Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Again, I don't know why GUIDs weren't checked but they could have easily been switched as Bill had been banned before and he had multiple GUIDs to use. The reason why you wouldn't see Saint in previous 58e events is because he was a member of Chantakey's regiment (75th/5th or if they were a different regiment at that time, I don't know) up until the end of NWL S5, I think. Apparently when that regiment disbanded, some of 75th/5th members joined the 91st (58e). Which Lawbringer provided screenshots of Chantakey confirming Saint joined and played in that match. But that can't be 100% confirmed because then you are just taking chantakey's word for it like if you be taking Bill's saying he did play. And it was a 1v1, idk how many were melee kills but it doesn't really matter. Some people just get lucky shooting kills or easy backstabs during the chaos of the open melee in 1v1 melee fights.
Your analogy isn't really good lol. It has clear evidence to do something rather than this case with none from bill confirming he played.
I am not trying to argue with you Zen. I'm letting you know this has been reviewed several times and comes out with the same ruling every time. As I said, this comes up almost every season of NWL (or every so often) and it did in season 8 and we reviewed it and no new evidence came out; just new allegations with again no evidence to back it up to do anything. I sound like a broken record but it really is just a lack evidence proving that bill played as saint.
The thing about Jackie’s post tho was he was responding to bill saying he played the whole season as saint and that saint never even played a match
Yes.
You would verify the GUID off of Saint not Bill. If Saints GUID was not the same, it means it was a merc. Other players were implicated as well.
The fact that GUIDs were not checked, due to no fault of our own and possibly the administration, I agree with you in that regard a clear decision cannot be made either way. Among all the other issues, 58e/91st shortly disbanded leaving no opportunities for rounds to be replayed. Due to that at the very least, it should remain contested and a split decision made.
I also do not know what prompted the investigation as we were not apart of that. I did not even know there was an investigation.
Had saint played in a match within the last week to check?
I mean not really an official investigation lol. I just looked into during S8 since it came up again and new allegations from pinoy and maple (hearing they had played as well and a screenshot). I was interested and looked into it and asked people from S5 and looked for any evidence. I also talked with the other S8 mods and they gave me their input and told me it usual reappears every so often as it too in S7 and S6. And we concluded to not take it away from the 91st. due to the lack of evidence and respecting the decision of the S5 admin staff (since it was their season and their best call during that time); as well as a few other things I think. Was at the beginning of this year and we had a meeting about it all; can't remember everything about it.
A split decision would correct all errors made. It would not take away anything from the 91st and would not rob us the chance of verifying GUIDs and also the chance of replaying disputed rounds. Respecting windflowers decision would be to give us the win as he stated. I know it was a difficult match to admin and imo the decision to allow disbanded regiments to join in last minute also affected the final outcome. If there was no way to verify GUIDs accurately amid strong accusations and administrative errors, I would have called for an entire rematch.
split decision doesn't exactly have a winner. It confirms them cheating but lets them share the title with another regiment; which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. about meant respecting decisions, I said during that time and respecting that season.
It would be fair to both sides. We were robbed of the chance to prove otherwise. There was even a dispute from the 91st of a guard named Kassan mid match and there was a large 63e response of questioning multiple 91st members and was promised to verify after the match by the admin as he wasn't bothered to verify it in the middle of the match. Not to mention the rule breaks that were happening throughout the match, specifically fols which should have resulted in immediate slay.
When a rematch was anticipated, the 91st coincidently disbanded leaving us no room for any other judgement other than what was made. Not because it was most prudent. It's a disputed match. A split decision would be the most fair, especially when the admin stated he would change the decision.
New NWL rules were even added after this match that regiments would have to submit the GUIDs of their entire roster. Also there was a designated time period before any player could participate in an NWL match after joining a new regiment. Also implementing the 2 admin practice. That alone shows you the errors that were corrected to prevent any other regiment from potentially experiencing the same results. A split decision would mean it would be shared and no one loses. If it remains the same it would only negatively affect our regiment as our dispute to the match was not addressed properly.
Ofc it would be fair to give you the win in your eyes. There should have been roster and GUID rules but there weren't. It's good the new rules were added after because of this mess. Not everything is a grand scheme to screw the 63e. So because rules were changed during each season, we can go back and switch up winners because the rules weren't the same rules back then as they are now? If you're saying that, then let's go back and look into seasons 1-4 because of any potential mercs that could have played; putting the winners of those seasons at risk because of the same result and/or same accusations could be made there as well. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just saying by that logic then that seriously would apply.
It really is unfortunate and a lot of that stuff you just can't use as an excuse. I don't mean that in a negative way either. The way the ref did things should not be really up for debate now. That should have been addressed 3 years ago lol. That's something you can overturn or how the ref decided to handle things. It was one ref matching 2 lines of 30+ right? Checking GUIDs mid match seems pretty hectic and I'm sure he was trying to do his best. And the fact they disbanded... really has nothing to do with anything. They can disband when they like too. Just because it's after, ok? I mean that's just how it goes and you can't confirm they did it on purpose to sabotage anything. From what I heard they had been planning to do that. Them disbanding doesn't make them immune from revoking the title either so. If there was enough evidence or GUIDs checked that would be an easy decision to change it even if they disbanded. Your dispute was addressed several times during several seasons.
It's not about the win. It's about doing what is fair in light of the circumstances. It would be one thing if we made it to the championship only that one time and lost. We made it many times. Some we won and some we lost. We never made a big deal about it, win or lose. You may not know because you were a ranker in a line but GUIDs were in fact given by regimental leaders. There were also verified before the match began. That's why there were no issues with mercs.
The same regiment played us earlier in the season and brought in mercs and forfeited the match just to try to beat us. They have a reputation of doing that despite the risk. It's a verified fact, not an excuse and during the Championship match we were promised by the admin that it would be verified, which again is why we didn't make a big deal about it during the match like the 91st did.
Not only that but there was rule breaking throughout the match, even in the final round which was not administrated properly. One player could sway the final result. This should have resulted in the very least rounds replayed. How can you do that with a disbanded regiment. That leaves it open ended and contested. It could have went either way. We could easily have verified guids and proved there were no mercs. We could have easily replayed rounds or the entire match and settled the dispute, where we would not be having this conversation. None of this was done. And again, the admin overseeing the season was the one who stated he would give us the win. A split decision is the result due to administration errors and strong accusations of mercing by multiple individuals.