Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

If Norfleet was being framed, why would he agree on the numbers of the battle? I liked Norfleet as much as anyone, but I find the framing scenario very unlikely. I have to say that Norfleet's guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In that light, we must assume that Norfleet has probably cheated in more games, which brings the different flamewars into a different light.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

And once again Stormbinder displayed _his_ glaring lack of ethics / common courtesy, quoting a private email publicly, just as he used wiretaps to quote from conversations (ie, logged irc chats and publicly posted them, akin to illegally tapping a telephone line).

I'm not saying that Norfleet is necessarily innocent of cheating. I'm just saying that I find Stormbinder's actions, attitudes, and diatribes disgusting and reprehensible - and he wants to be thanked for this?

To the point of sending harassing private Messages, asking if I have the "guts" to say I'm sorry to Stormvomit, after having been told I didn't want private Messages from him.

Stormbinder, to once again quote your acronom : I'm sorry you didn't FOAD.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Or that some of the people with an agenda against him went "beyond the pale". I certainly don't think you (as the host) had anything to do with it.

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

But at turn 23, it's conspicuously wasteful - you can't _use_ that many hammers, even if the cost of creating them was negligible. That's something fishy, to me.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

Another fishy thing, from another game : How does an artifact (the Holy Grail) simply disappear from the magic item stash, with a message saying "Suddenly the Chalice was not found in the laboratory anymore".

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I don't think that possibility is very convincing caine, whatever the characters involved. Norfleet did not say, hey this isn't the game I was playing (as if he had been set up), but instead tried to put forth various bull**** explanations (such as about having used sorceresses for ravensfeast and getting 40 death gems from burninating provinces). And, frankly, I find Norfleet much more likely to have had the necessary skills for the job.

As to the chalice thing, that's just the message you get if someone wishes the artifact away from you. You can wish it back if you want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

you have a tendency to be hypocritical

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I thought you were smarter than that. Norfleet was in fact a well worn topic of discussion in the dominions developer forum. And in the shrapnel Moderators forum. Norfleet had sanctions against him and a watchful eye on his actions well before Stormbinder started being so loud. You sound like a high school kid who is mad that he doesnt know what goes on in the teachers lounge.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

lol, nothing like. however, the "teachers" in this case actively worked to dismiss the concerns of the students, and put forth as if there were no problem. Have you forgotten the discussions on VQs, on clams, on castling? My own experience is that any concerns I had were dismissed by mods because i "must just be a newbie", and incompetent, if I couldn't deal w/ VQ's or castles...

obviously something was broken, but there was not even a hint of acknowledgement of that fact.

the real discussions, and work, concerning what was going on certainly seemed to have taken place completely outside of the teachers' lounge, which to all appearances was rather out of touch. As is the way such things often go.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Now that I've had a chance to reread this, (I was half asleep from waking up earlier, so I have adjusted my response to accurately reflect what is written instead of my half-asleep understanding)

I closed it because it was going to *become* a silly flamewar. Because it was taking on the tendancies of it. And maybe I should let flames ride if it's cheating? Maybe, but I don't want to be quick to jump the gun on accusing or saying irrefutably such things happened or not, though in this case it may be obvious to all but a few. Here is from an earlier post about my personal opinion:

I don't think my personal opinion should be tacked on the end of every closed post. Since my personal opinion could be very much the opposite of the reason why the thread was closed down.

If you want my personal opinion on the subject. It is: Cheaters suck. I don't like them. But they happen, in every game you play. At least to some degree you can control such things, but as it is now I haven't found an excessive amount of cheating in Dom2 as opposed to say ... Blizzard games (For obvious reasons). I think it's personally very low to cheat, and to cheat in a forum that you seem to want and have a helpful presence within. I also think it's abhorable to use cheating against newbies, constantly, anhillating them constantly and without mercy by cheating when it's perfectly servicable and easy enough to do without cheating.

Sort of like murder is bad, but murdering a 2 year old kid is an uncommon sort of low bastard.

Now, with that said, I'm not going to foam around about it, just a sad fact of life.

No I don't personally think so. But as I said previously that it may not be him alone, and I don't see how it can be done. That the game was tampered with is not an issue, that it was tampered with in favor of Norfleet or "for Norfleet" is not an issue. How he did it, and why to that extent are a few questions I have personally but yes, as far as I'm concerned Ermor cheated in that game and that game and Ermor was Norfleet. Conspiracy theories aside, I have no reason to think that Norfleet was not capable, had motivation and had previous record of doing such in the past.

No, the other side of the coin as far as conversation and discussion about such things. We both know you have a tendancy to get yourself worked up on certain issues, this happens to be two of the main issues that you get worked up, combined! I never said you cheated, that you were even in the same Category as a cheater or that I do appreciate the fact that you have found enough proof to damn him for his actions and exposed him for cheating and thus tainting those who play the games he was in.

I never said they were the same. I only said that you haven't seem to have given it enough time to really look into it, especially considering the forum switchover, differences in timezones, and a multitude of factors. I would hope you wouldn't think my objectivity and not instant judgement of ANYONE (including yourself, Norfleet, or any other number of people) is better than rash accustations.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Keeping it on baseball. It reminds me of the little boy who went up to shoeless Joe Jackson after their bribery scandal player & asked "Joe say it ain't so". I find it hard to believe and do not want to believe that Norfleet was cheating. This from someone who does not know him at all & had decided that I did not like him much, though I mostly valued his presence. I, like Cainehill, started dreaming of conspiracies- though these do not really hold water (they are too wide & Norfleet should have raised the issue of massive wealth himself).
My initial regret was that Stormbinder too had not committed some heinous act & would also be Banned, as his hectoring of Norfleet & Norfleet's goading back were one of the low points of the board. I will try to modify this reaction in light of the fact that N was cheating but it IS my gut reaction.
To those of you in Stormbinder's camp we are the people of Rome who instead of praising Caesar's assassins for freeing them from tyranny, join in hunting them down.

Pickles

ps Baseball details may be wrong I am English, it's from a movie

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Actually those conversations were well followed, and in fact the VQ was changed. The clam conversations are also followed but no solution has come forth. Of course these are a couple of minor points in the overall list of things being worked on. There were also acknowledgments given by the developers and the beta team members. You might take note of the people who did receive answers, specifically the differences between their threads and the wording of them. Again, the end justifiying the means does not fly with everyone if you are waiting for some sort of thank you response.

Im sure if I worded this in the same language and tone that some people use to put their points across, that it would be much better understood. Unfortunately I would get in trouble for that unless I created a new login and sent it anonymously.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

No need to go all conspiracy minded. The simpler explanation is that Norfleet either hacked the files or used some sort of glitch he discovered, which would be tantamount to cheating. Add to the submitted files that Norfleet has, on more than one occasion I believe, triggered the cheat protections in the game, and also to my knowledge he is one of the very few if not the only forum acitve player that has done this in MP. While it is not irrefutably certain that he did cheat I think it is by far the most likely and obvious explanation.

The chalice dissappeared because the knights of the chalice came and quested for it.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

heh, nah I don't care. Dom II is filled w/ such a bunch of curmudgeons that such things as apologies or thanks are generally rarer than hens' teeth in a disco.

I don't feel that moderation, and public feedback on the issues was that stellar, but whatever. Illwinter hasn't been ignoring the problems, obviously, and deserve respect for their hard work, and for the even more work they'll be doing in the future.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

No, the reason it was dismissed was because there was no proven factual information in it. The tiring "Norfleet beat me with X and I don't think that is fare" is not a good enough excuse, ever. If someone else replaces it, if suddenly Tauren13 starts beating everyone with Lord of the Gates and Stingers, we're not going to use the logical thinking that he must be cheating and take the concerns of what the issues are (I.E. Lord of the Gates and Stingers) for their value in standard game, not some sort of cheating game.

And it was exactly the opposite of what people said "The VQ is broken" and not "Norfleet is cheating with the VQ". In such discussions, newbies were coming up with their own horror stories of getting beat by one handed Vampires with oodles of clams saying it was fact. Maybe an investigation should be done by anyone who stood on the 'pro-nerf' side of the fence of anything, yeah? Damn cheaters.

Then the VQ wouldn't have been balanced as it was, for the reasonings that it was. Clams wouldn't have been disregarded as "Something that can be exploited, if you have exactly the right circumstances" and Castles would all cost 600 Gold, yes?

The price of using such broad statements is you tend to selectively forget the past conversations and reasons why things were done or in this case, not done.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

No it wasnt stellar. They cant participate in these discussions the way that we can. The developers tend to make 1 answer in a thread and then a few pages later people are complaining that the devs are clueless about it even though nothing was said to change the first answer. Beta tester responses are abit more frequent. And of course the most numerous come from the player-tester folks which are appreciated.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

lol, as I remember, the "selective forgetting" has more been a policy of this forum, through the wholesale deleting of Posts it does not like.

It was clear to many that something or things were broken. The general response from the forum old guard was to stick fingers in their ears. I certainly couldn't tell if norfleet was hacking files, or if clamming were absurdly abusable, or what exactly. But there was certainly something broken, yet that was actively denied by those who should have remained neutral in the discussions then.

turn files were certainly available to anyone who wished to see what all the fuss was about. I know I didn't refuse any requests to examine them.

Again, I'm glad that some sort of resolution has been achieved. I certainly hope that illwinter is able to figure out a tougher security regimen. However, until then i'm not about to stop playing. actually i wasn't referring to the devs, who, while remaining distant from the fray, certainly evidenced to me a genuine interest in the apparent problems on our part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif again, turn files were available. It was dismissed out of arrogance. No one ever simply made a complaint "oh noes I was beaten that's not possible", but rather wondered how such vast resources were possible w/out a bug or broken game mechanic. People who used the word "broken" were told off in no uncertain terms by Moderators of this forum. Now, that is a fact. I would reccomend rereading some of Rabe's insightful and informative Posts on the VQ issue, for instance.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

And so we come to the most patronizing comment yet. "Trust us kiddies, even though we grownups have made no mention in any public place that there has been a problem here at school, rest assured that we in our wisdom have taken steps to insure your safety and well-being. It is not for you to know what's being done, or even that anything is being done, just trust us and everything will be fine. Now just run along and go play in the schoolyard, while we get back to our serious buisiness in the teachers lounge."

It has of course been possible to read between the lines of various occurances in the forums, the patches and elsewhere to infer that there is a real problem, and that things have been done about it, but to my mind an explicit statement from Illwinter and/or Shrapnel acknowledging that a problem exists and stating that solutions are being investegated is not too much to ask for. Since such a statement has never been made, its understandable that some have reached the conclusion that the powers that be have their head in the sand.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Perhaps a policy of active readers or posters. As for wholesale deletion of Posts? Are you reading the same board as I am? As far as I know, post deletion is the very Last method of moderation that is ever taken and it's not taken lightly. Most often it/they are moved to the moderator forum for viewing of not only other Moderators but administrators. In my time here, I have only deleted a handful of individual Posts and I believe only one thread that was not requested. I have however, had to edit numerous Posts, give plenty of warning PM's and in general wonder at the maturity of people as they get worked up about a /game/.

It has been said I don't know how many times for people to send their files to info@illwinter.com for any kind of hokiness. If you didn't get that memo, there isn't much I can do. Actively denied that someone was cheating? I can't remember much of the discussion off hand, but I believe any allusions to 'cheating' were not very prominant and the only instance of it that really cropped up was in Stormbinder's GG game, where much of the general populace doesn't consider 'Playing under another name and denying it if questioned' cheating.

I don't remember any Posts saying "Norfleet hacked the game" but instead said "X is overpowered because Norfleet keeps beating me with it".

If anything that is all that has been done, maybe more priority given to what was already something that was being pursued (cheat prevention that is). I would hope noone would stop playing, and I would also hope that everyone won't go *** crazy every time they are getting beat in a game and start accusing people of cheating. But if you do think you are, you always have the option of either figuring it out on your own (via your own methods) or sending it to IW for a looksie.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I also want to point out that if the part of Kristoffers mail that Cainhill quoted is all that Stormbinder posted, the mail has recieved some editing before being quoted. I was reading over Kristoffers shoulder when he wrote it and the original tone of the letter was not intended to be congratulatory but to say 'you were right, it is there for everyone to see, be satisfied with that and move on' in response to Stormbinder feeling that Norfleet got the Last word when the thread was locked, I think the parts of the mail posted skewes the tone of it somewhat.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Not to start yet another flamelest, but I'm constantly astonished by just how ingrateful we can seem at times. Honestly, the Dom 2 team, which is just barely large enough to be called that, has done more for the fanbase than any major game corporation. Clearly, this game is a Derek Smartesque labor of love.
Honestly, before we start making demands and accusations, I suggest we contemplate how anyone could put so much effort into a game, and still take the time to pander to the fans at every other turn.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

What can you expect? If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

??? I was referring to Johan's post. I don't understand what your reply to my post concerns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Please do a search and give me some examples. What problems were not acknowledged by Illwinter? I got tired of telling people to SEARCH or READ the whole thread. Usually Kristoffer O, Johan O, or Johan K, replied quite nicely early in the thread. The fact that they stopped replying, and sometimes even stopped reading, a thread later when it got less informative and more demanding seems to be a lesson that some people never quite figured out. The beta testers tended to hang on the longest but eventually even the most diplomatic of them tends to drop off. Searching on those names and doing some reading should make it clear to most how to best get something accomplished (and how to best screw it up).

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Im still not sure what the real problem you are refering to is, clams? or Norfleet? And how should it have been aknowledged If the problem you believe we were ignoring was Norfleet possibly cheating I don't see what you feel should have been handled differently. There was occasional instances when Norfleet triggered cheat prevention alarms. He also pulled his somewhat underhanded coup on Stormbinder. But these aren't reasons to issue an offical illwinter fatwah on him, in my mind. If you find these sorts of instances troubling or if you believed Norfleet was cheating the obvious ploy would have been avoid playing with Norfleet. If it isn't Norfleet's cheating you consider there being an official osprey behaviour on what is it, the clams? If so I still do not agree that they are overpowered, I also still do not see how it should have been handled differently. In fact the possibility of Norfleet cheating before only lends credence to our previous standpoints. And Norfleet apparantly very succesfully utilising a strategy is hardly cause for Nerfing it in the first place. Especially since other appeared to have problems reproducing it. So like an older thread suggested the problem with clamming was Norfleet, wether from extraordinary skill or cheating.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Do I? Perhaps, but not in this case. Stormbinder has _NO_ reasonable expectation of privacy when sending Messages to me, as I had (at least a month or two ago) told him to not send me private Messages again.

He started again. I'm not quoting a confidential correspondence - I'm paraphrasing a harassing message. Perhaps you can't see the difference, though? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Gandalf:I'm pretty sure that archeolept was referring to Stormbinder's selective editing of the message as not being a surprise at all, as he consistently interprets (and sometimes distorts) things to fit his own self-chosen messianic role.

Hmm - is there _any_ way to get the person's name to show up on the same line as the "Quote:"? Very wasteful of space as is, and also somewhat frustrating to not be able to see _whom_ was being quoted, which is the default.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Johan:Oh, I agree 100% that it is more _likely_ that Norfleet was cheating - Occam's Razor and all that. I simply (?) wanted to raise an alternative theory that, while not as simple, could also explain things. I'm certainly also willing to admit that I'm willing to give Norfleet more of a benefit of the doubt that Stormbinder, but that's a matter of history and personal animosity.

Both Stormbinder and I would be disqualified from an jury for this matter that didn't believe in "hang first, ask questions later". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

So the knights might be carrying the chalice now? Interesting. Thanks.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Firstly, I have read the entire thread, and in fact, you'd have to go pretty far to find a single post on this entire board that I haven't read. Secondly, I am not trying to accomplish anything here, besides chastising you for being patronizing. Thirdly, if you read the now-closed original thread, Kristoffer did nothing beyond posting a list of what Norfleet had in the game in question, letting the facts speak for themselves, as it were. While I can't really blame him for that, you'll note that he did not say: "this has been hacked or otherwise manipulated, and I'm investigating how it was done and will try to come up with a method to prevent it happening again". That is what I meant by "no explicit statement".

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

That isn’t the only instance of your hypocrisy, only an example.
Perhaps a better one would have been your accusing storm, or anyone for that matter, of having a vendetta.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Truper said:Ahh you were talking about one thread? One started by Stormbinder? Or one started by Norfleet?

Truper said:There was no reply by Zen, or I? At what point should this statement have been made?

OK
Personally I have an idea on how this might have been done and it is being investigated. It is being discussed in the Dominions2 beta forum.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Did you look at the game? With the number of magic-Users 17 hammers are not unreasonable, especially if you're making many clams.
You seem to desperately want Norfleet to be framed, which is, eh, unlikely, given the things he said. Why would he claim that he used many fetishes, when he had one? Why would he claim he used Sorceresses, when he had none? And so on, and so forth. Besides, what jury are you talking about? Not many people have been outspoken against Norfleet personally.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I never believed in hushing anything up. If somebody sent something to me, and I found reason to publish it, I would not hesitate to do so. I also routinely log IRC logs; while I have never had reason to publish such I would not hesitate to do so. To do otherwise would be dishonest and frankly --- wrong. I somebody wrote to me that he is cheating in a game, I would publish it without any hesitation.

So in conclusion, Stormbinder's only fallacy was a tendency to flame, a tendency he IMHO has out behind him. I believe in forgiveness where appropriate, and surely, Stormbinders transgression wasn't THAT bad.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

The problem I'm referring to is cheating. I've never been involved in the clam debate on way or the other. Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that a bunch of seperate issues have become all tangled up together, and things have been further complicated by the personalities involved. The only thing I think could have been handled differently is that the fact that cheat alarms have been set off, and that improved cheat detection and the like were implemented for a *reason* could have been acknowledged before now.

Which is what I did. I actually think Illwinter does a great job responding to the community. I had no intention of becoming involved in this discussion at all, until I had one of my buttons pushed, and I now regret my "head in the sand" line, and apologize for using it.

I've known for a long time, but been in no position to prove, that the clam strat was just a smokescreen for some sort of cheat or exploit.

Kudos to Illwinter for creating a game that has kept so many people so passionately involved for so long.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Cainehill,your alternative theory implies also that Norfleet was cheating...makes really no difference.

Lets go with some facts for the conspiracy theory(I already pointed out this):

-Norfleet did play his turns in this game,undoubtable.
-He receives nearly every turn a lot of gems out of nowhere
-He uses this to his advantage,forging lots of items,summoning lots of things,instead of telling anyone whats happening.


----> he cheated

The only difference between an unknown third party giving Norfleet the gems and him being the actual hacker is,that within the conspiracy theory we would have several cheaters.
But the fact alone,that he even at the end tried to explain his wealth by inventing things,makes the conspiracy theory VERY unlikely...and there are lots of other facts,that make it even more unlikely.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. Personally, my first thought was "Hey, the boy who cried wolf all night finally found one".

Cheating is unforgivable, cheaters should be Banned on first offense and the evidence that *Kristoffer* posted is sufficient to convince me, in the absence of any contradiction, that Norf cheated or abused a bug or something of a similar and illicit nature.

That said, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Storm would do something equally as illicit to get rid of someone he didn't like and most people who have been around a while might at least understand why I might say that. I mean, they were going to have some inane deathmatch which, if Norf lost, he would have to stop playing Dom2 here entirely, for god's sake !

However, *that* said, the only impartial evidence is pointing at Norf so I can accept that. As someone said, Occam's Razor and all. It doesn't change that, to me, Storm's contribution to the community was entirely an inadvertant by-product of his otherwise antagonistic personality.

- Kel

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

As you have seen things are edited, or 'not said' in order to provide things in a certain light or for a certain topic/conversation. This is a universal thing, not specifically one for this particular occasion/forum.

It's called 'in bad taste' and in general, if you are going to post a private Email, you post it in it's entirety without editing out anything you'd rather not mention or feel is irrelevant for such things.

Where you might be faultlessly honest (at least in your own opinion) there are countless others who are not or are not to the degree where they would do such things.

Like I said, not in this particular instance, but Online in general.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

As far as I recall the cheat detection was not implemented to deal specifically with Norfleet, even if Norfleet from time to time would imply that Illwinter was out to get him. There was a little extra attention paid to Norfleet because of this and related issues, but the cheat alarms were not aimed at Norfleet, nor as far as I recall improved in response to Norfleet, they were just improved. The people that experienced the cheat warnings posted about it here, as did Norfleet himself on occasion. Norfleet claimed the cheat alarms had targeted him for offenses he hadn't commited. As far as I am concerned I do no think that there is much else that should have been done, I think it is up to the parties involved to impart any information about players being suspected for cheating. I at least certianly doesn't want here to be some sort of illwinter blacklist of players. In my opinion the only viable and workable option is for the player community to police itself in these matters.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Johan Osterman:Heehee. I think I would be willing to bet that I set off the cheat alarms more than anyone. My maps with handcreated gods for strange and powerful AIs became unplayable after the cheat-check went in. I was one of the big pushers to get an "off switch" to the chear detection.

Thats besides all of the purposeful tests and things I tried. And friends of mine from alt-hacker.org
Of course my results always went to illwinter.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

I have not seen this; nor am I doubting it. I just reacted to the part about it being poor manners to publish private email --- I find this perfectly acceptable, with the obvious restrictions. I could not let this pass, and wanted to support Stormbinders action (not the editing, if any, but the publishing).
As long as you do not misrepresent I find some omitting fine, especially for large texts. It is a better to err toward caution in this respect though.

Nobody is honest, not completely. I do not believe the human mind can take that kind of honesty. I am not too good about being honest, either, but I do try. I also believe that people generally are dishonest to themselves more than to other people. This is certainly true for me.

This was the very context I was aiming at. Publishing emails are mostly ok, publishing IRC logs from public channels certainly are. I will defend this any time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (that was supposed to be a joke about honesty).

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Coming in very late on all this but I can't resist commenting on this subject, since I suspected Norfleet of cheating from the very first game I ever played in with him, and have thought about that far more than I ever cared to.

To me, he was the very worst of cheaters - one who was good enough to win many of the games he played in without cheating, but he did it anyway. Thus, whenever you called him on it, and I did once, he was able to give very detailed and just maybe plausible explanations for how he had achieved his results.

Strangely, however, when I followed his instructions TO THE LETTER in a subsequent game as the exact same race, I didn't get anywhere near the same results. The anywhere near part is key - I can accept some level of variance but totally not at the same level...hmmmm...

Having talked some to another player in a game with Norfleet, once again he somehow managed to hit the totally perfect start position (i.e. for example, found two sage sites on the first 2 turns when he doesn't even use his god to search) and was dominant in all categories, with no one beating him in any of them. Gee, how lucky was that! And every time too!

So in the end I knew in my heart was cheating but my head said maybe I'm just missing something (and I am sure Norfleet has far more knowledge of the game than I do) and I can never prove it anyway so whats the point. I am happy someone finally did. I had decided a while ago to simply not play in any games Norfleet was in since I believed in my heart he was cheating.

From the above Posts there seems to be some people defending him and possibly even wondering if he really was a cheater. If he is innocent, then he can very easily prove it. He can give someone his step by step what to do to achieve his results, they can post it here for him, and we should all be able to play the game and have at least some us achieve a comparable result in some games.

I remain convinced that if he chose to do this either none of us would be able to achieve close to the same result (i.e. he is throwing out more BS which he can do easily since he knows the game so well) OR it would involve some "miracle occurs here" step that almost of all of us would look at and say "hey thats cheating!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And that should be the working definition of cheating for all intensive purposes.

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

That is exactly the reason that the person would want to omit or otherwise out of place put a statement as if applied to a directly different statement or feeling. Like taking a quote about say "This is the best game ever!" from 'Blizzard Executives' and applying it to Dom2. While they did say that one particular statement, it wasn't in regard what it was directed or USED to express a pov at (case in point, the Email quote in question).

Like I said, I don't think it's the absolutely most horrible thing in the world to do (though others feel this is tantamount to lying) and there is even a specific Flamer (from that one webpage) regarding it. I believe that it would be better to err on the side of honesty and not distortion or even worse, misrepresentation.

Honestly! Such jokes!

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

To Cainehill: Just to bring the matter to the conclusion between us, now that the saga with Norfleet is over, I've decided to respond to your post, instead of just ignoring you us I usually did in the past. I do it mostly to prevent you from trying to smear my name and distort the facts to the people who may not be aware of them.


I am sorry to say, but what you wrote is simply untrue.


After the Norfleet's cheating was recently exposed to the public, I send you a brief message, asking you if you are willing to admit that you was wrong, when for the past 5 monthes you repeatedly insulted me on various Boards and zealosly defended Norfleet, when I was saying that Norfeet is a cheater. I did it because I wanted the matter to be settled between us and so we both could move on, now that the trutt was in the open. The message was very brief and I didn't insult you or call you names.

You have responded with message full of insults and profanity.


As for my "harassing Messages" to you - I have no idea what you are talking about. I even specificaly checked my PM archive. I never send you a single message until yesterday (other than the one that I mentioned above), harassing or otherwise. The only exception were two game-realted PMs that I've send you 10 days ago, when you suddenly expressed desire to join my new game that I was orginising, after all your past insults and flames directed at me and protecting Norfleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif In these 2 PMs I told you we need to discuss it in privite and I told you that I have no objection to you joining my game, if you will promise that, you'll stay polite in the game-thread to all other players, including Cohen, whom you always flame venemiosly and whom, as you told me yourself, you hate deeply. I also said that I want us to stop any future flamewars between you and me, since I have no interest in continuing them - the only person on the board that I have reason to despite and flame was Norfleet. Both Messages were *very* polite and neutral. You have promptly responed to both of them, also staying reasonably polite, and you have decided to withdraw from the game instead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

You never expressed any displeasure with these Messages in your responses, and you never asked me to not write you in the future.

Other than that, I never send any privite Messages to you, harassing or otherwise. And the only emails that we ever exchanged were about 5 monthes ago, when we both were playing in my "Fire and Ice" game. There was no future email correspondence between us either. I don't even have your email address. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

If you are going to dispute any of this Cainehill, I am going to post both my "harrasing" message and your response, for everybody to see. Than you can again whine as much as you want about my "disregard for privicy". I will not let you lie about me and about these letters, and than hide behind the figus leaf of "privicy".


Here is a bottom line for you Cainehill, just to settle this once and for all, and I am going to say it in public for everybody to see.

You have told me just a few weeks ago, when we were talking on the Dom channel, about your past. You proudly told me how much do you enjoy all sort of flamewars, and you bragged for a very long time what a great flamer you are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif You told me that in various internet forums "people are still talking about some of my flames from years ago" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif You feel so proud of it and you kept braging about it on and on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Well, here are the news for you Cainehill - I am not really interested in any type of pissing contest with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I am sorry if it will come as a shock to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif But I have much better uses for my time than silly flamewars with you. The only person I had every reason to despite and hate, for cheating and ruining my game in which I invested so much of my time and energy is gone now, after being publicly exposed as a cheater. That's enough for me.


Unlike yourself, I am not out there looking for flames of any kind. I am here to play Dom2 game and communicate with mature and intelligent fellow Dom2 players. I am not braging what a great flamer I am, and how people talk about my flames in awe, years after I am gone. To tell you the truth, I find it very silly and childish. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif But that's my own opinion, you can do whatever you want with your time. Hoever I duobt that Moderators will look at it kindly. But don't expect me to become your flaming partner Cainehill, in your quest to become the "Flame King of Dom2 forums". I am sorry to say, but this is not going to happen. Frankly you hold no interest for me, and I simply don't care about you one way or another. And the more desperately you'll try to involve me into your flamewars, the more silly you'll look for all other forum memebers, that's all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif




With best regards,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Stormbinder once again distorted:
Asking if I'd admit I was wrong, hmmm?

This is what you wrote, "I think you owe me a personal appology Cain. Although I don't know if you have guts to admit it."

That wasn't "asking if I'd admit I was wrong". In addition - I've had communications with you in IRC, via private Messages, and email, and I told you _NOT_ to send private communications - not emails, not private Messages via the forums.

Now then, to reiterate - I find you to be duplicitous, a stone cold liar (as documented in a thread months ago), deceitful, and in general, a whining irritating self-righteous pompous snit.

I have no interest in "flaming" you, I have no interest in hearing from you, and I generally try to only respond to you when you start distorting the truth again.

Now, to politely use your acronyms, STFU and FOAD. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Good Job. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

To all fellow players who have expressed their support and appreciation:

I want to thank all of you. Your support is very important to me, and I really appreciate it. It makes me feel that the time and efforts to expose the cheater was well spend and apreciated by other Dom2 players. Thanks you guys.


As for my "editing" of the letter, as one or two people wrote here - frankly I don't think that these accusations are fair. First - I specifically said (in the part that was deleted by Zen together with letter) when I posted the letter that these are "excerpts" from the letter.

Second - I speciafically put "..." sign in few places where I cut unrelated text. I never did any other editing of course. Frankly I don't know what else could I possibly do to point out that I am posting excerpts, not the whole letter??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

The only reason why I posted that letter in the first place was in respond to Zen's post, in which he said that Illwinter doesn't know yet if Norfleet has cheated or not, that it is not obvious to them or to him, and so on...

So I posted these expects that clearly show that at least KristoferO had no doubts whatsoever that Norfleet cheated, and that he thinks that for all other players it is just as obvious as well. I think it was very appropriate response, and I don't feel that I did something terribly unethicall here.

As for my "editing" - the only parts that I skiped was personal advice from KristofferO to myself, to "not brag" about the fact that I was right about Norfleet all along, and just relax and enjoy the results of what I have done. I skiped them in my post because they were personal and absolutely irrelivent to the fact that was being discussed at that moment, whihc is Norfleet's cheating. That's all.

BTW KristofferO, I actually thought about your advice seriosly and decided to take it to the hear when I've recieved your later. As anybody can see I haven't braged in any of the threads recently. (well, to be absolutely honest I did braged a littel bit once, but very shortly and two days ago, before that letter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif)

Instead I was staying calm and positive after Norfleet was finally busted, just as I intend to do in the future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And I wanted to thank KristofferO for his advice, because he was right of course. I also hope Kristoffer doesn't mind me posting these few expects from his latter, where he said that it is clear to Illwinter and should be clear to all players that the norfleet have cheated. Since then, both Jossef and KrisO have posted here on this thread saying just that, so it is not a question for anybody anymore.


Again, my deep thanks to everybody who expresed their suppost to me and for their kind words, in this thread and in others.

Feeling warn and cozy inside,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

All right Cain, I see you obviosuly too addicted to your flames, and just can not stop it even if it is in your best interest. You have been warned. Here are your letter to me from yesterday:

As I wrote, I didn't call you names or insult you in my letter. And as we all know, I was pointing to the fact that you was the most rabid and zealous defender of Norfleet against acusations of him cheating. (and you kee doing so even now, alone on entire Boards, just to have lame excuse to flame me a bit more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). I thought now you could just admit that he was a cheater and we can bury the axe between us and move on. Obviosuly I was wrong, you like flames too much. I probably should however follow KrisO advice in this one as well, and left the teasing "guts" part out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But your response that I just posted was nothing but insults and profanity. Or do you think that because you use short FOAD it makes is somehow more polite?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif


Lies. You didn't have any privite Messages with me at all, other than these few that I mentioned. If you do - post them.

Lies. You didn't have any emails communication with me at all, after the Fire and Ice game message 5 monthes ago, as I wrote above. If you do - post them.

Lies. You never told me anything like that, because I didn't send you any Messages or emails, other than those mentioned above. So you have no reason to tell me such nonsense. If you did - post it.

Thanks for demostrating once again to all of us that all your admitions to me, about you "being the most famous internet flamer on various forums" were nothing but true. However as I said I am not going to respond to you on your level, since it would diminish me and would be just future waste of my time. Sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

LOL. You lie even in such small things Cain, it's quite funny.

I never used FOAD acronyms, it just another lie of yours. If you have any proof or link that I did - post it.

I did use STFU acronym once, 5 months ago, in the IRC channel vs Norfleet, after his "alter" ego in our game was exposed, and he kept interupting our discussion. I used it once, and I never used it agaon. You, however, keep using it all the time, while marking it as "my acronym". Very silly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Excellent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Mark these words of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I have no interest in flaming you and hearing from you either. So from now on we are just going to ignore each other.


This board has seen enough flamewars lately. Everybody is sick and tired of them. Like I said, I am not going to particiapte in any silly flamewars with you in the future, and expect you to do the same to me. Any future insults and profanity that I hear from you, toward me or toward somebody esle, will be promptly reported to moderator. Feel free to do the same with me.

I would like to ask Zen to please mark this converstaion. And if any of us in the future will break this promise and will start flaming another on this Boards again, Zen would know who would be the guity party and act accordingly.


God knows, there have been enough of flamewars recently on this board. A lot of them were directed or involving Norfleet, who, as Gendalf wrote here, generated more deleted Posts than anybody else on this forum, both himself and directed at him. Now that Norf is gone, let us all do our best to keep this forum flame free in the future, and open to the intersting and repectful Dom2 discussions.

I think each and every player here would appreciate it, as well as Moderators.

Regards,
Stormbinder

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

Jossef?

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

storm always has some creative spelling. sometimes its even almost impossible to figure him out on IRC. Just be thankful he actually gave you a real name, johan. :P

of course, when i hear "jossef" I think either of goebbels or of comrade stalin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

ROFL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am sorry. Of course I mean Sir Johan Osterman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
My sincire appologies Johan. I should know how to type your name by now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Your big greeny head has been uttering words of wisdom so often in the past, resolving long Lasting disputes regarding Dom2 inner secrets. Sorry about mistype. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Re: So how \'bout those Mets?
 

*sigh*

Sad but true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif
I keep trying to invent some new words to add to the standart english vocabulary. Alas, so far Webster has been rejecting all my suggestions... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

...or of Bible. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif