[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:
These 2 players appear to have a secret diplomacy or be multis. In the 3 games listed they have left undefended borders and not attacked each other, not attacked each other except for cards/region bonuses after clearing all but 1 troop out. In the 1st game listed, after both non-stop attacked me, doyley attacked neutrals to kill off troops, so the other could end the game more quickly. They joined CC within 3 days of each other just over 1 year ago. A search of games with both players finds 194 results.
doyley wrote:doyley & schelanchery if you have any spare spots
It was a doubles tournament..
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that it wasn't. It does indicate that they speak as one and really shouldn't be playing games as if they are independent accounts.
Generally I'd go with the standard ruling on this- they should play as a team if they want to be in the same game together, not as if they are individuals.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
doyley wrote:doyley & schelanchery if you have any spare spots
It was a doubles tournament..
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that it wasn't. It does indicate that they speak as one and really shouldn't be playing games as if they are independent accounts.
Generally I'd go with the standard ruling on this- they should play as a team if they want to be in the same game together, not as if they are individuals.
It doesn't indicate that they speak as one at all. It is common practice for one player to sign an entire team up themselves, whether it's doubles, triples or quads. I do it frequently and have never seen an organised team post separately to join a tournament.
doyley wrote:doyley & schelanchery if you have any spare spots
It was a doubles tournament..
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that it wasn't. It does indicate that they speak as one and really shouldn't be playing games as if they are independent accounts.
Generally I'd go with the standard ruling on this- they should play as a team if they want to be in the same game together, not as if they are individuals.
It doesn't indicate that they speak as one at all. It is common practice for one player to sign an entire team up themselves, whether it's doubles, triples or quads. I do it frequently and have never seen an organised team post separately to join a tournament.
Fair enough, though I would say that signing up another account, specifically the account being accused of secretly working with, is an indicator that they work together.
If you feel I was wrong to highlight the connection between the accounts accused of secret diplomacy in a thread about these accounts being linked, and indeed wish that said diplomatic link remain secret and un-highlighted, let me know.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
doyley wrote:doyley & schelanchery if you have any spare spots
It was a doubles tournament..
Indeed, and I didn't suggest that it wasn't. It does indicate that they speak as one and really shouldn't be playing games as if they are independent accounts.
Generally I'd go with the standard ruling on this- they should play as a team if they want to be in the same game together, not as if they are individuals.
It doesn't indicate that they speak as one at all. It is common practice for one player to sign an entire team up themselves, whether it's doubles, triples or quads. I do it frequently and have never seen an organised team post separately to join a tournament.
Fair enough, though I would say that signing up another account, specifically the account being accused of secretly working with, is an indicator that they work together.
If you feel I was wrong to highlight the connection between the accounts accused of secret diplomacy in a thread about these accounts being linked, and indeed wish that said diplomatic link remain secret and un-highlighted, let me know.
Yes, you're wrong. There may well be secret diplomacy or whatever going on here, but you're tournament link is irrelevant.
While I'm not entirely clear on why you think highlighting a link between two accounts accused of having a secret link should be a secret in a thread about them being linked secretly, I nevertheless accord you all the respect the evidence and well thought-out arguments that you have presented you deserve.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
This has become pointless rather quickly, if you want to put together some evidence about the two accounts, do so. I don't feel that our conversation is constructive to the report now. If you want to troll, feel free to post a thread on the "Whose Forum Is it Anyway" board.
Are you ok with leaving the rest up to the mods?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
You can troll all you like. No, our discussion hasn't been positive or helpful in the slightest. I simply pointed out how you were mistaken and you continue to troll away like the mature human being you are. It's fine, enjoy it.
