Conquer Club

Well, Im playing some games against 2 guys, in fact, they joined some of my doubles games with my partners vyvyan and hunting_high... They are VanCleef and PubnPub.

The names have same style, ok, and they could be partners as me and mine partners, but I realized they are always playing very close to each other, in all games. I did a little investigation, and this is what I saw, from logs of games 14976, 15007, 15030 and 15032 (I mixed a bit to put in time order):

2006-04-16 17:45:50 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 11 territories
2006-04-16 17:50:45 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-16 17:53:38 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 11 territories
2006-04-16 18:01:22 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-16 18:19:27 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 11 territories
2006-04-16 18:21:01 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-16 18:22:57 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 10 territories
2006-04-16 18:26:42 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-16 18:40:29 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 10 territories
2006-04-16 18:43:14 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-16 18:44:59 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-16 18:47:36 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-16 18:48:50 - PubnPub receives 4 armies for 13 territories
2006-04-16 18:52:25 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-16 18:52:44 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-16 18:54:51 - PubnPub gets a card

2006-04-17 15:53:55 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 11 territories
2006-04-17 15:56:27 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-17 16:02:13 - PubnPub receives 5 armies for 15 territories
2006-04-17 16:05:01 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-17 16:43:26 - VanCleef receives 4 armies for 12 territories
2006-04-17 16:44:48 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-17 16:52:45 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-17 16:54:15 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-17 17:16:59 - PubnPub receives 5 armies for 15 territories
2006-04-17 17:25:53 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-17 17:26:45 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 8 territories
2006-04-17 17:29:34 - PubnPub gets a card

2006-04-18 17:50:06 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-18 17:52:54 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-18 18:12:53 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-18 18:16:46 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-18 20:45:59 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-18 20:48:48 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-18 20:52:39 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 6 territories
2006-04-18 20:56:52 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-18 20:57:14 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 10 territories
2006-04-18 21:02:04 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-18 21:10:00 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-18 21:12:58 - VanCleef gets a card

2006-04-19 17:20:24 - VanCleef receives 4 armies for 14 territories
2006-04-19 17:25:10 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-19 18:08:43 - PubnPub receives 6 armies for 20 territories
2006-04-19 18:20:09 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-19 20:11:48 - VanCleef receives 5 armies for 15 territories
2006-04-19 20:13:51 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-19 20:25:26 - PubnPub receives 2 armies for holding Western Russia
2006-04-19 20:29:20 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-19 22:10:22 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-19 22:13:32 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-19 22:38:08 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 10 territories
2006-04-19 22:39:40 - PubnPub gets a card

2006-04-20 05:14:36 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-20 05:17:55 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-20 05:34:53 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for holding The Near East
2006-04-20 05:36:41 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-20 06:04:29 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for 7 territories
2006-04-20 06:08:27 - PubnPub gets a card
2006-04-20 06:16:15 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-20 06:18:26 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-20 19:45:04 - VanCleef receives 3 armies for 5 territories
2006-04-20 19:49:54 - VanCleef gets a card
2006-04-20 20:05:33 - PubnPub receives 3 armies for holding The Near East
2006-04-20 20:14:47 - PubnPub gets a card

Even if they are roomates and share the same computer, I believe its a bit difficult they can use the computer ALWAYS at same time, no matter what period of the day. I think its a classic case of multi accounts. Detail: they sometimes play together standard games too, see the game 9015 (it was freestyle) and its log:

2006-03-18 05:28:16 - PubnPub receives 4 armies for 14 territories
2006-03-18 05:28:35 - PubnPub deployed 4 armies on Eastern Australia
2006-03-18 05:28:52 - PubnPub attacked New Guinea from Eastern Australia and conquered it from VanCleef
2006-03-18 05:29:29 - PubnPub attacked Indonesia from Western Australia and conquered it from VanCleef
2006-03-18 05:29:53 - VanCleef receives 4 armies for 12 territories
2006-03-18 05:30:01 - VanCleef deployed 4 armies on Brazil
2006-03-18 05:30:30 - VanCleef attacked Venezuela from Peru and conquered it from Immigration
2006-03-18 05:31:27 - VanCleef fortified Venezuela with 2 armies from Argentina
2006-03-18 05:32:03 - VanCleef fortified Eastern United States with 2 armies from Western United States
2006-03-18 05:33:44 - PubnPub fortified China with 2 armies from Irkutsk
2006-03-18 05:33:59 - PubnPub fortified China with 2 armies from Middle East
2006-03-18 05:34:11 - PubnPub fortified China with 2 armies from Ukraine
2006-03-18 05:34:32 - PubnPub fortified China with 2 armies from Ural
2006-03-18 05:34:47 - PubnPub fortified China with 2 armies from Siberia
2006-03-18 05:35:14 - PubnPub fortified Quebec with 2 armies from Alberta
2006-03-18 05:35:26 - PubnPub fortified Quebec with 2 armies from Ontario
2006-03-18 05:35:29 - PubnPub gets a card
(...)
2006-03-18 05:36:19 - VanCleef fortified Western Europe with 2 armies from Southern Europe
2006-03-18 05:36:27 - VanCleef gets a card

They never move at same time, its a proof they at least share the same computer. Worst, one do a partial movement, log out, the another log in, plays his turn... is it fair with the 3rd player?

Another strange thing. VanCleef is a premium member, and PubnPub not. Why are PubnPub only playing doubles games, having VanCleef as partner?

And more: umaisuma seems to be another multi of the same guy... since a long time its only VanCleef doubles partner... And its name looks like 1+1 in Portuguese, so if its from a Portuguese language country, its one more tip.

I wouldnt post if I had found no proofs, but I think its sufficient for a deeper investigation, lack. What Im still thinking is, why is the ranking that important to make a premium member create other accounts to play with himself in team games? We have good players to partner up here...

Another players, put your comments here, too. What do you think?

I have played in 2 sequential non-team games against VanCleef and did not notice any sign of cheating or improper play.

That is not to say that you are wrong, but I feel it is fair to let you know that there have been occassions when he has played fairly.

Yes, though, the logs do seem somewhat suspicious. I did not go into all the games you mentioned, but:

1. Were they freestyle? It could explain some of the behaviour.
2. Were they team games? In that case, does it really matter?

If VanCleef is a premium member there is no reason for him to create multis for additional games; his only incentive would be to team up in non-team games. Do they attack each other? Are they always the last two left?

I don't think I need to tell you what patterns to look for.

If you investigate a bit more, repost with some more info about things like this. Definitely worth an investigation, though!

Marv..I have played VanCleef in approx 8 games..all singles..I believe He is from Sweden or Norway but I may be mistaken....Although we had a misunderstanding in our first game (name calling etc) we worked it out and played together many more times...I consider him a to be on my good list from my experience....simply giving you my history...I HATE getting caught by multis so better safe than sorry.

I have about 4 or 5 other non-premium names set up for immediate family and a few of my employees...they do not get used that often and we never break the rules....but I must admit, after some of these damn losing streaks I have thought about creating games with only my network players and axing them all to improve MY standing as koolbak.....

Obviously a shitty thing to do so I would not...but it is a valid theory! Good luck my friend

Well, Im not affirming he cant play fair... In truth, Im affirming nothing, I only want some investigation over these guys.

The games I first put are all sequential games... and they are doubles games. And, yes, if hes a cheater, it matter to me, and to lack, I bet, because he worked hard to do this site and dont want see it ruined due to cheaters.

I believe he created other accounts before he became premium, and its now using them as pawns. I think he dont want play with another people because he want have more control of his games... How can I understand? Im not a cheater.

As you demmanded, I investigated game 9999, standard game where VanCleef is the green and PubnPub is the blue (as always, they are close). The game lasts for 14 turns... Van eliminated Pub one turn before eliminate the other player, my doubles partner hunting_high. But seeing the game log, how curious it was... Only to remember: none alliance announced in the chat.

Turn 3: Van holds Africa. Pub has control over South America, but Van attacks... hunting, in Europe!! (Yellow player is kicked out.)
Turn 4: Pub holds South America and attacks... hunting, in North America!! Then Van seems to be interested in North America, too...
Turn 5: Pub attacks Asia, Van advance over North America... Is it the alliance end?
Turn 6: Pub attacks several countries of the light blue player in Asia... Van attacks... light blue player in North America... Game over, man!! Van cashed an extra set, but hes really not worried about Pub and South America. Pink player is kicked out.
Turn 7: Pub attacks again North America... He attacks Van, while Van attacks... the neutral armies in Europe!!
Turn 8: Pub continues North America campaign; Van attacks again neutral countries in Europe. In the turn end, he moves 17 armies from Iceland to Southern Europe.
Turn 9: Pub cashed a set, and he takes several North America countries. He takes Greenland, too. Van again attacks neutral countries in Europe, he now control Europe, and move 7 armies to Iceland, 15 to Ukraine, 7 to Middle East.
Turn 10: Pub take Alberta, and fortify Greenland with 3 armies; Van Holds Europe and attacks Pub... in Asia.
Turn 11: Pub control North America... Van holds Europe and Africa... He got 13 deployments, and attacks... hunting, in Ural. He deployed 13 in Middle East, but attacked from Ukraine... strange, huh? He dont fortify Iceland, too.
Turn 12: Pub holds both Americas, cash a set... he has 21 armies to deploy... He deploys in... Alaska!! And attacks... hunting, in Asia!! Van attacks hunting in Afghanistan, and prepares a invasion deploying in North Africa, just in the same turn Pub fortified Brazil since turn 9.
Turn 13: Pub do a little attack to hunting, but it want defend Mongolia and Brazil. It seems he know what will happen. In fact, hes weaker, but he announces a war in the chat!! Van attacks Pub with all, and kill him in the same turn.
Turn 14: Van easily defeat hunting.

Is it suspicious enough? I believe that if its not the same guy, they at least had a secret alliance...

too much time

Don't worry Marv, we can take em

i have played more than a few games w/ him he has one fairlyand lost graciosly you should check out the first game i ever played w/ AndyBruce man he pissed me off and now we play doubles alot together long story short he accused me of cheating he of course has long since laid that theory to rest

I dunno Marv... I have to say this seems pretty slender. Coordinating your moves in doubles game is a standard strategy that I wouldn't consider playing doubles without.

In my experience (literally... I accused Alcibiades and apwessen of the same thing only to get proven wrong) just the mere fact of quick successive moves is not proof of anything. VanCleef and PubnPub seem to be (at least) friends, and if so maybe they share the same schedule as well, which would explain their movements in freestyle games.

You might have an argument for a secret alliance, but it's impossible to tell from your investigation, even though it is very extensive! Without knowing what the rest of the players were doing you can't say whether their actions were in response to anything particular.

Setting up accounts for your employees! Koolbak - you are an awesome boss. I can't even get into the site at work

Hi, Zaw!!

Im not accusing any players. I posted suspicious things I collect from game logs. The lecture I did from game 9999, its the truth. The time analysis I did for doubles games, its the truth. If its offensive, I dont know, but its still the truth, you all can do the same I did. Lack can prove me wrong, and I will apologize in this same forum. Well, and the forum is open to those players, they can defend themselves here. For now, I will only wait, but I know I can be wrong. In fact, I didnt add them to my ignore list yet. I want wait, and I recommend the same to all players.

Well, sure it's the truth, but... I mean, I really can't see what's going on. What I can see is a player holding S. America and going for N. America, and another holding Africa going for Europe. This is the most sensible course. Africa gives the 3 bonus but its capture and subsequent defense is so tricky that attacking the much tougher S. America is in my experience often an insensible course. If you're holding Egypt and East Africa anyway, it makes more sense to take Middle East and Ukraine and hold Europe... you get five armies and only open up one more border.

If you hold S. America, trying to take Africa is an even sillier course of action if you can make a play for N. America. You can take N. America and get 7 bonus armies with only three borders. Why fight hard for Africa and get 5 bonuses with 4 borders? From your investigation, that's exactly what I see happening.

It's often my experience that a truce, often quite unspoken, will occur between the players holding these continents. I myself recall being accused of a secret alliance due to such an unspoken truce arising.

The issue at hand is whether, VanCleef and PubnPub having some kind of obvious connection, such an unspoken agreement was actually spoken somewhere and not broadcast as per the rule against secret alliances.

What I do see as potentially unusual is the set of moves from turn 9 to turn 12 where Pub and Van appear from what you say to allow their Greenland/Iceland border to stand while concentrating on hunting in Asia. But what was hunting doing all this time? Had hunting taken Asia, or threatening to take Asia?

I see in round 11, for example, where you characterize Van's fortification of his eastern flank over Iceland as unusual, that hunting appears to have just placed about 65 armies on Afghanistan. In this round also it doesn't appear that PubnPub was holding Alaska, and his continent, with very many troops. In the next round, 12, hunting moves this (or some amount of this) massive bulk of troops away from Afghanistan and to Kamchatka. In this context, it might not be so surprising that both Van and Pub saw hunting as the primary immediate threat to their position and fortified/attacked accordingly. That threat being dealt with in round 12, they immediately reploy to face the new primary threat - each other.

I'm just saying that's how it COULD have happened. The log, of course, doesn't contain basic information and I'm not about to retrace every placement and fortification from round 1, so I can't get a complete picture.

As to what the hell PubnPub is doing throwing in the towel like that, I have no clue. Maybe it is suspicious, or maybe it is a player getting pissy with what they see as a hopeless situation (Van appears to have mustered an unstoppable force on N. Africa) and saying forget it.

I still believe that the argument for VanCleef and PubnPub being multis is rather slender, and even the argument for a secret alliance being not that solid.

Anyway, the IPs will have it, I suppose. It's fun doing this anyway!

They might not be multi players. My friend Chemorian and I play very close to each other all the time since we communicate over the MSN. I'm a premium player, but he's not. Might be a similar case.
Though, we don't play together in single games due to how easy it would be to accuse us of cheating. These guys might not care.

Just a thought. Who knows really.

In Game 18438, VanCleef posted the following in the game chat:

2006-05-09 23:15:04 - VanCleef: if you used some of all time you spending to spam forum tyou might learn how to play jolly
2006-05-09 23:17:12 - VanCleef: with 3 players about to trade you made sure both of us is bye bye

Problem is - VanCleef wasn't in the game. The player I attacked with WingsWord who plays doubles often with VanCleef

Suspicious...

And he/she was right - i did make sure both of us is bye bye

Now THAT is suspicious!

I think it's worth investigating VanCleef and WingsWord, and while we're at it, seeing if the log-in info for VanCleef matches up with any other member's log-in info.

Once again, though. I am in a game with him/her and don't notice anything suspicious. Yet.

Checking......

Hold please.....

Twill, could you please post the complete list of multis if they exist? Bold letters as lack did, please...

Thanks.

Im not sure if Im accused too or if its VC, maybe both. I had to go back and check that game since its finished, to find out how i got involved. Anyhow I have no other accounts and never cheated. Twill will see when he checks that game if there was any multis, and it wasnt me.
I know VC very well and maybe its the translator causing confusion, it happend to me many times online. English isnt our language but thats the same for many. We all try do our best i think.
I leave it to him to explain why he was in chat our game since i cant.
Hope this get solved because there seem to be enough real cheaters around, and nobody need to make more up

oh boy is this witchhunting still going on. I didnt replay in forum last time to an accusation that silly. But i guess i have to defend myself eventhough i cant see how i have cheated.
I love risk and sometimes when i wait for my turn i look on other games. Wingsword is both a friend and my doublepartner and im sorry my passion and frustration made me do a comment in a game i wasnt in. I had just been trying to find information or interesting topics in forum but its so flooded of personal chatting its hard to find. Even that this old thread was on again i missed , and i been logged on before today.so it was WW telling me. I was wrong doing the comment but i stick to my opinion its frustating some are here more to chat and easy ruin a game players spent hours,days,weeks to play.
So now its the same as before when marvbladdering brought this up, what is the cheat? his ¨proof¨showed more of fair playing then opposite.
Sometimes i have doublepartners from same network as me and its not against any rule. I think it makes games both better and faster. If i would ever play a singlegame or other form where cheating/teaming is possible i would tell if from same network.
Play as team is for double or triplegames and in singlegames its only lame. That is ok for players to declare they will team up sucks and who would have joined that game if they knew in advance, common. But i accept its legal and just try avoid play them again.
I have never cheated or pretended be someone else and i hope this matter will be dealt with now. I do like this site and most players are ok and very nice.

again i have played you VAN on numerous occasions and you are a honorable player

Ty very much wacicha. I appreciate that you tell this. We have played loads of games and its no coincidence,lol. I often use to join your games since its a signum for good and fair games. You are very honourable and i hope we all watch and learn from you.

Well where's my "thank you", dammit! I was the first one to come to your defense!!

Damn cheater!!! ;o)

I am glad this is resolved...couldn't believe you were a multi....I enjoyed beating you too much!!

Best wishes VC-

Opps, sorry KB

Yeh i never posted anything when this started but of course i was aware and followed it. To post and defend like you and some other did shows gutts and is valued. hehe i know you beated me up bad most of our games and thats why i stick to sequential turns and ascending cards now. guess i cant hide no more eh

Marv, to post a full list of multis would be crazy, there are 200+ in the database. Seeing as we stop them from joining any new games should they be found to be multis, you wouldnt have to add them to your ignore list now would you

as to the issue of these potential multis, I have asked Lack to look at it.

Twill

Twill wrote:you wouldnt have to add them to your ignore list now would you

Twill

I do anyway, it makes me feel special.

Thanks for the explanation.

Having English as a second language is a reasonable explanation to the language in your post.

As I stated throught, I have had no reason to believe you were cheating in any of our games and I enjoy your competition.