Conquer Club

example 3

Game 215644

4 player game where they team up on the other 2 players. take notice they dint attack each other until the other 2 players were eliminated. than they battled it out for the points.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:example 3

Game 215644

4 player game where they team up on the other 2 players. take notice they dint attack each other until the other 2 players were eliminated. than they battled it out for the points.

I believe there was 1 solitary mutual attack between the 2 brothers, green and red, prior to round 9:

2007-02-07 01:00:32 - risk master2000 attacked GoldenPalace.com from Arizona and conquered it from Soloman

Once the other 2 players were killed off:
2007-02-07 01:20:04 - Soloman eliminated your granny from the game in round - 8
2007-02-07 01:22:56 - risk master2000 eliminated Ska from the game in round - 8

2007-02-07 01:26:07 - Incrementing game to round 9

2007-02-07 01:24:32 - risk master2000 attacked Colorado from Not Mexico and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:24:49 - risk master2000 attacked Brigham from Colorado and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:25:08 - risk master2000 attacked GoldenPalace.com from Brigham and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:25:23 - risk master2000 attacked Arkansas from Missouri and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:27:26 - Soloman attacked Missouri from Illinois and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:27:34 - Soloman attacked Arkansas from Missouri and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:27:50 - Soloman attacked Corn from Missouri and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:28:13 - risk master2000 attacked ORGN-0100 from GoldenPalace.com and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:28:18 - Soloman attacked Nebraska from Corn and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:28:31 - Soloman attacked Oz from Nebraska and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:29:10 - Soloman attacked Colorado from Oz and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:29:21 - Soloman attacked Brigham from Colorado and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:29:29 - Soloman attacked Arizona from Brigham and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:29:37 - Soloman attacked Not Mexico from Arizona and conquered it from risk master2000

2007-02-07 01:31:56 - Incrementing game to round 10

2007-02-07 01:32:32 - risk master2000 attacked Brigham from GoldenPalace.com and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:32:44 - risk master2000 attacked Colorado from Brigham and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:32:57 - Soloman attacked Brigham from Arizona and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:32:58 - risk master2000 attacked Oz from Colorado and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:33:11 - risk master2000 attacked Missouri from Oz and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:33:12 - Soloman attacked Colorado from Brigham and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:33:23 - risk master2000 attacked Arkansas from Missouri and conquered it from Soloman
2007-02-07 01:33:34 - Soloman attacked Oz from Colorado and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:33:43 - Soloman attacked Missouri from Oz and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:33:50 - Soloman attacked Arkansas from Missouri and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:34:32 - Soloman attacked GoldenPalace.com from Brigham and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:34:42 - Soloman attacked ORGN-0100 from GoldenPalace.com and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:34:49 - Soloman attacked NoCal from ORGN-0100 and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:35:09 - Soloman attacked SoCal from NoCal and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:35:16 - Soloman attacked Baja California from SoCal and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:35:23 - Soloman attacked Hawaii from Baja California and conquered it from risk master2000
2007-02-07 01:35:23 - Soloman eliminated risk master2000 from the game


Well i suppose this could be completely innocent with regards intent... but there appears to be at least a subconscious taboo for either brother to attack one another.

Having looked over some of the other games too, I can only conclude that there is an indisputable pattern which does not adhere to the spirit of the game! (at the very least).

example 4

Game 1699508

never attacked each other. they teamed up and still lost !

example 5

Game 1670319

never attacked each other. take special note how they both attacked the walls of 10 to form a border and than teamed up on green. it dint work and green eliminated 1 of them for the cards. nice to see them lose this game.

example 6

Game 402690

this game was too funny to ignore. only 1 attack against each other and it was in round 1. yellow plays first and forts his 2 armies so when his brother plays the very next turn, he has an easy card to take. that was the only attack against each other. true sign of secret alliance.

example 7

Game 261101

again, there is only 2 attacks vs each other ( to get an easy card ) until the end where red eliminates green for his cards and wins the game the same turn with the extra set of cards to cash in.

I truely dont understand how all these examples were missed.

mods... how many more examples are needed ?

I think we need more.

Game 162288 Soloman eliminates Risk Master2000 round 6 Game Continue till round 9 Soloman loses

Game 181523 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 almost every round back and forth through whole game

Game 181648 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 almost every round back and forth through whole game

Game 182005 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 almost every round back and forth through whole game

Game 184936 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 almost every round back and forth through whole game

Game 189782 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 make more attack against each other then anyone else

Game 195969 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 massive attacks against each other begginning round 2

Game 215641 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 massive attacks against each other begginning round 2

Game 217419 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 Majority of Solomans Attacks against Risk Master2000

Game 261101 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 Risk Master makes attacks against Soloman every Round

Game 290752 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 Risk Master massively attacks Soloman starting round 1

Game 298110 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 massive attacks against each other begginning round 1

Game 306474 Soloman is eliminated by Risk Master2000 round 5 massive attacks Risk Master2000 Wins

Game 1666665 Soloman eliminates Risk Master2000 round 3 Game Continue till round 6 Soloman loses

Game 1743531 Soloman battles Risk Master2000, dumb attack made by Risk that cost them both game

Game 2248455 Soloman battles Risk Master2000 massive attacks against each other begginning round 3


I have listed all these games to illustrate the lack of logic used in this accusation as can be seen by reviewing all of the above the determining factors are proximity bonus and threat for our attacks against each other and everyone else. The only way again that this accusation holds ground is if one abandons strategy in every game they are in with someone they know and go suicidal against that person just because they know them.

Are there games where we do not attack each other a lot yeah as there are games against people we do not know where we do not attack a lot or any, but any one with sense that reads the log knows that the attacks are out of trying to win not out of preference. Considering Mr. Rocket is one of the so called elite he should know better then this stupidity and baselessness but as he has a vendetta against me and my family for some reason he tosses out logic and strategy when making these accusations.

He ignores the facts and bends the truth to attempt to build a case and as was pointed out in games earlier he has no explanation or rebuttal for the games that clearly shows massive aggression from start Between Risk And I. The irony is the Mods Cleared me after reviewing the 33 standard or terminator games we have played together, soI invite you Johnny to explain away the facts of the above games and other majority of games previously mentioned and to further rationalize why we should attack each other in games where there is no threat or bonus impeded by the other....

Game 162288

the first game you have listed, is not back and forth. you attacked him 1 time ( to obtain an easy card ) the entire game until he was eliminated for his cards. Im not going to even bother to check the rest now because you cant even deffend yourself with true facts.

the bottom line is, you and your brother have been teaming up on other players in singles games. this example now makes 8 games. If the mods need more examples than I will provide more. the funny thing is, you two have stopped cheating and have not played a game together since I have busted you. another true sign of your cheating. I will not stop with examples until you are blocked. you already got the BS reversal on the multi accounts. I dont understand how you can be a multi and than not a multi. there are steps in place to determine if a player is a multi. you must have met those requirments to been busted. How that could have been determined incorrect is beyond me. I think that needs to be rexamined also.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Game 162288

the first game you have listed, is not back and forth. you attacked him 1 time ( to obtain an easy card ) the entire game until he was eliminated for his cards. Im not going to even bother to check the rest now because you cant even deffend yourself with true facts.

the bottom line is, you and your brother have been teaming up on other players in singles games. this example now makes 8 games. If the mods need more examples than I will provide more. the funny thing is, you two have stopped cheating and have not played a game together since I have busted you. another true sign of your cheating.

Your coppout defense of not wanting to check is Further proof you have no argument, opportunity drove those attack as it should in any game against anyone. YOu also failed to check timestamps as we have played against each other since your false accusation you have no case and do not even have your facts straight you cannot defend your position nor refute any game mentioned, JR let the vendetta go you are wrong and petty when proven so...

Soloman

any responses to the 8 examples I pointed out or do we need more examples of your secret alliances ?

I changed the title to reflect the new evidence presented, but I haven't had a chance to go through it yet. I'm a bit sick now, so it might be awhile. Be patient and no flaming! Thanks.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Soloman

any responses to the 8 examples I pointed out or do we need more examples of your secret alliances ?

pretty foolish of not looking nor reading I explained what need to be explained and one of your examples is amongst my list as said strategy is all that is involved in every game read the posts following the list of games for all the explanation needed you take another loss with each incorrect and ignorant post you make...

wicked wrote:I changed the title to reflect the new evidence presented, but I haven't had a chance to go through it yet. I'm a bit sick now, so it might be awhile. Be patient and no flaming! Thanks.

Please take your time and review all the games mentioned by both and once a decision is rendered can you please lock this as it is getting quite annoying repeating myself and the facts over and over again...

The appearance of inpropriety is 90% of any case.

Look at it from a fraud standpoint.
Someone is stealing from monetary tranactions in a company. The fact they aren't doing it to every single one means nothing more than they are smart enough to realize that that would just get them caught faster. As long as there is proof they are doing it to some, they are still guilty regardless of whether or not they can say "Look at these 100 transactions, nothing wrong there!"

So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

I've taken a close look at the examples that JR and Soloman have given and I have arrived at the following conclusion.

It's indisputable that Soloman and Risk Master2000 favor each other on this web site. The evidence is as clear as day. They do it in games and they do it in the forum. They defend each other with a vengeance which is to be expected as they are brothers. Soloman, being the older one, watches over Risk Master2000 and sticks up for him any time that there is an issue. One can look at the threads in the forums and see for oneself. Risk Master2000, the little brother, does his best to emulate Soloman and is very aggressive in protecting him.

The forums have nothing to do with the games but they do show a clear pattern of protectiveness and loyalty. While this is an admirable quality in the real world; it does not lend itself to fairness in game play.

The simple fact is that they do favor each other in game play as much as they favor each other in different circumstances and venues. JR can argue till he's blue in the face that Soloman and Risk Master2000 are involved in a complex cheating conspiracy and Soloman can do the same thing with JR. I don't think that this issue is that complex. Nor do I think that Soloman and Risk Master2000 need some kind of harsh punishment.

However, I do know that there is clear favoritism that creates an unfair disadvantage for other players. All that you have to do, as has been suggested by Soloman, is to look at the game logs. The pattern is consistent throughout all of there games. All things being equal, they have and will attack other players early in the game before they go after each other. Soloman has argued, correctly, that they to attack each other in games. While this is true, it does not change the fact; that they will defend and favor each other, especially, early in the game.

What can be done and what should be done? I'm sure JR would give his front teeth to see Soloman and Risk Master2000 tared and feathered. The only people that need to be considered in this process are the players that have and will be affected by Soloman and Risk Master2000. Players that are unfamiliar with Soloman and Risk Master2000's relationship would be at a distinct disadvantage, especially, in a three player game.

There is a simple solution. Soloman and Risk Master2000 should not be allowed to play with each other except in team and 1 vs.1 games. That simple. Many players that have contributed their opinions to this thread have suggested the very same thing. I know that Soloman and Risk Master2000 have made an effort to avoid games with each other as they have learned; it leads to trouble. That willingness shows that there is a problem and a solution is needed.

Cisco2001

The only true fact you people are using is that we know each other and how the other plays so you attempt to present it as favortism, but if we did not know each other and were to attack each other hard and early in the games we are accused of we would be suiciding. It is funnyt the lack of logic in that I play consistantly with the same strategy just about every game whether or not it is against my brother, I begin by finding fortifying the position that is most advantages to me and work to secure that then attack others based upon need of territory and threat potential.

Thee record for anyone that uses that as a basis for the formula of my attacks will see that in some games with Anton I must attack him early and in others I do not same as everyone else on the board. If you objectively look at the games and obscure the fact we are related you will see the consistancy in those attacks more so when you compare to games we are not playing each other. Also what is ignored in just about every exampleJR has used is the retaliation factor from a opponent attacking one of us and one of hitting our opponent back.

Again if you view it objectively that is anatural response to large attacks on an individual, but if you obscure it through these insane accussatory standards that is showing favortism because we are not attacking each other. The double standard that is used for this accusations is insane and I am sure I could go through each accussers games and find games where the attack patterns fall similar to the few we are accused on By Johnny. I am not gfoing to as this is getting insane with all of the senseless hate and tactless vision involved in these continued assaults against My brothers and myselfs integrity.

You can hate on Anton for being a ass in his games and chat that is fine and your perogative, you can dislike me for my unflinching resolve and aptitude at displaying hypocrisy again that is great and to each there own. BUt my family unlike a lot of people has a system and sense of honor and I will not sit idley by and say nothing in response to blatantly biased lies that have no grounding in the reality of the enviroment from which they spring. So to JR, Cisco and anyone else on the anti family play or JR is the greatest bandwagon get over yourselves.

You have caught some guilty people Johnny and falsely accused other such as my brother and I , and I am sure this will not be your last false accusation but you are wrong and need to look at things a bit more objectively and stop attempting to be an inquisitor the middle ages are over...

BeakerWMA wrote:So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

all of the games had normal attack patterns I pointed to games where those normal attack patterns fell on the each other because of positioning, strength, strategy, threat and opportunity...

Soloman wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

all of the games had normal attack patterns I pointed to games where those normal attack patterns fell on the each other because of positioning, strength, strategy, threat and opportunity...

it could be pattern of play which is creating this bias towards particular opponents in any one game.
if so, there should be comparable evidence, in game-logs, to show that this is not favouritism to your brother but a strategy which causes the seeming anomaly.

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

all of the games had normal attack patterns I pointed to games where those normal attack patterns fell on the each other because of positioning, strength, strategy, threat and opportunity...

it could be pattern of play which is creating this bias towards particular opponents in any one game.
if so, there should be comparable evidence, in game-logs, to show that this is not favouritism to your brother but a strategy which causes the seeming anomaly.

did you think or read all that has been posted before that post my games posted showed the pattern when it against my brother and JR's when it benefits my brother but the consistancy is there if you weigh it all together then to add more support you look at games where I use the same basic strategy where he is not involved in the game...It is really Maddening that logic used for any argument is that I do not immediately go allout against my brother from round 1 and that I only attack him when it is convenient and even worse that even though in the majority of my games with him we do have massive battles early on that the few we do not are signs of preferential treatment i.e. the stealing money analogy.

Does anyone who is not a continual cook attack allout against some that poses no threat and does not impede his/her bonus from round 1? out of 33 games the fact that there is a minority amount of games where I do not attack him early or hardly at all should further exhonerate and if anything proves true regular gameplay as in all games there are opponents that either do not pose a threat or are already being pounded by a mutual opponent. As is shown in 1 of JR's examples which I reused in my defense and a few others I listed I take the 1st opportunity to take him out as it presents itself same as anyone would any player.

If I was showing true preferential treatment I would defend him in those scenerios from attack and allow him to rebuild but that point of logic is missed and replaced again with 1 where normal attack patterns are trivialized. Before any of you hating hypocrites precede with further illogical accussation weigh in the facts and basic logic presented here objectively, in the end all my brother and I are being accused of is playing in the same games using the same strategies we both normally use do we adjust based on knowing the playing style of the other of course same as when playing anyone you know there playing style so ultimately the evidence shows we battle each other normally

Soloman wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

all of the games had normal attack patterns I pointed to games where those normal attack patterns fell on the each other because of positioning, strength, strategy, threat and opportunity...

it could be pattern of play which is creating this bias towards particular opponents in any one game.
if so, there should be comparable evidence, in game-logs, to show that this is not favouritism to your brother but a strategy which causes the seeming anomaly.

did you think or read all that has been posted before that post my games posted showed the pattern when it against my brother and JR's when it benefits my brother but the consistancy is there if you weigh it all together then to add more support you look at games where I use the same basic strategy where he is not involved in the game...It is really Maddening that logic used for any argument is that I do not immediately go allout against my brother from round 1 and that I only attack him when it is convenient and even worse that even though in the majority of my games with him we do have massive battles early on that the few we do not are signs of preferential treatment i.e. the stealing money analogy.

Does anyone who is not a continual cook attack allout against some that poses no threat and does not impede his/her bonus from round 1? out of 33 games the fact that there is a minority amount of games where I do not attack him early or hardly at all should further exhonerate and if anything proves true regular gameplay as in all games there are opponents that either do not pose a threat or are already being pounded by a mutual opponent. As is shown in 1 of JR's examples which I reused in my defense and a few others I listed I take the 1st opportunity to take him out as it presents itself same as anyone would any player.

If I was showing true preferential treatment I would defend him in those scenerios from attack and allow him to rebuild but that point of logic is missed and replaced again with 1 where normal attack patterns are trivialized. Before any of you hating hypocrites precede with further illogical accussation weigh in the facts and basic logic presented here objectively, in the end all my brother and I are being accused of is playing in the same games using the same strategies we both normally use do we adjust based on knowing the playing style of the other of course same as when playing anyone you know there playing style so ultimately the evidence shows we battle each other normally

yes fair enough mate, but do you have 6 to 10 games in which you only attack any other player (not the same player necessarily, but 6 to 10 different players to your brother) only once or twice and a single troop for a card and then attack them decisively once all other players have been eliminated?
If you can find that in the game log then i am sure anyone would concede that it may simply be your gaming style and not in fact a questionable tactic and abuse of the spirit of the game.

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:So in essence what I'm saying is:

The fact you can point to a bunch of games where normal attack patterns happened (say 60%), doesn't negate the ones where the attack patterns were obviously favourable to one or the other (say 40%).

The actual percentages I will leave to the Mods to determine.

all of the games had normal attack patterns I pointed to games where those normal attack patterns fell on the each other because of positioning, strength, strategy, threat and opportunity...

it could be pattern of play which is creating this bias towards particular opponents in any one game.
if so, there should be comparable evidence, in game-logs, to show that this is not favouritism to your brother but a strategy which causes the seeming anomaly.

did you think or read all that has been posted before that post my games posted showed the pattern when it against my brother and JR's when it benefits my brother but the consistancy is there if you weigh it all together then to add more support you look at games where I use the same basic strategy where he is not involved in the game...It is really Maddening that logic used for any argument is that I do not immediately go allout against my brother from round 1 and that I only attack him when it is convenient and even worse that even though in the majority of my games with him we do have massive battles early on that the few we do not are signs of preferential treatment i.e. the stealing money analogy.

Does anyone who is not a continual cook attack allout against some that poses no threat and does not impede his/her bonus from round 1? out of 33 games the fact that there is a minority amount of games where I do not attack him early or hardly at all should further exhonerate and if anything proves true regular gameplay as in all games there are opponents that either do not pose a threat or are already being pounded by a mutual opponent. As is shown in 1 of JR's examples which I reused in my defense and a few others I listed I take the 1st opportunity to take him out as it presents itself same as anyone would any player.

If I was showing true preferential treatment I would defend him in those scenerios from attack and allow him to rebuild but that point of logic is missed and replaced again with 1 where normal attack patterns are trivialized. Before any of you hating hypocrites precede with further illogical accussation weigh in the facts and basic logic presented here objectively, in the end all my brother and I are being accused of is playing in the same games using the same strategies we both normally use do we adjust based on knowing the playing style of the other of course same as when playing anyone you know there playing style so ultimately the evidence shows we battle each other normally

yes fair enough mate, but do you have 6 to 10 games in which you only attack any other player (not the same player necessarily, but 6 to 10 different players to your brother) only once or twice and a single troop for a card and then attack them decisively once all other players have been eliminated?
If you can find that in the game log then i am sure anyone would concede that it may simply be your gaming style and not in fact a questionable tactic and abuse of the spirit of the game.

Based upon your statement you clearly have done no research and are only attempt stir the pot,get past the fact that your crappy idea and its flaws were pointed out by me and you are welcome to search my 400+ standard games to disprove the facts I am sure you will find in the end you have wasted your time and the consistancy is there. So unless you have proof that it does not occur as I have stated and anyone with basic objective view can see or that the rules have changed and I must attack someone I know and go all out when it is not to my advantage in a game due to the fact we know each other please get over the false senseless accussations and illogical retorts...

i am trying to give you a way to end the speculation on your honour. It is very simple for you to do and would give fairly irrefutable evidence of your innocence.

if you can not find the evidence then that is a shame.