bfunny27 and DBandit70 [CLEARED] KRK

[Belgian Blue]

Accused:

bfunny27
DBandit70


The accused are suspected of:


Other: I dont now if you could call it secret diplomacy but it is clear that the are working togheter and it is not mentioned in the log. They now each other well and dont attack each other. It is clear that they are optimizing in order for one of them to be the winner.

Game number(s):

Game 8870047


Comments:

I have a problem in 8870047 where the situation is that fairman has taken the Paris special and DBandit70 has hold the most bonuses and have the most troops. bfunny27 continuously attacks me even though I have much bigger stacks than DBandit70 and DBandit70 clearly is a bigger threat than me. Since we are talking majors I assume they are now fools playing and can do the threat estimates the same way as I do.

Earlier in the game I was also surprised that bfunny27 took lands from DBandit70 but this never brook his bonus.

It is clear for me that they are helping each other and maximizing there bonuses and attacking me in order for one of them to win the game.

I cannot say that DBandit has done something wrong but he is clearly benefitting from bfunny27´s behaviour.

When I checked them up I see that they have played 900 doubles together…

I must ask you to kick them out.

/Belgian

[JoshyBoy]

I must ask you to kick them out.

Of course sir, right away sir.

[eddie2]

looking at it you could say it might be suspicious because all your opponants are in the same clan. so maybe they are doing this but i have always seen dbandit as a stand up guy.

[jackal31]

these 2 have been pairing together for as long as I can remember....I have never known or suspected them to be multi's

[jefjef]

these 2 have been pairing together for as long as I can remember....I have never known or suspected them to be multi's

Multi is not the complaint. Secret Diplomacy is. These partners should really only be playing team games together, as most long time partners should, instead of against each other and avoid the appearance/temptation of favoritism.

[jackal31]

ah....just did a quick brush and didnt read the details....cant make a defense for them, but I have had a game or two in the past that was set up with doubles intentions that ended up being a 4-player free for all. I at least announced the mistake existed but also verbalized any truces or non-attacks.

[stahrgazer]

Well, I'm in the same clan, so maybe my input won't matter, but..

1) it's not a game they just set up, is it? It's a tournament. I might prefer to join tournaments with clanmates, but I know of no CC rule that says I cannot join a tournament just because I might oppose a clanmate if I do. Point being, these guys didn't just set up a game to attack the odd man out.

2) From the game chat, fairman already won, and at least one of them (bfunny) admits he was unaware of the tournament special rule that let fairman win.

3) From the gamechat, DBandit felt like he was the one being constantly attacked from all sides a few rounds ago.

Thus, while I fully agree that the two team together alot, so I can see why someone might wonder...frankly, I can't see secret diplomacy.

[Belgian Blue]

If I put up a stack of 25 green takes it out eventhough yellow has much smaller stacks neighbouring. He also leaves it with 1 troop (we are in that loop now) for yellow to get an easy spoil. No one waste the troops to take out that size of stacks and then leaves them for the game leader just to cash in.

[stahrgazer]

If I put up a stack of 25 green takes it out eventhough yellow has much smaller stacks neighbouring. He also leaves it with 1 troop (we are in that loop now) for yellow to get an easy spoil. No one waste the troops to take out that size of stacks and then leaves them for the game leader just to cash in.

And if you put up 25 next to me, I'd take it out before a smaller stack, too!!! Large stack, "THREAT!" small stack, "don't go this way and I won't go yours."

If, instead, you left a 1 for an easy spoil, you'd probably find he would, too - that's just common practice in multiplayer games.

Again, these things are common multiplayer strategies, not, "secret diplomacy."

[jackal31]

I have to agree with Stahr here....its not that uncommon for someone to knock out a stack.....I would consider it a potential threat.

[Belgian Blue]

Ok let me elaborate a bit I have put up small stacks I have put up large stacks and green uses the same behavoiur every time. Yellow has stacks (what I can see) in the same size. And my stacks is not the size that they are a threat to green. The context is also that yellow holds 2 bonus area which are in conjunction with green and he have never brokken them.

[jefjef]

I have to agree with Stahr here....its not that uncommon for someone to knock out a stack.....I would consider it a potential threat.

True. It's also not uncommon for good partners/friends + clan mates to favor each other even if unintentionally. It's also not uncommon for players to target the highest rank even if strategically unsound and to the point of it losing them the game.

[reptile]

I have to agree with Stahr here....its not that uncommon for someone to knock out a stack.....I would consider it a potential threat.

True. It's also not uncommon for good partners/friends + clan mates to favor each other even if unintentionally. It's also not uncommon for players to target the highest rank even if strategically unsound and to the point of it losing them the game.

I would have to agree that it could look suspicious if you are looking for a secret diplomacy. I am sure i could come up with quite a few games that i could probably make a case for it easily if i wanted to and was looking for it... even against higher ranks.

I have known both players a long time and have never heard of anyone else accuse them of anything like this... why is this tournament so much more important than any of the other tournaments they have joined with their 900+ games together.

[Belgian Blue]

This is why I choose "other" not "secret diplomacy". Probably they dont send mail to each other but is clear they choose to play in a way they wouldnt have played if they didnt know each other. I can agree that it is unlucky for them to end up in the same game in this tournament but even more unlucky for me...

[SirSebstar]

This is why I choose "other" not "secret diplomacy". Probably they dont send mail to each other but is clear they choose to play in a way they wouldnt have played if they didnt know each other. I can agree that it is unlucky for them to end up in the same game in this tournament but even more unlucky for me...

I totally disagree.
I play in the same tournament. I held paris for 4 rounds. then proceded to take 2 continents. Once I got them had have 3 very nice stacks, everybody suicided into me... Secret diplomacy? no, but collective awareness that I was the gameleader and needed to be killed...

now, you show 2 clan players where one knew there was a special rule, and the other was quietly building. It seems to me, that the building player was left alone long enough for him to establish a position. the paris player is looking for a sure tournament win as opposed to a possible game win. different choises, but both valid.

no SD, no other. all within the rules. That is, unless you have more to show us to point out foul play.

[Belgian Blue]

Problem is that you mix the players up. The clan member that knows the special rule and holds Paris is not part of it. It is the other 2 (members of the same clan...)

/BB

[SirSebstar]

Problem is that you mix the players up. The clan member that knows the special rule and holds Paris is not part of it. It is the other 2 (members of the same clan...)

/BB

I stand corrected.
Still other posters have pointed out they see no SD. anything else to offer then a random placement in the tournament that brought them together and them being in the same clan?

[stahrgazer]

Ok let me elaborate a bit I have put up small stacks I have put up large stacks and green uses the same behavoiur every time. Yellow has stacks (what I can see) in the same size. And my stacks is not the size that they are a threat to green. The context is also that yellow holds 2 bonus area which are in conjunction with green and he have never brokken them.

Have you ever left a few single regions instead of any stack?

In other words, have you given the other player any reason to think that you won't respect "trade regions"?

If he feels he's in the middle, is he going to risk everything to go after the other player's bonus, as a suicide mission so you can swarm him?

So, it's not secret diplomacy, as you have admitted. Then, could it be that the only "other" is that he is protecting the border that he believes has been a constant threat to him?

Add to that, you are the higher rank, which automatically can look like the biggest threat.

It may not "be fair" for lower rank players to assault the higher ranks first, but it's common to do so.

[Belgian Blue]

I dont see Majors attaking higher ranks just for the attacking of higher ranks as that usual. Also to take out a stack (time and time again) just to leave one troop there for the game leader to get an easy spoil every turn makes no sense. Higher ranks stack threat, what so ever.

Regarding the constant threat towards his borde no the same border is shared by three players and I have used it to attack the gameleader and I have also indicated that in the chat so there is no reason at all for green to feel threatend

[Belgian Blue]

Still believe I was right but they ended up in a situation they didnt wanted to be in and seems to be good fellows. Just wished they had admitted it and let me win

Over and out

/BB

[DBandit70]

I honestly am in disbelief that these accusations have been made against me and to be honest I am very hurt by them. These fascinations by the accuser into a secret diplomacy is both negligent and defaming to my name on CC that I have for years worked hard and gone above and beyond to hold in the highest respect. So much so am I disturbed by this that if he were in my country and he did this I would counter sue him for recklessness in defaming my name. The game in question was a tournament game. I did not set it up and did not choose in any way who was going to be in my game. I am surprised the tournament director was not named in this conspiracy as being the hand to make this happen. I do not play in games against my longtime friend and partner bfunny27 unless we are a doubles team, but here the tournament director had us on a collision course that not only found my partner and I drawing the same game, but a third clan mate as well. As for secret diplomacy, I can point out that this tournament game had a twist in that if a player held Paris for 2 rounds they win points toward the tournament and the accuser of us did nothing to prevent Fairman from holding it, when he was the most able. Was that a backroom deal? The point is, as others have made in previous posts is that secret diplomacy cases can be made in many games of this nature. Regardless, never did I do anything to help anyone but myself win that game by implying nothing more than sound strategy that is common to a 4 player fog game. In conclusion, the accuser, whose name I am too upset to even name has been Foe'd until a written and formal apology is given to myself and bfunny27 and fairman. A good name is more precious than anything and for someone to recklessly launch an assault to defame and discredit my name is the one that needs to be reprimanded. For all those that know me and have taken some time out to comment, my many thanks and kind regards.

[Belgian Blue]

I have never accused fariman of anything. And I put all my troops on taking Paris from him. And thoose are facts that can be verified

[misher]

Checking logs you can see at the end that they acted more as doubles partners and didn't hit each other even though they were the stronger and more dangerous enemy.

But its very difficult to prove diplomacy did indeed occur, I know I'd be less likely to attack my friends/clanmates in a game, most people would. They could of merely chose to do what they did, theres no clear sign of collaboration.

[SirSebstar]

its a flat rate game, you build, yo9u dont attack when someone else can do the dirty work for you. they just had a better view of the game then you

[pascalleke]

funny
especially Belgian Blue was reported by me on this game Game 5690173 bcs he and his friends all jumped on me ( to me obvious an secret diplomacy ) and as i remember, i send an e ticket at that time , they all got a warning
But u can read in gamechat they just wanted a private game , so my guess was they agreed on taking me out bcs poor lil me was so stupid to jump in an open game

so really funny all of this

Final note : u just cant expect every one doing the things u like in standerd games , its making decisions wich are the most likely in ur own intrest , even borders and bonus not broken or broken and well/poorly/not defended , other stacks attacked wich u would think they would be left alone , and stack left alone wich u would like to be attacked ...all things that are just ways of tactics , and since we are all different we all play our own tactics ,so to my point of view and reading the gamelogs i dont see any SD here. What concerns the favorisme of those being friend and "using this tactic " , is this maybee ur point of view , but i dont think those 2 guys would do such things.In games like this its just a mather of looking at it with ur own ideas , do what u think its best for urself ...thats all .As i said u cant expect everybody doing what u think would work best or in ur intrest. I have many games with friends but wenn they are not in my team i always try to win and beat all the rest , think they have done the same.And yeah i dont like playing standerds because too many people can do things i dont agree or silly me just dont like , even i can think man ; what a noob move but its all on winning ur game for urself in standerds.
And as being guilty on anything , i believe they are just guilty on making moves u just did not agree on , nothing more and nothing else.