So much for the original PA ethics

[jerome]

Once again, like i've stated on irc, why are you (kjel) suprised by things, which have been present for what, 10 rounds? heh.. People are, always have been, and probably will be, more defensive of their friends and allies. Did you expect anything otherwise? heh.

ps. FAnG had 20 closed planets (a bit high on the numbers eh? if you were on an opposing block, your saying, you wouldn't be suspicious?) of which 18 were opened, 2 were deleted.
In addition to that, Fury had 2 (afaik, didnt play r7/8 so nfi heh, but from what's been said on this thread), both of which were remained open. So, if it was infact Fury who had 20 closed planets and FAnG had 2, you jump to the conclusion of there being some sort of alliance organized cheating or something going on? Until it was proven otherwise, anyway.

Human nature has been around for so long, we all know that, posting whilst disregarding human nature, and experiences in the past, is silly.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Razorback

That was an email from a newsgroup which several ppl had access too. Proof ?
On a sidenote if you check the dates youll find thats something previous to a round so if it was actually executed is quiet unimportant, like the fact someone cheated in the past (7-8 rounds ago), right zhukov ? Not like asking you to be my farm next round is already cheating, if we dont do it. So beeing all righteous and judging this doesnt make it cheating.
I mean youre whiter then white, arent you ?
.

Yet again, I repeat:

Originally Posted by lokken

It's pretty well corroborated within the thread, plus our source in r3 was reliable. Then again, r3 was an age ago and you could more or less get away with these things as you could never hunt down the specific planets unless you were party to it. I cba going through the ins and outs of it again, Patrician et al have done that in the linked thread. Once I read that comment of yours I thought it was pretty much certain someone would link to that thread if they had a good enough memory.

I consider it to be water very much under the bridge, gone out to sea, caught by the gulf stream forming a nice tidy iceberg off Greenland. If people want to deem it relevant, it's up to them - I cba with that, the argument is pretty much settled in the relevant thread.

Denying it is pointless - but as i've pointed out, it's pretty irrelevant to nowadays.

Everyone cheats - i've cheated on the basis that i needed to move a fleet when i was out on the piss - no doubt others have too on the odd occaison, I'm sure you have Focht, I'm sure Sid has, I'm sure Kjeldoran has - everybody has done something naughty. It's when alliances institutionalise it or allow it fester widespread within them and rely on it on a day to day basis that they are worthy of villification - this being one such example, except this happened such a long time ago that bickering about it isn't really worth it.

And to others who think they can mileage out of that email, it was discussed in thread, I suggest you read it in full and realise everything was settled there and then in that thread - it was more of a personal attack on Cryptic than anyone else. Anyone who still thinks they can get mileage out of it is just trolling.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

wow, not to defend Zhukov or anything m8. But during r10, you were the eclipse yelling "cheat" at fang cause they had tons of closed planets. But when those pple are involved in Fury, it suddenly is "they are under investigation, meaning they didn't cheat untill proven guilty" ...

R10 Eclipse had nothing to do with r8 fury. I dont know how you get in this thread fang again as it seems to circle about a different topic but after LDK its undoubtly that Fang had the most and the most famous cheating shockers. R8, R10 all prove that.
You can now try to hairsplit why and how it is all the fault of the admins but fact is, if there wasnt proof they wouldnt have been closed in the first place. Just that the admins listen to all the whinning and finally fall from their own judgement and responsibility, thanks to ppl threatening the game if not the planets are reopened (with their whole alliance) is just lame. Close a cheater or close someone who is 80% a cheater youll make ppl far more cautious and allow lesser greyzones then we have now where everyone comes with a cousin a workisp or another hairpulling excuse and is believed....

Why does that count for Fury but not for FAnG? of the 20 closed planets end r10, only 2 (yes that's all) got actually deleted, the rest got re-opened.

Yea because of the constant crying and permanent whining how innocent you all are and that you would leave the game. Thats the difference with fang, any other alliance would just stfu and kick a cheater, fang goes on and shouts hacking or admin abuse. You dont have to be a fortune teller to tell why irvine covered all those incomings (with his 11 logins) and just turning a blind eye on cheating discussions in your r10 officer channel also doesnt help.
Ive read the relay about you going on about leff donating roids the very same round and in all honesty you said "i wouldnt do it thats cheating" but as an hc you didnt stop your alliance from doing it and hided behind "he isnt in the alliance anymore ingame, just a fang community hc in our channels" lame ? yes.

Focht, don't judge with double standards. When you flamed entire FAnG (with your ely buddies) about howmuch cheaters we are etc cause all planets got closed so the MUST be cheaters, yet if it happens to Fury then omg, they are innocent till they are deleted ...

sorry, I can't swallow that.

(still friends in EVE ofc )

Here is anoterh example of why you are wrong. Neither Sid nor Lockheads restarted or 2nd or whatever planet were closed <--- there is a difference between accusing someone, someone getting closed and someone getting deleted.
Its not a question of doublemoral, accusations without proof will never level out with "proof but not enough to be deleted and hence only closed".
I for one only flamed you guys for your policy of aiding cheaters in the big way. Lockhead joining a losing alliance with a small planet, even if it may be his 3rd or 20th is one thing if he was guilty, but getting a whole bg deleted and trying to cover it up by hacking or having half your hcs closed or trying deliberately (WA's case) to get closed is another. Or for the winning alliance to have their defence hc access 11 planets each night to coverup for the inactivity.

P.S. you talk about doublemoral ? Didnt leff in the famous walken meeting say "we dont blame ely for the bug abuse thats just a single person doing it" and exactly 2 minutes later we had to read in the fang relay "damn those cheating ely swines scumbags etc etc"
So take off your pink fang glasses you have your reputation constructed yourself and pretty much without any outside help.
If you would have went down hard on cheaters then you could complain otherwise youre just taking potshots.

Sidenote: Omg i agree with lokken

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

R10 Eclipse had nothing to do with r8 fury. I dont know how you get in this thread fang again as it seems to circle about a different topic but after LDK its undoubtly that Fang had the most and the most famous cheating shockers. R8, R10 all prove that.
You can now try to hairsplit why and how it is all the fault of the admins but fact is, if there wasnt proof they wouldnt have been closed in the first place. Just that the admins listen to all the whinning and finally fall from their own judgement and responsibility, thanks to ppl threatening the game if not the planets are reopened (with their whole alliance) is just lame. Close a cheater or close someone who is 80% a cheater youll make ppl far more cautious and allow lesser greyzones then we have now where everyone comes with a cousin a workisp or another hairpulling excuse and is believed....


Yea because of the constant crying and permanent whining how innocent you all are and that you would leave the game. Thats the difference with fang, any other alliance would just stfu and kick a cheater, fang goes on and shouts hacking or admin abuse. You dont have to be a fortune teller to tell why irvine covered all those incomings (with his 11 logins) and just turning a blind eye on cheating discussions in your r10 officer channel also doesnt help.
Ive read the relay about you going on about leff donating roids the very same round and in all honesty you said "i wouldnt do it thats cheating" but as an hc you didnt stop your alliance from doing it and hided behind "he isnt in the alliance anymore ingame, just a fang community hc in our channels" lame ? yes.


Here is anoterh example of why you are wrong. Neither Sid nor Lockheads restarted or 2nd or whatever planet were closed <--- there is a difference between accusing someone, someone getting closed and someone getting deleted.
Its not a question of doublemoral, accusations without proof will never level out with "proof but not enough to be deleted and hence only closed".
I for one only flamed you guys for your policy of aiding cheaters in the big way. Lockhead joining a losing alliance with a small planet, even if it may be his 3rd or 20th is one thing if he was guilty, but getting a whole bg deleted and trying to cover it up by hacking or having half your hcs closed or trying deliberately (WA's case) to get closed is another. Or for the winning alliance to have their defence hc access 11 planets each night to coverup for the inactivity.

P.S. you talk about doublemoral ? Didnt leff in the famous walken meeting say "we dont blame ely for the bug abuse thats just a single person doing it" and exactly 2 minutes later we had to read in the fang relay "damn those cheating ely swines scumbags etc etc"
So take off your pink fang glasses you have your reputation constructed yourself and pretty much without any outside help.
If you would have went down hard on cheaters then you could complain otherwise youre just taking potshots.

Sidenote: Omg i agree with lokken

First of all, I'm not speaking for LEFF neither am I LEFF. I said you're using double standards, countering that with refering to LEFF has no relevance here since well .... I'm not LEFF

Also I do hope when you're refering to FAnG, you are refering to the "past". Maybe we were abit unconsequent in the past when it comes to handling cheaters. I don't jugde pple untill they are deleted. Maybe that was a personality flaw, but even if my entire alliance would be closed, I'd find it very suspicious and sure there must be cheaters in it, yet I will not judge ANYONE untill they are deleted.

No alliance is perfect (certainly not Eclipse and such). What we lack on this area, we make up on other areas where we outplay Eclipse and visa versa. This last round we've taken a hard stance against cheaters and we've dealt with them consequently, I don't think you can doubt that.

My previous reply was just to state that e.g. if Lockhead gets closed, it means he's innocent till he gets deleted. When Zerocore gets closed (just an example), then he IS guilty and he IS a cheater, if he get re-opened then PA crew screwed up (lack of evidence).
That's the double standard I'm talking about, as any player, Focht, even I got the right to have my opinion about that.

[Razorback]

your example only lacks one point, lockhead wasnt closed, therefore any comparison to a closed cheater is null and void and purely hypothetical.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Razorback

your example only lacks one point, lockhead wasnt closed, therefore any comparison to a closed cheater is null and void and purely hypothetical.

Nonetheless you VERY well understand my post m8, I know you'll never come to the lvl of admitting that but well, we never were "buddies" in PA after all

So when's my first battleship? (j/k)

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Razorback

your example only lacks one point, lockhead wasnt closed, therefore any comparison to a closed cheater is null and void and purely hypothetical.

I think that is irrelevant to the point. What happened after Fury accepted a suspended planet is arbitrary.


I personally dont care if they did or didnt. No alliance is totally clean. And some alliances are dirtier then others. And I dont think the HC of said alliances should be blamed unless they actively pursued a cheating campaign. Which seems to be what alot this thread is about.

In regards to Sids helping with ship stats.

*Scenario*


<Spinner> You around Mate?
<WP HC> yeah
<Spinner> Can you help me with the ship stats for next round?
<WP HC> Sure

<Spinner> You around Mate?
<Fang HC> yeah
<Spinner> Can you help me with the ship stats for next round?
<Fang HC> Sure

<Spinner> You around Mate?
<Vsn HC> yeah
<Spinner> Can you help me with the ship stats for next round?
<Vsn HC> Sure

<Spinner> You around Mate?
<Mistu HC> yeah
<Spinner> Can you help me with the ship stats for next round?
<Mistu HC> Sure....................................

You get the picture.

If there is any negative effect in game due to sids helping out, Its not sids fault. If he gains advantage due to spinners decision, then more power to him. And boo to spinner for unbalancing the game. If sids motives for helping out were altruistic, then big ups to sid as hes been able to improve the game and the community. Time will tell.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Razorback

your example only lacks one point, lockhead wasnt closed, therefore any comparison to a closed cheater is null and void and purely hypothetical.

Simple note: there are some players who have cheated so often/so badly that no HC (in my view) should take them on for that very reason - they don't really deserve a clean slate.

Whether Lockhead is one I'm unaware of this.

The key to discussing about cheating is to try and be open, frank, and consistent - not to simply sling mud at each other then forget about your own house when it happens.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Cayl

At this point I'm not going to admit or deny anything. I've seen the evidence and the appropriate thread. Its a serious accusation as I said, but its not consistent with how our members ended up distributed in the universe, or with our internal policies, or even just how I know Sid runs things. Even if I did land a bombshell and admit everything you've ever suspected about the Evil Fury back in round 3, what possible difference does it make to anyone?

Dont try to bs me with speaking like a politician. It has always failed to impress me.
What this means? Let me tell you, since your as slow as before.
1) it shows you dont know how "sid runs things".
2) It shows your incompetence at PR, since you should have known more about Fury and Sid before you posted your drivel.
3) It makes you look like a fool.

As I wasn't around round 8 in anything but perhaps monthly token appearances, I can't really speak about any of those people or the decisions surrounding them. I could speculate to fuel your conversation, but as I have nothing to gain from it, I think I'll decline.

I will say in general that if "everyone knew" that someone was cheating, I'd suggest that one of those people should turn the information over to the multihunter team for further investigation and action. I'm not a big fan of cheating, and I'm not a big fan of "Guilty before Proven innocent". But as I said, thats a general feeling, as I am uninformed about your specific allegations.

We missed you too. I get a warm fuzzy feeling everytime someone personally flames me.

In r8, you could cheat your arse off, and not getting cought. If you were cought, it meant a) you had been cheating alot or/and b) you were unlucky.

Dont worry, there is plenty more

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Razorback

your example only lacks one point, lockhead wasnt closed, therefore any comparison to a closed cheater is null and void and purely hypothetical.

He was, with his original planet (in cluster 11?). Then got himself a new one (yes, thats not one of these with 3 roids.., in c7?). Hicks knew about this, though he refused to comment on it.

Focht, your the cutest

[Psi_K]

PA never had ethics ... lol

I can't see anything wrong with this. Looks like it is time to get a login again.

[Cayl]

So much bitterness.... all you bring to the table are topics that interest nobody and have long long been irrelevant. What you call speaking like a politician, I call speaking like an adult.

When you decide to throw another tantrum, like the petulant child you are, we will see if it amuses us enough to respond.

[Veil05]

I LOVE PLANETARION.

"His ice-cream is bigger than my ice-cream"

[Doorsdown]

anyone else but me see how stupid this really is. we let a simple comment from 1 player make us all go nuts. yea, he was way off, topics dead now and i've only read the first page. let the thread rest in peace will ya.

/me almost feels bad for Oghy cause of the flaming hes getting

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Cayl

So much bitterness.... all you bring to the table are topics that interest nobody and have long long been irrelevant. What you call speaking like a politician, I call speaking like an adult.

When you decide to throw another tantrum, like the petulant child you are, we will see if it amuses us enough to respond.

Just admit you dont have a response, so you resort to the standard "I do not want to discuss the topic anymore, but raher about the discussion".

Its not exactly a new method of trying to get away.

[HobbieRogue4]

It is my opinion that this has nothing to do with "ethics" so much as "experience with the game." That is to say, it's a fresh breath to see the "Creators" involving experienced and, dare I say, valued players developing the game-play value of a game.

Then again, if you have nothing to complain about, fall back on good ol' "standards and practices" whining.*

*I was good at that, years ago...

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by lokken

Yet again, I repeat:

And to others who think they can mileage out of that email, it was discussed in thread, I suggest you read it in full and realise everything was settled there and then in that thread - it was more of a personal attack on Cryptic than anyone else. Anyone who still thinks they can get mileage out of it is just trolling.

cant say he liked it either

Private Message: re comments on 'the' thread
29 Mar 2002, 00:13
Cryptic
Retard Magnet

Just a personal comment:
if you or xeta had posted - i could understand it and give you a pat on the back for some good politicing. its my job to be a sod to xeta - and xetas job to do the same back to us - because we are enemies - its now part of the game - like it or lump it.

but pat is alliacneless -and a once was allie - hes being a cnut for the sake of it.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Norseman

cant say he liked it either

It'll teach him to call Patrician a liar to be fair.

[Fred of Bedrock]

Actually speaking of Ethics you have to look at the person who does the closing and how they get influenced. How can any-one talk about ethics when you have the biggest double-standarded moron as an admin in Spinner. Lets not even begin to broach ethics when you start talking about a pigheaded egotistical moron as cheif admin who doesnt even have the common courtesy to return 4 phonecalls and only answers when you catch him out and he isnt expecting a call.

So its up to each individual to set their standards and in their hearts they know if they really have what it takes to do well without cheating etc ..... but then again in a war when things are tough what is an ethic anyway ...... kill or be killed .... until the next round anyway.


BTW .. incase no-one noticed you should never cross an Aussie as we never forget or give up

[LEFF|pm]

das mit den österreichern kann ich bestätigen ^^

wirste nich los die saubande

[Helix]

ok, I cba to read through the other half of these posts, I will just simply post my views on the subject.

About the ship stats, and the argument of knowing the general structure of the game. The only thing about the structure I can see as different or important would be the alliance size, which was not decided at all and was still up in the air. Beyond that, the game structure is get roids, get resources, defend, attack, same old same old Its not like a whole new element was being added. As for the ship stats, Sid worked on getting a basic ship stat structure down, helped with tweaking, alongside the other testers. Spinner always had the final say, and eventually Sid was taken out of the picture once the stats were final enough that Spinner could handle it on his own (before public beta I think).

As for Sid as a player, and his willingness to do anything to win. I used to despise Sid when I was a newbie, just because I didn't like the larger alliances. I had the privilege of playing with him in 10.5 w/o knowing it was him. Sid, or "Zimroel", did have a shot, a long shot, but a shot nonetheless at winning the round, or sticking with #2. I know that I was willing to sacrifice myself if it meant having Zimroel win the round (just to sort of spit it in the face of FPM). However, I never got the chance. One night Zimroel got large incomings...which he never reported, he noticed that other people needed defence as well, and instead of reporting his own incomings, he sent his ships out on defence and let the other defence go to other people. That type of selflessness was typical of "Zimroel" in round 10.5, and yet he still managed to finish at #4 despite not being in FPM. I dont know about how he played PA before in the earlier rounds, but that was also a much different game. Anyone who wants to flame Sid now for doing anything to win should know that he had a shot last round at winning, and he threw it away to help his fellow alliance mates instead.