secret alliance komradeKloininov and trevorsavage [cleared]

[billydigital]

Game 545887


4 rounds went by with them only attacking each other 1 time each (1 country). One had asia and another had europe so there were plenty of opportunities. There were only the 3 of us left. Only after I called them out on this did one attack the other. Mods, please take a look.

thanks,

bd

[Fireside Poet]

Use the form and then investigation will begin.

[billydigital]

where is this form?

[AK_iceman]

In the Sticky at the top of this forum.

[billydigital]

i filled out one in the FAQ/Contact section, is that it?

[debra79]

Nope, the top topic in this subforum has the details you'll need. The one titled:
Announcement: *** [OFFICIAL FORM] PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING ***

[cakeandarse]

First, form created for ease of mod-use.

These users are suspected of a Secret Alliance

Suspect users: KomradeKloininov & trevorsavage
Game number: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=545887
Comments: See above.

- C&A for billydigital

Secondly, I know I'm no multi-hunter, but I'm bored. As I'm just sitting around at work, not working, I pulled background on this accusation.

It should probably be cleared, according to the below:

Turns were taken at different times of the day, each day. No set pattern at all.
The accused accounts have played only one game together, the one in question.
The accused accounts were created seven months apart from each other.
After reading through the game log, it reads to me that indeed, it would have taken excessive effort on the part of trevorsavage.
The claimant left positive feedback for the accused, mentioning he was a "skilled competitor" and not a purveyor of secret alliances.
Positive feedback was left by the accused, as well, making it seem as though the claim has been resolved privately.

If this is something that mods preferred I didn't do in my spare time, just say so.

Thanks.

Also, this thread was duplicated at http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22872.

[billydigital]

3 players left, they refused to attack each other turn after turn even though they bordered each other on several fronts, one held europe, the other aust and asia. Pretty simple actually.

[cakeandarse]

3 players left, they refused to attack each other turn after turn even though they bordered each other on several fronts, one held europe, the other aust and asia. Pretty simple actually.

Looking at a turn-by-turn breakdown of the first 12 turns (that's how long trevorsavage lasted) shows attacks between the two of them, 50% of the time, or 6 of the 12 turns. In one of those non-attacking turns, KomradeKloininov missed his turn, so in over half of the turns he played, he attacked (or was attacked by) trevorsavage.

If you were to look at that ratio, one could assume there was an unspoken alliance between you and piggy1975, as you only attacked him in 3 of the 6 turns he was alive for, and he only attacked you twice.

You were placed in the center of the map, unfortunately. That's bound to result in multiple attackers. Also, you say when 3 players were left "they refused to attack each other turn after turn," which is quite false. You eliminated Madchek in round 3 and piggy1975 in round 6. Starting in round 7, with three players remaining, there was only one round where all three players took their turns (round 9) in which they did not attack each other. That seems to make sense, actually.

Just my two cents, obviously. I'm sure a decision will be made at some point.

[billydigital]

you are incorrect, i posted the number of attacks after it was down to 3 players. That is when the alliance took place and that is when the evidence starts.

[debra79]

If you took out two players, I'm assuming that would have made you the strongest player on the board, and it's only natural that both players would rather attack you than each other, to weaken you. Doesn't mean there's an alliance, just makes sense to me. Sounds like sour grapes that you ended up getting your butt whooped

[billydigital]

quite clearly 3 players remaining, 2 ONLY attacked me. No alliance was mentioned on messageboard. Open and shut case.

[debra79]

Attacking only you may have been their own individual strategies, it doesn't automatically mean that they had a secret alliance, but that's not to say you were wrong to question it. I'm merely giving you an alternative.

[SirSebstar]

quite clearly 3 players remaining, 2 ONLY attacked me. No alliance was mentioned on messageboard. Open and shut case.

Yup open and shut.. oh wait your brain was opened and then shut down? That might explain why people attack the strongest without an alliance. Oh yea, anyways not enough data was supplied to assume an alliance so i guess it ends there.

[billydigital]

we'll wait to hear from a mod.

[wicked]

see other thread - they were cleared.