Conquer Club

Accused:

seekmeup41
ACC1

The accused are suspected of:

Being Multis
Conducting Secret Diplomacy

*Colour coded to differentiate each player in addition to showing the turn orders taken so close to each other, and to make it easier to investigate.

Game number(s):

Game 2499444 - they don't attack each other aggressively until they are the last 2 left. Turns taken within seconds of each other - in a freestyle game. Not once were their turns taken at the same time, always sequentially.

2008-06-01 01:57:36 - seekmeup41 gets spoils
2008-06-01 01:58:20 - ACC1 receives 2 troops for holding Scandinavia
2008-06-01 11:57:43 - ACC1 gets spoils
2008-06-01 11:57:43 - Incrementing game to round 16
2008-06-01 12:00:26 - seekmeup41 receives 2 troops for holding Central America

Game 2499412 - there are no massive attacks on each other, unless they wanted a card spot. Same as above, no turns are taken at the same time, only sequentially.

2008-05-24 13:12:19 - seekmeup41 gets spoils
2008-05-24 13:13:07 - ACC1 receives 4 troops for 13 regions
2008-05-26 03:41:15 - seekmeup41 gets spoils
2008-05-26 03:46:45 - ACC1 receives 4 troops for 13 regions
2008-05-26 03:47:48 - ACC1 gets spoils
2008-05-26 03:47:48 - Incrementing game to round 4
2008-05-26 03:48:23 - seekmeup41 receives 2 troops for holding Scandinavia

Game 2965383 - a private game. Now, if they were friends...shouldn't there be some sort of game chat at the very least?

2008-08-01 20:43:24 - ACC1 gets spoils
2008-08-01 20:44:48 - seekmeup41 receives 3 troops for 6 regions,
2008-08-01 20:57:16 - ACC1 gets spoils
2008-08-01 20:57:56 - seekmeup41 receives 1 troops for holding 1 Scientist,
2008-08-01 20:59:55 - seekmeup41 gets spoils
2008-08-01 20:59:55 - Incrementing game to round 3
2008-08-01 21:00:19 - ACC1 receives 2 troops for holding USSR Premier,
2008-08-01 21:15:27 - ACC1 gets spoils
2008-08-01 21:15:45 - seekmeup41 gets bonus of 2 troops added to USA Bunker 2

Comments:

The freestyle games provided, shows that there is never any juxtaposition of attacks. It is sequential. Freemium account created within days of the premium account. Obviously a lot of games together, and only when it appears the premium account is seeking to gain more points does he/she join sequential multi-player games.

Nice catch owen

HardAttack wrote:Nice catch owen

Thanks HA! Just want my points won/lost fair and square.

I know both of them well - we all live in the same area and ACC and seekmeup share an office computer, I know that - they work in the same lab together. Seekmeup got ACC to join and I've played triples games with them - I know them both personally to be two seperate people.

I know that ACC doesn't play much o his own - mostly we've played triples games on Pearl Harbour together (the three of us)

ACC only achieved his rank through winning basketloads of triples games.

Anyway, my two cents.

ahote wrote:I know both of them well - we all live in the same area and ACC and seekmeup share an office computer, I know that - they work in the same lab together. Seekmeup got ACC to join and I've played triples games with them - I know them both personally to be two seperate people.

I know that ACC doesn't play much o his own - mostly we've played triples games on Pearl Harbour together (the three of us)

ACC only achieved his rank through winning basketloads of triples games.

Anyway, my two cents.

Perhaps YOUR name should go on the list as well? Secret diplomacy is part of the rules and if there is a game that involves you with them in a multi-player sequential game, than you are going to be a target of my suspicion as well. Okay, so if they do share an office computer together, it makes them THAT much more suspicious for again - secret diplomacy, which as per Conquer Club's rules state is considered a violation and subject to possible suspension or ban of their accounts. And if you took the time, like I obviously did, one game CLEARLY shows that the freemium account heavily favoured against attacked the other. As a result, it ended up being a win for the premium account.

Hi Owen,

ACC1 and myself work in the same building and share several computers. I can see you put alot of work in this but I can tell you that we are not the same person. I think what is important to note is that all of these games are very old, almost a year ago. The first couple of games I think we may have played together, perhaps on the same computer requiring a login and logout (hence the no simultaneous attacks on freestyle games), as I was trying to teach ACC1 how to play. But again, that was May of 2008 so I can't exactly remember. Nonetheless, the only games I ever play with ACC1 now are doubles and triples games. I also play with Ahote regularly in these team games. Thus, we are not logged into Standard games so that we can throw the game so the other person gets points. All three of us are close friends, and have covered each others games when we were away on vacation. I don't know what else to say. If I was trying to gain more points by having multiple accounts, I wouldn't play team games to do it; I would use those additional accounts to weaken other players so I could get the points.
Seekmeup41

owenator wrote:

ahote wrote:I know both of them well - we all live in the same area and ACC and seekmeup share an office computer, I know that - they work in the same lab together. Seekmeup got ACC to join and I've played triples games with them - I know them both personally to be two seperate people.

I know that ACC doesn't play much o his own - mostly we've played triples games on Pearl Harbour together (the three of us)

ACC only achieved his rank through winning basketloads of triples games.

Anyway, my two cents.

Perhaps YOUR name should go on the list as well? Secret diplomacy is part of the rules and if there is a game that involves you with them in a multi-player sequential game, than you are going to be a target of my suspicion as well. Okay, so if they do share an office computer together, it makes them THAT much more suspicious for again - secret diplomacy, which as per Conquer Club's rules state is considered a violation and subject to possible suspension or ban of their accounts. And if you took the time, like I obviously did, one game CLEARLY shows that the freemium account heavily favoured against attacked the other. As a result, it ended up being a win for the premium account.

Owen: There is nothing illegal (or secret diplomacy) for friends in a team game to communicate. Yes we are all friends, but we never play
Standard games (1 in the last 6 months), only team games so there is no violation or secret diplomacy going on. Please, I appreciate your concern, but we are just friends that all love conquerclub. We are not doing anything illegal.

seekmeup41 wrote:

owenator wrote:

ahote wrote:I know both of them well - we all live in the same area and ACC and seekmeup share an office computer, I know that - they work in the same lab together. Seekmeup got ACC to join and I've played triples games with them - I know them both personally to be two seperate people.

I know that ACC doesn't play much o his own - mostly we've played triples games on Pearl Harbour together (the three of us)

ACC only achieved his rank through winning basketloads of triples games.

Anyway, my two cents.

Perhaps YOUR name should go on the list as well? Secret diplomacy is part of the rules and if there is a game that involves you with them in a multi-player sequential game, than you are going to be a target of my suspicion as well. Okay, so if they do share an office computer together, it makes them THAT much more suspicious for again - secret diplomacy, which as per Conquer Club's rules state is considered a violation and subject to possible suspension or ban of their accounts. And if you took the time, like I obviously did, one game CLEARLY shows that the freemium account heavily favoured against attacked the other. As a result, it ended up being a win for the premium account.

Owen: There is nothing illegal (or secret diplomacy) for friends in a team game to communicate. Yes we are all friends, but we never play
Standard games (1 in the last 6 months), only team games so there is no violation or secret diplomacy going on. Please, I appreciate your concern, but we are just friends that all love conquerclub. We are not doing anything illegal.

I'm not talking about a team game. The game number provided shows a game where you and ACC1 don't aggressively attack each other until the end. There was also a private game where it appears as though there was also no real effort by your so-called friend to eliminate you. Perhaps, you may be friends however his in-game actions clearly shows proof that there was nothing done to stop you. Having secret diplomacy IS considered a violation of their rules.

owenator wrote:

seekmeup41 wrote:

owenator wrote:

ahote wrote:I know both of them well - we all live in the same area and ACC and seekmeup share an office computer, I know that - they work in the same lab together. Seekmeup got ACC to join and I've played triples games with them - I know them both personally to be two seperate people.

I know that ACC doesn't play much o his own - mostly we've played triples games on Pearl Harbour together (the three of us)

ACC only achieved his rank through winning basketloads of triples games.

Anyway, my two cents.

Perhaps YOUR name should go on the list as well? Secret diplomacy is part of the rules and if there is a game that involves you with them in a multi-player sequential game, than you are going to be a target of my suspicion as well. Okay, so if they do share an office computer together, it makes them THAT much more suspicious for again - secret diplomacy, which as per Conquer Club's rules state is considered a violation and subject to possible suspension or ban of their accounts. And if you took the time, like I obviously did, one game CLEARLY shows that the freemium account heavily favoured against attacked the other. As a result, it ended up being a win for the premium account.

Owen: There is nothing illegal (or secret diplomacy) for friends in a team game to communicate. Yes we are all friends, but we never play
Standard games (1 in the last 6 months), only team games so there is no violation or secret diplomacy going on. Please, I appreciate your concern, but we are just friends that all love conquerclub. We are not doing anything illegal.

I'm not talking about a team game. The game number provided shows a game where you and ACC1 don't aggressively attack each other until the end. There was also a private game where it appears as though there was also no real effort by your so-called friend to eliminate you. Perhaps, you may be friends however his in-game actions clearly shows proof that there was nothing done to stop you. Having secret diplomacy IS considered a violation of their rules.

Owen, the private game was a map neither of us ever played before and if you look at the log (which you are making me do which I really don't appreciate since I have better things to do with my time, but you are questioning my integrity) we both battled it out until the last 2 rounds when I was clearly dominant. Other than this private game, I have played a total of 5 other Standard games which had ACC1 as an opponent and in several of those games ACC1 had never even played the map before. All of these but 1 took place over 8 months ago when I had much more experience than ACC1. The most recent standard Standard game I played against ACC1 (4041687 which occurred after ACC1 had played several Pearl Harbor games) ACC1 kicked my butt. Thus, there is just no evidence that I am colluding or somehow profiting by having ACC1 intentionally lose so I can win points. The only games I play with ACC1 now are team games, but I also play team games with many other people. ACC1 happens to be a good player so we sign up for games together. What is illegal about that?

I realize that I have only played you once and my team is currently ahead of your team in that game but I sure wish you had a better reason to call out my integrity. I could totally see your point if I were playing standard games with another player all the time and the logs indicate one person was throwing the game so another could get the points...but that is clearly not what I do. I follow the rules of CC, love the game, have great feedback from people, and am constantly championing the importance of trust and transparent truces, and no breaking of truces without notifying the other player. I realize you have invested alot of time digging up all this information and it is great that we have people on CC that keep the game so honest, but in this case, there is no wrongdoing. I am a good player, and honest player, and a trustworthy player. I hope you can take my word on that and if we play more games together perhaps you will see that for yourself.

Owen, the private game was a map neither of us ever played before and if you look at the log (which you are making me do which I really don't appreciate since I have better things to do with my time, but you are questioning my integrity) we both battled it out until the last 2 rounds when I was clearly dominant. Other than this private game, I have played a total of 5 other Standard games which had ACC1 as an opponent and in several of those games ACC1 had never even played the map before. All of these but 1 took place over 8 months ago when I had much more experience than ACC1. The most recent standard Standard game I played against ACC1 (4041687 which occurred after ACC1 had played several Pearl Harbor games) ACC1 kicked my butt. Thus, there is just no evidence that I am colluding or somehow profiting by having ACC1 intentionally lose so I can win points. The only games I play with ACC1 now are team games, but I also play team games with many other people. ACC1 happens to be a good player so we sign up for games together. What is illegal about that?

I realize that I have only played you once and my team is currently ahead of your team in that game but I sure wish you had a better reason to call out my integrity. I could totally see your point if I were playing standard games with another player all the time and the logs indicate one person was throwing the game so another could get the points...but that is clearly not what I do. I follow the rules of CC, love the game, have great feedback from people, and am constantly championing the importance of trust and transparent truces, and no breaking of truces without notifying the other player. I realize you have invested alot of time digging up all this information and it is great that we have people on CC that keep the game so honest, but in this case, there is no wrongdoing. I am a good player, and honest player, and a trustworthy player. I hope you can take my word on that and if we play more games together perhaps you will see that for yourself.[/quote]


seekmeup41, the fact that ahote stated you guys are all buddies, share the same computer is alarming enough. This would certainly raise more suspicion that there would likely be a case of one of you being a 'multi'. However, based on the fact that the investigator's do a pretty good job...it is unlikely that you are not. And from my own experience hunting down multis, this is specifically why I simply accused you of having secret diplomacy WITH the possibility of being a multi. The multi player game where you and your friend ACC1 battled in the end aggressively as I have stated before is proof that you guys simply traded card spots whilst picking away at your opponents. You stated that you are someone of integrity yet you take a stab that this is all about a team game that we have against you...doesn't that make you a hypocrite? If anything, you're just going to have to wait it out. And if anything, all 3 of you will probably receive a warning. But, I suspect you may receive a block from playing each other again.

seekmeup41 and ACC1 are Busted as multis.

This is an excerpt of a chat we are having in a Team game.

It shows that seekmeup and ACC, whom I both personally know, are not one and the same person and are therefor not multis:

2009-04-28 11:50:36 - seekmeup41 [team]: ok all, this isn't looking so great. ahote, you are going to have to do some damage. maybe you can take the cruisers and clear the navy yard. also, green may have some vals now
2009-04-28 13:06:06 - seekmeup41 [team]: maybe we should try and target red
2009-04-29 13:48:14 - ACC1 [team]: Well I broke green down a bit but I have nothing. Ahote, take V6 and see if you can hurt green around Dry Dock or Oil AA. I think blue is going to hurt us bad if we don't do something soon.
2009-04-29 13:52:35 - seekmeup41 [team]: that makes sense to me. we are blowing this though. ahote should have bmombarded V5 last turn as i think green now will get a vals bonus. i'm only going to get 4 armies so i can't do much. ahote, see if you can take ramsay as well
2009-04-29 14:03:43 - seekmeup41 [team]: well i was wrong about green having vals but blue has both AAs on the island and may have both vals and zeros. not good
2009-04-29 14:41:11 - ahote [team]: Knew green didn't have the vals, buut ACC was right, blue fucked us
2009-04-29 14:43:24 - ahote [team]: the shitty dice won't let up
2009-04-29 14:43:29 - ahote [team]: it's slipping away
2009-04-29 14:43:35 - ahote [team]: set

I would like this taken into account - I am also happy to give a moderator access to my account and he/she can verify that there is three-way conversation thoughtout all our three-man games. Busting them as multis is silly.

if i were a multi, and had 2 accounts, and found someone to partner with me, i would talk as my multi if i were signed in as my multi.

did that make sense? anyways............

NICE CATCH OWEN!

ronc8649 wrote:if i were a multi, and had 2 accounts, and found someone to partner with me, i would talk as my multi if i were signed in as my multi.

did that make sense? anyways............

NICE CATCH OWEN!

No - why would I talk to them as if they were two different people? That would make us both schizophrenic. You guys are making a mistake and frankly, it';s leaving a bad taste in my mouth - mainly because there's an undercurrent of witch hunt here.

I KNOW these are two different people Owen is pissed because we thrashed him once already at Pearl and about to beat his sorry ass again.

Not a 'nice catch' at all. He drags up ONE game, ONE YEAR ago, where allegedly seekmeup and ACC didn't go for each other till the end. That's the evidence. he complains that he wants to lose is points fair and square yet he never played seekmeup and ACC in a multiplayer game - just in team games.

That's no proof - that's paranoid insanity. I feel sorry for you guys.

I've been busted as well or what? My acount's been reduced to fremium. WTF guys?

ronc8649 wrote:if i were a multi, and had 2 accounts, and found someone to partner with me, i would talk as my multi if i were signed in as my multi.

did that make sense? anyways............

NICE CATCH OWEN!

Thanks Ronc. And Ronc, my "sorry ass" isn't the one that's busted. I don't care about the points. I can always get them back. If you took the time to read carefully, my accusations were not only for being 'multis' but having secret diplomacy. And I didn't accuse you simply because your rank is low, most people who have skill/strategy will continually try to rise up in the ranks. And if I DID want to include you in the mix of having secret diplomacy as well, I would have pointed out Game 3295646 shows you CLEARLY not attacking your friend other than for obtaining a card spot, and if anything you two seemed to have ganged up on red. But, hey...I'm not the one that's being accused.

After a reevaluation, these two accounts have been cleared and reinstated.