The Mysterious Masked Multihunter..... Revealed

[Razorback]

Originally posted by Mushroom
I admit that being unfriendly isn't a good idea in this situation, but i wonder if i'm understanding this correctly...
You can speculate that Parra has cheated in many different ways in game, that PAteam is untrustable, that we don't respect the community, that we don't listen, that we don't do anything constructive from complaints...
and yet if we incinuate that you might be, perhaps, causing a bit of a circular argument, we're being unprofessional?

In a company sense yes.
Simply from the fact that you cant justfify to sink to the same low level.
"he did it first" is a poor performance for any company who tries to get paying customers and i think this is the whole intention of pa. The customer, how unhandy he might be is the one who pays and the old saying "the customer is king" should and is in professional companys still in place. I doubt a Microsoft supervisor would call a customer a twat in an email because he got insulted, simply from the fact that other non involved customers will get a bad impression from microsoft when it comes to public knowledge. To transfer this example to pa, you might have all right to call someone names if he does so, just its plainly unprofessional and will do your appearance and the bit of respect and faith left, no good.

[Elevator]

Aryn (specially you), Mushroom, Mit, Parra...you all rock..

Next round, just wondering. If Parra wants to play seriously can't he play with the same dedication from 1:1 (if all in 1:1 played seriously) and see how far they would get? If nothing else it would be fun to watch how high your scores went then...

[Mit]

Originally posted by Elevator
Aryn (specially you), Mushroom, Mit, Parra...you all rock..

Next round, just wondering. If Parra wants to play seriously can't he play with the same dedication from 1:1 (if all in 1:1 played seriously) and see how far they would get? If nothing else it would be fun to watch how high your scores went then...

Having had a planet in 1:1, i'd say no-where. Where do a lot of ppl (myself included when i played properly) send ships to get em out of the way when ur too late for def (eta 1). 1:1 ofc.
Where do fleets go for the early missions... 1:1
The gal stat nearly always has SOME ships on it

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Elevator
Next round, just wondering. If Parra wants to play seriously can't he play with the same dedication from 1:1 (if all in 1:1 played seriously) and see how far they would get? If nothing else it would be fun to watch how high your scores went then...

Heavens no! Then someone would begin a thread about how "1:1 is cheating!" and such. There was one such one a few rounds ago when at one point Spinner was #1 in the Universe for a period, heh.

[Elevator]

Originally posted by Mit
Having had a planet in 1:1, i'd say no-where. Where do a lot of ppl (myself included when i played properly) send ships to get em out of the way when ur too late for def (eta 1). 1:1 ofc.
Where do fleets go for the early missions... 1:1
The gal stat nearly always has SOME ships on it

Then we would see how good Parra truly is...

A bit more seriously. If PA-team (who I believe are online a LOT) plays seriusly it would be fun to see if they managed to organize enough def for themself and survive the first ticks after protection...

[Elevator]

Originally posted by HobbieRogue4
Heavens no! Then someone would begin a thread about how "1:1 is cheating!" and such. There was one such one a few rounds ago when at one point Spinner was #1 in the Universe for a period, heh.

You got rumors on cheating no matter what. Personally I just don't care anymore.... Just try it. Would be fun to see how it worked out.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by Jebba
yeah i bet thats what pa-team said in round 4 also

I've already answered that, if you look back at my posts.

Razorback: I don't think you quite got what i meant there - i wasn't saying "he started it". I accept what you say about the customer coming first, and that's something i've always tried to adhere to. But for instance, if you got in contact with a company about something, and they gave you a plain answer, and you basically repeated your original message to them, would they be unprofessional in telling you that you are wasting their time? It's not exactly those circumstances, but that's how i meant it, rather than simple blame shifting.

But as has been said by the two main contributors to the thread, the matter appears to have been dealt with.

With regards 1:1 playing actively, we tried that once or twice and failed miserably And of course, there were the accusations of cheating then too, unfortunately, which marred the spirit of us trying. It may be alright for customers to say they don't care, but we have to care, especially when there's money involved in the playing of the game.

[Razorback]

Originally posted by Mushroom
I've already answered that, if you look back at my posts.

Razorback: I don't think you quite got what i meant there - i wasn't saying "he started it". I accept what you say about the customer coming first, and that's something i've always tried to adhere to. But for instance, if you got in contact with a company about something, and they gave you a plain answer, and you basically repeated your original message to them, would they be unprofessional in telling you that you are wasting their time? It's not exactly those circumstances, but that's how i meant it, rather than simple blame shifting.

But as has been said by the two main contributors to the thread, the matter appears to have been dealt with.

Maybe you should change your discussion strategy abit, simply again you start to imply i didnt understand your posting, which is wrong. Your first posting is plainly nonsens. You display the company, otherwise you shouldnt put anything official in your signature. This is a public discussionboard, everyone is entitled to repeat himself aslong as he wants, thats called freedom of speech. Even weird conspiracy theories fall under this topic. period. There is only one approrpiate defence for a company. Post ONCE a professional reply, which represents the united standpoint of the company to this topic and leave the discussion. If you feel the need to come back later refer to your original post.

My whole reply was not aimed to do you any harm, so there is no need to get defensive about it. Im just saying pa should start to act like a company if they want to be seen as one.

[sword]

I want to be a Multi Hunter.

[Mushroom]

Sorry if i'm coming over too aggressive in my posts, anyone who knows me could tell you i don't mean to be!
Honestly, i think if PAteam had just got together, composed one single professional reply and posted it in response to this thread, the thread would have just continued and required further seperate posts, because that's just the way it is.
I know to an extent there is freedom of speech on this board, but going by that, surely if we think someone is needlessly prolonging an argument, we can say so? Or maybe not, I never really know where PAteam stands with regards free speech.
Anyway, i digress. The issue in the thread appears to be sorted, i'm just trying to defend PAteam and making a pig's ear of it, so i'll give up now.

[HobbieRogue4]

Mushroom, I doubt it's that you're "too aggressive" - in a sense, beggers can't be choosers when it comes to wanting your posts read and comprehended.*

*This disregards the fact that there are people who a) choose not to read b) read too far c) cannot be convinced of their position otherwise.

[Coffee]

Speaking from the most impartial point of view (since i havnt played properly in about 2 years), and probably playing this game longer than 99% of all the other thread posters I will have my rare point...

It is only possible for a multi-hunter to be an active player if they are 100% uncorruptable. Of course there is no such thing.

And even if Para was 100% uncorruptable it still looks really, really bad , especially considering the whole moridin thing, and the half dozen ex crew members sacked/left/moved/demoted for cheating/suspicious behaviour.

I am not saying para cheated - that in itself is irrelevant, what is relevant is appearing professional and making sure that you do not put yourself in a position to cause such massive contraversy.

You do not put yourself in a position of doubt, would you let a judge dish out his own sentance?

[Eventh]

I want this thread closed.. the main issues have been answeared and whats beeing posted now is more an discussion about pa beeing professinall. that issue is so big and important that i belive it deservs it own thread..

i have read the whole thead.. and posted a few times, so im pretty sure that the important questions have been answeared..

the best would have been if spinner could have come here and closed the thread, while stating that the official rules from now on is multihunters arent allowed to play seriously

[Knight Theamion]

round 4, 178:11 moridin's gal, everyone accountshared expect moridin

r7, 20:20 parra's gal, everyone accountshared except parra

i do think he favours his 'targets' and will more likely go after for instance dreadnought then scouse.

[Kileman]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion

i do think he favours his 'targets' and will more likely go after for instance dreadnought then scouse.

Id say he would be more likely to do that as well.... Dread would be easy pickings

The multi hunters should have some kind of quota that they have to fill.... catch at least 3 cheats a day :>
________
Locked Funds Insurance Forum

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by Kileman
The multi hunters should have some kind of quota that they have to fill.... catch at least 3 cheats a day :>

Ironically in another thread, the hunters were accused of having such a quota and therefore picking anybody

[ParraCida]

What could I say, if I saw any of my friends display cheat like or suspicious behaviour I'd investigate them as much as anyone. I'm not going to look at them because they are my friends and I'm not going to investigate people I don't like because I don't like them. In fact I'll most likely turn such cases over to another hunter, simply because I'm involved too much, as I did with cyphers case.

But ofcourse, you only have my word for that, and the example of cyphers case ofcourse, but I doubt you'll settle for that

P.S. Theamion: Zoals de waard is vertrouwd ie z'n gasten.

[A2]

Originally posted by Elevator
Next round, just wondering. If Parra wants to play seriously can't he play with the same dedication from 1:1 (if all in 1:1 played seriously) and see how far they would get? If nothing else it would be fun to watch how high your scores went then...

You've clearly never played in 1:1.! You don't stand a chance due to the vast number of fleets that are run either as defence or attack to the galaxy.

Originally posted by Maddix
Anyway, wtf are u all moaning about, no one had any problems with the multihunters being 'biased' or 'unjust' during the round, in fact I think they did a good job considering it was a free round. You only moan when you find out who it was, most of those moaning are also people who don't like ParraCida. So unless you are planning to do norty things and he will have to pass judgement over you, whats the problem?

I think that sums it up tbh.

[Salt]

In response to Maddix and A2.... you guys have clearly missed the crux of the argument presented up until this point in the thread. The issue is that a multihunter was allowed to have a planet which presents a definite conflict of interest and what many thought to be a violation of previously announced policy. I don't think I've read a single post that states Parracide shouldn't be a multihunter and many people have said they though he did a decent job. The main argument was that Parracida shouldn't be a multihunter while also running a planet (which just happened to end up in the #1 galaxy). Are you purposefully trying to drag this thread on with totally unrelated points or did you just completely miss those things?

[Elevator]

Originally posted by A2
You've clearly never played in 1:1.! You don't stand a chance due to the vast number of fleets that are run either as defence or attack to the galaxy.

No I have not. But personally I would like to slaughter PA-team everytime something happend I did not enjoy in PA....

[Leshy]

This thread is open again for discussion.

Keep it civil and on-topic.

[The Globe]

quite a bunch of txt, read the first pages though
late reply cause of holiday

anyway, as GC of the #2 gal i would like to say: "pld ParraCida"

the GC of the winning galaxy has admin tools {quite funny, /me is jealous}.

Originally posted by Klendau II
...as 46:7 had 4 planets closed with like 1/2 weeks remaining of the round. ....

Originally posted by Redissal
Spinner: "...Why did you view the account details for a planet in 46:7, they are your rivals."
ParraCida: "They came up in an IP search I did on an address ..."

Originally posted by ParraCida
46 7 were all Spinner's call.

very funny

so spinner is the real meany here?:
[20:22] <Spinner> Enjoyed the round?
[20:22] <Globe> yes, very much, except the last 2 weeks
[20:22] <Spinner> What happened?
[20:23] <Globe> 1 word: multihunter
[20:23] <Globe> anyway, it was a nice random round
[20:23] <Spinner> ah, had some less than law-abiding planets in yoru galaxy?
[20:23] <Globe> well, we had i think 4 closures on the end
[20:23] <Spinner> thats harsh

Originally posted by MrBrick
ParraCida's "induction" has proved that the community opinion hasn't shifted. An experiment that has functioned. It was apparant that this was the case well before this thread appeared, with the reactions of globe's galaxy. After realising this we decided to abandon the idea of allowing hunters to play again, and return to the old ways in PAX.

right

[Cochese]

Parracida being involved is old news. I knew back in r9 when he first joined the Team, and I don't exactly keep up with PA Team personnel changes.

From what I can tell, he did his job fairly and efficiently. Seeing that Prince got sacked for abusing his adimin access, I think that particular incident should have erased all doubts that admin actions are logged, and breaches of that responsibility will not be tolerated.

I will agree that it was somewhat of a "mistake" to allow him to play...for the very reason that this thread exists: people would find out, and raise ten kinds of hell. Seriously, you had to see this coming guys. This is PA, after all.

Such is the way of things though, the people in charge make mistakes more often than not. MrBrick has stated that hunters will return to the tried-and-true no playing rule, and so I see less of a problem.

There will never be close to 100% trust in the people with admin access who aren't named Spinner or fudge. That won't ever change. Incidents like this don't increase that trust either, they erode it. We're not children, we can be told in a straightforward manner what is going on and why it is so. The more secrets there are, the bigger (and more negative) the communities' response will be when those secrets are revealed.

If we can't trust the adminstrators, and the administrators can't trust us, where do you expect this game to ever go besides floundering around like it has been for rounds now?

Nobody's happy, and nobody wins. It's just got to change folks, or we're all wasting our time.