Messages

1

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [9 Years and Going!]

« on: May 18, 2022, 05:57:26 pm »

Reserved.

2

Regiments / 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [9 Years and Going!]

« on: May 18, 2022, 05:56:24 pm »

3

Regiments (Game Clans) / Re: 63rd New York Infantry Regiment [EU/NA]

« on: September 23, 2019, 07:11:41 pm »

Reserved.

4

Regiments (Game Clans) / 63rd New York Infantry Regiment [EU/NA]

« on: September 23, 2019, 07:10:51 pm »

Reserved.

5

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 12, 2018, 07:36:43 pm »

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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.

6

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 12, 2018, 08:43:19 am »

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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.

7

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 11, 2018, 07:56:28 pm »

This is totally unrelated. But hey Zen!

Hey Anthony, how are you?

8

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 11, 2018, 08:12:40 am »

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.

[close]

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.

[close]

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.

9

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 11, 2018, 05:51:28 am »

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.

[close]

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.

10

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 10, 2018, 07:43:22 am »

Spoiler

Spoiler

Again, the reason why there is no direct evidence is due to the fact that the GUIDS were not checked and verified directly after the match. When was this ever not done? It was done when we faced 58e (Lawbringers regiment) and was determined to be a 10-0 due to a... banned player https://cl.ly/93610c37660e. After the Championship match, Ray not only contested this fact but also requested for rounds to be replayed. It felt like the attitude was, let's do nothing for as long as possible until nothing can be done.

Why would some confess to something they had no part in years later when it doesn't even matter? There was a strong motive, there was direct evidence of the same regiment playing banned players in previous matches, and there is a confession. This is any prosecutors wet dream lol.

I don't know if wind had access to the server panel to check due to cheesey being dead and I think cheesey had primary access to the panel (not sure on that). However, even then Bill has several GUIDs and checking that when he could play under another one and say it was Saint's GUID. and since it only goes back a week you can't check Saint's previous GUID he used. So no real way to 100% confirm when people have multiple GUIDs to use, swap them around, and who knows.... maybe they shared GUIDs to really make it seem like it was him. I agree with you, GUIDs should be checked though and there should have been a roster rule back then to prevent this.

people say shit about each just to piss people off lol. It's he said she said and opinionated. Screenshotting Nick's post and Russianfury's comment (who played for the 63e/on 63e's side) is like the 91st using their screenshots of chantakey saying it really was saint and saint's post on fse. It's opinionated and you can't use that as a confession. only real confession is bill's which as babyj said, how much do you trust bill lol (even then his evidence is nothing to prove). And if it doesn't matter, then why do people keep bringing it up every so often wanting it for the 63e and here we are again. It's a NWL title and in this game regiments spent months and years to get that lol. you can't say "it doesn't matter now" because if it really didn't I wouldn't be typing this and people wouldn't be fighting for it.

[close]

You can easily verify a GUID through a neutral server. There is a way and it was done before with the same regiment to verify banned players. We got a 10-0 decision.

Literally everywhere I look points to one person. I spoke to him as well and he openly admitted it. Even on the video of the match. If it was just the screenshots of other people stating it as well, I wouldn't really bother. It's not only his confession. It was even pointed out by Jackie as he identified his mannerism while ingame. Its posted everywhere on the forums. Its posted on YouTube vids. It's the fact they did this to us before. He was accused directly after the match and admitted when it didn't matter the repercussions of his actions. It matters to us, which is why I'm not just ignoring these comments. You can state your opinion but so can I and tbh, from my perspective there is little doubt that he played in the match. Also there were other issues with that match which was contested, not just banned players.

where did Jackie say it was bill?

Spoiler

I did play for the 58e in the final of TNWL or something. I had pretty much quit at that point but then was asked by Asian I believe to play for them. I never showed up except for the final against the 71st, which we lost in the end. My name was MrCleanRightBehindYou. I forget why this was relevant but yeah.



Anyhow, the real reason I am here and correct me if I am wrong. The talk is about Season 5. I've been asked whether I remember if Bill played in the final or not against the 63e.
Was Bill Saint all along during that season or not? I have no definitive answer either way, except that during the 71st's match against the 91st, they were still called 58e, we lost 4-6 and I clutched a round at the end during which I killed Saint as well. At that point I find it hard to believe it was Bill.

In the video I kill him at 36:38 with a hold I don't think I ever got him with. So I find it hard to believe he was Saint there. Bill was way better than that. But maybe that was the actual Saint and in the final it was Bill. So yeah, no idea really. But that Saint was clearly not Bill.

Well, that's my two cents. Sorry if I am being incoherent. I hardly understand myself. I'm out again. Hope you all are doing well!

[close]

[close]

It was during a conversation on TeamSpeak. We were discussing the possibility of Bill playing as Saint. He mentioned what he posted in the post you provided, which he stated that he caught Saint with a technique that Bill would have more often than not defended. During my conversation with Bill, he mentioned the same thing that you would be able to recognize the fighting styles. There is a possibility that Bill was not Saint while playing the 71st, but was playing as Saint in the final match. Which is why we needed to verify it through the GUIDs.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Again, the reason why there is no direct evidence is due to the fact that the GUIDS were not checked and verified directly after the match. When was this ever not done? It was done when we faced 58e (Lawbringers regiment) and was determined to be a 10-0 due to a... banned player https://cl.ly/93610c37660e. After the Championship match, Ray not only contested this fact but also requested for rounds to be replayed. It felt like the attitude was, let's do nothing for as long as possible until nothing can be done.

Why would some confess to something they had no part in years later when it doesn't even matter? There was a strong motive, there was direct evidence of the same regiment playing banned players in previous matches, and there is a confession. This is any prosecutors wet dream lol.

I don't know if wind had access to the server panel to check due to cheesey being dead and I think cheesey had primary access to the panel (not sure on that). However, even then Bill has several GUIDs and checking that when he could play under another one and say it was Saint's GUID. and since it only goes back a week you can't check Saint's previous GUID he used. So no real way to 100% confirm when people have multiple GUIDs to use, swap them around, and who knows.... maybe they shared GUIDs to really make it seem like it was him. I agree with you, GUIDs should be checked though and there should have been a roster rule back then to prevent this.

people say shit about each just to piss people off lol. It's he said she said and opinionated. Screenshotting Nick's post and Russianfury's comment (who played for the 63e/on 63e's side) is like the 91st using their screenshots of chantakey saying it really was saint and saint's post on fse. It's opinionated and you can't use that as a confession. only real confession is bill's which as babyj said, how much do you trust bill lol (even then his evidence is nothing to prove). And if it doesn't matter, then why do people keep bringing it up every so often wanting it for the 63e and here we are again. It's a NWL title and in this game regiments spent months and years to get that lol. you can't say "it doesn't matter now" because if it really didn't I wouldn't be typing this and people wouldn't be fighting for it.

[close]

You can easily verify a GUID through a neutral server. There is a way and it was done before with the same regiment to verify banned players. We got a 10-0 decision.

Literally everywhere I look points to one person. I spoke to him as well and he openly admitted it. Even on the video of the match. If it was just the screenshots of other people stating it as well, I wouldn't really bother. It's not only his confession. It was even pointed out by Jackie as he identified his mannerism while ingame. Its posted everywhere on the forums. Its posted on YouTube vids. It's the fact they did this to us before. He was accused directly after the match and admitted when it didn't matter the repercussions of his actions. It matters to us, which is why I'm not just ignoring these comments. You can state your opinion but so can I and tbh, from my perspective there is little doubt that he played in the match. Also there were other issues with that match which was contested, not just banned players.

Yes you can but it wasn’t done at that time and i doubt that solution was offered during the time since it probably would have been done. Overall the administration could have been better but as I said previously that was a tough season and a tough call. And which one person are you talking about, Bill I assume? Ok yes he says he played as saint and he has no evidence. It doesn’t matter that it’s after the fact and he doesn’t care. He has zero evidence. If it’s that easy to accuse someone just from opinion and you believer that then that would be a big problem for other seasons too. It’s the major lack of evidence to give any sort of ruling.

edit: Bill even told me the 58e/91st deserved to win because they "had him" and "were better" lol

[close]

Yes, I understand that part of the argument. The only way to verify without a doubt perished within 7 days of the match. Bill was a member of the 58e. We played against them during groupfights and most of the time he was at or near the top of the leaderboards. I don't remember that with Saint. Saint miraculously performed better than Ap0c, Rune, or Kovy and by a large margin. Especially against two of the top regiments in the game. I look at what is left. Everything else points to the fact that he played in the match.

I mean if everyone around you was telling you that your girl was cheating, you see underwear in your drawers that's not yours, and the dudes tell you years later, yeah i was banging your chick, you telling me that you would say, No! I need to see the condom that you used years ago or else it didnt happen...

11

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 09, 2018, 10:23:58 am »

Spoiler

Again, the reason why there is no direct evidence is due to the fact that the GUIDS were not checked and verified directly after the match. When was this ever not done? It was done when we faced 58e (Lawbringers regiment) and was determined to be a 10-0 due to a... banned player https://cl.ly/93610c37660e. After the Championship match, Ray not only contested this fact but also requested for rounds to be replayed. It felt like the attitude was, let's do nothing for as long as possible until nothing can be done.

Why would some confess to something they had no part in years later when it doesn't even matter? There was a strong motive, there was direct evidence of the same regiment playing banned players in previous matches, and there is a confession. This is any prosecutors wet dream lol.

I don't know if wind had access to the server panel to check due to cheesey being dead and I think cheesey had primary access to the panel (not sure on that). However, even then Bill has several GUIDs and checking that when he could play under another one and say it was Saint's GUID. and since it only goes back a week you can't check Saint's previous GUID he used. So no real way to 100% confirm when people have multiple GUIDs to use, swap them around, and who knows.... maybe they shared GUIDs to really make it seem like it was him. I agree with you, GUIDs should be checked though and there should have been a roster rule back then to prevent this.

people say shit about each just to piss people off lol. It's he said she said and opinionated. Screenshotting Nick's post and Russianfury's comment (who played for the 63e/on 63e's side) is like the 91st using their screenshots of chantakey saying it really was saint and saint's post on fse. It's opinionated and you can't use that as a confession. only real confession is bill's which as babyj said, how much do you trust bill lol (even then his evidence is nothing to prove). And if it doesn't matter, then why do people keep bringing it up every so often wanting it for the 63e and here we are again. It's a NWL title and in this game regiments spent months and years to get that lol. you can't say "it doesn't matter now" because if it really didn't I wouldn't be typing this and people wouldn't be fighting for it.

[close]

You can easily verify a GUID through a neutral server. There is a way and it was done before with the same regiment to verify banned players. We got a 10-0 decision.

Literally everywhere I look points to one person. I spoke to him as well and he openly admitted it. Even on the video of the match. If it was just the screenshots of other people stating it as well, I wouldn't really bother. It's not only his confession. It was even pointed out by Jackie as he identified his mannerism while ingame. Its posted everywhere on the forums. Its posted on YouTube vids. It's the fact they did this to us before. He was accused directly after the match and admitted when it didn't matter the repercussions of his actions. It matters to us, which is why I'm not just ignoring these comments. You can state your opinion but so can I and tbh, from my perspective there is little doubt that he played in the match. Also there were other issues with that match which was contested, not just banned players.

12

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 09, 2018, 08:09:31 am »

Again, the reason why there is no direct evidence is due to the fact that the GUIDS were not checked and verified directly after the match. When was this ever not done? It was done when we faced 58e (Lawbringers regiment) and was determined to be a 10-0 due to a... banned player https://cl.ly/93610c37660e. After the Championship match, Ray not only contested this fact but also requested for rounds to be replayed. It felt like the attitude was, let's do nothing for as long as possible until nothing can be done.

Why would some confess to something they had no part in years later when it doesn't even matter? There was a strong motive, there was direct evidence of the same regiment playing banned players in previous matches, and there is a confession. This is any prosecutors wet dream lol.

13

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 08, 2018, 08:46:59 pm »

Dan the Chef is the father to all regiments #Truth

Glenn! How you been brother?

14

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 08, 2018, 08:30:06 pm »

Spoiler

I can't believe you guys will blame the death of NW on the 63e.

who said that?

If 63e is dead then NW is dead

It was a joke. It was more of a compliment than anything. The 63e for the most part has been a mainstay in the community, and they were the last great regiment to originate from 2012 to survive.

Thompson, you literally took my post completely the wrong way.

The word "revolutionized" makes it sound like the 63e was the first to offer events such as this so yes, it does take away from them. The 63e deserves a lot of the credit for 2014-onward where their events and server helped sustain the community much further than what many expected. However, again, you're forgetting a lot of history from 2012-13 including the time when 63e was on hiatus and Karth wasn't around.

In regards to what I mentioned, our events were created out of need, hence we were the first to host those type of events specifically addressing those issues. No one else was doing it at the time from my experience participating in linebattle events, and you must have your history messed up because Karth was here during 2012-2013.

You guys weren't active for some of 2012 and for months in 2013. I should know because there wasn't a 63e to linebattle when I led the 9y. Quite a few of your guys joined us during this time.

That must have been during Diplex leadership, not Karth. Once Karth took over the 63e was active on both NA and EU. Karth officially commanded the regiment from Sept. 2012.

We eventually began hosting our own events and it benefited and spread throughout the community. We are still hosting the same events till this day. TILL THIS DAY. lol

We're going to go around and around. You're going to believe whatever you believe.

Fact remains: Others had events before you that were incredible, regiments have done 1v1 linebattle tactics going back to Melee:Battlegrounds and the 63e wasn't around for part of 2013.

That isn't a bad thing. The 63e and Karth have been vital to this community and I've always respected the hell out of your regiment. Still do. I'm sorry I even responded. It's been awhile since I've been drawn into a thread (2014?) and I should of known better.

[close]

Mack, thank you for your comment. I didn't take your comment to be malicious and I respect the way you presented your argument. We attended other regiments' events during that time. I'm not saying that those before us didn't have decent events in comparison to what was already being offered at the time, but things changed. Some of those events ended and new regiments were hosting. I was reading a comment stating in mount and musket, it was more respectable and held each other in high regard. We all know that changed somewhere down the line. I'm fully aware that other regiments contributed in other areas and at different times, but I'm referring to a specific example, where 63e contributed and essentially changed the game for the better.

15

Regiments / Re: 63ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne [6 Years and Going!]

« on: December 08, 2018, 07:28:42 am »

Do you guys remember when all the good players from the 71st joined the 63e and they still couldn’t win NWL? LMAO

What i remember is this...

Spoiler

https://cl.ly/229c65cc4d5d

[close]

and this...

Spoiler

https://cl.ly/bbc6369f3c53

[close]

and this...

Spoiler

https://cl.ly/0015df240eaf

[close]