Black Cat Forums   Alien Swarm - Steampowered Forums
Alien Swarm 2K4 - ThieveryUT
Black Cat Games - TTLG Forums

Go Back   Black Cat Forums > Thievery Forums > Thievery Discussion > Thievery Guilds

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:24 AM   #31
Rodent
Member
 
Rodent's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power...
Posts: 539
Unfortunately not, there was no-one on hold to gamecam them.
__________________
Nightwarden,
.:Mockers Thievery Guild:.
- "Earth dons the red; calls the maggots."
Rodent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:26 AM   #32
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
indeed, I'm more disappointed about the blatent abuse of trust, when we opted to waive the right to have people sitting in each other ts channels.

Regardless the matches themselves were good and extremely competative, mockers didn't have an answer for the Forsaken's grange guarding strategy and failed to seize the initiative.
The attempt to thieve Flats was carried out with much vigour and some fast rushes, unfortunatly this was anticipated by the mockers guards, who weathered a storm of assaults on loot locations.

EDIT: And whatever Dragon, you must've known what you were doing was wrong at least take it on the chin.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:30 AM   #33
The Dragon
Member
 
The Dragon's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Dodging 6 guards in the streets of Bourgeois
Posts: 1,400
Believe it or not, this was a "can't be arsed to replace Gabriel" move rather than a "win at all costs" move. No mention in the rules...okay, there's an easy solution.
__________________
Dragon: Unforgiven Keeper. Swift, silent, smooth-talking. Militaristic, a formidable opponent. Winner.
The Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:32 AM   #34
Rodent
Member
 
Rodent's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Fighting to survive in a war with the darkest power...
Posts: 539
If you couldn't replace him, then you should have played a man down, just like NDLW on Korman and STAMPEDE on Warehouse.
__________________
Nightwarden,
.:Mockers Thievery Guild:.
- "Earth dons the red; calls the maggots."
Rodent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:33 AM   #35
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
and why didn't you play Zidane instead?

Edit:
At the end of the day no tournament in the world allows people to play for multiple teams and no tournament in the world allows people to play for teams they are not in.
I believe it would be rather implicit in the rules for this tournament however you look at it.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:45 AM   #36
WildBill
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Shadows
Posts: 2,808
I was hesitant to disqualify the Forsaken, since it would hurt the tournament in general to lose another team. If they'd like to withrdaw -- either out of honor or lack of interest -- they're free to do so, and I think I've found a way to make the tourney still work. Kindly let me know before the start of the next move.

There is no explicit and specific mention in the rules anymore about matches only being played by members of the involved teams. There was before, in the preparation section -- it's since been deleted, unfortunately. That oversight will be remedied shortly.

However, I think it's quite clear that this violates the spirit of the rules, if not the particular letter of them. It's obvious this was not intended -- unlike map exploits, which were specifically permitted -- and done with the intention of breaking the spirit of the rules. I'm also, like TafferBoy, quite saddened at the abuse of trust involved in this.
__________________
Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
WildBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 12:48 AM   #37
immortius
Member
 
immortius's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: NX128EZ061 - The main planet
Posts: 3,117
This rule covers having people not in your team playing anyway:

 Originally Posted by WildBill:
Tournament Rules

III - There will be one match for each attack. It will take place before the start of the next move on the attacked map, between the attacking team and the team that possesses that turf. If the attacking team wins the match, the turf they attacked becomes theirs.
__________________
Immortius' Forge
immortius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 04:00 AM   #38
Machine
Member
 
Machine's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: TuF Forums
Posts: 5,829
Sorry guys, Yes I admit I played as {~Rahvin~} having checked over the rules and seeing no explicit rule to forbid this we went ahead. There was even encouragement from Bill in one post about alliances... I remember not where now tho.

Grank, I do not see this as cheating, I did in no way use anything outside the realms of the game to enhance playing ability, If you regard me "breaking" Wildbills rules (which I do not agree I did) as cheating then so be it... If thats your administrative decision then fair enough. I personally think its ridiculous, but you provide that server for us and if you feel I have wronged you then what can I do? I have been an integral member of this commuinity since day 1, sure, there have been monents but that no different to any other person.

Ok, so I am kicked from TW3? For an oversight in the rules? Also banned from Crackaz? Oh the fall of The Machine! Whilst this may be a sad day for you, it is surely a sad day for me - even so, in the distance I see people laughing.

Take this for what you will, I have no regrets, I do not believe I cheated or broke any rules. Don't talk to me about "abuse of trust" from the man who quits TuF, then forms a piss take guild to stand against them... from a man who has "All warfare is based of deception" in his signiture telling ME that TurfWARs is to have NO DECEPTION? - The aquatone bug made that map UNWINNABLE, the outcome of these 2 matches was balanced.

I'd just like to add that those 2 matches (Very early morning for me) were excellent and of a high standard. It's rare we see TuF vs .:m. these days.

Sadly it looks like the last, which is a pity given our current pledge to try and see each other eye to eye.

I obviously ask you reconsider the Crackaz ban Grank. I sent you this in a IM - but if this is a temp ban then give me a date and I'll adhere to it. If it's a perma ban, well... cross that bridge when we come to it.

TW3? I'm done with, for the sole reason that I believe it is being very badly administered.
__________________
~TuF~

Last edited by Machine; 24th Apr 2005 at 04:18 AM.
Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 05:34 AM   #39
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
I would say its nothing personal against you machine, from my standpoint at least, just to let you know I'm not holding anything against you and I look forwards to games of Guildwars next week.
Rather unfortunate circumstances really, they were good matches and I agree its good to play in a Tuf v M match. It seems hard to be involved in games of thievery without ending up in some controversy or another.

I can't understand why you guys thought that your actions wouldn't be consider to be in breach of rules??? even if there was no explicit rule, the actions were certainly dishonest.
All I can think is that you you and forsaken thought you could get away with it and just took that risk. Unlucky for you Shug has a keen eye.

As for poor administration I believe Bill had a good system going, loose and brief rules to create a more casual tournament, in this case i believe it was the participants that let him down.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 05:41 AM   #40
FistaKufs
formerly HomeSkillet
 
FistaKufs's Avatar
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 1,018
lets go guild wars!! well theres only a few more moves left then tw3 will be over. then we can all get along again.
__________________
I have sex with my hand!
FistaKufs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 05:46 AM   #41
fridae
Member
 
fridae's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Arkham asylum
Posts: 115
Thought you'd get back at the mockers (who used a map exploit which is specifically allowed in the rules) by misrepresenting yourself as a member of another team huh?

Heaven forbid the machine (and the rest of tuf) falsly ally themselves with someone in the theivery world for their own benefit.

Oh wait...

You got your just desserts. Call it what you will.
fridae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 05:48 AM   #42
Machine
Member
 
Machine's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: TuF Forums
Posts: 5,829
 Originally Posted by TafferBoy:
I would say its nothing personal against you machine, from my standpoint at least, just to let you know I'm not holding anything against you and I look forwards to games of Guildwars next week.
So do I.

 Originally Posted by TafferBoy:
Rather unfortunate circumstances really, they were good matches and I agree its good to play in a Tuf v M match.
Glad you agree.

 Originally Posted by TafferBoy:
I can't understand why you guys thought that your actions wouldn't be consider to be in breach of rules??? even if there was no explicit rule, the actions were certainly dishonest.... ...As for poor administration I believe Bill had a good system going, loose and brief rules to create a more casual tournament, in this case i believe it was the participants that let him down.
This is something we will never agree on. I won't argue because of the apathy I have for TW3 at the moment. There is no grudge between me and .:m. - I'm sorry Fri you feel that way, you have your opinion of me and my "management techniques"... if it matters my opinion of you has always remained good regardless.

I will attempt to resolve my Crackaz Ban out of principle. Though I'm not sure as to the frequency I would use it anyway after Guildwars release. I'll do it out of pride.
__________________
~TuF~
Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 06:04 AM   #43
FistaKufs
formerly HomeSkillet
 
FistaKufs's Avatar
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 1,018
So i've been thinking (it hurt) but what i came up with is what is the point of turfwars? if .:m. can use the lift bug and not be disqualified. then mach alias as gab and be kicked from turf wars 3. when there is nothing in the rules that saids they can't do that? I just don't see the point in tw3, it's like bill is in favor of .:m. winning the tornament, when he SHOULD be nuetral. If anything if this is gonna be like this i'm out of the torney on account of ban adminship, and shit rules.
__________________
I have sex with my hand!

Last edited by FistaKufs; 24th Apr 2005 at 06:21 AM.
FistaKufs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 06:10 AM   #44
Archie
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Writer's Block
Posts: 429
I'm sorry but I withdraw from TurfWars 3, I see no more point in playing it.
Archie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 06:24 AM   #45
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
Well in an attempt to clear things up a little...

The Mockers exploit on Aquatone; was perfectly within a teams rights as the rules stood. It was a situation that had never happened before, no rules were there to cover it. The specifics of the rules allowed it, but it stretched what the rules were understood to cover. Lame yes, but ruled fair.

The second incident was viewed as a violation of an implicit rule which was perhaps so typical that it was taken for granted, but as yet, not explicitly in the rules as such. Technically allowed under the rules (some have argued), but ruled to be against the spirit of the tournament and the good faith of the players involved.

Really the entire thing is the matter of opinion, and conflicting opinions have been voiced already.

And HS I would suggest not bringing up claims of bias and look at the situation from Bill's perspective.
The rules are pretty bloody straightforwards and people agreed to them when they entered the tournament. Again I would like to see you or anyone do a better job before you judge. As it was, Bill was the one who stepped forwards and got the tournament going and considering he isn't god, I don't think you can expect him to forsee the events that took place in the tournament.

Last edited by TafferBoy; 24th Apr 2005 at 06:40 AM.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:00 AM   #46
Brody
Member
 
Brody's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 865
 Originally Posted by TafferBoy:
Well in an attempt to clear things up a little...

The Mockers exploit on Aquatone; was perfectly within a teams rights as the rules stood. It was a situation that had never happened before, no rules were there to cover it. The specifics of the rules allowed it, but it stretched what the rules were understood to cover. Lame yes, but ruled fair.
Any Action, that is not specific forbbiden, is allowed?
You say its lame, but kept in Rules. Only i can agree with that is, that both is morally abject.

If one get punished not, how can the other be? There is no current standing Rule, that says "dont be in multple Teams". If it was in any earlier, then it does only count, what the latest Version of Rulescatalog is saying.

If you say "its an unwritten Rule, no one would do that normally, nor would anyone expect this", then i say, this is same Fact to any Lameness. Its more like even on TW and/or Guilds/Team Matches everyone would not expect any kind of Lameness.
So again, there is the same on both Sides.
__________________
A real huge Man will neither stamp on a Worm, nor crawl for an Emperor

Thievery Customs Centre
Vietcong Customs Centre
Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:31 AM   #47
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
I think you'll find there is quite a profound difference between the two incidents. However I can see what you are suggesting.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:59 AM   #48
immortius
Member
 
immortius's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: NX128EZ061 - The main planet
Posts: 3,117
I think the big problem here is a confusion between the non-scrub ingame attitude which is being encouraged and the more casual out of game tournament rules.

This is a tournament, ingame we're looking at people playing to the fullest extent of their skill and ingame knowledge. What are the rules of Thievery? Everything the game lets you do is within the rules of Thievery for this tournament(with the clearly stated exception of desynching the client).

On the other hand we have the tournament rules. These exist to bring the teams together to play the game. They're not fool proof, they were created with the assumption that the players weren't going to be actively trying to subvert them. They merely outline the form of of Turf Wars.
__________________
Immortius' Forge
immortius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 08:32 AM   #49
PhaeThorn
Member
 
PhaeThorn's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: This pwnage was given to you by 1 of 3 mutated thievery players.
Posts: 2,229
Ach, this tournament is all about whoever has the best exploits that still fall within the rules ( and basicly anything is permitted ). In this case it failed according to wildbill. Too bad.

BTW, the rule states that the team that is playing the challenge must have the turf. The rule does not state that everyone has to be in in the team that has the turf. If Forsaken contains the turf and does the challenge, there is no rule about them not being able to use a player from another team. Forsaken is the team that attacks and it got help from another player that was orriginaly not in Forsaken. Not to mention the lack of any rule that states that the teams cannot change during the tournament.
__________________
On demand this signature has been changed. I hope nobody was insulted or got harmed due to my signature. If this is the case, I'm fully responsible for the harm that was done. Do you feel harmed or you simply want a listening ear?

Call 0900-PHAE

Last edited by PhaeThorn; 24th Apr 2005 at 09:05 AM.
PhaeThorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 11:06 AM   #50
The Dragon
Member
 
The Dragon's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Dodging 6 guards in the streets of Bourgeois
Posts: 1,400
Rahvin is a no one. Rahvin is a name. Gabriel, however, is a player in the Thievery community. Check the Forsaken roster...many days before the match our roster was edited to include *RAHVIN* in addition to Gabriel. Rahvin played in the match.

The point is, I applaud Mockers for their creativity in Aqua. I thought it was impressive then, and I think it impressive now. There was nothing to forbid it in the rules. There also, however, was nothing to forbid what went down in the M vs. Forsaken match. You can talk about morals and ethics all you like, but there were no broken rules. As the sole overseer of Turf Wars III, of course, Wildbill can dismiss this fact, which he has. But the point stands - none of the official tournament rules were broken in this match.

To Mockers - I restate that I like all of you guys, especially Louie, Rodent, and Shug. I know we've had our differences...sometimes we attack eachother, recently I was pretty disrespectful to Shug in a moment of weakness, and for that, I apologize. But those matches were very intense, all 4 rounds were battles, and for that, I thank you guys. I hope there are no grudges between us.
__________________
Dragon: Unforgiven Keeper. Swift, silent, smooth-talking. Militaristic, a formidable opponent. Winner.

Last edited by The Dragon; 24th Apr 2005 at 11:24 AM.
The Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 02:35 PM   #51
WildBill
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Shadows
Posts: 2,808
 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
Sorry guys, Yes I admit I played as {~Rahvin~} having checked over the rules and seeing no explicit rule to forbid this we went ahead. There was even encouragement from Bill in one post about alliances... I remember not where now tho.
I wrote the rules with the intent of creating a decent framework for a tournament that had real competitive play -- any and all 'exploits' were permitted, scrubs need not apply. There's also a strategic element to it, which is what my comment about alliances referred to. There had been a rule that specifically mentioned this, but as I said, it's gone now. Regardless, I think the intent was clear -- and if you were honestly uncertain about the rules in this case, which I don't believe for a moment, you had plenty of chances to ask me. I didn't think that a "team" required further definition.

 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
Grank, I do not see this as cheating, I did in no way use anything outside the realms of the game to enhance playing ability, If you regard me "breaking" Wildbills rules (which I do not agree I did) as cheating then so be it
A member of one team aliased to play as a member of another in a tournament -- that being considered cheating, I believe, comes from Crackaz UT background. This isn't tolerated there, either.

 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
Whilst this may be a sad day for you, it is surely a sad day for me - even so, in the distance I see people laughing.
If you think I'm laughing about this, you're beyond delusional.

 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
Take this for what you will, I have no regrets, I do not believe I cheated or broke any rules. Don't talk to me about "abuse of trust" from the man who quits TuF, then forms a piss take guild to stand against them...
Mate, you know why I left TuF. Not because I didn't want to be there, but because I wasn't playing Thievery seriously anymore. Once I realized the extent of the stunt Crackaz pulled, I stopped being active and left shortly after. I have no desire to be part of a guild that was going to treat me like that. I regret having left TuF, but it's not the kinda thing that can be undone.

 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
from a man who has "All warfare is based of deception" in his signiture telling ME that TurfWARs is to have NO DECEPTION? - The aquatone bug made that map UNWINNABLE, the outcome of these 2 matches was balanced.
Deception is fine. Exploits -- except for cheating -- are fine, as specifically stated in the rules. Teams not being coherent is not fine.

 Originally Posted by TheMachine:
TW3? I'm done with, for the sole reason that I believe it is being very badly administered.
I doubt you'd have said that a week ago, which makes this statement a bit childish. I'm sorry if you don't like this -- and I like it quite a bit less than you do -- but you have to realize that you brought this upon yourself. You intentionally violated what you knew to be the intent of the rules. Since no rule set can ever be perfect, violating the obvious intent has to count.

When this started, I thought Stampede were the people I was going to have to watch closely. Not my friends.

 Originally Posted by HomeSkillet:
So i've been thinking (it hurt) but what i came up with is what is the point of turfwars? if .:m. can use the lift bug and not be disqualified. then mach alias as gab and be kicked from turf wars 3. when there is nothing in the rules that saids they can't do that? I just don't see the point in tw3, it's like bill is in favor of .:m. winning the tornament, when he SHOULD be nuetral. If anything if this is gonna be like this i'm out of the torney on account of ban adminship, and shit rules.
Thanks for providing some humor in all this -- the thought of me intentionally biasing this towards the Mockers truly made me laugh.

 Originally Posted by PhaeThorn:
Ach, this tournament is all about whoever has the best exploits that still fall within the rules ( and basicly anything is permitted ). In this case it failed according to wildbill. Too bad.
I don't think the line between exploits in the game and exploits in the tournament rules is hard to see. If you have a problem with competitive play, this tournament was not for you. I made that clear at the beginning.
__________________
Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
WildBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 06:02 PM   #52
beast
Member
 
beast's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: typhoon 24 feat.
Posts: 1,341
Never in a tournament should teams use players not from their own selected members. Period.

That said, I think disqualifying Machine from a tournament that's struggling with the player count already is a bit rough. And in my opinion a ban from Crackaz was just uncalled for.

Initiate a punishment, sure, but consider the consequences on the tournament if an active player is removed.

Keep it moderated, but keep it fun...
__________________
deserve victory
beast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 06:59 PM   #53
WildBill
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Shadows
Posts: 2,808
Claims of ignorance aren't gonna cut it, guys.

 Originally Posted by Chalrif:
 Originally Posted by Dragon:
I just edited our team post in the Turf Wars III thread to include "Rhavin" on our roster. That way, if anything happens, we can be completely clean. "Well, Rhavin IS on our roster, guys. And there's no mention about multi-team membership..." But hopefully that won't even happen.
About that: the rules state that any inclusion of members needs to be done before the move is declared for them to participate in that move's match. If it does come down to that, they will have us on technicality, so the utmost caution is necessary to keep Mach concealed.
__________________
Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
WildBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:08 PM   #54
Shug
Member
 
Shug's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Play Hard. Go Pro.™
Posts: 3,293
Well, I certainly didn't anticipate this. Yes, I was the one who noticed that Rahvin wasn't Gabe.

No hard feelings, actually; I do care at a "professional" level (if such a thing exists in amateur gaming). In this tournament, our main rival started with 7 maps. We started with 3. They get 2 challenges a round. We get 1. The Mutants and the Forsaken are basically the same team - they've shown no inclination to do anything but run a team race against the other participants in the tournament (and that's their right - but at the end of the day we still have to do something about that). We pulled out the stops on aqua because we simply couldn't afford to lose that map. We've been exploited, too. The Mutants exploited on Breakout to make it easier on themselves (admittedly it didn't hand them the round). Forsaken used an exploit to locate the plans on Stronghold (a very strong exploit). We've never complained about exploits, never given quarter, nor expected any.

But this goes a bit too far, I think. If you guys wanted to make a genuine statement about this, you would have played Machine under his real name and then dealt with the consequences. But the initial plan was to slip it under the radar, I'm thinking, with the "no rules" announcement to cover just in case.

You got done, though, and although I didn't press for any major punishment it happened regardless. If you do the crime you do the time, and I think it's pretty shameful that everybody else is deserting the tournament because that's just bitterness, supposedly our hallmark. The idea that we've somehow been favoured in this tournament is pretty funny, too. We've got the best win/loss record and we're still struggling because our main competition has two teams that function as one. And that's the biggest "exploit" pulled so far in this competition. If you're going to switch players, you should have been the ONE team in the first place.

I don't believe the addition of Mach to the team made a huge difference; he guarded the upper west of grange more effectively than any other player on Forsaken could have done but we weren't playing well enough to take Grange, and all Forsaken did was destroy their own chance of holding the map legitimately. He was the last player left on Flats both rounds but couldn't come any closer than a score of yards from the exits.

But honestly, I think it was a daring move but not one you could sit back and be proud of when it backfired. I don't support Machine's ban, though. I still believe touranament play to be outside public play - we'd be banned for some of the crazy shit we pull in tournaments and his punishment should ONLY exist in the realm of tournaments - disqualification is harsh, but justified. The rest of you Mutants and Forsaken, if you are really choosing to quit the tournament, that's just letting yourselves down and is borderline for an easy way to discredit the performances thus far in this tournament.

Edit: One last thing, guys. I said above I don't have any hard feelings about this - I appreciate what happened on a strategic level rather than a personal one. But please, please don't dare tell me that people are quitting this tournament because of "unfair administration" or "poor rules". You are quitting this tournament because you got caught, and didn't like the consequences. This Tournament clearly was NOT all about exploits until some people got caught up in the revenge game - we've played more rounds than not "cleanly" even by the standards of a scrub. The only major exploit was that one round on aqua, and we've played 11 rounds of Thievery besides without so much as a peep of spl0itz.

I really think we've done our best to play fair and square when we could - if this Tournament was a true war of deception and attrition you'd be facing Mockers on an Australian server at 4am in the morning your timezone.
__________________
Nightmaster,
.:Mockers Thievery Guild:.
- "until the cat is skinned"

Last edited by Shug; 24th Apr 2005 at 07:26 PM.
Shug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:22 PM   #55
TafferBoy
Member
 
TafferBoy's Avatar
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 2,225
 Originally Posted by Dragon:
Rahvin is a no one. Rahvin is a name. Gabriel, however, is a player in the Thievery community. Check the Forsaken roster...many days before the match our roster was edited to include *RAHVIN* in addition to Gabriel. Rahvin played in the match.
Gabe played as Rahvin in earlier matches; having Machine alias as Rahvin and then slip him into the roster was deliberate deceptive and designed to trick your opponents. No excuses.
That argument is rubbish, you say 'no offense' but the way you argue every technical point and act innocent and hard-done-by is starting to get insulting.
As Shug said we were willing to deal with alliances etc. because we accepted that you couldn't stop teams from doing so. But in this instance I believe you just thought you could trample over the rules and the good faith of the tournament and were arrogant enough to think you could get away with it, one way or another.
TafferBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:39 PM   #56
Yenzarill
 
Yenzarill's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Ost Ra'Leur
Posts: 1,258
Oops...
Yenzarill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 07:59 PM   #57
Machine
Member
 
Machine's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: TuF Forums
Posts: 5,829
Would you like a reply Guys?

END.
__________________
~TuF~
Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 08:44 PM   #58
Aggamemnon
Member
 
Aggamemnon's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,373
 Originally Posted by fridae:
Thought you'd get back at the mockers (who used a map exploit which is specifically allowed in the rules) by misrepresenting yourself as a member of another team huh?

Heaven forbid the machine (and the rest of tuf) falsly ally themselves with someone in the theivery world for their own benefit.

Oh wait...

You got your just desserts. Call it what you will.
Pot calling the kettle black?
__________________
How TuF are you?
League of Legends
Bloodbowl by Extensions
Aggamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 08:54 PM   #59
WildBill
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Shadows
Posts: 2,808
 Originally Posted by Aggamemnon:
Pot calling the kettle black?
That wasn't a tournament setting.
__________________
Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
WildBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2005, 08:54 PM   #60
The Dragon
Member
 
The Dragon's Avatar
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Dodging 6 guards in the streets of Bourgeois
Posts: 1,400
Hey William Werty-

Keep reading our private forums...the ones which you know you weren't meant to have access to. I distinctly remember an MSN conversation over a year ago in which you told me that you had inadvertantly gained access to CTG's private forums, but that you immediately told LR and never read the threads. Because you were of strong moral character.

How long have you had access to this private section of the Unforgiven's forums? God knows. But it's surely been since you left TuF, which was quite a long time ago. So don't be talking to me about morals or right and wrong. You're just as bad as the rest of us.

You may have lost respect for me and Machine through this incident, but I sure have a different view on "Moral William" now.
__________________
Dragon: Unforgiven Keeper. Swift, silent, smooth-talking. Militaristic, a formidable opponent. Winner.
The Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.