Secret diplomacy proposed to me by m2squared[busted]

[BoganGod]

Honestly, I didnt mean to open up this can of worms. My foe list has grown now with people I probably will regret foeing later on. I think this is the case:

This was brought up in the forums with proof , right or wrong.

The poor schmuck that sent the email will go down, hopefully not bad.

And we will all forget about this in a week.


I think we can all learn something here... we are all different and that basically you are all wrong, except for me and a couple of others.

peace =D

lol, I like people to get the benefit of the doubt, but was rather shocked when everyone came out in support of cheating. Especially you army, you have always been a bit hot headed and crass(who isn't) but didn't pick you for supporting cheating. Fair fight and all that guff.

[Timur the Lame]

I think this is a misunderstanding....nobody is in favor of cheating.

Its the tattling of the cheating that bothered some people. Nobody has proposed letting it slide but just handling it differently.

[JoshyBoy]

Accused:

[player]m2squared[/player]

The accused are suspected of:

Other: Proposing secret diplomacy

Game number(s):

Game 6735330

I received the following private message from m2squared regarding game 6735330:

cease fire eh

Sent: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:34 am
From: m2squared
To: Desperado1961
hey blue, green has all of south america and all of north america, do something or he will kill us all. ive been trying to hit him. ill focus on hitting south america and you can hit his north america, get rid of that canada bonus atleast.

[I replied]

Re: cease fire eh

Sent: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:38 am
by Desperado1961
sorry don't do secret diplomacy (it is against the rules and the spirit of the game) - make the proposal in the open channel






Comments:

Wow, what a big grassing Judas. That's pretty harsh. You are clamping down harder than TeamCC themselves. I would have given him a friendly warning.

[wolfpack0530]

lots of good stuff in this one:

I laughed with i read the "burning hatred" bit. Timor of Shame was pretty good as well.
I think Army is overreacting a bit to the criticism, and jefjef is refusing to see that there are varying degrees of 'cheating'

1)There are those that cheat on purpose and know better. These are the players that CC is most anxious to catch. Call them cheaters, and foe them. Good idea!!

2)There are those that unmeaningfully and unknowingly break an obscure rule that is open to interpretation.
Ex. it is okay to bait and flame in game chat but not in the forums? Took me a while to figure that one out.

3)There are those that break a rule that they didnt yet know was a rule. They may or may not have benefited from the act, but they in know way knew they were 'cheating'. We must give these types of players a mulligan in situations like these. That is what the 'Warnings' are for. Once fully aware of the rule that they broke, then they should be held 100% accountable should they ever break that rule again.
Ex. Player A is pretty sure that secret diplomacy is against the rules, but he is not sure if the green player reads the chat and he really need to truce with him. So he proposes a truce on green's wall. He also posts the exact same truce word for word in the game chat. He figures that since he wasnt trying to be 'secretive' about it, that the wall post is okay because he didnt break the secret diplomacy rule. In this case, Player A should be warned that he should have just wrote (please check game chat) on greens wall, and not propose the truce there. But i wouldnt consider Player A to be a 'cheater' in this instance. And it would be a shame for him to be labeled as such for this mistake.

Jefjef, it seems like you would consider all three instances as examples of cheating. Is that correct, or do you allow for leniency in certain situations, where ignorance was the culprit and not foul play?

[ViperOverLord]

You could make the argument that this is secret diplomacy because it does not propose strategy on the in game log, but I think this is not serious. It'd be one thing if he was saying lets team up and split the spoils but he's just saying hey let's survive. At least that is my quick read. I'm not saying its good what he did but c'mon. You seriously felt a need to report this?

[Evil Semp]

m2squared has been BUSTED as a multi.

And for the record, for situations like this, as per our rules page:

Rule #2: No secret diplomacy

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. Secret diplomacy can be hard to prove, but if you suspect it you should leave the players in question appropriate ratings. If you feel certain about players engaging in secret diplomacy consider reporting them in the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum by posting a new topic.

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?mode=rules

[TheForgivenOne]

And all the squabble goes for nothing as the kid was a cheater

[army of nobunaga]

well a multi is one thing completely fucking diff... good ass bust... still have the op foed as a wimpy sellout punk.

[TheForgivenOne]

well a multi is one thing completely fucking diff... good ass bust... still have the op foed as a wimpy sellout punk.

How exactly do you know the guy who got busted didn't know the rules? He could have known there was "No Secret Diplomacy allowed", but still went ahead and did it anyway?