys i think were forgetting what we learned in kindergarten

if you don't like the way someones doing something than don't participate in it.

so if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

The point is people who don't know them wont know to not join their games. They pretend to not know each other in game.

than let the guys who play in the games fill out the report.

So far everyone that is against this doesn't play with them. JSN plays with them all the time and didn't fill out the report and if you look through there games there are people that play with them over and over again.

MC didn't like what they were doing now he doesn't play with them. simple as that.

So are you saying that makes it all okay?

If I suspect two people doing this, I would foe at least one of them, but it's not the point. People who play to win are the people we all want to see on CC. People who play to help each other win while stealing points off other players is not something we wanna see. It defeats the purpose of having a scoreboard.

We are BOTH playing to win, please remember that. You cannot compare us to your regular players because A. we know the map VERY well, B. We both got to high ranks by ourselves without playing much with each other, C. We are friends in RL so we have a greater degree of trust just like enough players i play here, I put them at a higher degree of trust for them not to backstab me, D. We do NOT help each other win, the main case was just a bad misunderstanding of the rules regarding gambling games, they are not the same as Chariot's cases where most of the time the game was ALREADY over once ANYONE had the objective, just look at any of the games, 99% of the times, when someone had the objectives the game was over regardless X or me.

You CANNOT focus on a few select games, are you arguing we have no skill and cannot win games without each other's help? Both of us had ridiculous winning streaks without each other's help. We just found playing with each other was more entertaining than playing alone.

[betiko]

So these guys claim to be roomates now? At what point does CC just draw a clear line saying 1 account per household, end of story? Seems that everyone tries to get around being multi's or SD's by saying they are roomates or family or from the same frat house or whatever. The whole concept seems absolutely rediculous. Why don't we just accept it for what it really is..... 85% of these claims are cheaters. Look at GO and Waterman..... they exploited the loop hole in the system and didn't get caught until Waterman had over 5000 games? Completely rediculous.

what do you know about the waterman/ollie case? probably not much, and what is sure is that it has absolutely no similarity with this.

other than this; i didn't know that there was now a 1 account per household rule which seems a bit too much. there are a few couples on the site or father/sons. like the admin of the site who took over his son's account.

For example last year I had a flatmate who saw me often on this site and was wondering what it was about and he joined. he played >10 games and didn't get into it, but was I supposed to fobid him to join? under cc rules? how can someone forbid a flatmate to join a site? Only games I played with him were a couple of 1v1.
I know that this can be a real pain in the ass for mods, but I think that the rule should be only team games or 1vs1 for people in the same household.