[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
Game 8249142 [game]xxxxxxx[/game] [game]xxxxxxx[/game] [game]xxxxxxx[/game]
Comments: Zgrade sent me this private message.
Z_Grade wrote:I wish to help you win on the classic map a bit. All I need is free passage to Asia for my troops in Edmonton. It won't make a huge difference, but the more the merrier. And btw, I am going to go terrorist style, and hopefully deal a lot of damage to Hugo(red) in the process. Mostly because it's fun
no these is even worst-xxxxxxx are multy ,he have same account xxxxxxx!
hmm, i dont know what to think, if you get these message earlier, and you not post imediatly, and intead waith to see how game develop, then you are bouth guilty. From what i see you bouth going to lost a game,because red can take zgrade,and with hes cards,can cash another set. If you know for these,and not report imediatly,then you deserve warning same like zgrade. What are penalty ,i dont know, but if these is first time,then he will get warning(i think).
He took his turn at 15.26, sent me the message at 15.29 and I took my turn at 15.40. During my turn I showed what he said in the game chat and then took out the armies in America that I could have protected from yellow.
Oh and I'm not dead yet there are still developments to be made.
Von Blitzen wrote:I don't really care abou who wins the game I just don't like cheats.
I don't know whether it's the case here or not, but do please realize that he's not necessarily an intentional cheat...he may just not realize that it's against the rules to do this.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Well I've haven't been here long and it was clear to me from the start that secret diplomacy is a no-no.
What he was trying to do was to get me, who was sitting with 5 cards worth 20 armies, to leave him, with 4 cards, alone until he could trade them in the next turn against 2 other players that had 1 card each.
My plan was always to wipe him out and take his cards, after he sent me that message all I did was attack him in exactly the way that I planned to.
So there's no "I don't know about" anything. If anyone wants to accuse me of anything other than playing the game the right way, they can study the gameplay and come up with a theory, whereby I did anything to gain an advantage from green between 15.29 and 16.00
Von Blitzen wrote:Well I've haven't been here long and it was clear to me from the start that secret diplomacy is a no-no.
What he was trying to do was to get me, who was sitting with 5 cards worth 20 armies, to leave him, with 4 cards, alone until he could trade them in the next turn against 2 other players that had 1 card each.
My plan was always to wipe him out and take his cards, after he sent me that message all I did was attack him in exactly the way that I planned to.
So there's no "I don't know about" anything. If anyone wants to accuse me of anything other than playing the game the right way, they can study the gameplay and come up with a theory, whereby I did anything to gain an advantage from green between 15.29 and 16.00
Until then keep your insinuations to yourselves.
Insinuations? Did you even read what I wrote? If you did, I would suggest that you read it again, perhaps a bit more carefully the second time.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Von Blitzen wrote:You aren't the only person out there. I suggest you go back and read the rest of the thread.
Perhaps it would assist in your clarifying if you would actually quote who you are responding to, then. Since your post directly followed mine and because you gave no indication that you weren't responding directly to me, it's pretty understandable for me to believe you were. In other words, make yourself more clear.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I think the word "anyone" should be enough to make it clear I wasn't talking to a specific person, but "anyone" who wanted to follow on with that idea.
So while giving advice about reading things carefully. Maybe you should take it on board yourself.
It's pretty discouraging to report something like this and then get someone trying to innaccurately commentate on the state of play and then suggest I might get a warning too.
Von Blitzen wrote:It's pretty discouraging to report something like this and then get someone trying to innaccurately commentate on the state of play and then suggest I might get a warning too.
It's pretty discouraging to have someone report a player for attempted secret diplomacy while engaging in it themselves (Game 8060255 is the only game the two of you have played together, and it's not a team game):
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Von Blitzen wrote:It's pretty discouraging to report something like this and then get someone trying to innaccurately commentate on the state of play and then suggest I might get a warning too.
It's pretty discouraging to have someone report a player for attempted secret diplomacy while engaging in it themselves (Game 8060255 is the only game the two of you have played together, and it's not a team game):
Any form of diplomatic discussion between opponents must be posted in the game chat in English or in a language that all opponents understand. Diplomacy includes, but is not limited to: proposing truces, negotiating alliances, and coordinating assaults.
I did post any form of diplomatic discussion in the game chat: The rule doesn't say that any form of diplomatic discussion should be exclusively in the game chat, just that it should be posted there.
So it seems like your attempt to create something out of nothing is a fail. As I said I was suspicious of his messages, that can be clearly read in the exchange as can the fact I was posting it in the game chat, as per my understanding of the rule posted above.
As for any "warning"..... whatever, if it gives you a chubby to think about it, I'm happy to have helped turn you on.
* Rule #2 on the site states that all diplomatic discussions MUST take place within the Game Chat in English or a language all players can understand. This includes proposing alliances and discussing the strategies of those alliances. Keep this in mind because players who violate it may find themselves Blocked from playing with each other.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
It doesn't matter how big you make your typeface or where you got your version from, when I go to read "The rules" on the page marked rules they read as I said.
You may declare me guilty a thousand times, but the Goddess who presides over the Eternal Court of History will, with a smile, tear in pieces the charge of the Public Prosecutor and the judgment of the Court: for she declares me guiltless.
there are still developments to be made.