SECRET ALLIANCE?:treefiddy/oran0007/ga7

by **Gemmasta** on Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:47 pm

These are suspected for SECRET ALLIANCE

Suspect users: treefiddy/oran0007/ga7

Game number: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=602329

Comment: all begin when i asked to speed things up (yes, its normal) a bit though not required as rt and then someone started to get smartass comment (maybe cos he thinks he got rank but bad stats, therefore holds no weights). So we were smacking a bit in game chat but it seemed some has took it way too personaly and made a short cut in possible "secret alliance". Just look last 2 rounds where 3 ppl went after the same person.. in assassin game! :lol:

thanks,

by **ga7** on Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:43 pm

Ok Mr. Paranoid, get your facts straight:
-You're the one that made a smartass comment about stats
-The people who were chatting were you; 69Chevy(my target) and me (your target), why would the others take it personally?
-Why would anyone make an alliance in an Assassin game? The game was very uncertain at that point, so it would just have handed a win to someone
-It is true I have profited from the previous moves, and was able to finish my target with a set.
However, when you look at it, oran0007 tried to attack you, failed, and took a territ from my target with 1 army in order to get a card, which was changing nothing for me. treefiddy on the other hand, made a very stupid move taking territs I couldn't have accessed easily, but I don't think he noticed I could have a big set and finish my target off.
That doesn't mean we had any agreement, it's just a stupid move that of course could deserve negative feedback. To think there was collusion to offer me a win is just silly.
When the form gets back I'll ask your negative feedback to be removed, as it is clearly not factual.

by **treefiddy** on Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:13 pm

ga7 wrote:When the form gets back I'll ask your negative feedback to be removed, as it is clearly not factual.

Like ga7 said, the stupid move may invoke some negative feedback, but the feedback you did leave is not factual.

I'm not surprised to see the sore loser here after all the smack you were putting into chat.

I attacked Red because I was his target (or believed I was his target if that turns out to be false). I wanted to attempt to build up without him taking my territories every turn. Taking him out of that area was my best option (as I didn't have an option to make a good run toward my opponent at the time).

It turns out my move was bad and helped secure a win for another player. Can't say that I'm sorry that your % will not be as good for smack talking in future games. It actually pleases me greatly.

by **john1099** on Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:26 pm

Out of curiosity are you aware that ga7 lives in France, and the other two live in the states?
Thats a fair plane ride just to be a multi

I would 100% say that ga7 is not a multi with either of these two, and would not be a multi with a premium account, the other two also have premium, so I doubt they are premium as well!
-John

by **treefiddy** on Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:11 pm

Looking back through the log, I don't see the complete stupidity of my move. Ga7 had to go through 6 territories to win (not all with 1 army). Even with his 10 card turn in, that put him at 16 armies in his starting location.

So he had luck with the cards (which I could not have predicted that he had a 10 army turn in), and then luck on the rolls after. While he may have completed his task in the next couple of turns if one of those factors didn't go his way, it would have at least allowed Red to get out or fight back the way I did.