Conquer Club

lord voldemort wrote:to summarise what fitz said...to convict someone of a secret alliance or throwing games...there needs to be a build up of evidence. We wont block people from one game that looks a lil suspect. Sure from what I can see and know of arms race it looks a tiny bit 'suss.' However I do not feel that this is enough to have any actions taken. If you can provide us with more evidence of these two being in a secret alliance then we can act from there.

I know u got to do ur job... I respect that.... but trust me - don't hold your breath. There is no evidence... because this is just nonsense in every sense (lol) of the word....and I really think in the future there should start being some kind of discipline for people who cry wolf repeatedly. I know it wont happen.... but again - the serious accusations that come up on here... esp since this is my third one with there NEVER being a shred of solid evidence - are getting very annoying. Id rather be paying attention to my games than trying to defend a bogus accusation.

i think i just pooed myself.

Hacx is a stand up guy and a gr8 player. I really don't see what the big deal is, especially on a map like arms race...someone is bound to do something stupid eventually...or try something new. I just don't see cheating here. Just my two cents.

Yours truly,

The Ass Magician
(inside joke)

I'll begin with Mr Cookies' conclusion: I did not have a secret alliance with Hacx5nine in the Arms Race game in question. Even before looking at the specifics of the accusation and reviewing the game log and game chat, I am fairly certain of this fact since I have never had a secret alliance nor cheated in any CC game. This is what is known as a strong logical argument.

A good example of a weak logical argument, rife with fallacies, is Mr Cookies' accusation. However, unless requested by the CC community to destroy Mr Cookies' reasoning, I will limit my response to a few simple points regarding the specifics of the game in question. There was overwhelming evidence early in the game that I was in an extremely strong, if not dominant, position both in USA and overall. The key piece of information, in fact, came from Mr Cookies himself, who confirmed my suspicion that he had lost most of his troops the first two rounds. Subsequently, there was a fair amount of player-on-player aggression, which suggested I was the only one growing in strength in absolute terms, and more importantly, growing in strength relative to all the other players. I shared only one border with another player (Yellow in Denver), and had fully occupied eastern USA. So my choice at that point was to stockpile in USA fully, expand into western USA with the idea of securing the entire continent, or stray from the usual Arms Race script and head up the missile earlier than usual. Purely stockpiling was too passive, and expanding to secure the continent very quickly would've left me as the sole target earlier than I wanted. The missile allowed me a compromise strategy of expanding in an unexpected fashion while partially stockpiling at the same time. And if ever there was a time to proceed up the missile before securing the entire continent, this was it.

People need to understand that arms race is going to be unique among most all other maps due to it's special properties. This is going to produce gameplay that is different from what people are used to, and as things get cutthroat, some weird plays are going to emerge.

Culs just had the same problem here in C&A. I think that one needs to have a copious amount of evidence throughout multiple games to make a report involving arms race.

Cookies you should know this shit.

Ukey wrote:I'll begin with Mr Cookies' conclusion: I did not have a secret alliance with Hacx5nine in the Arms Race game in question. Even before looking at the specifics of the accusation and reviewing the game log and game chat, I am fairly certain of this fact since I have never had a secret alliance nor cheated in any CC game. This is what is known as a strong logical argument.

A good example of a weak logical argument, rife with fallacies, is Mr Cookies' accusation. However, unless requested by the CC community to destroy Mr Cookies' reasoning, I will limit my response to a few simple points regarding the specifics of the game in question. There was overwhelming evidence early in the game that I was in an extremely strong, if not dominant, position both in USA and overall. The key piece of information, in fact, came from Mr Cookies himself, who confirmed my suspicion that he had lost most of his troops the first two rounds. Subsequently, there was a fair amount of player-on-player aggression, which suggested I was the only one growing in strength in absolute terms, and more importantly, growing in strength relative to all the other players. I shared only one border with another player (Yellow in Denver), and had fully occupied eastern USA. So my choice at that point was to stockpile in USA fully, expand into western USA with the idea of securing the entire continent, or stray from the usual Arms Race script and head up the missile earlier than usual. Purely stockpiling was too passive, and expanding to secure the continent very quickly would've left me as the sole target earlier than I wanted. The missile allowed me a compromise strategy of expanding in an unexpected fashion while partially stockpiling at the same time. And if ever there was a time to proceed up the missile before securing the entire continent, this was it.

Just a couple of things that dont add up here Ukey, firstly, there was not a "fair amount" of player on player aggression... in actual fact it was the lack of it that 1st arroused my suspisions that something was amiss....

U were not the strongest player, shivi, who was also on your side of the map as hacx pointed out in round 2 had +8 bonus while u had +6

and if u only shared one border with yellow in denver as u say, how the hell have u come to the assumption that u were the only one growing in strength. In my limited experience, fog games require a little more information than 1 border to know what is happening, unless ofc u have more information to hand than you can see

In conclusion and hopefully an end to this thread, as the mods have already indicated that although the actions are suspect, no conclusive evidence can be found, I do not believe the explanations, something was VERY wrong in this game, I have taken the nescessary steps to protect myself by foeing both partied involved, and it seems that is all i can do due to lack of conclusive evidence.

and just for the record. i was not the only person in this game to think so :-
2010-02-23 16:57:21 - shivi: am i complaining about ur alliance...which apparently is secret...as i dont know the details about

its not that hard to understand. Fitz said it very well on page 2 and LV summed it up.

Everyone plays their own style, people will experiment sometimes and even more often they will be off their game and make moves that are out of character or out right retarded, regardless of experience/rank or what have you.

You have listed one incident where you expect foul play which when we look at it can be summed up as he made a few really bad decisions. Throwing games, dumping points, secret diplomacy is an amount of evidence that can conclude only this. You right now don't have an amount of evidence to back this claim up.

So either

A. your wrong
B. you experienced a bad play by a player and your trying to vent about it here
C. your right, but you don't even know your right cause your really haven't found any other instances to back this up

No matter what the situation you have the conclusion of this unless you can come up with more for us to look at between these 2 will be to foe & or rate accordingly seeing as this can be blamed on numerous things besides throwing the game or having a secret diplomacy.

King Sam

Hacx5nine wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:to summarise what fitz said...to convict someone of a secret alliance or throwing games...there needs to be a build up of evidence. We wont block people from one game that looks a lil suspect. Sure from what I can see and know of arms race it looks a tiny bit 'suss.' However I do not feel that this is enough to have any actions taken. If you can provide us with more evidence of these two being in a secret alliance then we can act from there.

I know u got to do ur job... I respect that.... but trust me - don't hold your breath. There is no evidence... because this is just nonsense in every sense (lol) of the word....and I really think in the future there should start being some kind of discipline for people who cry wolf repeatedly. I know it wont happen.... but again - the serious accusations that come up on here... esp since this is my third one with there NEVER being a shred of solid evidence - are getting very annoying. Id rather be paying attention to my games than trying to defend a bogus accusation.

Actually, there was quite a few games of evidence in the thread I made...though you were never really accused of doing anything wrong with it... there was game after game after game of mr cookies attacking everyone else but you in the game, and you winning maybe 2 or 3 times your usual win rate. That is evidence, whether it proved anything or not. On this one however, there is nothing, which is why Im backing you up fully...and also, because you proved you are a good guy, even the way you handled the thread that included you by me.

lord voldemort wrote:Poor strategy does not equal secret diplomacy.

So damn true

hacx likes to touch little boys...we should take that into consideration

Riskier Than You wrote:hacx likes to touch little boys...we should take that into consideration

Nice.

This is officially noted.

Riskier Than You wrote:hacx likes to touch little boys...we should take that into consideration

lord voldemort wrote:This is officially noted.

The little boy touching? Really?



lol

Hacx5nine wrote:* Quote Hacx5nine



Cookies no offense but when u lose u seem to fire off a lot..... which I find INCREDIBLY hard to believe after the incident with AAFitz. This is very disappointing. You also foed Ukey.... who won the game.... which makes it look even worse.

you can say that again i made 1 move he didnt like and he gave me a nice "FOED" comment and spammed abuse on my wall then told his m8 eddie to foe me aswell which he did both then continuing to abuse me on there own walls all day.

when i read his ratings i understood he has an anger problem and is obviously a problem child. feel sorry for his parents. he did tell my mother to have an abortion lol charming chap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3T_xczFl5A



as for Hacx, i have played him many times and never thought or suspected him of anything other than being a good honest player,

wreckead wrote:

Hacx5nine wrote:* Quote Hacx5nine



Cookies no offense but when u lose u seem to fire off a lot..... which I find INCREDIBLY hard to believe after the incident with AAFitz. This is very disappointing. You also foed Ukey.... who won the game.... which makes it look even worse.

you can say that again i made 1 move he didnt like and he gave me a nice "FOED" comment and spammed abuse on my wall then told his m8 eddie to foe me aswell which he did both then continuing to abuse me on there own walls all day.

when i read his ratings i understood he has an anger problem and is obviously a problem child. feel sorry for his parents. he did tell my mother to have an abortion lol charming chap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3T_xczFl5A



as for Hacx, i have played him many times and never thought or suspected him of anything other than being a good honest player,

oh, and wreckead

mr cookies wrote:

wreckead wrote:

Hacx5nine wrote:* Quote Hacx5nine



Cookies no offense but when u lose u seem to fire off a lot..... which I find INCREDIBLY hard to believe after the incident with AAFitz. This is very disappointing. You also foed Ukey.... who won the game.... which makes it look even worse.

you can say that again i made 1 move he didnt like and he gave me a nice "FOED" comment and spammed abuse on my wall then told his m8 eddie to foe me aswell which he did both then continuing to abuse me on there own walls all day.

when i read his ratings i understood he has an anger problem and is obviously a problem child. feel sorry for his parents. he did tell my mother to have an abortion lol charming chap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3T_xczFl5A



as for Hacx, i have played him many times and never thought or suspected him of anything other than being a good honest player,

oh, and wreckead

do u not mean this


it sounds like him

Gonna lock this nothing meaningful will come out of any more comments.

Just a friendly warning to all that we aren't going to tolerate the name calling.