[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.]
He's not breaking the rules, he's just being a bad sport. If you dislike it, attack back. It seems he is winning, so it worked out pretty well for him. Some will say everything is permitted in war, so is breaking truces.
You can foe him, then you don't have to play him again. And be sure to leave him a rating you find appropriate.
Read the rules. One is under no obligation to uphold any truces or deals made in game chat. Secret diplomacy is when two or more players conspire by any means other than game chat, to make a truce, pact, or in any way work together to put the other participants of the game at an unfair disadvantage.
Again, I would suggest reading the rules before accusing. If you do not understand the rules there is a "questions & answers" part of the forum.
Hah...omg so u have a message where he admits the truce on that territories and nothing...ok my next move will be attcaking him on africa then we ll see ...
flamemaster wrote:I just hope that u ll play with him...so when u write something about this im going to say the same thing like u...
Most of us recognize that no one is obligated to follow through on anything they say, so our strategic plans are set up with that expectation/presumption in mind.
...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.
Easiest way around these things: Don't do truces! Never understood where there's ever any benefit to them... decent players will gang up on the strongest player at that point anyway without the need to formally declare it.
Pander88uk wrote:Easiest way around these things: Don't do truces! Never understood where there's ever any benefit to them... decent players will gang up on the strongest player at that point anyway without the need to formally declare it.
there befits to truces but only if they dont fall though if both players do as agreed both then it a good move... of course most time one will attack the other at first chance
jefjef wrote:Offering to intentionally throw the game?
2011-01-16 07:56:55 - flamemaster: guys u see he is a cheater lets just deal with him i ll let u win...i promise just to kill this cheater
Looks that way to me, too.
...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.
On the other hand he still didn't DO it, the rule says that violation is throwing a game not OFFERING to throw a game so until he does it there is no violation. He simply may be a quick learner and he is not telling the truth
Pander88uk wrote:Easiest way around these things: Don't do truces! Never understood where there's ever any benefit to them... decent players will gang up on the strongest player at that point anyway without the need to formally declare it.
Never understood where there's ever any benefit to them... decent players will gang up on the strongest player at that point anyway without the need to formally declare it.
