Laughable Accusation

From:
Land of Horus
To:
Roman Empire
Real Date:
03-12-2016 19:17:52
World Date:
January 06 3895

Subject:
Hiya
Message:
hope your having fun and learning something if you wanna talk the doors always open if there's a problem with us you want sorting out talk, if not we'll take your silence that your multi-playing the game using different accounts and we'll report our findings to the gamemasters
E-mail:

President "Chiwoo",

Would you like to post my in game response. Remember, no edits. I saved it. GM, please investigate this by all means. President "Fort You Guys" has made a very FORTgettable accusation.

Emperor Vespasian

This quite an interest development.

Signed,
Hilarious Clintonus

Chiwoo is an intelligent player I wonder why he would levy that accusation publicly without an evidentiary basis. Perhaps a misunderstanding or misconception so I would love to know the final verdict. Also, what's up with Jammiebrown, did he really leave? And if so, why?

No point being intelligent they called us cowards and they want us gone from the game period! they say we are bad, they say the gamemasters are bad...... for what introducing a feature that players can use to help in their defence while being attacked by an aggressive player or a bunch of players whom only wants their assets that they a player or a bunch of players have worked on so hard on over who knows how long.

we can say we have respect for Vespasian but keep up this fools hardy practice of attacking us for no good reason but pride then everything we know of the game its bugs, its short comings well everything really I will use against thee and TAKE YOU DOWN Vespasian, really wanna test US?

This Chiwoo character is a really funny guy. He constantly declares war on me. I try to ignore it. Finally he decs one time too many and then complains that he has real war on his hands. He declared war on me. Also, who is this "us" you're talking about? I called YOU a game coward, and you are. You are a duplicitous player who cavorts with multi account players to try and intimidate and then you turn around and accuse the players following the rules of what you yourself are guilty of. I don't want to embarrass you and another "famous" player in this game, Mr. WooHoo. You write one more misleading post, and I will produce the evidence. In the meantime, lets have us a war.

Oh my. No please do, embarrass away. If you have some evidence of some kind please do share. The general public deserves to know.

Maybe the evidence is fake, if you think there is any evidence pointing to Roving EYE having more then one account you are wrong. VESPASIAN probably made the evidence up simply in an attempt to get a respectable and reasonable player removed from the game who has not broken any game rules.

FIRST MESSAGE TO THE GM

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 3:40 AM, roman xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello,

I play on Fearless Blue and my main country is "Roman Empire". There is a player who has just re-entered the game playing under the name of "Anne Bonny". She has allied herself with a enemy of mine in the game who goes by the name of "Roving Eye". Anne Bonny is playing multiple accounts and declaring war on C3's around my slave states. Her main country in one account is called "AOK" and "A B" in the other. This is obviously against rules and clearly gives "Anne Bonny" and "Roving Eye" an unfair advantage. "Roving Eye " is one of those players who likes to hide behind those small unbeatable countries that have little land mass and "bars" so they can't be taken. It's bad enough that you still allow players to continue to play from these type countries, but now I also have to deal with a multi-account player too? I have had many complaints about this game in the past, especially when it comes to its technical failures, but I have remained loyal, paid my subscription fee (what you call a contribution) and contributed much more in spending on gold coins for population growth. Just yesterday I spent another $36.00. I would appreciate it if you would ask "Anne Bonny" , aka "Kissofdeath" to remove one of her accounts or expel her. I have invested a substantial amount of time and money over the years to reach my goals, all the while playing fairly and by the rules. I don't think it is too much to ask that you require other players to do the same. If this "cheating" (no other word for it)continues without the GM putting a stop to it, then I can only conclude that you could care less about my loyalty and have no issue with cheaters. Therefore, I will leave the game and find something else fill by down time.

Regards,

Roman

GM REPLY FROM JONNI



Simcountry Gamemaster
To
roman xxxxxxxxxx
Jun 9 at 5:03 AM
Hi Roman,
Apologies for the late reply.
We're investigating this player and will respond accordingly if it turns out to be a multi.

Regards,
Jonni (The Gamemaster)

GM FOLLOW UP EMAIL

Simcountry Gamemaster
To
roman xxxxxxxxxx
Jun 9 at 5:21 AM
I figured you'd like to hear the results.
This person used some clever trickery to circumvent our automated multi checks but left enough of a trace for me to figure out that he/she uses 6 accounts.
All 6 accounts have been removed and this player won't be able to register a new account ever again.
We'll also be including a new check based on how I just 'caught' this player.

I hope that addresses your concerns, and thank you for bringing it to our attention!
Regards,
Jonni (The Gamemaster)

@TheInventor. I never accused "Chiwoo" of being a multi. It is the hypocrisy of sending me a message and FALSELY accusing me of being a multi, and threatening to report me to the GM.That is the last straw."Chiwoo has in the past knowingly schemed with at least one other multi (Who knows? Maybe more.) and placed her multi account countries in his fed to threaten my countries. Talk about hypocrisy. As you can see from the thread, I was so sick and tired of his game shenanigans, I almost left. I am an eight year vet.

Jammiebrown left because he got sick of Chiwoo's antics and the GM's failure to address this fort issue which is killing the war game.

Chiwoo uses this fort abuse to threaten players who he knows will have no inclination or ability to possibly fight back. Chiwoo has, get this, at least 2500 forts in EACH COUNTRY on FB except one which has around 1700 forts! I managed to whittle down the forts in one of his paintable countries to around 1300. 3 of his countries are tiny unpaintable countries which begs the question why he even needs this gross extra layer of fort protection. Chiwoo is not the only player that abuses the forts and small countries, but he appears to be the worst, Prime Exhibit A of what has gone so terribly wrong with this game. Chiwoo doesn't even bother to put up air defenses. Why should he? He knows that players won't want to fight back against his war decs or if they fight back, simply won't have the time of day to actually disable his gross fort defense. He almost drove me from the game without firing a shot and now he has driven away a good player, Jammiebrown, who simply wanted to play the game in an honest fashion. In the end, the real culprit is the GM. They are the ones allowing all this to happen.

So this is my verdict on Chiwoo. He is guily of cheating, hypocrisy and game cowardice.

For obvious privacy reasons, I removed my last name and my email address from this thread.

The quality of smack talk and war in this game has decreased significantly.

Raise your game people.

Indeed. I miss the good ole' days, which I was clearly late to myself lol.

Such a shame to have read this and I will act accordingly.

Regarding the unlimited number of forts, now is a good time to urge the gamemasters to limit them. I've been suggesting that as part of my proposal for comprehensive military reform.

But more players need to voice support for military improvements. Don't wait until more of us join Jammiebrown and Emperor Vespasian as victims of terrorist attacks. Join Citizens for Military Reform today.

A few things I just don't understand in this post.

1. How do you get unlimited forts? I am always capped at 150 in a country.

2. How did you possibly get an email response from the GM in 4 days? I emailed them a month and a half ago and have yet to hear a word from them. I even posted in the forum and still no response.

wtf

Ooooooooooooooooh no!!!!!!!!!!! Dun EVER cross the Roving Eye!!!!!!!!! Chiwoo (Chewy) has played Simcountry more years than I can even count!!! He knows the game very well!

The Roving Eye is an elite movement. They know all, hear all, and see all! I have tried to be a part of it for years, cuz I's a nosey sorts!!!!! I never made it in. :-( But, one day!!!! *winks

The "we", etc. is all in fun, Vespasian. Just like I carry on and play my game persona here (pure wickedness!) or is it a game persona where I'm concerned???? :S *cackles

Zentrino,

If you post one more time about not getting an email response from my baby boy, I'm turning you into a frog!!!!!!!! And I'll do it, too!

Besides, I told you for $50 I'd intercede for you. So stop complaining! lol

Oh, to answer your question, maybe they said "pretty please." lol

Lol! They tend to take some time off from the game and responding to emails Zentrino. Annoying been t the reality is that they were probably a bit more active in the summer.

The forts thing has something to do with reserving the production in fort corps and contracting them to country. I've never used this exploit as it was being up in a war so.e real years ago. It is surprising that it still exists. Fixing it is likely a more complex issue than it appears as corps can and need to in many cases contract production directly to the country. The problem has to be solved in code and then the servers need to be down to implement the code and test it to see if it actually works. That is coding for you. A public vote from a premium member would likely get a response. They also have to figure out a way to remove the forts from countries that have them, if when they find them and that sounds more tedious than one thinks.

On another note, not to be abusive, but I really am disturbed to find kissofdeath/Jan's persona involved in a real multi accusation with proof. Especially since this has been something she has said about any player adverse to her game. This includes myself, wildeyes, brokenambitions, and the list goes on and on and on. Not sure if I read that post wrong but I seriously find that pretty disturbing. I already knew but suspicious activity is not proof only the GMs have the ability to check or prove these things. One of the easiest ways to tell if someone or a few are multis are the sudden appearance of members in federations who are nearly never active on the forums, at all, despite how complex the game is and how much one needs assistance to get going in the game regardless of their level of intelligence. Some things in this game are totally counter intuitive and it begs for interaction. You can often find these players lurking in chat but never speaking. Anyone who has played the game for a reasonable amount of time knows how hard it is to build a federation of active players and it amzes me how many pop-up feds I see that have so ma y low level non active fed members in no time flat. Once you are here in the game long enough, you see this happen and notice it with relative ease.

At any rate it was good to read the GMs taking a stance on multis because it is against the rules and was a huge problem in the past. Just weird to see someone who accused so many others being involved directly. I do think guilty players should be allowed to continue play but have to start over. Clearly they have passion for the game because they worked so hard to work around detection methods to gain am advantage. With how few active players remain I wouldn't condone discouraging anyone from playing at this point. Repeat offenders should however be perma banned. It would be a lesson to lose all your work to drive the point home not to engage in multiple accounts. But hey stick around and play fair with everyone else.

There should be no limit on the number of forts. Air warfare realistically is not the primary way wars are fought anyway realistically, and there is no realistic limit on the number of forts a country can have in real life, it just cost more to build them and cost money to guard them. Therefore there is no reason at all why forts should be considered un realistic.

Additionally this is an important part of defending your countries which enables players to protect themselves against aggressive players. If this strategy is to be removed it is likely that more countries will be at risk to be attacked and it will become significantly more difficult for small players to defend themselves against larger more powerful enemies.

Furthermore I do agree that all attacking countries under the current strategy can just build large numbers of forts and become protected, but by removing or limiting the number of forts you would make it SIGNIFICANTLY harder for countries to defend themselves against aggressive enemies.

Finally when the Roman Empire was attacked this could have been a good strategy to use to defend themselves, but they choose not to use it to their advantage. Why? perhaps because they believed that it was a unrealistic strategy and made wars extremely difficult to fight. However this certainly is not a unrealistic aspect of the game at all and making wars difficult to fight for both sides may increase the realistically of the game as there is never realistically a (easy war). And by making wars difficult to fight it decreases the chance of them happening.

Overall I would really ask that everyone including the Roman Empire reconsider their position on this. Additionally being able to contract fort production to your own country is realistic. The number of forts should be unlimited however as the number of forts increases there should be increased cost for maintaining them and should require soldiers.

Also be sure to vote on my proposal if you agree that this is a realistic strategy.

everything that's being posted or has been by whoever is being read by us

but lets get back to the first intial posting of VESPASIAN

it seems highly defensive in its nature, I sent a personal message to them saying and asking "hope your having fun and learning something if you wanna talk the doors always open if there's a problem with us you want sorting out talk, if not we'll take your silence that your multi-playing the game using different accounts and we'll report our findings to the gamemasters"

now whats the first thing that is done after someone has a susspsion they are a multi, they respond straight away in a defensive manner, counter proposing with what, that this player did this , this and this with a so called player who they know is a multi player, hang on a minute how would they know they are a multi player to even report it in the first place? my question still stands VESPASIAN prove to us your not MULTI - PLAYING!

Well, 'someone' was caught. As in the email. Not sure if it had anything to do with Jan, but that is the name given. This is not to say Chiwoo knew it was Jan, or that it was a multiplayer account. Given the emails disclosed here, I fail to see how any of this could be turned back on Vespian at all. On the contrary as much as I love Chiwoo, it appears the burden of proof lies on you, and it doesn't look good. Vespian cannot prove to anyone he isn't multi playing, but he sure has proven that he has been harassed by multi players that somehow associated with you and coordinated war decs and land c3s. My honest bet is inventor is one of them. Perhaps there is need for another sweep of he servers. I can see obvious cases and I have only been back about a month.

@inventor, I am not sure if your PvP guide was trolling or what, but after that level of insight, I fail to see how your comments have any legitimacy. I am not sure you understand basic PvP war concepts, let alone concepts regarding exploits you have never faced. Killing 150 forts is tedious and grueling in and of itself. 1000 or 2000 though? Imagine if you had to do that just to take an inactive country. You probably would change tourind about wanting to add it to your empire. I'll chalk it up to misunderstanding the problem. It can be hard to come up with a solution, if you really don't get the problem in the first place.

That is exactly why when you say " Killing 150 forts is tedious and grueling in and of itself. 1000 or 2000 though"
This is my exact point you just said it It is better if it is hard to attack other players especially if a large empire has to destroy hundreds of forts it provides a way for smaller empires to defend themselves from larger ones. What you just said is why I think it is a reasonable strategy.

No, it does not. It creates a situation where nobody wants to war at all. Furthermore, this exploit is not common knowledge and available for everyone to employ. The larger empires are the ones using this, not the smaller or newer players, they are ignorant of it. This is the problem, add to that a player left over it, and that should be the last bit of tolerance it's use gets from the GMs. On a war world, there is no deterrence to war, no pirating, no unfair, no bullying; Just war. On other worlds that somehow have war enabled, an exploit should never be the cause for a lack if war or willingness to engage. The only deterrence players should have are good political relationships, federated allies, and a good defense. That is all, an exploit nor a game feature should ever replace this. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about clearly. I understand your enthusiasm for what you witnessed, but being as you don't have 2000 forts in your country, nor do you plan on taking a country like that with that 1 air wing, you don't really get it, at all. This is unfortunate but true.

What you are saying when new players are unaware of strategies to use in defenses are you also implying interceptors, helicopter interceptors, forts completely, and all other defenses should simply be removed because new players didn't take the time to look at a guide?? This is ridiculous what you are suggesting could also be seen as getting rid of all defenses so new countries would have no chance against larger enemies.

First of all forts are much more of a reliable and much cheaper defense enabling new players to have some chance against larger enemies. It is clearly much harder to setup an interceptor defense and much more complicated for new players to realize how quality of the interceptors matters and how it affects fighting level, and how many to use rather then simply buying a bunch of forts to defend their countries.

You must really have no knowledge of the game whatsoever if you are claiming it is harder to use a bunch of forts to defend a country then using complicated air defenses which for new players are complicated, instead of just buying forts.

FINALLY this is not an exploit most likely the gamemasters designed it specifically so countries could setup a defense and so new players would have a chance to survive, it is like other weapons that only your country can produce and that you cannot buy. Overall when you claim it would give large empires the advantage when having unlimited forts you are figuratively supporting removing all defenses so large empires can just drop a couple bombs on a small country with no chance of fighting back and when this happens in (real-life) this is called imperialism against countries who can't fight back because they have no defenses.

If what you are proposing occurs large empires will grow at the expense of small players who worked so hard and spent so much time into their countries only to have a imperial player come by and drop a couple of bombs and destroy their entire country because what?? They couldn't even try to defend their country. I really hope you reconsider what you are suggesting.

@ Madoff. I'm with you.I have seen your past postings and I know you have been a consistent critic of the fort situation.

@Zentrino. I too was surprised at the quick response. Maybe the fact that I threatened to leave got the quick response. I will probably leave sometime in the next few months. I simply am tired of being decced on by someone like Chiwoo without having any real ability to respond and I have no intention of building thousands of forts. I like the strategy of defense building and offensive readiness. The game has become a waste of time and money too. There are some other world simulation Games with similar characteristics that I will try out. I figure they can't be any worse than my current experience with Simcountry. Maybe it will be better. By the way, I had a good time fighting you and Zen.

@ Wicked Lady. Don't you ever shut up?

@ Phycho Honey. You read my email exchange with the GM correctly. That was in fact, Jan, AKA Kissofdeath. AKA Wicked Lady and AKA Anne Bonny who allied herself with Chiwoo and he knowingly let her place her multis in his fed. By the way, you are one of my game heroes. I have always read your posts. I remember my sister in law loved your game play. She left the game years ago but really liked you. Real entertainment. Glad your back, but I am afraid you will be wasting your time with the GM. I am surprised how similarly we both view this game, especially the war aspect.

@TheInventor. You said,
"This is my exact point you just said it It is better if it is hard to attack other players especially if a large empire has to destroy hundreds of forts it provides a way for smaller empires to defend themselves from larger ones. What you just said is why I think it is a reasonable strategy."
Smaller empires already have a way of avoiding attack. Just stay at the lower war levels. You don't need thousands of forts to avoid the war game. The purpose of moving up war levels is to announce to others that you feel ready to engage in war. You shouldn't then be able to build thousands of forts to avoid what you claim you are ready for. In fact the abuse of fort building leads to an opposite effect. Players like Chiwoo,use it as means to threaten other players knowing full well they can't possibly respond. It sounds to me Inventor, that you "want your cake and eat it too".

@Chiwoo AKA Roving Eye. I have already posted and invited the GM to examine my account. I don't play multi's. You are the cheat, not me. I provided the proof against you. I am waiting for your proof, Mr. Hypocrisy. For the record, I play only on Fearless Blue. My main is Roman Empire and I have 9 slaves for a total of 10 countries. Anyone with "Eyes" would see that there were no other countries other than my 10 that were at war with you. So who was this other multi you claim I used against you?
Why don't you find a corner in one of those forts of yours and go back "to sleep"?

I have stayed silent not wanting to give an opinion on what has been written so far on this thread, just reading all the comments written here, but here's a question for you to think about:-

A player - any player in the game old or new has a federation and decides to allow another player into their federation not knowing that this player was/is/or maybe a multi player - Do not point the finger of blame at the person who allowed the invite not knowing that this was/is or maybe the case as this could happen to anyone, probably has happened to other players unknowingly and more importantly could also still happen to other players unknowingly in the future.
Also think about this re the Great Wall of China and how many miles that it stretches and the number of forts that were on it when it was built and being built, do you think the Chinese would have stopped building it because their enemies didn't like it?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Also think about this re the Great Wall of China and how many miles that it stretches and the number of forts that were on it when it was built and being built, do you think the Chinese would have stopped building it because their enemies didn't like it?<!-/Quote-!>

'I do agree with your post. Chiwoo, and many others may or may not have engaged knowingly in allowing multis to join their fed. I had a similar situation in the past. I denounced that player and have not heard from him since. I liked him too, he was cool. Unfortunately, I have never in my game life favored multis.

But on to the quote, I like the analogy but it simply is not valid here. The Chinese built a wall, and all the other empires in the world could have done the same, they chose not to. We are told in the documentation that the maximum number of forts is 150. And that is where the story should begin and end. This is not a question of ethics regarding tactics, it is a game flaw, clearly not intended to be in play. The GM has not addressed it because of technical reasons I am sure. It also hasn't been abused to the point it caused a player to quit the game, who played primarily on the war world no less.

Just because they haven't taken the time to address it, does not mean they condone it. A similar analogy can be made for multis. Some slip through the cracks, but that too is forbidden in the docs or TOS. When it becomes obvious and problematic, they take time to deal with it. (Side note: interesting Jan is still here, despite the message. I do think she should still be here, just not as a multi, that might explain it.)

If the point of allowing the use of this exploit is to attain unconquerable countries, then everyone would have secured mode throughout the empire. Now, this makes sense? How? It does not. It is time to level the playing field and close loopholes so it doesn't end up resulting in more situations like this. A player leaves, and another is seemingly not far behind him. I also am not too happy about this, as I would like to see the game return to a more robust and active state as it was in the past. I too at one time was part of the problem, but measures were taken to curb my ethical(not technical) abuse.

I thought this too, was funny. In the spirit of the thread topic, this also was Laughable

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

From Theinventor1012

Having unlimited forts provides protection for smaller players from larger enemies and it is a perfectly reasonable strategy. Also I warn you, as you are a target of multiple players who will not hesitate to insure your defeat I suggest you leave simcountry.<!-/Quote-!>

Inventor, just quit while you are ahead. I plan on crushing empires... like flies. In due time of course. Don't add yourself to the list by being silly prematurely. I'm guessing you are now 17 or 18 now. You remind me of Ian. I doubt I am far off.

I am not planning on attacking you or planning on taking any hostile actions against you. I was simply reminding you that other players may be looking for a target and they might be using better strategies such as building lots of forts.