And so the Cheating Continues [block]

[comic boy]

Whats it matter anyway Scott, apparently if you get busted you can just pick a fancy new name and start again....no sweat is it

[kratos644]

That is a great example of scott's playing and I would actually like to elaborate on your biases which bruce attempts to mention. When I first met demonfork, it was in live chat and he would always try to tell me off for calling scott a cheat. However, after playing scott several times, he eventually decided to play a one on one game against him. demonfork beat scott and following the abusive comments scott made upon losing, they stopped playing each other and fork began to look at scotts playing objectively. I know many others who would state similar stories if they werent afraid of being added to scotts obscene ignore list and it is wrong that a persons ignore list would be abused to the extent which scotts has.

I usually stay out of this cause I like to be a neutral party but it looked so fun I just had to jump in. First off we'll address your complaint with scott's ignore list.

1.) He doesn't abuse it in the way you suggest saying that anyone who challenges him or mouths off to him will be place on his ignore list. I've challenged scott in games on multiple occasions and mouthed off more than once yet I'm pretty sure I'm still able to play in games with scott. Hmm curious ain't it. The way you do make his ignore list is when you're a shitty 8 man escalating player generally or in demonfork's case being too slow of a player and scott doesn't want to deal w/ that which is totally understandable. Furthermore unlike some players on this site Scott doesn't throw a hissy fit when he gets beat fair and square. Sure he does when the dice brick on the kill but who doesn't?

2.)If you want to talk about a player who abuses their ignore list lets look at Great White. He's probably one of the worst offenders of this. All you have to do to make his ignore list is beat him a few times. I beat him 4 straight and I was immediately placed on ignore because he wanted to "vary his opponents."

So before you go trashing what other people do with their foe lists make sure you get the facts straight and ultimately the foe list is their so you don't have to play people you don't want to. If scott doesn't want to play those people on it then it's his choice my foe list is fairly impressive as well.

[kratos644]

Next on the issue of Scott and Bruce "cheating" I've played and watched many games with these two in it Bruce is fast... but not in changing fronts I can guarantee you that and I can add from my own personal experience that changing fronts can be a time consuming process. You have a strategy all formulated then the dice kill you first you get pissed and spend time getting your mouse back after throwing it across the room and then you have to look around and see what else you can do I've had a game where finally finding my other front took me about 20 secs double what Bruce took and by the time I clicked of course the kill was stolen. Yeah Bruce can do 1 per sec but thats when he's moving in a straight line changing fronts is a totally different story plus Scott is fast! And if he hadn't experienced computer issues during the time Bruce was gone he would've won many more of those 8 mans and you try playing 1v1s against anyone Max we'll see how long your score last.

[codeblue1018]

Scott and I will always but heads and most likely won't play together again but one thing I can say with absolute certainty, Scott doesn't cheat. Not that I would lose sleep or care if he was found cheating and/or banned, I just know he'd rather lose than cheat to win. Plain and simple!

Losing points isn't a big deal Max. I for one could careless about points and rank anymore. More fun playing a person of any rank not worrying whether or not I'll lose 100 points a game or 20. I was in the top 25 several times Max. I reached my goal of 3k 5 times and now it doesn't matter. Maybe, just maybe Scotts goal was to reach #1, he did and now? who cares? I know I can play this game well as does Scott. Nothing to prove to anyone.

[maxatstuy]

For the record, maxatstuy, you are stating that Scott-Land and Bruceswar has been cheating because Bruceswar has been making suspicious moves that seems to be giving the game for Scott-Land. This was brought up because Scott-Land was losing a lot of games when he was not playing with Bruceswar. But ever since Bruceswar came back, when these two played several games together again, Scott-Land began winning once again, suspiciously. You have provided 3 games to support your claim that Bruceswar is trying to give games to Scott-Land.

I do apologize, it's quite a lengthy post but what am I to do?

I was at 5300ish and Conqueror right before I started my triples with Wain/Neph around Sept 30/Oct 01. I'll pull my 8 man games from that date forward as it's the only time stamp I have for my rank. The last game I played with Bruce is # 3141905 on Sept 28. These are the games without Bruce- In total 16-22 ending @ # 3421465 42% win rate.

@ # Game 3447562 Oct 11 my connection problem started.
2008-10-11 14:55:53 - Phlaim: he mustve lost connection or something

2008-10-11 15:03:15 - karelpietertje: if scott would have been here all the time, he would have won it now -.-

I lose 8 in a row because of my connection. 8 games does not equate to 1600 points. I'm not about to go through and add all my assassin and 1 vs 1 games that I've played and lost. Like I've stated, once you've reached the top ( knowing that if you play any games, you're never going to stay up there) I've been less selective of my games to say the least.

2008-10-12 16:06:07 - laddida: scott why you playing this with your shit connection

Bruce is back on the October 13. After the stretch of 8 losses... starting @ 3487968 I'm 4-3 ; again without Bruce in the lineup.
I've replaced my monitor get a new modem around Oct 17.

2008-10-18 17:51:47 - timmy1: didnt expect that on miro scott
2008-10-18 17:52:39 - Scott-Land: im on my new hardware-- feeling a bit frisky

Max is claiming I lost 5300 - 3686 = 1614 points in 8 games where I missed turns during sweeps. Let alone other circumstances that may hinder a win i.e. stacks being hit, 2 pair, hangings , mistakes etc.

3 games in question:

Game 3511099 I miss a territory and gift Bruce an easy steal. EDIT: ( To clarify, it wasn't just Bruce as he was 3 territories away with 2 players of 40+ stacks that were adjacent to the territory I missed). He drops and goes after teal. Has good numbers until he reaches Greenland and bricks with 3 left .I trudge through lag @ 3 seconds a terr from Kam and make the steal. During this, I see Bruce single attacking ( autoed with 3 left- accountable for at least 2-3 seconds) Greenland down to 1. Prank even stated in a post that he had proper numbers for the kill, just bad dice. In theory, Bruce went for the kill ( one that he was mathematically supposed to win) misses and decides to intentionally not hit Greenland from Iceland ? That takes a lot of cooperation from an unknown source to force his attack to fail ! Or perhaps one too many clicks from Ontario that finally registered and when he went to attack from Iceland received error messages. I think the latter is more reasonable.

Game 3494159 Another game I had no business in because of connection problems yet again. Bruce makes a kill on teal.

2008-10-19 01:02:09 - Bruceswar assaulted Miro from Duchamp and conquered it from something_fierce
2008-10-19 01:02:10 - Bruceswar assaulted Magritte from Miro and conquered it from something_fierce
2008-10-19 01:02:11 - Bruceswar assaulted Dali from Magritte and conquered it from something_fierce
2008-10-19 01:02:12 - Bruceswar assaulted Kline from Rothko and conquered it from something_fierc

I'm in Kandasky (China) with 6 armies and teal has 3 in Kline ( Siam ), I lag and miss the steal. Even if I hadn't it takes Bruce a second per territory. Does that look like he's trying to give me a steal? The routes we choose for a kill may not be the wisest but if the drop allows us to make a kill without switching fronts, it's the one usually chosen.

Yes- Dat disagreed with Bruce's route as we all are critical and see more when we're railing a game. It changes quite a bit once you're under the gun.

2008-10-19 01:02:47 - DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID: bruce, y leave kline till last, if scott wasnt connectionally retarted he wuda got that

Another interesting comment made by Dat- I was already dead and pissed because my connection let me down yet again so I had left the game. It appears that Bruce dropped poorly on his next kill and gave Gigadahk a shot at a steal. Since it was Gig, there's no thread being made but what if it were me in his place instead ? How would that look ? By the way, Bruce won that game.

2008-10-19 01:06:41 - DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID: i cant beleive u didnt get orange giga, u just needed to auto one of bruces fronts

Game 3491281

2008-10-18 13:54:39 - Bruceswar: dice...
2008-10-18 13:54:50 - Bruceswar: 19 vs 11 ugh

Another game where Bruce missed, 19 vs 11 and he bricked in Central. I had to run over gray from W Us as all he had to do was take 7 vs 3 for the steal. One common theme to Bruce's game is his aggression. He will go after a lot of kills, some wise some not so wise which in turn allows for more steals and mistakes. Once you learn how a player plays, you begin setting up for those plays.


I went through this same bullshit Achilles a few months ago. I'm sick and tired of having to justify myself each time someone throws out unwarranted accusations. I've spent almost 2 hours digging up my games- certainly not something I want to do although necessary. Something must be done about a childish vendetta this kid has against me !

You played many games with bruce after Game 3141905

Game 3168222
Game 3168475
Game 3168614
Game 3259154
Game 3319976
Game 3328190

At which point bruce left. Out of those 6 games which you failed to mention, you won 4. That is a 66% win rate. Between that last game and the time when your internet connection conveniently started acting up, 3421465, you won 5 games out of the 22 8-player speed games you played. That is hardly the 42% you claim.

Bruce plays well in the beginning of most of the games he is in with you and 3511099 is no exception. He stole a kill because he took 1 territory a second and out sped you. Meanwhile, when it was 5-1 for the win, he sat and just let you take the territory and win the game

2008-10-19 01:02:11 - Bruceswar assaulted Dali from Magritte and conquered it from something_fierce
2008-10-19 01:02:12 - Bruceswar assaulted Kline from Rothko and conquered it from something_fierc

you quoted the game logs from when it showed that bruce only took 1 second to switch fronts, yet in 10 seconds where you were taking forever as well, bruce was not able to make one attack, and let you win. That is not you playing well, that is Bruce choosing to give you the game.

Game 3494159- you may have had connection issues but you losing this game has nothing to do with why I mentioned it. Bruce waited several minutes to make the kill and was planning out the best course of action I am sure as well. While everyone was ending their turn or on the other side of the map, he chose to leave the only territory open the one adjacent to you. Your claims that it could have been stolen by Giga are ridiculous because, while Giga could have prevented Bruce from taking the kill preemptive, there would have been no way for Giga to reach the last territory and get to the one place he left for you to steal with.

Another game where Bruce missed, 19 vs 11 and he bricked in Central. I had to run over gray from W Us as all he had to do was take 7 vs 3 for the steal. One common theme to Bruce's game is his aggression. He will go after a lot of kills, some wise some not so wise which in turn allows for more steals and mistakes. Once you learn how a player plays, you begin setting up for those plays.

Bruce tries to make a lot of kills, but it amazes me that in the games he plays with you, he always seems to have some issue at the end of the kill when there is only one territory left. Whether he doesnt attack 5-1 in 10 seconds or whether he leaves the last territory adjacent to your stack when the person he is attempting to kill has 5 cards, it always seems to happen in the most convenient places for you. As I stated in a previous post, making a mistake is understandable, but when the mistakes happen routinely and it is always the same person benefiting from those mistakes, one seriously has to question whether or not it is a mistake, or someone throwing the game and in this case, Bruce was gifting you the games.

[Blitzaholic]

Whats it matter anyway Scott, apparently if you get busted you can just pick a fancy new name and start again....no sweat is it

oh boys comic you crack me up

[Scott-Land]

Whats it matter anyway Scott, apparently if you get busted you can just pick a fancy new name and start again....no sweat is it

oh boys comic you crack me up

I uhh umm have a grandmother I'm teaching how to play. What's a good name - perhaps scotts account or how about Kotex ?

[maxatstuy]

Whats it matter anyway Scott, apparently if you get busted you can just pick a fancy new name and start again....no sweat is it

oh boys comic you crack me up

I uhh umm have a grandmother I'm teaching how to play. What's a good name - perhaps scotts account ?

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

[kratos644]

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

[Frop]

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

The most damning logic ever.

[maxatstuy]

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

Then why havent you tried to explain all of the phenomenal "coincidences" which have arisen in the games he plays with bruce. Scott claims to have internet connection issues and losses a lot of 8 players as a result, yet in games with bruce he still has won two out of the three games he played since bruce came back. His internet seems to go out whenever it is most convenient to say it does; similarly to bruces claim about having error messages pop up the one time he is in a situation to gift scott a game.

Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score when the last thread was posted and it was following that thread that scotts score began to decline.) Still, if his internet is that bad that it is responsible for him losing that many points, the only explanation for his miraculous wins in games with Bruce would either be to call scott a liar who doesnt want to admit that his internet is fine and that he is using it as an excuse to justify all of his loses when playing in games without bruce, or by saying that other factors such as bruce gifting scott games were the reason for his success. Seeing that scotts poor connection prevented him from making a kill which bruce was gifting to him, I am inclined to assume the latter

[maxatstuy]

A cheater is someone who breaks the rules, not just someone who is caught for breaking the rules. There are many links that show only some of the instances where scott has cheated and whether the mods want to officially call it abuse, it is, and what he has been doing is cheating. Saying that he hasnt been busted so he hasnt been cheating is the argument of someone who clearly wants to believe he hasnt been cheating and is too much in denial to look at the links and the evidence against him. Scott has won too many games and too many points when in games with the same person to consider what he is doing to be fair play. Scott is winning over 60% of 8 player games when he is playing against bruce, while recently, he has barely been averaging 1 in 8 without bruce. Scott has made more points than his current score in game with him and there is no reason to be defending someone when you provide no evidence other than your biased opinion.

[kratos644]

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

The most damning logic ever.

It really is isn't it... no point in going into further discussion cause my logic prevails over all but for a serious comment keep reading on the replies I'll have for maxes comments

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

Then why havent you tried to explain all of the phenomenal "coincidences" which have arisen in the games he plays with bruce. Scott claims to have internet connection issues and losses a lot of 8 players as a result, yet in games with bruce he still has won two out of the three games he played since bruce came back. His internet seems to go out whenever it is most convenient to say it does; similarly to bruces claim about having error messages pop up the one time he is in a situation to gift scott a game.

Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score when the last thread was posted and it was following that thread that scotts score began to decline.) Still, if his internet is that bad that it is responsible for him losing that many points, the only explanation for his miraculous wins in games with Bruce would either be to call scott a liar who doesnt want to admit that his internet is fine and that he is using it as an excuse to justify all of his loses when playing in games without bruce, or by saying that other factors such as bruce gifting scott games were the reason for his success. Seeing that scotts poor connection prevented him from making a kill which bruce was gifting to him, I am inclined to assume the latter

Ok if you want an explanation then here it is. First off your accusation that Scott had lost all those points from 8 man escalating, which everyone says is his area of expertise, is invalid due to the fact that lately Scott has played more games of random types than any other just to get out there and get the full experience. Go play all sorts of different settings Max. Then when your score starts dropping like crazy we'll find some way to say your cheating. Secondly Bruce isn't as good as a lot of people think he is at 8 man escalating. He takes a lot of risks he shouldn't and doesn't take some risks he should. Is it really Scott's fault that Bruce makes stupid plays and Scott uses that to his advantage? Max you live in the US I'm pretty sure you're familiar with this or at least you should be, "Innocent until proven guilty." While what you have provided is odd I will admit to that it is not cold hard proof showing he's guilty. Do I have cold hard proof showing he's innocent? No but to be honest I don't need to. It's your job to show he's guilty not my job to show he's innocent. He is presumed innocent unless you can provide undeniable evidence that he is in fact guilty. And you know what maybe he is, but as I said I've played and watched my fair share with Scott and Bruce in them and generally Scott doesn't require this "gifted" kill from Bruce. Have I seen Bruce screw up before and then Scott takes the game, yes I have. More often than not though Scott wins by stealing someone else besides Bruces kill. I notice you conveniently leave out any games this doesn't happen in. Go get a list of every single game Bruce and Scott have played together and Scott has won and review each one of them then your evidence will be a little more clear. I also suggest you look at the amount of points Scott lost from 8 man escalatings to make a more valid point Max instead of just listing how much he lost overall cause the majority of that comes from random settings he's played in an attempt to become a more diverse player. So again remember he's innocent until you can prove him to be undeniably guilty so make sure your facts are as exact as they need to be otherwise it draws away from the efficiency of your accusations.

A cheater is someone who breaks the rules, not just someone who is caught for breaking the rules. There are many links that show only some of the instances where scott has cheated and whether the mods want to officially call it abuse, it is, and what he has been doing is cheating. Saying that he hasnt been busted so he hasnt been cheating is the argument of someone who clearly wants to believe he hasnt been cheating and is too much in denial to look at the links and the evidence against him. Scott has won too many games and too many points when in games with the same person to consider what he is doing to be fair play. Scott is winning over 60% of 8 player games when he is playing against bruce, while recently, he has barely been averaging 1 in 8 without bruce. Scott has made more points than his current score in game with him and there is no reason to be defending someone when you provide no evidence other than your biased opinion.

And now we address a few things in this one. First your attempt to say that I'm one of the people who wants to believe that Scott is innocent of cheating. For the record I'm unbiased towards this issue the reason for our differences in opinion of what is going on is the fact that I've played a lot more of these style games than you have so I see things you don't see and I know certain aspects of the game and what it's actually like to play it unlike you. If you can show me some damning evidence that undeniably shows Scott is innocent I won't try and say he's innocent do I think he's a nice guy sure but I don't think he's cheating if I did I'd be on here accusing him and finding proof. So don't go saying I'm in denial that Bruce and Scott are cheating and don't say you have undeniable evidence either cause you don't. Get all the facts and I mean exact numbers points actually lost due to that type of game number of games w/ Bruce and Scott involving Scott winning whether Bruce "gifts" the kill or not and when you've compiled all this data send me a pm and then we can talk. And if you're not willing to find all this shit then just drop the issue cause if they're truly cheating that's what you're gonna have to do to prove it. You can't just give a vague picture you need all the facts. So have a good day and good luck in your hunt. I doubt you'll find anything but who knows I could be wrong.

[maxatstuy]

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

The most damning logic ever.

It really is isn't it... no point in going into further discussion cause my logic prevails over all but for a serious comment keep reading on the replies I'll have for maxes comments

Its best not to associate her with a known cheater like you

Has scott ever been busted? No... theres a good reason for that too. He's not a cheater!!!

Then why havent you tried to explain all of the phenomenal "coincidences" which have arisen in the games he plays with bruce. Scott claims to have internet connection issues and losses a lot of 8 players as a result, yet in games with bruce he still has won two out of the three games he played since bruce came back. His internet seems to go out whenever it is most convenient to say it does; similarly to bruces claim about having error messages pop up the one time he is in a situation to gift scott a game.

Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score when the last thread was posted and it was following that thread that scotts score began to decline.) Still, if his internet is that bad that it is responsible for him losing that many points, the only explanation for his miraculous wins in games with Bruce would either be to call scott a liar who doesnt want to admit that his internet is fine and that he is using it as an excuse to justify all of his loses when playing in games without bruce, or by saying that other factors such as bruce gifting scott games were the reason for his success. Seeing that scotts poor connection prevented him from making a kill which bruce was gifting to him, I am inclined to assume the latter

Ok if you want an explanation then here it is. First off your accusation that Scott had lost all those points from 8 man escalating, which everyone says is his area of expertise, is invalid due to the fact that lately Scott has played more games of random types than any other just to get out there and get the full experience. Go play all sorts of different settings Max. Then when your score starts dropping like crazy we'll find some way to say your cheating. Secondly Bruce isn't as good as a lot of people think he is at 8 man escalating. He takes a lot of risks he shouldn't and doesn't take some risks he should. Is it really Scott's fault that Bruce makes stupid plays and Scott uses that to his advantage? Max you live in the US I'm pretty sure you're familiar with this or at least you should be, "Innocent until proven guilty." While what you have provided is odd I will admit to that it is not cold hard proof showing he's guilty. Do I have cold hard proof showing he's innocent? No but to be honest I don't need to. It's your job to show he's guilty not my job to show he's innocent. He is presumed innocent unless you can provide undeniable evidence that he is in fact guilty. And you know what maybe he is, but as I said I've played and watched my fair share with Scott and Bruce in them and generally Scott doesn't require this "gifted" kill from Bruce. Have I seen Bruce screw up before and then Scott takes the game, yes I have. More often than not though Scott wins by stealing someone else besides Bruces kill. I notice you conveniently leave out any games this doesn't happen in. Go get a list of every single game Bruce and Scott have played together and Scott has won and review each one of them then your evidence will be a little more clear. I also suggest you look at the amount of points Scott lost from 8 man escalatings to make a more valid point Max instead of just listing how much he lost overall cause the majority of that comes from random settings he's played in an attempt to become a more diverse player. So again remember he's innocent until you can prove him to be undeniably guilty so make sure your facts are as exact as they need to be otherwise it draws away from the efficiency of your accusations.

A cheater is someone who breaks the rules, not just someone who is caught for breaking the rules. There are many links that show only some of the instances where scott has cheated and whether the mods want to officially call it abuse, it is, and what he has been doing is cheating. Saying that he hasnt been busted so he hasnt been cheating is the argument of someone who clearly wants to believe he hasnt been cheating and is too much in denial to look at the links and the evidence against him. Scott has won too many games and too many points when in games with the same person to consider what he is doing to be fair play. Scott is winning over 60% of 8 player games when he is playing against bruce, while recently, he has barely been averaging 1 in 8 without bruce. Scott has made more points than his current score in game with him and there is no reason to be defending someone when you provide no evidence other than your biased opinion.

And now we address a few things in this one. First your attempt to say that I'm one of the people who wants to believe that Scott is innocent of cheating. For the record I'm unbiased towards this issue the reason for our differences in opinion of what is going on is the fact that I've played a lot more of these style games than you have so I see things you don't see and I know certain aspects of the game and what it's actually like to play it unlike you. If you can show me some damning evidence that undeniably shows Scott is innocent I won't try and say he's innocent do I think he's a nice guy sure but I don't think he's cheating if I did I'd be on here accusing him and finding proof. So don't go saying I'm in denial that Bruce and Scott are cheating and don't say you have undeniable evidence either cause you don't. Get all the facts and I mean exact numbers points actually lost due to that type of game number of games w/ Bruce and Scott involving Scott winning whether Bruce "gifts" the kill or not and when you've compiled all this data send me a pm and then we can talk. And if you're not willing to find all this shit then just drop the issue cause if they're truly cheating that's what you're gonna have to do to prove it. You can't just give a vague picture you need all the facts. So have a good day and good luck in your hunt. I doubt you'll find anything but who knows I could be wrong.

Your comment that scott has recently been playing a wide variety of other style games is incorrect. Scott hasnt been deviating much off of the style of games which he feels comfortable playing, mainly Feudal War. Feudal War assassin 3 players and 1-1s are formulaic and require very little risk when a person has the strategy down which I am presuming scott believed he did. The only abnormal games he has played is today when he decided to join an assdoodle; I suppose so that he can claim he was intentionally trying to derank as opposed to it being accidental.

I have watch many more 8-player speed games than you have played and I have probably watched more than all of the games I have played. I am quite aware of innocent until proven guilty, even though, judging by your comments about needing proof, that only shows me that you either have a complete lack of understanding to the previous posts made, or that you havent been reading the thread, my bets are on the latter. You commenting that it takes over 30 seconds to change fronts is absurd and if you read my last post, you would have noticed that I quoted a comment of scott where he quoted the game chat of a segment where bruce changed fronts and attacked in 1 second. There was ample opportunity for him to make the kill in that game and he failed to take it, allowing scott to win instead. Furthermore, he attempted to give scott additional opportunities to win in another one of the games but scotts "internet connection messed up" and he was unable to make the kill. Since you apparently dont think that the blatant attempts to gift scott games is not enough, why dont you take a look at these links. Thank you to King for posting them in a previous thread, I think that they still apply and show that scott and bruce have been making "suspicious moves" for months now and that it is not only a recent occurrence. Tell me if its still not enough evidence for you kratos

Game Numbers:

Game 3207261- Scott conveniently joined the sequential game right after bruce, allowing bruce to weaken himself enough, gifting his kill to scott and making the win a lot easier for him. Furthermore, scott announces in game chat the he would foe someone if they didnt block him from being killed; henceforth giving scott the game

Game 3168614- someone blocks bruce from a kill, instead of stoping, bruce wasted his men in that area trying to make the kill leaving just enough so that scott could take the persons cards

Game 3141905- Bruce gives scott his kill

Game 3141817- Bruce doesnt make an easy block to prevent scott from sweeping

Game 3119463- Bruce weakens himself allowing scott to make the kill

Game 3108238- Bruce weakens ecko giving scott the kill; doesnt try to go after phlaim for the win

Game 3168475- Bruce sat watching as scott swept the board not even trying to block

Game 3141905- Bruce goes after someone who already cashed, weakening himself and gifting the kill to scott

Game 3141817- Bruce cashes a set worth 40 and waits from scott to make a kill, instead of trying to steal or at least trying to block, before deploying

Game 3119463- Bruce starts to make a kill allowing scott to make a simple steal and winning scott the game

Game 3108238- Bruce begins to attack ecko when he didnt have enough men, gifting the kill and the game to scott

Game 3100188- Bruce doesnt use his holdings in Europe to go into Africa and steal a kill from scott; instead scott took the cards and swept the board

Game 3086558- Bruce ends his turn early intentionally allowing for scott to make a kill and sweep the board the next turn

Game 3033030- Bruce makes the first kill but instead of trying to spread out, he stays in one little area and allows scott to take him out

Game 3019348- Bruce sits watching scott as he sweeps the board and doesnt once try to block or steal a kill, even though scott had to go right past bruce to make some of the kills

Game 3013744- Bruce leaves one territory of another player in autralia which scott took, depite having to cash before he could take the territory, leaving bruce with 5 seconds to have made the kill

Game 3013018- Bruce killed another player excpet for 1 territory and then allowed scott to kill the last territory and sweep

Game 3001357- Bruce ended his turn early after cashing his set, and didnt start even start his next turn when he was being eliminated

Game 3000270- Bruce owned South America and cashed his set worth 45 men, yet he didnt deploy and try to steal a kill from scott when all of the territories scott needed were in Africa

Game 2991815- Bruce cashed his set and hit another player, connecting almost all of territories together and making it easy for scott to kill him

Game 2990755- Bruce didnt end his turn or try to win, he intentionally weakened himself so that scott could kill him and win the game

Game 2989637- Bruce moved to Middle East and then didnt take southern europe to steal a kill from scott; instead leaving himself weak and ready to be killed while scott was able to sweep

Game 2972021- Despite bruces large holding in Afghanistan, he didnt move and attempt to steal a kill from scott as ccott was sweeping the board thought taking properties in Africa

Game 2966877- Bruce helped scott make a kill and then allowed scott to kill bruce himself

Game 2965771- Bruce didnt try to steal an easy kill from scott and only attempted to seconds after scott had already killed the other player

Game 2954768- Bruce weakened another player and gifted the kill to scott who was then able to sweep the board

Game 2954129- Bruce watched as scott made several kills without deploying his men and trying to steal; finally when he was about to be killed, he didnt even deploy

Game 2954028- Bruce commits suicide to kill another player when he couldnt midcash and instead, gave Scott the game

Game 2946534- Bruce eliminated the only other person who could have prevented scott from winning, weakening himself and gifting the game to scott

Game 2946483- Bruce didnt block or attempt to prevent Scott from making a kill and winning the game

Game 2945442- Bruce started a kill and then sat waiting for 5 seconds as scott finished it off

Game 2916372- Bruce didnt steal a kill in north africa even though scott had to go through one of bruces territories to make the kill

Game 2915694- Bruce misses several kills, allowing scott to steal them, take their cards, and win the game

Game 2915253- Bruce didnt try to block or steal teals kill when scott was in the process of sweeping

Game 2915102- Bruce waited 3 minutes to deploy instead of trying to steal a kill from scott, allowing scott to kill bruce, and sweep

Game 2908098- Scott makes a kill which could have been stolen by bruce, and although scott became the strongest, he attacks someone who he couldnt kill. Then, after missing that kill, he ends his turn allowing scott to finish him, and another player, off.

Game 2885192- While scott is clearly trying to kill either slate of bruce, bruce sits still and doesnt even deploy, giving scott an easy win

Game 2879135- Bruce gave the game to scott by weakening slate and giving scott and easy steal for the sweep

Game 2846660- Even when it is clear scott has enough to win, bruce attacks and kills other game members despite not being able to midcash, allowing scott to finish him off for the game

Game 2839241- Instead of starting his turn and cashing, bruce allows scott to take him out and win the game

Game 2832706- Bruce cashes and deploys on North africa and then waits for scott to finish on another kill in Africa while he doesnt move

Game 2826022- Bruce doesnt even start his turn and waits as scott makes a kill and sweeps

Game 2769050- Bruce deploys on Greenland and then sits as scott takes ontario and northwest for the kill and for the sweep

Game 2767553- Bruce kills one of the two remaining properties of slate giving the kill and the game to scott

Game 2763139- Bruce starts his turn conveniently late giving scott the kill and another win

Game 2690829- Bruce ends his turn early allowing scott to make an easy kill which bruce could have stolen

Game 2690499- Bruce doenst even try to make an easy kill giving scott the game

Game 2670976- Bruce doenst try to block scott from a kill allowing him to sweep

Game 2670770- Bruce allows scott to kill him, doesnt try to steal any kills, just sits still

Game 2642056- Bruce doesnt even try to steal scotts kill handing him the game

[kratos644]

Your comment that scott has recently been playing a wide variety of other style games is incorrect. Scott hasnt been deviating much off of the style of games which he feels comfortable playing, mainly Feudal War. Feudal War assassin 3 players and 1-1s are formulaic and require very little risk when a person has the strategy down which I am presuming scott believed he did. The only abnormal games he has played is today when he decided to join an assdoodle; I suppose so that he can claim he was intentionally trying to derank as opposed to it being accidental.

I have watch many more 8-player speed games than you have played and I have probably watched more than all of the games I have played. I am quite aware of innocent until proven guilty, even though, judging by your comments about needing proof, that only shows me that you either have a complete lack of understanding to the previous posts made, or that you havent been reading the thread, my bets are on the latter. You commenting that it takes over 30 seconds to change fronts is absurd and if you read my last post, you would have noticed that I quoted a comment of scott where he quoted the game chat of a segment where bruce changed fronts and attacked in 1 second. There was ample opportunity for him to make the kill in that game and he failed to take it, allowing scott to win instead. Furthermore, he attempted to give scott additional opportunities to win in another one of the games but scotts "internet connection messed up" and he was unable to make the kill. Since you apparently dont think that the blatant attempts to gift scott games is not enough, why dont you take a look at these links. Thank you to King for posting them in a previous thread, I think that they still apply and show that scott and bruce have been making "suspicious moves" for months now and that it is not only a recent occurrence. Tell me if its still not enough evidence for you kratos.

First over don't change my wording I said 20 seconds not 30 and that was a real example the dice missed I got pissed and tossed my mouse then had to go find it and choose my new front. By that time I'd lost my kill you may have watched more than I've played and thats great and all but you get the most experience of what it's like by actually playing and I've watched a very generous portion of games myself. Now unfortunately I'm too busy to look at those games right now so I'll get back to your question on whether or not thats enough evidence or not later but to be honest a game log can only say so much and just curious do you know what it's like to get screwed over and then have to suddenly change fronts? Sometimes you don't see the front you need at all. Just a comment from someone who actually plays em instead of just watches em. Oh and also don't tell me I didn't read the thread cause I read it all and you managed to miss on reading comprehension yet again Max you missed some points I was making sorry if they went over your head. Ask me what it is you don't understand and I'll try to reexplain it to you haha

[maxatstuy]

Your comment that scott has recently been playing a wide variety of other style games is incorrect. Scott hasnt been deviating much off of the style of games which he feels comfortable playing, mainly Feudal War. Feudal War assassin 3 players and 1-1s are formulaic and require very little risk when a person has the strategy down which I am presuming scott believed he did. The only abnormal games he has played is today when he decided to join an assdoodle; I suppose so that he can claim he was intentionally trying to derank as opposed to it being accidental.

I have watch many more 8-player speed games than you have played and I have probably watched more than all of the games I have played. I am quite aware of innocent until proven guilty, even though, judging by your comments about needing proof, that only shows me that you either have a complete lack of understanding to the previous posts made, or that you havent been reading the thread, my bets are on the latter. You commenting that it takes over 30 seconds to change fronts is absurd and if you read my last post, you would have noticed that I quoted a comment of scott where he quoted the game chat of a segment where bruce changed fronts and attacked in 1 second. There was ample opportunity for him to make the kill in that game and he failed to take it, allowing scott to win instead. Furthermore, he attempted to give scott additional opportunities to win in another one of the games but scotts "internet connection messed up" and he was unable to make the kill. Since you apparently dont think that the blatant attempts to gift scott games is not enough, why dont you take a look at these links. Thank you to King for posting them in a previous thread, I think that they still apply and show that scott and bruce have been making "suspicious moves" for months now and that it is not only a recent occurrence. Tell me if its still not enough evidence for you kratos.

First over don't change my wording I said 20 seconds not 30 and that was a real example the dice missed I got pissed and tossed my mouse then had to go find it and choose my new front. By that time I'd lost my kill you may have watched more than I've played and thats great and all but you get the most experience of what it's like by actually playing and I've watched a very generous portion of games myself. Now unfortunately I'm too busy to look at those games right now so I'll get back to your question on whether or not thats enough evidence or not later but to be honest a game log can only say so much and just curious do you know what it's like to get screwed over and then have to suddenly change fronts? Sometimes you don't see the front you need at all. Just a comment from someone who actually plays em instead of just watches em. Oh and also don't tell me I didn't read the thread cause I read it all and you managed to miss on reading comprehension yet again Max you missed some points I was making sorry if they went over your head. Ask me what it is you don't understand and I'll try to reexplain it to you haha

I havent been responding to some of the points you have been making because of their absurdity. For instance, you made one post commenting about my criticisms about the way scott uses his ignore list; I wasnt referring to him putting people on ignore, I was referring to him telling people that they will be put on ignore if they attack him, which is virtually telling them to let him win or they get foed. Additionally, your stupidity in a game has absolutely nothing to do with bruces inability to attack one territory in 10 seconds. Bruce didnt have dice which could be considered obscene and he had the opportunity to make the kill and win the game easily. It is quite comical that you made the claim there is no proof against scott and bruce for cheating and then when over 50 links are provided, you have the audacity not to look them over and then continue on with defending scott. If you arent going to look at the evidence against him then you cant make any claims for him because you clearly dont know what you are talking about. The fact that I dont play them, watch more games than you have played, and dont have to worry about being foed by scott as I foed him a long time ago, if anything, makes me more objective in my analysis of the games than you whose opinion would be slanted and inaccurate as you are concentrating on yourself and not on everyone else at each moment of the game. I do know what it is like to change fronts and bruce does as well. He has played over 250 8-player games with scott and has become very fast. There is no way that he couldnt have taken that territory if he wasnt trying to gift it to scott and it amazes me that you honestly believe he was incapable of doing so.

[kratos644]

I havent been responding to some of the points you have been making because of their absurdity. For instance, you made one post commenting about my criticisms about the way scott uses his ignore list; I wasnt referring to him putting people on ignore, I was referring to him telling people that they will be put on ignore if they attack him, which is virtually telling them to let him win or they get foed. Additionally, your stupidity in a game has absolutely nothing to do with bruces inability to attack one territory in 10 seconds. Bruce didnt have dice which could be considered obscene and he had the opportunity to make the kill and win the game easily. It is quite comical that you made the claim there is no proof against scott and bruce for cheating and then when over 50 links are provided, you have the audacity not to look them over and then continue on with defending scott. If you arent going to look at the evidence against him then you cant make any claims for him because you clearly dont know what you are talking about. The fact that I dont play them, watch more games than you have played, and dont have to worry about being foed by scott as I foed him a long time ago, if anything, makes me more objective in my analysis of the games than you whose opinion would be slanted and inaccurate as you are concentrating on yourself and not on everyone else at each moment of the game. I do know what it is like to change fronts and bruce does as well. He has played over 250 8-player games with scott and has become very fast. There is no way that he couldnt have taken that territory if he wasnt trying to gift it to scott and it amazes me that you honestly believe he was incapable of doing so.

Did I say I wasn't going to at least look at all those games you posted and give a fair opinion of it then? No I told you I didn't have time at the current moment. I'll be looking them over later tonight when I get home, but as I said a game log can only show me so much sure it can show that it took a long time but I can't see armies that were there before etc.. and also if you think that when playing an 8 man escalating game you focus on yourself you're wrong. You need to watch every player to see if they'll go for a kill, a steal, etc... so don't judge the validity in the observations I've made maybe you've tried playing them and only paid attention to yourself but that would be part of why you probably lost the games.

[Jeff Hardy]

...
Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score...)...

[maxatstuy]

...
Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score...)...

I guess scotts internet connection must be crapping out again

17 Scott-Land 3600 3609 1374 (38%) General General 4.7

btw, anyone commenting on the missed turns in the game with 300, that was after scott lost the game that he suddenly disappeared

and in response to you kratos, while you said you were going to look at the links later on, you continued to defend him when you clearly were not in the position to be judging. Furthermore, while playing a game, it is you job as a player to look to see how other peoples moves can benefit yourself, so that you can go in for a steal or attack the right person at the right time. You are not spending your 5 minutes watching and pondering which place teal will attack for how long time has elapsed since a person last attacked. It is your objective to play for yourself, and if you concentrate on the minute details of the game, you would be unable to play successfully. As a result, my analysis of the game is different than yours, since while you are playing, I have the ability of looking at the amount of time it takes Bruce to make an attack, and watch as he sits waiting for scott to make the kill even though you, as an opponent, have already written it off and are planning on making a kill of your own.

[kratos644]

...
Scott has been using his poor internet connection to justify his losing streak and to justify dropping 1875 points (from 4475 to 3600 as that was scotts score...)...

I guess scotts internet connection must be crapping out again

17 Scott-Land 3600 3609 1374 (38%) General General 4.7

btw, anyone commenting on the missed turns in the game with 300, that was after scott lost the game that he suddenly disappeared

and in response to you kratos, while you said you were going to look at the links later on, you continued to defend him when you clearly were not in the position to be judging. Furthermore, while playing a game, it is you job as a player to look to see how other peoples moves can benefit yourself, so that you can go in for a steal or attack the right person at the right time. You are not spending your 5 minutes watching and pondering which place teal will attack for how long time has elapsed since a person last attacked. It is your objective to play for yourself, and if you concentrate on the minute details of the game, you would be unable to play successfully. As a result, my analysis of the game is different than yours, since while you are playing, I have the ability of looking at the amount of time it takes Bruce to make an attack, and watch as he sits waiting for scott to make the kill even though you, as an opponent, have already written it off and are planning on making a kill of your own.

Again your reading comprehension is failing you max I wasn't defending I just asked a simple question on whether or not you knew what it was like to change fronts unexpectedly and the majority of that post was me defending myself cause you told me my comments were absurd and also letting you know I'd look over the games you posted later

[maxatstuy]

First over don't change my wording I said 20 seconds not 30 and that was a real example the dice missed I got pissed and tossed my mouse then had to go find it and choose my new front. By that time I'd lost my kill you may have watched more than I've played and thats great and all but you get the most experience of what it's like by actually playing and I've watched a very generous portion of games myself. Now unfortunately I'm too busy to look at those games right now so I'll get back to your question on whether or not thats enough evidence or not later but to be honest a game log can only say so much and just curious do you know what it's like to get screwed over and then have to suddenly change fronts? Sometimes you don't see the front you need at all. Just a comment from someone who actually plays em instead of just watches em. Oh and also don't tell me I didn't read the thread cause I read it all and you managed to miss on reading comprehension yet again Max you missed some points I was making sorry if they went over your head. Ask me what it is you don't understand and I'll try to reexplain it to you haha

Just because you made a statement that my reading comprehension failed and keep repeating it throughout your posts, it doesnt make the statement any more true. You were preemptively defending scott by saying that a game log can only show so much, and as a result, you are defending scott against the 50 links without any knowledge of what each link shows. You were passing judgment on the situations without reviewing the evidence, and in doing so, you were not

just ask[ing] a simple question on whether or not [I] knew what it was like to change fronts unexpectedly

[kratos644]

First over don't change my wording I said 20 seconds not 30 and that was a real example the dice missed I got pissed and tossed my mouse then had to go find it and choose my new front. By that time I'd lost my kill you may have watched more than I've played and thats great and all but you get the most experience of what it's like by actually playing and I've watched a very generous portion of games myself. Now unfortunately I'm too busy to look at those games right now so I'll get back to your question on whether or not thats enough evidence or not later but to be honest a game log can only say so much and just curious do you know what it's like to get screwed over and then have to suddenly change fronts? Sometimes you don't see the front you need at all. Just a comment from someone who actually plays em instead of just watches em. Oh and also don't tell me I didn't read the thread cause I read it all and you managed to miss on reading comprehension yet again Max you missed some points I was making sorry if they went over your head. Ask me what it is you don't understand and I'll try to reexplain it to you haha

Just because you made a statement that my reading comprehension failed and keep repeating it throughout your posts, it doesnt make the statement any more true. You were preemptively defending scott by saying that a game log can only show so much, and as a result, you are defending scott against the 50 links without any knowledge of what each link shows. You were passing judgment on the situations without reviewing the evidence, and in doing so, you were not

just ask[ing] a simple question on whether or not [I] knew what it was like to change fronts unexpectedly

Ahh but in saying that a game log can only show so much I was merely saying that you can only learn so much from a game log and you can't see everything else such as armies there, attacks attempted, and all the other good stuff. Now I'm not doubting the credibility of the game links that were posted nor am I passing any judgements at the current moment in time. I'm am also neither defending Scott or attacking him in saying this all I'm saying is the game logs,when I have the chance to review each of them carefully, can only show me so much as to what went on. They're enough to raise a suspicion and get things looked at to the point where maybe the mods should watch a few games and see if anything is fishy but I highly doubt that just by looking at the game logs I'll be able to say oh they're definitely cheaters nor can a mod make that assumption just by reading game logs.

[kratos644]

Game 3207261-Bruce didn't conveniently weaken himself he made 1attack for a card Scott was setting him up before hand

Game 3168614-From the game log, I can see no attempt at a block all I can tell is missed dice

Game 3141905-Bruce dies mondo early game is determined way later

[Game] 3141817[/Game]-From just the game log, I can't see the supposed block that Bruce missed looks to me like just some good playing by scott

Game 3119463-Not sure about anything in this one maybe Bruce weakened himself or maybe he was trying to do something else. The game log can only say so much but even so killing Bruce didn't give scott the win it went on much longer than that

Game 3108238-looks more to me like Scott got the needed blocks in but as previously mentioned multiple times the logs don't show enough.

...

I've reviewed all the games Max and as I said earlier the game logs can only show so much if you'd like my commentary on each and every game so you know I looked at them all I'll post em for you but I looked at them all and they're all about the same commentary wise. I just don't see this as proving anything. It looks to be all legit dice issues, connection issues, Bruce playing like a noob issues(which isn't exactly out of the ordinary), etc...
So my ruling is still innocent and don't tell me I haven't reviewed all your "evidence cause I just did. It was dull, boring, a waste of my time, and just further made me believe they're innocent. Scott just knows what he's doing and unless it's against the rules to know how to play then it doesn't look like Scott's a cheater

[kratos644]

2008-10-19 01:02:11 - Bruceswar assaulted Dali from Magritte and conquered it from something_fierce
2008-10-19 01:02:12 - Bruceswar assaulted Kline from Rothko and conquered it from something_fierc

you quoted the game logs from when it showed that bruce only took 1 second to switch fronts, yet in 10 seconds where you were taking forever as well, bruce was not able to make one attack, and let you win. That is not you playing well, that is Bruce choosing to give you the game.

For the record Max this is not considered changing fronts. This is attacking in a line. Changing front is when you have to click on a completely different territory which, takes much longer than a straight line attack. So saying it took him only 1 sec to switch fronts here is invalid because he was not switching fronts. It took Bruce 1 second to attack yes but I can do that too. There was no switching of fronts just a plain old straight line attack so get your facts straight before you use them to argue your case or they might come back at you. You also didn't add the rest of this quote showing Bruce was going at 1 per second the entire time he didn't try to wait so Scott could take the kill. So you're not reading carefully and you're tampering with your so called "evidence" so that you may use it. Real convincing argument. If you would read each word and attempt to comprehend it then maybe you would understand it a little better. Yes again I'm saying you aren't comprehending things; well, it's because you aren't. Plain and simple

[DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID]

max shut up--your just another one of those teenagers that has nothing bettter to do then bitch about other people, get a life