Certainly I believe Fletch and Mark. Accusation withdrawn with apologies.
···
From: "everett20uk" <David@everett20.freeserve.co.uk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Am I cheat....?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:01:08 -0000Just a couple of points.
1 "Resentful" is not quite the right word. As appears to be the
general view of players, judging by the comments on this list, I
dislike the practice of "email" trickery. In my opinion the sooner ME
find a way to ban it the better. In the eantime I expect you will
find others who will take such deception as a hostile act and decide
to ally against you.2 In your example you effectively made an accusation that I and
teammates have cheated in g71 and g88. As you have presented no
evidence for either case and both Clint and another neutral involved
have shown your comments incorrect would you please either withdraw
them or produce some evidence in supportDavid Everett
--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Ovatha Easterling" <ovatha88@h...> wrote:
> Hello David:
> Yes, Ovatha Easterling was a ruse. When I shut it down (it was not
> compromised) I related the facts to the interested parties and
gave my
> mundane name. One individual was amused at the 'snookering'. One
person
> actually thanked me for the lesson. You were resentful and it has
motivated
> you to excellence in my destruction--I view that as a positive
result.
>
> >From: "everett20uk" <David@e...>
> >Reply-To: mepbmlist@y...
> >To: mepbmlist@y...
> >Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Am I cheat....?
> >Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:20:28 -0000
> >
> >As a player inolved in both 88 and 71 I feel I have to make a
comment
> >or two here if only in self defence.
> >
> >1 G71. I picked up Harad after it was dropped intending to make a
> >game of it. After a turn or so I decided to go DS having negotiated
> >in good faith with both teams. However the DS team in that game
had a
> >lousy record on co-operation and a habit of - to my mind - childish
> >bickering. After a few more turns I decided I could not put up with
> >that sort of rubbish any longer and dropped. At that point the
> >nations was - as any aligned nation, offered first to the other
team
> >members. I believe the WK took it up.
> >
> >2 G88. I am Corsairs. The first Harad would not speak to anyone and
> >the QA and I took him apart. By the time he dropped all of Southern
> >Harad was lost either to myself or QA. After several turns the
> >position was picked up by someone unknown to myself or to the best
of
> >my knowledge anyone else on the team. In my opinion it was pretty
> >much hopeless by then and I can see why that player also dropped
> >fairly quickly. I strongly resent any implication that it was a
fix.
> >
> >Staying on the subject of G88 I went into the game planning to be a
> >genuine neutral, then an overly clever Sinda played some fake email
> >tricks, which I will admit I fell for. I decided instantly to go DS
> >on principle as soon as his deception was revealed. Strangely he
used
> >the email "Ovatha Easterling"..... care to comment?
> >
> >David Everett
> >Corsair 88
> >Harad 71 (briefly)
> >
> >--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >ME and the GM inadvertantly aid these types of operations. I
am
> >referencing
> > > >the practice of filling mid and late game neutral positions.
Want
> >some
> > > >concrete examples? In game 71 the midgame Harad quit and the
DS
> >hustled a
> > > >friend into the position.
> > >
> > > *** I thought the player who picked it up was already playing in
> >the game
> > > as a DS. Am I incorrect in this? Not someone who was Neutral -
> >the Harad
> > > was DS. I chatted to the players a lot in this situation to
make
> >sure that
> > > nothing untoward was happening.
> > >
> > > In game 88 the midgame
> > > >Harad qit and the DS again put a "ringer" in the game. This
> >individual
> > > >'sat-on-his-hands' and allowed the DS to conquer the country
> >without
> > > >resistance.
> > >
> > > *** Not aware of this one - who was it and should I investigate
it
> > > futher? Isn't this counter to the taking up a nation argument
you
> >put
> > > forward above. In this case aren't you arguing that effectively
> >the nation
> > > was NOT taken over and that it should have been filled? We
don't
> >let
> > > players take up Neutrals in a game that you have allies in
already -
> > it
> > > breaks the essential Neutral aspect of the game.
> > >
> > > Note anyone is able to send us some money, set-up an account and
> >ruin a
> > > game by playing badly or against his team (or as a Neutral).
It's
> > > something that we strongly discourage players from doing. Why
> >bother
> > > cheating? What's the point?
> > >
> > > *** The point about taking up nations is something that I have
> >discussed
> > > numerous times. MEPBM's opinion is that without it games that
are
> > > perfectly healthy otherwise fall apart. GSI/DGE and Allsorts
were
> >prime
> > > examples of this with nations left unfilled, but players
willing to
> >play
> > > them and the game dying on early turns leaving a bad feeling for
> > > everyone. This has to be offset against potential abuses which
I
> >am aware
> > > are in the game but have to trust that players don't use.
> > >
> > > Clint
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com