buddhabelly [Closed]

[stealth99]

Accused: buddhabelly

The accused are suspected of:Intentionally agreeing to a vague alliance for the deviant purpose of breaking it when it suited his purpose.

Game 6360945

Comments: For your information and so you can update your Foe list by adding buddhabelly to it. In my game I proposed a very specific truce. I had a terit that green needed and he had one that I needed in the lower left corner of the Supermax Prison Riot map; by the administration area. I don't know if that area has a name or not (please pm me or reply here if you know the name of that area, I'd love to know it). There are 6 terits there and they are always contested.

buddhabelly was to free move his extra troops away from the terit I needed.I'd attack it and move my extra troops from the terit he needed so he could attack it. Very simple and equally beneficial with no down side. Not only do we get the terit we need easy, but don't have to waste future troops defending it.

His response: "Let's see what happens before my next turn". Who in the heck responds to a truce proposal that way, you can almost see it coming. When I read that I knew immediately that this had trouble written all over it so I tried to be careful with this guy. I wait and sure enough buddhabelly accepts. Or at least I thought he did because he moved the armies from the terit I wanted so I could attack it. Since the terit he moved them to had absolutely no value to him, there could be no other reason for him using a free move this way, but to be absolutely sure I responded again with a confirmation. "It's now all yours, you don't have to defend from attacks from me for those five items (terits)...."

Round 7 out of no where buddhabelly attacks. His excuse: "???...did i ever accept a truce??? you must be thinking of another game" and "you offered one, and i said wait and see until after the next round" and "never accepted one". Then he tries the logic game and despite the fact that he was offered was a gang member of a gang that he was holding the leader, he responds, "and plus, strategically, that would do nothing for me, only good for you".

The honesty and credibility of buddhabelly is very clear in those responses. Basically he knew there could be no 'court room' proof that he entered into the truce so he's break it. He needs to learn that there is more than one way to indicate your consent or agreement to a truce. It's nothing formal and if you want to break one you don't need to play games, just make it and break it. Either way he's judged the same. Besides his acceptance of the truce proposal, he also failed to respond for several rounds to my confirmation that the truce was on. His actions indicated that he does indeed read the chat, every round. So the only conclusion is that this was planned on his part.

I've just mostly provided facts and for the most part tried to refrain from opinion so you can make your own judgement and take your own action. His responses have since mostly been an attempt to change the subject and confuse and create a secondary issue by trying to attack the accuser, me. I'm having no part of it, the topic is simple; buddhabelly will actually stoop that low to win a game.

I've come to the conclusion there is no debate and for me to debate this just gives credibility to his lame defense. Therefore I will not likely respond to replies unless someone is seeking info.

Cheers and may the dice be on your side

[THORNHEART]

are you fucking kidding me?


go get a life.

[stealth99]

The only reply I have for thornhill is this. Buddhabelly I told you that people may not agree with truces and feel I got what I deserve by getting in one in the first place and I absolutely respect that and have no defense. However, no one will look at these set of facts and respect your play or consider it anything but dishonest and low. I said if they do they will be your friend.

Lo and behold, the first response, right after I pm'd you the link as promised, is from a guy who has played at least 10 games with you. When you look at the game chat from virtually any of those games you get mostly stuff like this.

THORNHEART: yellow ur a freakng moron

Is that your new hero buddhabelly? Players with no respect for rules and others are what turns your crank to the point you have to send me a pm celebrating the percieved support? I'm not so sure he was supporting you, he just hates people who turn in people like you because it keeps him in line. As he found out tonight with the sanction.

[Snowgun]

Unfortunately stealth this is part of the game. That's why I don't make truces. And this doesn't constitute a viable C&A infraction.

So my best advice would be for you to FAMO.

[THORNHEART]

i dont give a shit about buddhabelly. he aint my friend for sure but calling someone a moron in one game doesnt mean i havnt had other good games with him.

i do care that little tools like you are running around in C&A making pointless accusations

you see while i may think buddhabelly is a tool that doesnt mean i wont stick up for him and protect him from having his name blemished with a lie.


btw you arnt scaring my with that threatening pm. thats called blackmail. I dont really want to have to post that so everyone can see what a sniveling coward you are.

btw bring on all your shit m8 post some accusations against me friend. be a spurious little troll and try and be vindictive and get back at me.

in fact the very idea of trying to blackmail me out of helping buddhabelly could be considered pm abuse so if i was you id tread careful

[thegreekdog]

I don't believe there are formal rules on truces. Additionally, I do not believe the breaking of truces is a punishable offense (at least with respect to administrative warnings, bans, and the like). So, I believe you will get a ruling of "foe and move on" (or FAMO).

That being said, you did propose a specific truce and buddhabelly responded with a "wait and see," which in my mind is not remotely an acceptance of any truce or deal. In fact, if this was a contract, this would be considered a counter-offer, essentially voiding your original offer. Now, you might say that buddhabelly's move that turn was evidence that he accepted your truce; however, because he did not accept your truce in the game chat, I do not believe he did accept your truce. I certainly would not have assumed that he accepted a truce that I offered had the circumstances been the same in a game I played with him.

In sum, while you may find his actions despicable and deplorable, the vast majority of the CC community will find his actions reasonable. Therefore, I would not expect that this will result in any disciplinary action and I do not expect many people will foe him.

[buddhabelly]

thanks greekdog,
i gave up a long time ago on this guy, and i am trying to not waste any more of my time with him.
buddha

[king sam]

unfortunately stealth99 this is a facet of the game, and while you may have got the raw end of the stick here it is not a violation of CC policies or rules.

Feel free to leave whatever ratings you feel are just for this individual as well as Foeing him. FAMO.

Closed

KS

[THORNHEART]

Re: hey

Sent: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:19 am
From: stealth99
To: THORNHEART
To start with you never told me anything.

To end with, not once did I say this guy broke any rules or that there was a rule against breaking truces. I've always been aware that we do this on our own and the site doesn't police it.

Our only recourse is to give bad rating and in my case I got his name out there big time so people could add him to their foe list because your friend is a scum bag.

So I"m not sure why you claim victory unless it's desperation. All in all, you guys paid a big price for his low life move. Yet you seem happy, I can't imagine what would happpen if you actually won.

The lengthy discussion in two of our games plus all the other stuff that's been documented probably has me noting that it wasn't a rule violation 15 or 20 times. Had you indicated to me that he didn't break any rules I would have quickly agreed.

Just how is it that you can see something like that and then remember a conversation that didn't happen where you "told ya"?

Another teenage thing I guess, big dreamers.

Re: hey

Sent: Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:22 am
From: stealth99
To: THORNHEART
Also the very first line of my thread indicates clearly that the thread is just so he gets identified publically so people can update their foe list. No mention of a rule violation.

Darn, and you thought you had me. You lose again.

DOESNT HE CLEARLY state that he knew no rules had been broken but he did this just to defame buddha? how is this not abusing C&A

[stealth99]

you did propose a specific truce and buddhabelly responded with a "wait and see," which in my mind is not remotely an acceptance of any truce or deal. In fact, if this was a contract, this would be considered a counter-offer, essentially voiding your original offer.

greek I fully respect anyone who disagrees with me or has a different opinion. What I take issue with is someone offering a reply that is dressed up as a legal opinion while calling it fact when it is so very wrong. It does appear as if you've taken a law 101 class (or watched a lot of Matlock), so why would you guess at this stuff and put it in the forum when it's just that, a guess? Since you refer to contracts and their legal issues I'll set that record straight for you and anyone else interested. I can't claim to be a lawyer but I do have legal training way beyond law 101, received in a 7 year accounting program. Further to this, to remain credible and to ensure correct information is passed along to others, I have taken the time to research this issue on the net and in my law text books to avoid an incorrect assumption. Most of this stuff is common sense and comes from Brittish Common Law.

His comment "wait and see" is not a counter-offer. If it were a counter-offer 'the ball would be in my court' to accept, reject or counter his counter-offer. How do you accept an offer called "wait and see"? Since there was nothing for me to respond to and no possible reason to respond, the original offer was still on the table. He had merely indicated to me that he was considering my offer and wanted a little more time to respond. Keep in mind that in CC truces are not formal, they are just based on honesty, intent and trust.

In sum, while you may find his actions despicable and deplorable, the vast majority of the CC community will find his actions reasonable. Therefore, I would not expect that this will result in any disciplinary action and I do not expect many people will foe him.

I don't know if you are a moderator or not, but I do believe it's reckless for you to speak for the CC Community stating what the "vast majority willconclude. That's just claiming support for your position without giving people a chance to decide for themselves. I did not resort to legal opinions, terms and the like in any of my previous communications (and I thought of it) because the act of forming truces is not a game rule, not monitored or policed by CC and is merely based on the trust, intent and the honour system. Proving he legally broke the truce (or contract) does nothing for me. I also thought it would rub people the wrong way for me to come across like that so I just wanted to put the facts out there and allow players to completely form their own unbiased opinions.

Respectfully, I am of the opinionthat there isn't a single person in the CC Community who would find his actions reasonable; contrary to your statement. He was offered a very specific truce proposal. He indicated that he needed one turn to ponder it. Then he carried out the necessary actions that were required of him in my truce proposal. The actions he carried out could not be considered coincidence as there was no benefit to him for making this play. The truce required him to move armies into a terit that had absolutely no benefit to him. And he did exactly that! Further to this, I immediately verbally confirmed the truce in the game chat and several rounds went by with nothing from him. You neglected to mention that fact.

He subsequently acted as if he had a truce in place and never fortified next to me and never attacked me. Any experienced player (as he is)would not have taken such a risk for several rounds, again, in my humble opinion. I have not played a game where the six isolated terits in question have not been acquired by one player within the very first few rounds. They are alwayshotly contested. After our truce, we never had any attacking or army placement or fortification until he subsequently attacked me in round 10 thus breaking our truce.

Again, I don't think any player on the site would respect being deceived that way. He intended for me to believe we had a truce. That can't be argued. He intentionally withheld verbal agreement for the purpose of breaking the truce later. I don't believe that can be argued. Who in the heck would respect a person planning and carrying out that set of deceipful actions against them?

As far as a legal position is concerned, here is a direct quote and you may pm me for my source. "Agreement is said to be reached when an offer capable of immediate acceptance is met with a "mirror image" acceptance (i.e., an unqualified acceptance)." You can indeed accept an offer by your actions alone, it's called the "mirror image rule" and constitutes acceptance. This is not a technicality, this is common sense. You can't cause someone to believe there is a contract in place by your actions, then break the contract expecting that the lack of a verbal or written agreement will protect you. To expect such a thing would indeed be trying to take advantage of a technicality.

Here is the same thing put another way, "It is no defense to an action based on a contract for the defendant to claim that he had not intended to be bound by the agreement, if his conduct demonstrated that he had." In lay terms, you can't act like you have a truce but then claim you don't have one. Finally, "The essential requirement is that the parties had each from a subjective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent." Again, both of our actions suggested that we had accepted the truce proposal and therefore we had a contract.

However, like I said above legal arguments don't help me or him, it's entirely about honesty,character and intent. I do agree that he will not be sanctioned by CC. He broke no rules. My recourse is simply to advise others of the circumstances so they may avoid him in the future. Contrary to your opinion, I can't believe anyone here would want to play someone who will resort to winning a game by intentionally deceiving others and I believe that many who become aware of the full set of circumstances will indeed foe him. I don't know why though you shared that opinion as it matters not to either of us or this issue what people decide to do with the information. That is their business.

Since you've had to stretch and go against common sense and basic honesty (I am not accusing you of being dishonest), can I ask why? I won't question your motives without knowing you and would rather instead give you an opportunity to reconsider your position when it comes to honesty while playing in CC.

[thegreekdog]

stealth99, because this C&A thread has been closed by the administrators, I do not feel it necessary to address your most recent post publicly. I have replied to your private message.