| Author | Essentially a giveaway combat |
|---|
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=492994610
https://www.lordswm.com/battlechat.php?warid=24994610
Player lord287 joined with an AFK Luck penalty (bad sign to begin with). Then proceeded to go AFK several times during the battle. It is very possible that the battle was lost due to the apparently deliberate inaction of this player.
lord287 started to pay attention and write when informed of my intention to report his poor behaviour. I find his claims of a poor connection to be unconvincing. He seemed to have no problems typing consistently at the end. Considering the *existing* AFK penalty at the start of the battle it is unbelievably bad sportsmanship to have joined the Tournament in the first place. Especially if he is aware that he has a bad connection (see battlechat).
Grunge |
Sorry wrong links.
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=492996156
https://www.lordswm.com/battlechat.php?warid=24996156
Grunge |
Would also like to point out that lord287 apparently started going consistently AFK after this line -
17~46:[lord287]: we will lose
It appears that because he was of the belief that our side was going to lose, that he chose to go mostly AFK.
Grunge |
i would like to defend myself because I am a fair player and I am not doing anything to convince you. My poor connection resulted for me going AFK again and again. I have many fights like this only for example:-
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=492993858
In this fight i was regular and in the end when we were about to win I was AFK because of my poor connection.
This is an ample proof that in the fite in which i was teamed up with grunge i remained regular in the last because at that time my connection got kinda okay. |
| [Post deleted by moderator Pang // no 3rd party comments in CaA] |
If this was simply a normal PvP battle, I would not have cared so much.
But special events, like the Mixed Tourney, are very important battles. If you really are having such consistent problems that you are regularly disconnecting, you shouldn't be joining.
All that will happen is that you will spoil other peoples battles.
And it still seems strange that you disconnected after commenting on the fact that you thought you were going to lose. Also you were intermitently able to move, it just appeared that in most cases you chose not to. And why did you not mention your bad connection at the start of the battle?
Grunge |
[Post deleted by moderator Pang // ]
[Player banned by moderator Pang until 2010-10-25 03:55:00 // no 3rd party comments in CaA] |
[Post deleted by moderator Pang // ]
[Player banned by moderator Kiz until 2011-05-24 08:58:01 // Uplifting excessive ban.] |
| [Post deleted by moderator Pang // ] |
Interesting how a simple mistake like posting with a multi can unravel a whole web of infractions.
Kumar_123 lead me to SAI_KUMAR (Combat Log). SAI_KUMAR lead me to kumaraseshanth and AkashKumar1 (Combat Logs). I had seen the name Krishan_Ashwini in several of the combat logs up to this point and noticed it again in the new combat logs.
Doing a simple check on name variations (I had AkashKumar1, maybe there was an original akashkumar?) led me to an older blocked multi ring.
AkashKumar was blocked as was AshwiniKrishnan and Barbashwini, for being an illegal multi ring.
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4698499 lord287
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4738893 kumar_123
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4786939 SAI_KUMAR
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4791957 AkashKumar1
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4792734 Krishna_Ashwini
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4793595 kumaraseshanth
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4752197 akashkumar - blocked
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4600884 AshwiniKrishnan - blocked
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4605114 Babashwini - Blocked
If my speculation is correct then a reason for lord287 not being present in the tournament game (12:25) could be the start of the game for another multi (AkashKumar1, 12:45).
Perhaps after this has been assessed for Battle Violations it could be moved to CaA - Finance and Others? Or maybe the most important thing is checking for IP clashes. An illegal multi-ring would kinda make the other things mostly irrelevant.
Grunge |
| move to CaA-FaO for further investigate |
| Topic moved from "Complaints and applications - Violations in tavern and battles" to "Complaints and applications - Finance and others". |
i am sorry to say but the only multi i have is kumar_123
All other names are not even known to me, lord287 is my main account . If u r thinking that these r my multi than their are lots of other people with word lord in them also for example
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4437697-lord1
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4561046-lord10
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4602536-lord25
if u r going by matching names with others u r going to find many players then who u will consider as multi.
for example i can say i found ur multi by matching name
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4395155 - Gruntas |
Combats between characters with similar names are actually fairly rare, and usually don;t happen on a recurring basis without some other reason - Hunt Partner or Clan Members for example.
Having a look at the battle logs of Krishna_Ashwini reveals regular group combats with players from the groups mentioned above.
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_warlog.php?id=4792734
From my observations, such battles involving low-level characters rarely include so many repeat performances on such a regular basis. It is more common sign of players with illegal multis looking to control the outcome of battles they participate in.
In any case, a simple IP check of all the characters should resolve the matter one way or the other.
And finally, having a multi you are required to have it signed on your main character. You should be aware of this. At the very least you have violated General Rule 3.10.1. If you register an additional character, you are bound to show that in the opening line of the "character information" of both, commenting who is the main character and who is the additional one. Just the line "I've got another character" or "This is an additional character" is not enough. Indication of nicknames of them all is obligatory. Additional characters who aren't signed will be blocked immediately.
Grunge |
For the record the link between Kumar_123 and SAI_KUMAR is the weakest link in the chain. It is possible that Kumar_123 and the rest are unrelated.
There are definite strong links between Krishna_Ashwini, AshwiniKrishna, AkashKumar1 and Akashkumar. It *could* be coincidental and mere happenstance.
Once again, a simple IP check can easily determine things one way or another. Throw in a check between me and Gruntas too, just for giggles. It's fairly easy to see that I don't feature prominently in his battles log.
Have Fun
Grunge |
| it is signed on my character page. |
I hope this won't be considered as a 3rd party comment...
it is signed on my character page.
It definitely was NOT signed yesterday. It was as Grunge said, lord287 had stated in his profile that he had no multis. He only changed it after seeing this thread >.> |
| i did it because i did not know about the rule. And i have written i did not have any multi's because i saw many people wrote on their character page and at that time i had not made it so i wrote that thing and forgot to change when i made kumar_123 |
| closed by Lexa (2010-10-26 20:52:35) |
|---|
