Conquer Club

Accused:

catabol
marmotmarsh




The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy




Game number(s):

Game 18693279




Comments:Very sloppy SD with catabol having left numerous strategy references on marmotmarsh's wall...these do NOT appear in Game Chat...snf there are no Corresponding posts on Catabol's wall....Catabol appears to be agreeing to "suggestions" from marmothmarsh but unless Mods can hunt through PMs there is NO proof that Matmotmarsh was indeed colluding even though it did pan out the way suggested. BTW also checked timings of Catabols posts and they were before the game finished so it is not as though he went in after marmotmarsh eventually won and left a trail of vengeance. Just too blatant to let slide???

DJPatrick wrote:Accused:

catabol
marmotmarsh




The accused are suspected of:
Conducting Secret Diplomacy




Game number(s):

Game 18693279




Comments:Very sloppy SD with catabol having left numerous strategy references on marmotmarsh's wall...these do NOT appear in Game Chat...snf there are no Corresponding posts on Catabol's wall....Catabol appears to be agreeing to "suggestions" from marmothmarsh but unless Mods can hunt through PMs there is NO proof that Matmotmarsh was indeed colluding even though it did pan out the way suggested. BTW also checked timings of Catabols posts and they were before the game finished so it is not as though he went in after marmotmarsh eventually won and left a trail of vengeance. Just too blatant to let slide???

Usually when accusing people of secret diplomacy, it's a good idea to provide evidence that secret diplomacy occurred.

Instead you said "there is NO proof that Matmotmarsh was indeed colluding even though it did pan out the way suggested".

Accusing someone of breaking the rules, and then demanding that other people find evidence seems kinda shitty when, in your complaint, you openly said you had no evidence beyond losing the game.

Ah, Sym the Serial Cynic...I didn't lose the game ( I wasn't in the game).
With a bit of careful reading of the orig post it is clear that the evidence against catabol is writ large on marmotmarsh's wall (I've tried to copy and paste from there to no avail).
There certainly is suggestion but NO proof on either wall that convicts Marmotmarsh...plenty to implicate but without view of any reply PMs nothing concrete.
Some of us do not spend a lot of times making noise Symmetry ...this is so obvious it will prob just be a slap on the wrist if that.
Thank U for your usual interest...

DJPatrick wrote:Ah, Sym the Serial Cynic...I didn't lose the game ( I wasn't in the game).
With a bit of careful reading of the orig post it is clear that the evidence against catabol is writ large on marmotmarsh's wall (I've tried to copy and paste from there to no avail).
There certainly is suggestion but NO proof on either wall that convicts Marmotmarsh...plenty to implicate but without view of any reply PMs nothing concrete.
Some of us do not spend a lot of times making noise Symmetry ...this is so obvious it will prob just be a slap on the wrist if that.
Thank U for your usual interest...

Hmm, you do like to accuse people. The problem is- can you actually back up your accusations?

Click on player marmotmarsh (linked thru orig post)...the evidence is (still, 60+ hours later) there on wall in profile...nuff said???...as this is my 3rd, I think, C&A accusation in 11 years, it's not me who's enjoying the trolling

marmotmarsh wall



catabol wall




Was from last year though.... living in the past again toadlicker, a nice pickup though

Latest wall post from catabol relates to Game 18899827 but marmotmarsh didn't join

Maybe a block from them playing together?
Up to the C&A crew I suppose... a warning at least i recon.

Both players have received a WARNING for secret diplomacy.

All diplomacy MUST be done in game chat.

Symmetry wrote:
Usually when accusing people of secret diplomacy, it's a good idea to provide evidence that secret diplomacy occurred.

Instead you said "there is NO proof that Matmotmarsh was indeed colluding even though it did pan out the way suggested".

Accusing someone of breaking the rules, and then demanding that other people find evidence seems kinda shitty when, in your complaint, you openly said you had no evidence beyond losing the game.

Syn he did post some evidence by saying check their walls. He might not have seen the reply from marmotmarsh but I did. He did point me in the right direction.

Obviously, "check their walls" isn't posting evidence. I'm glad it posted you in the direction of evidence that helped you though. Even if it required a bit of a nudge...

Sym of little small gameplay but BIG mouth...it didn't require a "bit of a nudge" i.e. win, wink say no more...CC requires neither a nudge nor an input from your good self...You are tolerated...accept that and move on

DJPatrick wrote:Sym of little small gameplay but BIG mouth...it didn't require a "bit of a nudge" i.e. win, wink say no more...CC requires neither a nudge nor an input from your good self...You are tolerated...accept that and move on

Of course, kiddo. My work here is done-