Please help out a newb to this forum

[starfishprime]

Warcraft III username: clusterfuq
Realm: uswest.battle.net
Situation: search.php?keywords=clusterfuq&fid%5B0%5D=24 turns up "No suitable matches were found."; https://entgaming.net/openstats/?bans=& ... clusterfuq shows "preteaming TID:36124 (game ruining)" with no Game Name.
Why you should be unbanned: Hi, I am a new player on ent. Found out I was banned today, not quite sure why. I have only played some risk devo and 1 game of battleship, hence I assume the ban has something to do with risk devo. I dont know anyone else on bnet or ent, hence I am really confused. Don't know if this post is of any use, but thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

[bit]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36124 pre-teaming in Risk devo is against the rules

[starfishprime]

Hi bit.

Thanks for your quick reply.

I have just reviewed the ban request and the replay.

Accusation 1: "during the game they had a very long time Peace."

It is true that the game did not progress to the point where teal (played by me) and blue attacked each other. However, as you can see in the replay, we were busy fighting our own wars. This sometimes happens in risk.

Accusation 2: "they never moved on to eachother with there big armys."

In the early game I was more worried about purple wiping out brown and dominating the south (and hence having to fight SS) than I was about blue, who had just finished UK and and the northern islands. Hence it was logical that I attack purple to counter. And you can see at around 12 minutes 38 seconds I moved my spawns in France (bordering belgium) south onto transport for attacking purple. Hence there was no "big armys". You can also see that I actually was worried about France being attacked by blue and built medic-fights and troops with accumulated gold to reinforce the 2 cities the spawns left.

Accusation 3: "they passed eachothers tropps dident even mention an excuse to pass by."

At no point did blue move any troops pass me. A few minutes after the 12 minutes I thought blue was probing my France, however I realised that it was my spawn from France which was moved a very small amount into italy due to me setting auto rally point to the south for the war with purple. I can only speak for myself as I was in no position to fight purple and blue at the same time so when I realized the auto rally pt, I corrected. This was the ONLY minor incident and not the picture of mass troop movements through the other's territory as JML seems to suggest. Its simple divide and conquer.

Accusation 4: "And the other guy dident feel threated by a big army aproching towards his lands."

Again, after I reinforced the position my spawns left at around 12mins 38sec, I did not make any troop movements approaching blue. I dont know what this guy is referring to.

Accusation 5: "they killed evrything together from North too sotuh and the other guy when from South too North. when most of reccistens been crushed and there is only 2 players left included those 2 (totaly 4 players) 1 of them left the game and let the other 2 smaler guys have 0 chanse to deaft this guy who ruled in South part of the map."

This is totally untrue. As anyone can see from the replay, blue did not involve in my war against purple and brown. There simply was no teaming. And as you can see at around 17:50, orange attacked ME in Serbia. I did not team him when he was fighting blue. Orange attacked me in Serbia, and completely pushed me south and out. I gave up all those territory BECAUSE I needed to reserve gold to defend against blue. If I was teamed with blue I would fight orange regardless because he is the biggest player. When Blue disconnected/quit at around 38 minutes, it was only logical for me to mop up the smaller players and push for win. There was no point in delaying.

Accusation 6: "i say it looks like premades since they dindet touch eachother at all. nither had 1 off them any borders troops while the other one had. casicall premade. 0 cummonication still they target same players and split the map in half betwin eachother."

Not all of risk's gameplay is bullshitting and chat. Sometimes the logical strategy is obvious from the map. I did not need to be a whinny little bitch to convince blue to fight orange. It was obvious that orange was the biggest player and threat to everyone after I incapacitated purple.

You can also see from 27 minutes to 29 minutes I truced orange to let him fight with blue. I also relinquished the Ukrainian and Russian port to orange so he can fight blue with more income.

My comments:
Darkgreen (JML) had a bad start, and his territory was cut by brown. As he was beaten back by lightblue in Macedonia, it was only logical for me to take over the northern part of his divided territory Croatia at around 6 minutes. Why doesn't he accuse me of teaming with brown at that time? Risk is an opportunistic game, and there is no point being buttsore. Lucky wins do happen when players d/c or leave. But preteamers/spoiler/cheaters usually have a pattern. Have a look at my other games.

I tried to explain in as much detail as I can as I wished to be known as a fair and honest player, as this is my 1st account on ent. And because I love this game. However I really hope I do not become a sucker target for this rager again.

Please give this a fair consideration. Thanks moderator/admin.

[matdas]

So with zero communication towards each other, you are able to coordinate what the other is thinking? Must be psychic... The lack of chat and the game was evident enough to convince of pre-teaming.

[starfishprime]

Hi Matdas,

Please do not take this personally. I have actually taken a full hour to go through each point of the ban request, correlate it with time in the replay, and write at length. I made the effort as a matter of principle because I really did not preteam.

I have great respect for all the admins and moderators who contribute and make this community possible. However, I do not expect anyone to be perfect, especially for a free service.

You can take note of my comments to accusations 5 and 6 and make appropriate comments if anything is illogical or irrelevant. Kindly do not mock me, as I feel I have done nothing to deserve it (I notice that you've just made a ban request about another player, but I'm not that player.)

Anyhow, thanks for your time.

[starfishprime]

Matdas,

If that was as you say sarcasm, it doesnt bother me. The point is I wish you would examine my replies instead of simply asserting wrong doing. It is especially annoying if the person being accused simply has not preteamed in the first place.

Its ok if you dont want to read the ban appeal fully. The point is, even if there was teaming, which was entirely not the case as I explained my moves disadvantaging blue in my reply in part 5 and 6, teaming is allowed in risk.

Let me ask you in another way, what hard evidence is there that there was PRETEAMING? Even if it appears fishy, which I do admit it may appear so because I normally chat with all, why is JML given the benefit of the doubt and not me? Is it because I am a newb?

If I did preteam with blue, whom I really did not know and still do not know who the heck he/she is, may my whole family die of cancer, myself included.

[matdas]

unbanned.

Let me ask you in another way, what hard evidence is there that there was PRETEAMING? Even if it appears fishy, which I do admit it may appear so because I normally chat with all, why is JML given the benefit of the doubt and not me? Is it because I am a newb?

You answered your own question.
JML is the poster, he posted about someone. We look into who he posted on, not anyone else unless they did something which caused an incident. and the poster's name will not be banned unless mh/3rd party programs in their own ban requests.