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.
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!
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.
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
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...