L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V

[ArtofWar1947]

@gamerman01

The following are questions I have. Let’s hope there are meta-data available to address them. If so, we could resolve what actually happened.

1. What source triggered the initial “pre-battle” Marti dice rolls? Was the battle information that generated the 4:07 PM 3 April, 2022 Marti notification sent from Trulpen’s computer? If not, from where did it come?
2. Concerning the initial German attack for which neither party received a Marti notification: (a) Were there initial dice rolls by the attacker? (b) If so, was a Marti email generated and sent to both parties?
3. Was a Marti notification of the initial rolls by the US/UK defender (like my 4:07 PM 3 April, 2022 Marti email) sent to Trulpen?

[gamerman01]

Whoo. Really hard to know what’s going on from where I sit. I’ll look at the game board now - if I think trulpen is definitely going to win, then I see no incentive to cheat other than to speed things up (which of course would also be intolerable). Anyway, I’m checking the board to see if that helps me decide anything.
I’ve only done this once before, but one option is to flag trulpen’s line in the standings that he has been accused of cheating. I don’t want to do that.
As for policy to prevent players from ignoring unfavorable dice rolls, I think that’s so obvious, it’s implied. No disrespect meant.

[ArtofWar1947]

@gamerman01

At the time the first possible incident, the outcome of the game was was not clear and the sea battle off if Italy was critical.

Is there no way to check the Marti meta-data for the IP addresses of who (if anyone) initiated a battle (dice roll)?

[gamerman01]

I don’t know those kinds of things about MARTI, I’m sorry.
Since I posted, I realize the dispute is about a 4/3 roll on I21 and now round 28 has been finished, so I wonder why you continued after raising concerns about the I21 dice immediately. It also seemed that you were both cordial in all those following rounds, from what I glanced over.

So I’m just confused as to why 7 more rounds were played if you suspected cheating in an important battle?

Thanks - Gamerman

[ArtofWar1947]

@gamerman01

Do we not have a technician available who check Marti emails?

I did not pursue the allegation of cheating because I did not think anything could/would be done about it, the game was up in the air, and I did not think disregarding initial unfavorable dice rolls would again be an issue. It is now clear that disregarding possible cheating was a mistake.

[gamerman01]

OK, thanks for the answer - I would try P@nther and if he’s not the guy, he probably knows who is

[trulpen]

@artofwar1947 said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:

@gamerman01

Do we not have a technician available who check Marti emails?

I did not pursue the allegation of cheating because I did not think anything could/would be done about it, the game was up in the air, and I did not think disregarding initial unfavorable dice rolls would again be an issue. It is now clear that disregarding possible cheating was a mistake.

Hey now, first I want to repeat that I haven’t cheated. I also don’t have any explanation for what happened previously except that it might have been a bug or perhaps that someone else did that roll. I only did one battle, I can assure you of that.

Secondly, in the current situation there has not been any “disregarded dicerolls”. I merely stated that the battle started unintentionally because of the touchpad (hate them).

The dice were however rolled, so if you want to be that guy, it’s no problem to keep the dice and continue from there. However, there were no air scrambled, and as I said I wanted to wait for your decision since I didn’t see it as obvious.

What I normally do with scrambles when an opponent makes another decision than what I have assumed (didn’t assume here though, just to be clear, it was a slip) is that the full battle is rerolled. That’s because a scramble choice should not be made with known dice outcomes. You can check my history and I’ve done this several times and usually it has been to my disadvantage.

This is something that needs to be treated by mutual understanding, preferably before a situation arises. I’m pretty sure that I’ve brought this up with you, atleast in our earlier games. That would take some digging, but it’s possible to check the forum history.

Anyway, It’s a bit flaring that you consider this to be cheating.

[gamerman01]

Just to be clear, what you quoted after “@gamerman01” was written by ArtofWar and not me - thanks

[trulpen]

Sorry, my bad. Another slip. I intended to quote ArtofWar.

[trulpen]

I mean, I should’ve removed the @ in the quote.

[ArtofWar1947]

@gamerman01

For the sake of clarity, I should have added that, between round 21 (when specter of cheating appeared) and round 27 (when Trulpen would not accept the outcome of his mistake), I spoke with a programmer, who has a passing interest in A&A, about what happened in round 21. He indicated that it should be possible to identify the IP address of the message that initiated the first disputed battle to see if it matched that initiating the “actual” or second battle (i.e., Trulpen’s IP). Such data would provide objective evidence of whether circumstantial evidence that suggests cheating is true or whether something else is going on. Without such hard evidence, I previously had only circumstantial (albeit highly suspicious) evidence of cheating, and we were left with counterclaims that even Solomon could not resolve. With such evidence, the quandary can be resolved and sanctions or a course correction (if applicable) would be fair and make sense.

It would be important to resolve this particular situation objectively for broader reasons. For example, if it reveals someone else initiated the disputed battle as Trulpen claims, it would be important to address this flaw in the Marti program. Moreover, it would provide a clear disincentive for future players not to restart a battle that begins unfavorably.

[trulpen]

@artofwar1947 said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:

if it reveals someone else initiated the disputed battle as Trulpen claims

I claim no such thing. It was just one possible explanation among others.

[ArtofWar1947]

@trulpen

I am not sure what your concern is. “Claim” means ‘to state or assert something is the case, typically without providing evidence.’ This accurately fits the situation. Citing a possible explanation entails making a claim. Note that I did not say “claimed as the only explanation of …” or even “claimed as the most likely explanation of …” I suspect you are reading into the term “claim” an unintended meaning.

In any case, the explanation that another initiated the battle is highly suspect for three reasons: (1) If Marti sent me an email for the initial Ally defense that was also addressed to you, then you (contrary to your denial) should have received the email also. (2) It would be an incredible coincidence for an outsider to initiate the battle (with a bad result for you) and 7 minutes later for you to have initiated the battle. (3) Why would an outsider initiate the battle and not carry through with follow-up rounds?

[trulpen]

You’re a lawyer?

I agree, it’s not a plausible explanation. I believe more in a bug.

[trulpen]

Another point that can be made is that of the hundreds of games I’ve played here in the league since 2019 there have been some disputes (like with you regarding the map of P2V the previous season), but I’ve never been accused of cheating before. And I have never cheated. Disregarding dice is a glaring offence. Why would I knowingly do so? In a game I was clearly winning? Makes no sense.

[ArtofWar1947]

@trulpen

Researcher–educational/developmental psychology. Reports require precise wording.

A bug seems only somewhat more plausible for reasons #1 (If the bug created a Marti notification addressed to both you and me, it does not make sense that only I received it) and #2 (It would be an incredible coincidence for a bug to initiate the Marti notification to me 7 minutes later for you to have initiated the battle). Furthermore, a bug that generates a random Marti notification would presumably occur more than once and cause discussion in the AA community.

[ArtofWar1947]

@trulpen said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:

Another point that can be made is that of the hundreds of games I’ve played here in the league since 2019 there have been some disputes (like with you regarding the map of P2V the previous season), but I’ve never been accused of cheating before. And I have never cheated. Disregarding dice is a glaring offence. Why would I knowingly do so? In a game I was clearly winning? Makes no sense.

I wish there was a more plausible explanation, and perhaps an analysis of meta-data will reveal it. Nevertheless, it is not obvious that you were clearly winning in Round 21 and that the German air force (without subs and ships to soak hits) could afford serious loses (as would have been the case if initial US/UK defensive roll stood).

Moreover, I would think that someone who clearly felt in command of a game would have graciously accepted the initial German sub roll in Round 27 for four reasons: (1) The mistake was on your part, not mine. If anyone should bear a disadvantage as a result, it should be you, not me. (2) Clearly, I planned to scramble 3 fighters. Not scrambling would make no sense. (3) Dice rolls are sacred and should not be ignored without a good cause for which there is a consensus. (4) It looks unsporting when the dice roll is unfavorable. (With the two sub misses, the chance of a German victory drops to less than 50%. But should this matter if you are clearly winning?)

Importantly, your continued insistence on disregarding the German sub roll in Round 27 reinforces the concern you willing disregarded the initial unfavorable roll(s) in Round 27.

[trulpen]

Regarding turn 27 I stated the facts in full disclosure and you had the opportunity to respond to them, which you did.

That issue we can solve easily, if you want to.

[gamerman01]

OK, I think I’m caught up and read everything. I go back to the thread where you guys first realized what had happened (round 21).
Art says he got 2 sets of MARTI messages, first with 7 hits, second with 6 hits, “why so?”
Trulpen says “don’t know, perhaps attack and defense?”
I’m wondering - did trulpen receive both MARTI messages as well?
Art then clarifies they both had the same subject line, were definitely both for the same side - roll.
trulpen said he’d check, that he didn’t see any double rolls.
trulpen then says he doesn’t know (about the double roll), that he didn’t make any re-rolls or seen anything like it when doing the battle.
Art offers benefit of the doubt and asks if trulpen maybe mistakenly rolled offline, then went online.
Trulpen responds, it’s pretty weird, perhaps I should report it? and tags me and P@nther. Then responds that he did not run local and then online.
So I have some observations to make here:

[gamerman01]

If trulpen had deliberately rolled twice because he didn’t like the first result, I don’t think he would have responded the way he did. Specifically, when you (Art) asked trulpen if he perhaps mistakenly rolled offline, then went offline, trulpen said that was not the case. If he deliberately rolled twice, that was his chance to get away with it - he would have said “oh yeah, I accidentally had it in local, then went online” (But now I realize there would be no dice e-mail if you were in local, but apparently you guys didn’t think of that at the time either)
Anyway, a cheater would have taken that opportunity to say, oh yes, that must be what happened.
Then trulpen says it’s pretty weird, and tags me and P@nther. I don’t think someone who intentionally cheated would make sure that P@nther and I would look into it.

Now neither of my observations proves trulpen is innocent and I’m not even saying that I’m sure he is innocent. I’m only saying that I don’t think his responses are indicative of an intentional re-roll.

If new or different evidence is brought to my attention, I would decide accordingly, but for now I’m saying trulpen passes my sniff test based on what I see in the thread.