Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Hi Mesalina...it's me again (you were not annoying, by the way). If you get a chance, do a couple more things:Mesalina wrote:Secret Alliance
•Deregulater
•Anthony12
The accused are suspected of:
Secret Alliance
Game number(s):
Game 7695022
Comments: I didnt understood the strategy of Degulater but most of all of Anthony12 who had played on Degulator´s favor. When green Anthony12 started the game tried to get ausy instead SA but however he took the option and thats it.
Red had the opportunity to hit ( twice ) green- break his bonus and take a wipe on him out but he didn’t also. Useless hits on each other.
They have been in alliance, but have not stated it in game chat.
Thank you in advance for all the good things you guys are teaching me.
-SullyMesalina wrote:Secret Alliance
Deregulater
Anthony12
The accused are suspected of:
Secret Alliance
Game number(s):
Game 7695022
Comments: I didnt understood the strategy of Degulater but most of all of Anthony12 who had played on Degulator´s favor. When green Anthony12 started the game tried to get ausy instead SA but however he took the option and thats it.
Red had the opportunity to hit ( twice ) green- break his bonus and take a wipe on him out but he didn’t also. Useless hits on each other.
They have been in alliance, but have not stated it in game chat.
Thank you in advance for all the good things you guys are teaching me.
Yes. Evil_Semp wanted Mesalina to just start over, so he closed that thread to have this one opened. The worst part was that it took my joke out of view...how awful!Victor Sullivan wrote:Wait, isn't this: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9&t=127577 the same thing?
Woodruff wrote:(I know...I agree with you...I'm just reporting.)
I presumed by your "isn't this the same thing" that you're also thinking (like me) "it seems pretty silly when the initial post of the other thread had already been corrected and Semp could've just looked at that by itself rather than opening up an entirely new thread that Woodruff's just going to add stuff to that he's going to have to wade through anyway".Victor Sullivan wrote:Woodruff wrote:(I know...I agree with you...I'm just reporting.)
Ah, yes. You would be correct. Hey, if you post enough, he'll have to swim thru 'emWoodruff wrote:I presumed by your "isn't this the same thing" that you're also thinking (like me) "it seems pretty silly when the initial post of the other thread had already been corrected and Semp could've just looked at that by itself rather than opening up an entirely new thread that Woodruff's just going to add stuff to that he's going to have to wade through anyway".Victor Sullivan wrote:Woodruff wrote:(I know...I agree with you...I'm just reporting.)

Well, I can certainly see that you've earned your 4.5 rating.Barney Rubble wrote:Any sniveling by Mesalina should be discounted my and others experience with this player is irrational play and if you eliminate her your foed accusations of secret diplomacy abound you all are wasting your time responding to these complaints its just a case of poor loss attitude by a poor loser
With this definition all games would have secret diplomacy. Unless you can come up with some proof that they had arranged moves between each other I can't do anything. The moves in the game did not look like secret diplomacy to me. What it looks like is someone did not make an attack or attacks that you thought they should that would be to your advantage. It doesn't take communication to see when the strongest player of three needs to be brought down a notch or two.Mesalina wrote:Then when two people work toghether in silent to reduce you it is not a secret alliance .
Thank you
