moTsa and jlo71 [ka]

[Sacerdos]

Accused:

moTsa
jlo71

The accused are suspected of:

Conducting Secret Diplomacy



Game number(s):

Game 15313746



Comments: It's clear from the course of the game. Look at the attack logs.

[Major.Bossman]

It is odd that the border between these two is undefended but that could be explained by external pressure from other players specifically Pastorob1 becoming the dominant player. Both of those players fought over some territories prior to round 8 with both of them breaking each other's bonus and it could be argued that moTsa did not want to engage jlo71 again, while jlo71 had other pressing matters and no longer saw moTsa as a threat. Unless incriminating private messages, wall posts, etc are uncovered this will probably be cleared or noted for future reference.

[king achilles]

Current situation doesn't look like there is anything suspicious between any players. Green has a 9 and 12 against blue's borders and then another 10 and 12 on the opposite side while blue has a 10 against green's borders. There doesn't seem to be any wall post exchanges between the accused.

[lancehoch]

Current situation doesn't look like there is anything suspicious between any players. Green has a 9 and 12 against blue's borders and then another 10 and 12 on the opposite side while blue has a 10 against green's borders. There doesn't seem to be any wall post exchanges between the accused.

KA, I looked at the game when the OP posted. At that point moTsa held the Staten Island and Any 3 Small Islands bonuses while jlo71 held all of Brooklyn. South Beach (moTsa) and Bay Ridge (jlo71) each only had one army even though these were each a border for a bonus. It would help if one of the other players has a snapshot from the end of round 9.

[king achilles]

For how many rounds and do you think that is enough to confirm that they are in a secret alliance in this game?

[lancehoch]

For how many rounds and do you think that is enough to confirm that they are in a secret alliance in this game?

It depends, doesn't it? I would hope that someone else can confirm what I saw (preferably a snapshot from the OP or someone else in the game) before you act on the information, but a secret alliance is a secret alliance. In some instances, even one round is enough.

When looking for a secret alliance, without any direct evidence (PMs or wall posts) I would think the question should be whether it affected the gameplay (not just if they benefitted, but if at least one player's actions changed because of it).

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Major.Bossman]

The problem is that without any direct evidence showing there was a secret alliance can normally be attributed to chance or variables in the game especially if it is only for a short period of time. If you look at the game's log it appears that both of the accused are occupied with other players, so deploying troops on the border may not have been a wise option unless the accused had troops to spare such as when they had a set of cards. Furthermore attacking multiple players can greatly reduce one's resources and prove disastrous so it is sometimes best to pick and choose who to fight.

[Donelladan]

For how many rounds and do you think that is enough to confirm that they are in a secret alliance in this game?

It depends, doesn't it? I would hope that someone else can confirm what I saw (preferably a snapshot from the OP or someone else in the game) before you act on the information, but a secret alliance is a secret alliance. In some instances, even one round is enough.

When looking for a secret alliance, without any direct evidence (PMs or wall posts) I would think the question should be whether it affected the gameplay (not just if they benefitted, but if at least one player's actions changed because of it).

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Well, 100% sure it is NOT enough to confirm anything. I often happen not to deploy troops on one border, and if my neighbour do the same then the border remains unprotected. It is not secret alliance since we didn't communicate, it's better because I can break it whenever I feel it! It's just smart play. If both player have bigger threat to consider they should not use time on this border. Some people prefer to formalize an agreement, but having an agreement with one player sometimes incites other player to do agreement as well against your alliance, typically the case in 4 players game, and therefore not loading a border but not making formal alliance is often a very good strategy.

Therefore you can't judge guilty two people of SD for ONE case of unprotected border if there isn't any obvious proof ( wall message).

I checked the game, there is nothing. Spurious report and no evidence at all brough by the OP. If he want them guilty he could analyse the log and explain why he thinks so.

Comments: It's clear from the course of the game. Look at the attack logs.

I looked at the log, both accused players had a big fight during round 6 and 7 and then stopped to make other fights. Make sense.

[king achilles]

Let's proceed in closing this case and take the game as it is. There is just a lack of proof of their secret alliance at this time.