xerox and hankrub [re-opened]

gav88111 · Post by **gav88111** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:38 am

I just happen to be playing these guys and I noticed early this morning how the one was on the verge of eliminating my partner in a doubles game. Poor partner..Thought I'd watch and see about regrouping..But the guy just comes up short...But wait! Moments later his partner magically appears(About a 12 second delay) and mightily reinforces him so that he can finish the task.(This 4:30 am est folks) Then they merrily take turns attacking...
God knows, if I'm wrong, I apologize mightily. However, I really don't think I am. Besides, "Xerox" isn't that a copy?

Game# 71333

Rik Meleet · Post by **Rik Meleet** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:17 pm

In freestyle doubles games that I am playing with online friends I talk to them on MSN and we play the turn together. First player does his attack phase, when neccesarry with the armies player 2 gives him. Player 1 ends his attack, but not his fortification. Player 2 attacks wih the help of the armies player 1 fortifies to him. You basically get to use the armies double.

Why do I post this ? As an example that "Moments later his partner magically appears(About a 12 second delay) and mightily reinforces him so that he can finish the task." is not unusual. I'm not saying they aren't multi's nor am I saying that they are - I just find your reason not that strong.

I play often at 4:30 am EST; as that is early morning in Europe - where I live. :wink:

gav88111 · Post by **gav88111** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:53 pm

Thanks, Rik! I suspect that you are right.

Twill · Post by **Twill** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:53 am

Actually gav, I suspect you are right

BUSTED!!

(and if Hank/xerox reads this, if we bust you once, we would appreciate it if you dont try a second time to create multiple accounts, thanks)

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:00 am

Introduction: hankrub (actually han-krub, not hank

) is my brother. So i'll admit i'm a little bias here. I introduced him to the game, but we don't play together that often, only a few games, mostly due to the fact that we live in different countries/time zones and it's a bit tough to coordinate starting a game.

Anyway, i emailed him and he assured me that he does not have multiple accounts and that xerox is his friend. He also said that they both know each other's password for the times when one isn't available to play at certain times (in freestyle, timing is very important).

I did a little searching and found that the only times hankrub and xerox played together were in doubles, freestyle games. So there's no chance of secret alliances or anything (not that he would

).

And to agree with Rik Meleet, i have played team freestyle games. And yes, my friends and i coordiate our attacks much like he described to take full advantage of the game settings.

Twill wrote:Actually gav, I suspect you are right

Just curious, Twill, how did you go about investigating this? I don't think there's a rule against knowing a friend's password and playing for him (especially in team games where alliances are explicit) every now and then when your friend isn't available.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:54 pm

superkarn wrote:
Twill wrote:Actually gav, I suspect you are right

Just curious, Twill, how did you go about investigating this? I don't think there's a rule against knowing a friend's password and playing for him (especially in team games where alliances are explicit) every now and then when your friend isn't available.

actually there is a rule against that... its arule that you cant play on your friends accoutn in any game you are in together.

gav88111 · Post by **gav88111** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:45 pm

well, either way, I appreciate it. The game is "sacred" to me and, despite my one bad feedback, I really don't mind losing at all. I play alot, so I win my share, I lose my share...I just don't like it when I suspect that somebody is using an "unfair" advantage. I'd rather lose with integrity than win with with "props".

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:17 am

reverend_kyle wrote:actually there is a rule against that... its arule that you cant play on your friends accoutn in any game you are in together.

Can you point me to that rule?

And gav88111, if they're on the same team, their alliance is explicit. And the strategy that they used (what Rik Meleet described) was legit. I don't see any wrong doing here. They did not cheat and did not do anything that warrant an investigation.

Twill, can you please reconsider this?

Ishiro · Post by **Ishiro** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:55 am

If you are playing two accounts in the same team game and using one to help the other, that is, by action and definition, playing multiple accounts, which is against the rules.

I don't think anyone would object to someone helping out a friend who doesn't have access to the internet for a day or two, but not in games where it results in one person playing multiple colors/armies.

gav88111 · Post by **gav88111** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:07 am

exactly, thanks ishiro.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:16 am

You can take turns for your partner in team games, but you cannot play for someone you are playing against. It's been confirmed by Lack and other mods several times on this site; you can do a search if you want to read about it, but that's the "official" word.

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:13 pm

Ishiro wrote:I don't think anyone would object to someone helping out a friend who doesn't have access to the internet for a day or two, but not in games where it results in one person playing multiple colors/armies.

wicked wrote:You can take turns for your partner in team games, but you cannot play for someone you are playing against.

I agree with both of you. And if you search for the games, whenever hankrub and xerox play together, it's always doubles and they're always on the same team. That's what i'm trying to get at: they're not trying to cheat.

This was only brought to attention because of their freestyle strategy, which most of us would agree is legit.

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:32 pm

here's what my brother wrote in an email to me

hey, how come "stinkycheese & roosteronspeed" got off the charge
but me and my friend didnt?!? .. our charge are exactly the same -_-''
maybe its because they are premium members lol

thx for trying to defend me, it's ok dont bother anymore,
they already banned my account.
i cant post anything in the forum -*-

-han

Master Bush · Post by **Master Bush** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:40 pm

BUSTEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!

:lol:

Twill · Post by **Twill** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:18 am

I'll re-look at this as requested, give me a day or two

Twill

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:33 pm

wow a reopened case. Has this ever happened before?

superkarn · Post by **superkarn** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:01 pm

Wow, didn't know it was re-opened. But doesn't really matter now, he stopped playing a long time ago