@gamerman01 said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:
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?”
/////In my 4:22 PM of 3 April 2022, I actually specified that the two sets of MARTI messages were “for the US round 2.” The mention of 6 hits was a typo; the US/UK got only 4 hits on the “second” roll–almost half fewer than indicated by the first message.
Trulpen says “don’t know, perhaps attack and defense?”
/////There are two tells here.
One is Truplen’s lack of surprise and concern. If he was not aware of the initial better roll by the US/UK, this message should have come as a shock, prompting a careful reading of my email and thoughtful questions. For example, if the police interview the husband of a murdered wife and he does NOT ask key questions (e.g., Are you sure it’s my wife? How was she killed? When and where did this happen?), the behavior is highly suspicious. In this context, key questions might be: Why do you think the two Marti messages are for the same Ally round? What is the subject of each of the emails?
The second interrelated tell is Truplen’s implausible question. Instead of asking questions that would solve the mystery, he asked: "perhaps attack and defense?” Irrelevant, distracting rejoinders are a tool of those with something to hide.
I’m wondering …
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 …
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)
/////I had a situation where an opponent initiated a battle and asked to disregard it, because he thought he was in local mode (and merely trying to simulate a battle) but was in forum mode. It was this type of situation I was trying to ask Trulpen about (i.e. did he THINK he was in local mode to test a combat move but was actually in forum mode). Another possibility just occurred to me: Like Round 27, he started the combat but (for whatever reason) skipped a scramble request and restarted the game (perhaps hoping no MARTI notifications went out, which is plausible–if as he claims–he received no emails from an initial battle).
////In any case, there are three major problems with changing his story.
One is that changing your defense risks getting caught in a contradiction. As any 3-year-old or politician will do: It’s better to deny, deny, deny (until confronted with irrefutable proof of guilt).
A second is that belatedly admitting he initiated a first battle would make him look bad. It would raise questions such as: Why did he not offer the excuse at my first inquiry? Why the initial cover up?
A third reason is that I could then legitimately claim the first dice rolls (highly unfavorable to him and highly favorable to me) should stand. In effect, he would be adopting an alibi that uncover the very thing he was trying to cover up.
In brief, it would have been incredibly stupid for Trulpen to change his story to “it was an accident.” No one is accusing Trulpen, who is smart and a strategic thinker, of being incredibly stupid.
/////Tagging you and P@nther is a smart move. It only backfires IF you (or an AA programmer/tech) check the metadata to see what actually happened.
/////A question that needs to be asked is: Does smell-test analysis or the present analysis align better with the strong circumstantial evidence that can best be explained by cheating. Note that Trulpen now agrees that it is unlikely that a third party initiated the problem, and he did not refute that a bug is almost as unlikely the explanation. In brief, the only way to resolve the disagreement fair to both parties is an objective examination of the metadata.
