The unfortunate tale of alliance mail privileges ...

[Gazzy]

@ Leeroy, I've seen that mail. You had Coon send it me. He probably means Ceruba was not saying he was Ceruba. But you've once more made the leap that cheats must be the only possible solution.

 

[Coon1]

Coon, you say we have not addressed the boosting issue, but please see my post @ 7:24 two pages back. It coveres it quite comprehensively.

On your other point, I refer to Dachis response. Also to the fact that you have not shown this anywhere. I'm sorry but I'm unwilling to simply take your word for it. So unless you provide the evidence, I can't / won't address it. Flaming us on here won't change that.

You didnt address it gazzy.

You also have not asked xxx for a copy of the mails confirming cass and brandis position. Why would you though right?

 

[Leeroy]

@ Leeroy, I've seen that mail. You had Coon send it me. He probably means Ceruba was not saying he was Ceruba. But you've once more made the leap that cheats must be the only possible solution.

Zera knew exactly who I meant / what I meany by it. I've played with him long enough. You just like to turn a blind eye to it. I can see why.. Because you have gone too far defending the cheats it will look silly for you perform a U-turn
Shame on you gazzy

 

[Gazzy]

What was I unclear on? Let me know and I will clarify.

And why would I go hunting for evidence you claim to already have. Just provide it, unless you don't actually have it. Which is likely, as I presume you would have shared it at the time.

 

[Gazzy]

Leeroy, if you know him that well, please ask him to clearly state it. Along with which IDs so that we can get to the bottom of this. Thanks.

 

[Coon1]

What was I unclear on? Let me know and I will clarify.

And why would I go hunting for evidence you claim to already have. Just provide it, unless you don't actually have it. Which is likely, as I presume you would have shared it at the time.

The part where 3 ids not from your alliance, boosted on the same target, same tick without any geos/wheelies?

Saying that sith probably told them to attack for land is not an explaination.

If i had an id i would show you the mails from TLA

 

[Coon1]

Maybe you should ask tla if they had a cass and brandi in there? Maybe dont mail the hq as "cass" had access to that last time i asked

 

[Gazzy]

I actually went back and found that screenshot of TLA boosting.

What the screenshot shows is 5 BoS ids and 3 TLA ids.

What it doesn't show is ETA or ETA sent. Although because the 3 TLA ids are conveniently at the top, I actually suspect you're misleading us and they were following for land at a higher ETA rather than boosting.

What the screenshot also shows is that Sith was online. The person who admitted leaking information from xxx to TLA. Which most probably explains why they knew to boost, piggy or follow.

If anyone would like to see the screenshot, whatsapp me. I have it saved on my phone now.

Coon, this is a prime example of your "proof" being easily explained. Which is why it is important to not just make accusations, unless you want to be seen as a sore loser.

^ There you go Coon. Me very clearly addressing your concerns and explaining why and how I reached different conclusions to you.

 

[Gazzy]

Maybe you should ask tla if they had a cass and brandi in there? Maybe dont mail the hq as "cass" had access to that last time i asked

You're dodging my point. If you have it, share it. Otherwise it looks very much like you made it up.

 

[Coon1]

I actually went back and found that screenshot of TLA boosting.

What the screenshot shows is 5 BoS ids and 3 TLA ids.

What it doesn't show is ETA or ETA sent. Although because the 3 TLA ids are conveniently at the top, I actually suspect you're misleading us and they were following for land at a higher ETA rather than boosting.

What the screenshot also shows is that Sith was online. The person who admitted leaking information from xxx to TLA. Which most probably explains why they knew to boost, piggy or follow.

If anyone would like to see the screenshot, whatsapp me. I have it saved on my phone now.

Coon, this is a prime example of your "proof" being easily explained. Which is why it is important to not just make accusations, unless you want to be seen as a sore loser.

^ There you go Coon. Me very clearly addressing your concerns and explaining why and how I reached different conclusions to you.

You still say following for land - hard without geos/wheelies yes?

There is no reason to attack without geos/wheelies in that situation other than purely boosting.

As for the mail from TLA? Read please gaz, read.

I do not have an id. How would i look at hq mail without an id?

 

[Gazzy]

You've not shown they didn't send stealers. Please see my point on not just taking your word for it. Same goes for the ally mail, if you can't produce the evidence, you can't have proof.

Anything else?

 

[Coon1]

You've not shown they didn't send stealers. Please see my point on not just taking your word for it. Same goes for the ally mail, if you can't produce the evidence, you can't have proof.

Anything else?

Whatsapp. This proves cass and brandi in tla

 

[No-Dachi]

So Coon, you have two players with rather common names who has been in an alliance. Then two members of another alliance who is married to people of the same name. Is it possible that they are the same people? Yes. Is it certain? No. Even if they turned out to be the same, does it indicate a probable cooperation? Yes, it is likely that a wife would support her husband in a game. However, that does not turn probable support into probable cheating. If you were making multies, why would you make one with a name that could be tied to you?

I hope this answers your question.

When looking at evidence you always have to look for alternate explanations, and not fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

The most likely explaination is that they are multis of recon and antney - im sure most would agree.

Also need to consider how recon got the SS from sith that was sent to r3?

If you had played with recon or antney any time in the past 5 round you would not be affording them this charity

Why is it most likely? What other evidence supports this hypothesis? What about the circumstances that goes against the hypothesis? The most blatantly obvious one is 'if you're going to cheat and make a multi, why would you make one with a name that could be tied directly to you'. You don't dress up as your brother if you're going for a hit - you dress up as something that cannot in any way be tied to you. If anything the names suggest it is not a multi.

Account sharing is a possibility, if the IP's match - if they don't its just a coincidence. However, if we could get it confirmed that it was their wives, why would you need to account share with your wife, when you could just have her log in?

Again, it seems like confirmation bias: you're actively looking for things to support your theory, and disregarding everything that does not fit the theory.

 

[Gazzy]

What on whatsapp? I can't see that evidence from anything you've shown or sent me.

 

[Coon1]

So Coon, you have two players with rather common names who has been in an alliance. Then two members of another alliance who is married to people of the same name. Is it possible that they are the same people? Yes. Is it certain? No. Even if they turned out to be the same, does it indicate a probable cooperation? Yes, it is likely that a wife would support her husband in a game. However, that does not turn probable support into probable cheating. If you were making multies, why would you make one with a name that could be tied to you?

I hope this answers your question.

When looking at evidence you always have to look for alternate explanations, and not fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

The most likely explaination is that they are multis of recon and antney - im sure most would agree.

Also need to consider how recon got the SS from sith that was sent to r3?

If you had played with recon or antney any time in the past 5 round you would not be affording them this charity

Why is it most likely? What other evidence supports this hypothesis? What about the circumstances that goes against the hypothesis? The most blatantly obvious one is 'if you're going to cheat and make a multi, why would you make one with a name that could be tied directly to you'. You don't dress up as your brother if you're going for a hit - you dress up as something that cannot in any way be tied to you. If anything the names suggest it is not a multi.

Account sharing is a possibility, if the IP's match - if they don't its just a coincidence. However, if we could get it confirmed that it was their wives, why would you need to account share with your wife, when you could just have her log in?

Again, it seems like confirmation bias: you're actively looking for things to support your theory, and disregarding everything that does not fit the theory.

its not a theory dachi.

why name them after your wives? Its my understanding that recon made and acc for his wife to use a number of rounds ago - she quit shortly thereafter and recon continued to use this id - Antney being the simpleton he is copied recon and named his multi after his wife.

If you do a little research into past round finishes you may be enlightened as to their whereabouts

You are clearly ignoring what is right infront of your eyes. For you to accept what has happened it seems that a signed declaration of guilt is required from those involved.

 

[No-Dachi]

Of course it is a theory. Everything you believe is a theory until it is proven without a doubt that it is the truth. That is the foundation for every science.

A signed confession would be nice. In the absence of that, I'd first of all like to know which Cass and Brandi was in TLA. Then I'd need Azzer to confirm that they were indeed played from the same location and active at the same times. The theory that because someone boosted someone else they have to be a multi is thin.

But as I've said countless times before: if proven, I will plead Gazzy to kick anyone cheating. In the unlikely scenario that he would not kick the offender(s) I would leave myself. We're not disagreeing on the graveness of the alleged offense. We're disagreeing about the facts being circumstancial or proof.

 

[Coon1]

Of course it is a theory. Everything you believe is a theory until it is proven without a doubt that it is the truth. That is the foundation for every science.

A signed confession would be nice. In the absence of that, I'd first of all like to know which Cass and Brandi was in TLA. Then I'd need Azzer to confirm that they were indeed played from the same location and active at the same times. The theory that because someone boosted someone else they have to be a multi is thin.

But as I've said countless times before: if proven, I will plead Gazzy to kick anyone cheating. In the unlikely scenario that he would not kick the offender(s) I would leave myself. We're not disagreeing on the graveness of the alleged offense. We're disagreeing about the facts being circumstancial or proof.

If azzer was available perhaps this wouldn't have gone as far as it has. With this in mind it seems you will never be satisfied

 

[AnTnEy]

Of course it is a theory. Everything you believe is a theory until it is proven without a doubt that it is the truth. That is the foundation for every science.

A signed confession would be nice. In the absence of that, I'd first of all like to know which Cass and Brandi was in TLA. Then I'd need Azzer to confirm that they were indeed played from the same location and active at the same times. The theory that because someone boosted someone else they have to be a multi is thin.

But as I've said countless times before: if proven, I will plead Gazzy to kick anyone cheating. In the unlikely scenario that he would not kick the offender(s) I would leave myself. We're not disagreeing on the graveness of the alleged offense. We're disagreeing about the facts being circumstancial or proof.

If azzer was available perhaps this wouldn't have gone as far as it has. With this in mind it seems you will never be satisfied

Careful what you ask for

 

[[Thinking]]

Did i really read through this and see an elderveld is around

 

[Shaggy]

Did i really read through this and see an elderveld is around

yep he is around here some where