So there's no way to keep Blackdog from joining my Gauntlet games? Darn it!

See Pechin?

Im right. Your wrong.

Dud was half right :)

No Cabrao, your not right. You're a ....... cheater. Those who think what you did is 'just stratagy-part of the game' are just plane wrong. This was a no team game. You entered into the game with a teammate. You've done it befor and been called out for it. (I'm getting private messages) So now Risk on this site for me is nothing more than 'Get Cabrao'. (Other players have done it, why not me) The sad part about it is so many responders can't see how this behavior spoils it for everyone. I really wonder if I regularly had a player who joined my games with the 'unspoken understanding' that we wouldn't hurt each other until the 2 other players were nutralized would continue to play with me? But you profess not to see this. BS. You've done it befor, you're doing it again. PLEASE don't join any more of my hosted games. I'm sure we both will be happier for it.

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

Yertle wrote:
Preconceived alliances (ie two people joining non-team games together as a team) is not accepted

 Just in case anyone missed it or feels like it may be okay to have preconceived alliances (*place potential future discussion for tournament alliances here*).  At least that's my view and from what I've gathered, also WarGear's stance.

pechin wrote: The sad part about it is so many responders can't see how this behavior spoils it for everyone.

Zero people in this thread have taken this position. Everyone has agreed that 'this behavior,' if and when it happens, is inappropriate, unacceptable, and not to be tolerated.

You've shown zero evidence of any agreement of the type you describe.

At this point you're just being a baby.

If you have anything remotely resembling actual proof of these players having played in bad faith, now would be the time - and just to be totally clear about that, 'I have gotten private messages' will not cut it.

You can do what you like with your own games, but at this point you're not doing yourself any favors because you're just coming off as whiny.

The way rankings work, you can win 25% of your games with 4-6 players and come out with more points than you lose... if you work with another top player in a secret, ongoing "lets be nice to each other and avoid each other when possible" the odds will go up, and rankings will climb higher, faster. A player with pride isn't going to take the fun out of the games by flipping a coin with another player to see who wins this one, and who wins the next one. But something less formal could happen.

That said, I've played 1552 games elsewhere, and there are lots of times I will try to fly under the radar and avoid irritating a player I have a lot of respect for... ie a good player. I want to play the odds and work on someone less experienced if I can. If I do that in an 8 player game, and I win my half of the board, and the veteran wins his half (instead of us destroying each other) I've worked my win chance from 12.5% to 50%.

But if you ask Bubble on ToS, he may remember several games where I insanely targetted him early to make sure he wouldn't get in the game, and then work my way up.

So I can see the possibility of some implicit colluding (which if even not wrong, is gutless), but there are many more rational and probable explanations yet to be ruled out first.

Pechin, when cheaters (multi-account users) had been caught by Genkiwi, he went through a process... perhaps not so well the first time, but he did several things that you need to do.
First he looked for patterns in the game... if players never attacked each other, why was that? in the ONLY game you cited, they seemed somewhat distant. Genkiwi found 1 player would always lose to the other, was attacking strategically unimportant neutrals while the other player would mop up.

He found repeated patterns outside of the game in question. The behaviours accumulated in many games. He also noted that players logged in around the same time every day, and were created on the same day.

After finding this, he got other people to analyze his findings. He didn't jump to conclusions in his latest findings.

While some of his points cannot translate to the methodology needed to expose colluders, some of them do. Due process. Accumulation of evidence. Actual URLs, with turn numbers of particulary suspicious behaviours. Find a neutral 3rd party you can trust to look at these secret messages in your account and report them.

Lack of evidence, profanity, jumping to conclusions hurt your cause by making you look pissed and petty that you lost. It's possible you are right, but nothing is going to be done with what you have presented. It's hollow. If you are right, then I hope you find what you need to.

Since I moderated and closed this thread, I removed the somewhat offensive post I made here for the sake of impartiality.

Spot on 'mates.

pechin wrote: No Cabrao, your not right. You're a ....... cheater. Those who think what you did is 'just stratagy-part of the game' are just plane wrong. This was a no team game. You entered into the game with a teammate. You've done it befor and been called out for it. (I'm getting private messages) So now Risk on this site for me is nothing more than 'Get Cabrao'. (Other players have done it, why not me) The sad part about it is so many responders can't see how this behavior spoils it for everyone. I really wonder if I regularly had a player who joined my games with the 'unspoken understanding' that we wouldn't hurt each other until the 2 other players were nutralized would continue to play with me? But you profess not to see this. BS. You've done it befor, you're doing it again. PLEASE don't join any more of my hosted games. I'm sure we both will be happier for it.

I have a hard time taking you seriously with that many grammatical and spelling errors. I'm sure you were just nerdraging so hard that you were simply making typo errors, but please take more care in the future to make your posts coherent. That might increase your chances of not sounding like a whiny douche.

Ummm Vataro.... have ever seen Wurzel133 write? On that same note Pechin, you can visit my wall and see how not to prove something (Wurzel) and how to properly defend yourself even if you want to really let the person know you don't appreciate unproven slander and lying (he got caught in the double digits).
It's all over my profile! Oh happy times, so sad it is over...

No I have not Gimli, and probably will remain happily ignorant.

Ummm Vataro.... have ever seen Wurzel133 write? On that same note Pechin, you can visit my wall and see how not to prove something (Wurzel) and how to properly defend yourself even if you want to really let the person know you don't appreciate unproven slander and lying (he got caught in the double digits).
It's all over my profile! Oh happy times, so sad it is over...

hopefully you won't... hopefully you won't. but it is comical.

Well fellas, I hardly know where to begin. One thing does begin to make itself clear, you are more concerned with form than substance. And no, I am not going to spend the time it would take to present the 'evidence' to 'prove' my case. I have the distinct impression you wouldn't accept it anyway. By the way, the game that started all this is "PLEASE 1100+ scores only #6" There's your evidence. LOOK AT IT! All I want to do is be able to block entry into my games by players who don't play fair. They can always 'host' their own games. I'm a wimp, not hardly. How's this from a wimp. Any two SOB's entering any of my games as a team will be called out for being the ....... cheaters they are. And trust me, I can see the difference between obvious team play and necessary game alliances. Oh well, it's time for dinner, or is it diner, no it's dinner. By

pechin wrote: you are more concerned with form than substance.

Wrong. Well, in this context anyway.

And no, I am not going to spend the time it would take to present the 'evidence' to 'prove' my case.

Then why should anyone listen to you? Without showing any wrongdoing, all you're doing is whining about losing.

I have the distinct impression you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Wrong again. Multiple players have been banned for cheating.

By the way, the game that started all this is "PLEASE 1100+ scores only #6" There's your evidence.

Wrong again. Re-read your first post in this thread.

All I want to do is be able to block entry into my games by players who don't play fair.

Go to the profiles of the players you don't want to play with and mark them 'Enemy'. Problem solved.

And trust me, I can see the difference between obvious team play and necessary game alliances.

This is not at all clear.

By should read "bye."

There is nothing more to be gained here, everyone has had a say and everyone has said 'by' or 'bye'. Thread closed.