Kiron & xiangwang[banned/blocked]sn

[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.

[Chariot of Fire]

The issue of them being house mates is not really the overriding factor here, for there is nothing in the rules (or against the rules) that says two people who cohabit cannot enter games together. Of course it's a scenario that's ripe for abuse, especially when playing freestyle games. What is poignant is the fact they dovetail their turns to achieve the objective.

Now let's take xiangwang's statement: "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"

If it is so obvious to you that Kiron is on CC, why then do you habitually start your turn in the final round allowing him to click 'Start' and hold the Objective? What is 'really obvious' to me is that you see he has the objective and you make no effort to prevent him winning the game - something that is practiced on a mutual basis between you (you do it for him and vice versa). This is why there is such a high incidence of the two of you playing a series of sequential turns at the end of each game.

Guys, I think we're forgetting what we learned in kindergarten. If you don't like the way someone's doing something than don't participate in it. So if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

Not many of us participated in GLG's games, yet no-one was happy about his tactics. And anyway, it's besides the point. We all participate in the scoreboard.

[xiangwang]

The issue of them being house mates is not really the overriding factor here, for there is nothing in the rules (or against the rules) that says two people who cohabit cannot enter games together. Of course it's a scenario that's ripe for abuse, especially when playing freestyle games. What is poignant is the fact they dovetail their turns to achieve the objective.

Now let's take xiangwang's statement: "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"

If it is so obvious to you that Kiron is on CC, why then do you habitually start your turn in the final round allowing him to click 'Start' and hold the Objective? What is 'really obvious' to me is that you see he has the objective and you make no effort to prevent him winning the game - something that is practiced on a mutual basis between you (you do it for him and vice versa). This is why there is such a high incidence of the two of you playing a series of sequential turns at the end of each game.

Guys, I think we're forgetting what we learned in kindergarten. If you don't like the way someone's doing something than don't participate in it. So if you don't like the way they play, don't join their games.

Not many of us participated in GLG's games, yet no-one was happy about his tactics. And anyway, it's besides the point. We all participate in the scoreboard.

Except watching him tap the B button while watching a movie until how long is just prolonging the inevitable. By this time the game is over. No point in beating a dead horse.

[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.

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.

Ok, Im not detailed enough apparently. I went through Game Finder to find your FINISHED Games on Third Crusade. There are 50. When CoF can pull 21 Examples out of the Hat on Third Crusade that's between 40-50% of your games Most of these games have people who are much higher rank than I am and as such much more skilled than I am.
Out of those 50, 43 of those games are played with Xiangwang (third Crusade only here). Now Take 21/43 Examples thats right around 50% percent. Now how many of us with high ranking players get to hold an objective 21x out of 43x by ourselves. Answer on the other hand is Go for GRENADA or begin your turn between 5/7 am (when you know he won't be up ) I mean Purple/Silver/ any of the other players near the objective could have taken it from him in one move before he could even start his turn.
fp'd
@xiang and they say to let dead dogs lie, but I don't think this is dead or something that just needs to be brushed over.

[mc05025]

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.

Playing fog games like that is forbitten for sure. Its secret diplomacy to saw your view in fog of war games.



@ freakns saw some respect to people you do not know and do not understand. This is not a thread to debate and I am not going to answer you

[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.

Ok, Im not detailed enough apparently. I went through Game Finder to find your FINISHED Games on Third Crusade. There are 50. When CoF can pull 21 Examples out of the Hat on Third Crusade that's between 40-50% of your games Most of these games have people who are much higher rank than I am and as such much more skilled than I am.
Out of those 50, 43 of those games are played with Xiangwang (third Crusade only here). Now Take 21/43 Examples thats right around 50% percent. Now how many of us with high ranking players get to hold an objective 21x out of 43x by ourselves. Answer on the other hand is Go for GRENADA or begin your turn between 5/7 am (when you know he won't be up ) I mean Purple/Silver/ any of the other players near the objective could have taken it from him in one move before he could even start his turn.
fp'd
@xiang and they say to let dead dogs lie, but I don't think this is dead or something that just needs to be brushed over.

Not to be rude, but saying players higher ranked and more skill is not saying much after u are still a private after 900+ games. Xiangwang got almost 4000 points in under 100 games (that's including the first 10sh games where he didn't give a crap what he was doing, he won his first game at game 14 or 15). In the chain of Xiangwang's third crusade maps, his win rate without me was in 60%+. Xiangwang's best unbroken chain was winning 7 STRAIGHT 3rd crusade games in a row with 8 players without me in it (is suddenly winning 7 in a row too much and is cheating especially when it's not matched by losing 48 other games as probabilitiy would dictate?).

Games:
6733161
6743179
6747248
6787994
6787995
6802843
6838259

To say we cannot have a win rate of 50%+ on 8 player maps is absurd.

[Kiron]

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.

Playing fog games like that is forbitten for sure. Its secret diplomacy to saw your view in fog of war games.

We don't look at each others view in fog. Though it will be hard to prove we don't, you're just going to take my word (not convincing i know), but what are the remedies, players in the same household cannot play FOG games together?

[mc05025]

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.

Playing fog games like that is forbitten for sure. Its secret diplomacy to saw your view in fog of war games.

We don't look at each others view in fog. Though it will be hard to prove we don't, you're just going to take my word (not convincing i know), but what are the remedies, players in the same household cannot play FOG games together?

Of course not. I just thaought that the comment ' full screen CC on the monitor for all to see' means that you could see the map... anyway maybe it does not mean that! Not that it really matter as fog of war at these games doesn't make a big deference for good players.

[Kiron]

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.

Playing fog games like that is forbitten for sure. Its secret diplomacy to saw your view in fog of war games.

We don't look at each others view in fog. Though it will be hard to prove we don't, you're just going to take my word (not convincing i know), but what are the remedies, players in the same household cannot play FOG games together?

Of course not. I just thaought that the comment ' full screen CC on the monitor for all to see' means that you could see the map... anyway maybe it does not mean that! Not that it really matter as fog of war at these games doesn't make a big deference for good players.

We don't need to see the screen to predict where the troops and bonuses are with enough practise. It just gives us an edge against less experienced players.

[Chariot of Fire]

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.

Your stack only got as far as Malta as you slowed down. 1" for the first hit from Vatican, followed by 4", 6" and 4". Why would you even have started your turn knowing Xiangwang held the Objective (it's not a fog game) and was still online? You threw him the game, plain and simple. Had you waited then there was every likelihood the objective could have been broken either by another player or certainly by yourself. As an experienced freestyler you above all would know this, so ignorance is no defence. To say "It was over and there was no point breaking the objective" is also no defence as it is tantamount to game throwing. Rather conveniently it seems you and your housemate are the habitual beneficiaries.