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

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

@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

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

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.

@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.

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:

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.

@gamerman01

I am tied up in meetings all day today and tomorrow. I will try to respond on Wednesday.

@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.

You’re starting to lose me. If there is a way for an “objective examination of the metadata”, great, I’m all for that.

I just searched the site and found this thread. https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3061/marti-issues/6?lang=en-US&page=1
It’s about problems with MARTI. Some of it is about the e-mail provider you’re using. Et cetera. Seems to be various issues, unfortunately. Many are about not receiving the e-mails at all, which of course doesn’t apply here, but if you read it all (which I have not) you may realize that MARTI isn’t air-tight.

What e-mail providers are you each using? Are either of them mentioned in this thread as having issues with MARTI?

@trulpen

My position about the Round 27 has not changed.

However, what is done about Round 27 seems moot until the issue with Round 21 is resolved.

My point is that claims and counterclaims are not useful in deciding a fair outcome. We need real data to determine what happened.