Descent and Garion [busted]

[Yardie]

Descent and Garion are suspected of being Multis (the same player) and of Conducting Secret Diplomacy.

They were challenged by Skywatcher and Garion posted the reply:

2009-01-31 00:11:16 - Garion: We are purposely, not attacking each other. But we both know fighting mutiple battles at one time is foolish and just leaves you weak. It was really a secret agreement or anything, just like minded players. Also, only apoligize if you mean it.

Makes it a bit pointless for other players who do follow the rules.

[sailorseal]

Can you post a game and if they really said that they should be banned...

[the.killing.44]

It was really a secret agreement

typo? the context suggests it…

.44

[sailorseal]

It was really a secret agreement

typo? the context suggests it…

.44

I agree the way he ends the sentence I think he meant wasn't

[SirSebstar]

The quote came from game http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4082118
Descent and Garion have played 5 games together. In at least one of those they went quite head to head, maybe from there something happened.

Anyways, I was going to suggest a warning(because its only one game) or a block(because its just so blatent).
However I am having second thoughts. It looks close to a secret alliance, in that there is a unspoken agreement not to attack eachother when also fighting someone else. Normally I woud say thats just great. I mean, no use attacking 5 players at the same time if all I can do is make them angry and me vulnerable. Not attacking a bonus defended by only 1 army is just really bad form.
However not attacking eachother AND removing armies from eachothers borders IS a secret alliance, even if it was unspoken.

That last part is the clincer. Its not just not attacking eachother when you are also attacking others, but that last part is too much cooperation.

A warning should suffice I hope.

[Garion]

I would like to say I'm shocked to actually have to be doing this. I enjoy playing on here and didn't mean something like this to happen. In my defense I was only trying to help Descent get a start. I know how it feels to start something and be forced to stop because you feel ganged up on. If I thought what was happening was going to been seen as a secret alliance I would have avoided this. Or would have started games with other friends. I would also like to take this time to apologize for this. In the future we'll actively play against each other in a proper manner. If we are guilty then by that definition so are Yardie and TheSkyWatcher since they basically stoppepd attacking each other in favour of us. Two wrongs don't make a right from what I hear. So, I hope this clears things up abit and would like to avoid any negative official action. As anyone else on here would hope if they were in this situation.

Thank you,
-Garion

[DarthBlood]

The quote came from game http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4082118
Descent and Garion have played 5 games together. In at least one of those they went quite head to head, maybe from there something happened.

Anyways, I was going to suggest a warning(because its only one game) or a block(because its just so blatent).
However I am having second thoughts. It looks close to a secret alliance, in that there is a unspoken agreement not to attack eachother when also fighting someone else. Normally I woud say thats just great. I mean, no use attacking 5 players at the same time if all I can do is make them angry and me vulnerable. Not attacking a bonus defended by only 1 army is just really bad form.
However not attacking eachother AND removing armies from eachothers borders IS a secret alliance, even if it was unspoken.

That last part is the clincer. Its not just not attacking eachother when you are also attacking others, but that last part is too much cooperation.

A warning should suffice I hope.

if it's unspoken, they can't be doing secret diplomacy.

[the.killing.44]

The quote came from game http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4082118
Descent and Garion have played 5 games together. In at least one of those they went quite head to head, maybe from there something happened.

Anyways, I was going to suggest a warning(because its only one game) or a block(because its just so blatent).
However I am having second thoughts. It looks close to a secret alliance, in that there is a unspoken agreement not to attack eachother when also fighting someone else. Normally I woud say thats just great. I mean, no use attacking 5 players at the same time if all I can do is make them angry and me vulnerable. Not attacking a bonus defended by only 1 army is just really bad form.
However not attacking eachother AND removing armies from eachothers borders IS a secret alliance, even if it was unspoken.

That last part is the clincer. Its not just not attacking eachother when you are also attacking others, but that last part is too much cooperation.

A warning should suffice I hope.

if it's unspoken, they can't be doing secret diplomacy.

PM?

.44

[SirSebstar]

if it's unspoken, they can't be doing secret diplomacy.

Nope, thats not quite true, or complete. What I meant to say was that if they have a previous understanding and took that understanding into another game, its a secret alliance, even if thay no longer felt the need to confirm it, either to eachother or to the group.
This is different from 2 players attacking the gameleader since that is situational. If you have a (previous) agreement not to kill eachother off, then thats something nobody can take into account and try to counter.
If I was sure you would not attack me, there would be no need for me to ask. Even so, that understanding is a secret alliance and should either be made public, or not acted upon at all.

[king achilles]

Descent and Garion are busted.