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.