You are wrong there, he wasn't proven guilty.GrimReaper. wrote:innoncen until proven guilty and this case has been provin gulity time and time again...
Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
You are wrong there, he wasn't proven guilty.GrimReaper. wrote:innoncen until proven guilty and this case has been provin gulity time and time again...

DAT_WAT_SHE_SAID wrote: As for the ruling itself, I totally agree with Rash. To block somebody as a precautionary measure?thats bullshit! You should have found a better way to sort it out...
The only thing that this whole thread has proved is that anybody in conquer club that is a clean player can still be accused of cheating and get blocks and bans.
Rediculas...
RashidJelzin wrote: Pathetic. Precautinary measure would be observing a couple of games, not handing out random punishment
Bruceswar wrote: I do not see how you can block someone without any evidence. Not to say this true at all, because it is not. This reminds me of a lynching.. hmm
Ouch. Need I remind everyone that what goes around comes around. I think you are gaining the capacity to empathize with a lot of the people banned because of this http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 39&t=60631 nonsense. If you think that being banned from playing with one of your best online buddy's sucks then try being caged from 50+ people who were all just as innocent and your own brother. Sorry Bruce, but you poured gasoline onto an open flame by making that thread. And as for Scottland and Bruce, this is a huge Grey area for me because I don't play enough games with them but a precautionary measure sounds oh so familiar. That's why I don't make threads in C&A even when it's obvious. Oh yeah, and E-tickets won't fix anything so have fun appealing.Twill wrote:King and FP asked me to look into this case.
There is no direct evidence that there is any cheating going on, but there is a statistically significant variation between when bruce is and is not in games with scott.
As such, we are taking the precaution of blocking scott-land and brucewar.
This is NOT proof or a decision that either of these two are cheating, it IS a precautionary measure in case anything is going on.
Case closed, moved.
Twill

I would have mentioned you Insomnia, not Tisha. You are the one who doesnt move to siam from china to block a kill, who doesnt attack scott EVER, and who doesnt do anything other than sit and wait for scott to win. However, I dont recall seeing you help scott with a kill which is why you were not mentioned; you just let him have killsInsomniaRed wrote:What does Tisha have to do with anything mentioned in this thread?!
maxatstuy wrote:I would have mentioned you Insomnia, not Tisha. You are the one who doesnt move to siam from china to block a kill, who doesnt attack scott EVER, and who doesnt do anything other than sit and wait for scott to win. However, I dont recall seeing you help scott with a kill which is why you were not mentioned; you just let him have killsInsomniaRed wrote:What does Tisha have to do with anything mentioned in this thread?!
Yet you posted in response meaning, according to your logic, you wasted your timeInsomniaRed wrote:maxatstuy wrote:I would have mentioned you Insomnia, not Tisha. You are the one who doesnt move to siam from china to block a kill, who doesnt attack scott EVER, and who doesnt do anything other than sit and wait for scott to win. However, I dont recall seeing you help scott with a kill which is why you were not mentioned; you just let him have killsInsomniaRed wrote:What does Tisha have to do with anything mentioned in this thread?!Okay Max, whatever you say. It's funny to watch you, since you think you know what you're talking about. But you don't, so I am not going to waste my time.
Sorry, i actually meant you lolInsomniaRed wrote:What does Tisha have to do with anything mentioned in this thread?!