[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.]
Comments: I am in a game with these two and they made an agreement in game chat to try and slow me down since I had a clear lead (with terts, I was actually barely scrapping by with troops) and this is when there was still 4th player alive. After the 4th player was knocked out Risklover80 has been targeting me, deploying everything they have and advancing on me even though I tried to explain in game chat that since there was only 3 of us and I had been fighting 3 vs 1 for 9 rounds that things are more fair and they need to focus a little on wasp1916 or he would run away with it. Instead of even attempting to take a 1 tert from him or stack against him Risklover80 is still throwing everything they can at me while at the same time blaming me for letting wasp1916 win. I understand that people like to beg for help when they see someone has a huge lead in a game but can in game diplomacy's be until they completely knock out the leader, not make things even, but solely focus on him until he is out? I looked and they have played this map together twice before (all games have been with 4+ total players to start) with Risklover80 winning one and wasp1916 coming in 2nd in the other, coincidence? I maybe being paranoid but I can't wrap my head why Risklover80 wouldn't even be stacking against the leader unless they have an agreement before the game even started to make sure one of them wins.
Comments: I am in a game with these two and they made an agreement in game chat to try and slow me down since I had a clear lead (with terts, I was actually barely scrapping by with troops) and this is when there was still 4th player alive. After the 4th player was knocked out Risklover80 has been targeting me, deploying everything they have and advancing on me even though I tried to explain in game chat that since there was only 3 of us and I had been fighting 3 vs 1 for 9 rounds that things are more fair and they need to focus a little on wasp1916 or he would run away with it. Instead of even attempting to take a 1 tert from him or stack against him Risklover80 is still throwing everything they can at me while at the same time blaming me for letting wasp1916 win. I understand that people like to beg for help when they see someone has a huge lead in a game but can in game diplomacy's be until they completely knock out the leader, not make things even, but solely focus on him until he is out? I looked and they have played this map together twice before (all games have been with 4+ total players to start) with Risklover80 winning one and wasp1916 coming in 2nd in the other, coincidence? I maybe being paranoid but I can't wrap my head why Risklover80 wouldn't even be stacking against the leader unless they have an agreement before the game even started to make sure one of them wins.
* Its no secret if everything is in chat, You can't control a gang up, and its really not against the rules, as long as all Diplomacy is in game chat and/or their not in a bunch of games together taking turns winning, (Which I looked and their not)? Maybe they got carried away with slowing you down?
Maybe they didn't brake the secret diplomacy rule or any rule at all but the agreement that was made was to even things out, not target me until I am completely out. Probably just extremely poor etiquette but now that red has Danzig and Blue has Danzig ship I see no reason for one or the other to advance and/or hold the other one back but they are not. Red not taking at the very least Danzig ship is throwing the game in my opinion because even an idiot would know blue could drop his next deploy there and take Red's bonus and keep advancing. Shrugs. I'm not aiming to get either in trouble, just making sure no rule has been broken and hopefully avoid this unfortunate incident again.
Elaterate wrote:Maybe they didn't brake the secret diplomacy rule or any rule at all but the agreement that was made was to even things out, not target me until I am completely out. Probably just extremely poor etiquette but now that red has Danzig and Blue has Danzig ship I see no reason for one or the other to advance and/or hold the other one back but they are not. Red not taking at the very least Danzig ship is throwing the game in my opinion because even an idiot would know blue could drop his next deploy there and take Red's bonus and keep advancing. Shrugs. I'm not aiming to get either in trouble, just making sure no rule has been broken and hopefully avoid this unfortunate incident again.
If they had an agreement to 'even things out' but still continued to make further attacks when the deal was met, this is still not enough to say they were guilty of cheating. It's still anyone's prerogative to attack anyone they want even if the player being attacked is not the current leader of the game. Call it stupid or call it suspicious but not assaulting who you should be assaulting or not stopping to attack someone because he is no longer in the lead is still not concrete evidence of secret diplomacy. I think it just went down to the (usual) 3 player scenario where one player got the raw end of the attacks from the other two.
