So how 'bout those Mets?

[johan osterman]

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.

[archaeolept]

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either

[Gandalf Parker]

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either

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?".

[archaeolept]

??? I was referring to Johan's post. I don't understand what your reply to my post concerns.

[Cainehill]

Gandalf:

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?".

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.

[jimbo]

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!" And that should be the working definition of cheating for all intensive purposes.

[Kel]

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?".

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