Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team

This isn't what happened. He did NOT take the turn against himself. Him happy and bush are RL friends.Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.

Essentially the same thing.IcePack wrote:This isn't what happened. He did NOT take the turn against himself. Him happy and bush are RL friends.Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.
He saw happy was about to miss, so since he COULDN"T take happy's turn - he asked their mutual RL friend bush to cover.
IcePack


Actually its not... the same thing would be chap logging in and playing. Something entirely different would be alerting happy's friend / back up sitter and asking him to cover since chap was facing happy. Totally different.Symmetry wrote:Essentially the same thing.IcePack wrote:This isn't what happened. He did NOT take the turn against himself. Him happy and bush are RL friends.Symmetry wrote:If you took a turn CC, against yourself, then that is a major offense. Levels of honest play don't even come into it.
He saw happy was about to miss, so since he COULDN"T take happy's turn - he asked their mutual RL friend bush to cover.
IcePack

wow... easy with the accusations. One thing is accusing someone completely different is proving itFlow520 wrote:Perhaps a better course of action for chapcrap would have been to wall message happyfeet instead of an account sitter. It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions.
Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.
Moreover, happyfeet (friends with chapcrap as claimed by both parties) made the comment that chapcrap has previously engaged in this behavior.If happyfeet is correct, this is not chapcrap's first offense.happyfeet wrote:he [chapcrap] asked others in our clan to cover games for me in which we were against each other
you don't have screenshot, other team has one.chapcrap wrote:Is this relevant?GoranZ wrote:Question: Why chap left 2 units on Bogota before he was eliminated by his teammate if he knew what cards you had? Risky according to me.
Can someone provide us with picture of the actual units distribution after happyfeet's problematic turn or something useful so we wont guess what was going on from game chat?


so chap took his turn. you take out chap leaving him next to green. green cant cash because you say he only has to cards. then, maybe you should have set me up to take out red? but you went and didnt even ask for a new game plan.Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.

I'll repeat.IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
I dont get the conflict of interest part,all 3 are friends,are you saying J intentionally hurt happy for chap to win? I dont think so,played chap several times never got the idea in any way he was or is dishonest.Flow520 wrote:I'll repeat.IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions. Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.


Happy clearly has used bush in the past, and are friends and comfortable with him being sat by either chap or bush. Chap couldn't take that turn, so if he knows bush is the other sitter its natural to ask him to cover that game.Flow520 wrote:I'll repeat.IcePack wrote:You're upset that someone didn't read chat? You know how often that happens?
A poor move played by a sitter who wasn't chap, perhaps. But that doesn't mean its some grand conspiracy to make you lose.
Even happy has come to say chap and bush are his sitters and asked for chap to watch the account while he was gone etc.
Pretty sure your trying to read way to much into this.
IcePack
It was not chapcrap's place to ask an account sitter to sit a game for another player. (Especially considering that chapcrap was an opponent in that game!) There is an absolute conflict of interest regardless of intentions. Opinions aside, the facts are very clear. Chapcrap solicited someone to take the turn of his opponent. (See attached screenshot of jdbush's wall located in first post.) It's pretty direct meddling. This act (however well intentioned) had an adverse effect on the game.

jgordon1111 had 1 unit on Sao Paulo before your turn(tho it doesn't matter how many units did it had there, I presume more then 1 if he doesn't attack down to 1) and your teammate had 4 in Mexico City. So that leaves only 1 way for you to eliminate chap if he knew that you were able to cash in, and that is threw Sao Paulo... So why chap didn't reinforce Sao Paulo but he reinforce Lima and leaving 2 units on Bogota? Personally if I was on chaps place and I knew that you had a set I would have reinforced Sao Paulo(probably with all my units on Bogota).Flow520 wrote:As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.

Except for the fact its flows poor play that lost them the game and not friends throwing the game. And the fact that chap and happy are two of the most honest players i've met on the site. chap contacted happy's other sitter when he couldn't take the turn. Pretty sure thats SOP for most people.Symmetry wrote:I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.

and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flowSymmetry wrote:I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
If that was our plan, happyfeet could have just thrown the game himself...happyfeet wrote:and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flowSymmetry wrote:I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
It's a tournament game. It's not like we planned ahead of time to have this setup. The assignment was random. You aren't even making coherent points here. And bush isn't a clan mate either. Try looking at everything before you post.Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
He's pretty clearly associated, but you're nitpicking at my central point now. You were all tied together, and shouldn't have been involved in the obvious screwing over of a third party.chapcrap wrote:If that was our plan, happyfeet could have just thrown the game himself...happyfeet wrote:and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flowSymmetry wrote:I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
It's a tournament game. It's not like we planned ahead of time to have this setup. The assignment was random. You aren't even making coherent points here. And bush isn't a clan mate either. Try looking at everything before you post.Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
four parties at play all neutral to eachother. please read things before posting.Symmetry wrote:He's pretty clearly associated, but you're nitpicking at my central point now. You were all tied together, and shouldn't have been involved in the obvious screwing over of a third party.chapcrap wrote:If that was our plan, happyfeet could have just thrown the game himself...happyfeet wrote:and the fact that there are two neutral players not just flowSymmetry wrote:I think that Flow has been pointing out exactly that for pretty much this entire thread- that you felt an obligation to help each other win a game and screwed over the neutral player.happyfeet wrote:has anyone pointed out that chap bush and happy all were roommates in college? because i still dont think that flow understands that friends help friends out. even if it is a game against you. i wouldnt want to win a game because someone missed a turn. and yes i would have made this one but i missed atleast 14 games in which i got help.
yes, bush didnt do what flow wanted so flow cashes and kills chap leaving chap a target to green. then, green kills chap and cashes thats what really costed us the game.
It's a tournament game. It's not like we planned ahead of time to have this setup. The assignment was random. You aren't even making coherent points here. And bush isn't a clan mate either. Try looking at everything before you post.Symmetry wrote:Seems like you guys have a fairly coordinated degree of cooperation going on even outside of the game, although you're all clanmates save Gordon.
I hope someone neutral looks into this. It seems mighty suspicious at present.
You guys are missing something here. Had chapcrap not meddled with his opponents turn by soliciting a sitter, Bogota would likely have been taken from red. Flow's turn shows the rest of red was taken with a set trade. Whatever happened afterwards is a mute point. happyfeet's turn was altered due to the intervention of a member of the opposing team.Flow520 wrote:So, I added a link to the picture: Game Board: Round 8. Green's turn. Set at 15.
As requested, here is a screenshot of the board just after I used my set to take out the rest of red. Had the sitter (requested by chapcrap) followed the plan laid out in game chat (deploy 3 on Mexico city and take Bogota) and had it succeeded (which had high probability), then I would have had 6 cards, traded for 15, hit green, and ended turn with 4 cards. Green would not have been able to respond because he only had 2 cards.
happyfeet wrote:and yes i would have made this one
[Edit: added link to the uploaded file.]happyfeet wrote:i do admit i probably would have taken the turn different.