Spoiler
lol.
so claiming what other's think based upon the evidence they believed was credible in their minds upon submission and empirical observation amongst themselves that drove them to find said evidence, means it's a fact to highlight it as "salt."
it's like you're psychic and can automatically read our minds.
if we were salty, we would know about it within ourselves.
but throughout the entire incident our underlying motive was to find the truth, we believed we did, why we submitted what we believed was for the public to see.
but i guess that can be scrutinized very much and labeled as nothing other than "salt."
it's like as if any attempt we make is shot down regardless, utterly, this has not been the first time matt has been accused, the 4th time to be exact.
in my personal opinion, im not so sure how a video would prove a person of hacking with the "full package contents" as i have just learned all of these terms/hacks existed for warband
it's something no one has really heard of or seen before, publicly.
many just would never know how to tell, and that doubt is what would make that hypothetical video obsolete, in our minds it seemed much more incriminating to ask the direct source for info, rather than make a video being at high risk ( in our minds) of being scrutinized and taken with disbelief.
i cant speak for movement, but this is my personal opinion on all of this
im sure all of you can put together what i think about matt through all of this
_________________________________________________________________________________
ive probably typed 5+ essays out of this entire fiasco
My god, I'm actually concerned for your reading comprehension and general level of intelligence.
"If you're going to accuse someone of hacking, at least bring the only real credible evidence, a video. Otherwise, it just looks like salt." <- That's the statement you're so hung up on.
This was a general statement, not directed at anyone, but applicable to everyone (if I'm being honest, if I had anyone in mind when making that statement, it was Bill). Stating that if someone (anyone) is going to accuse some else of hacking, they should provide solid evidence. Otherwise, their accusation just looks like them being salty. That's just a fact of how their accusation will be perceived. I literally already explained this in another post, which just makes this worse.
Now, instead of doing your best impression of a smart man like you did above, actually use your brain, take in what I'm saying and shut the fuck up. Have some self awareness and realize how stupid you're making yourself look.
That's enough fse for me tonight, the cringe is just too much.
haha, it's like you come around once again, as i said before you are being stubborn and reiterating the same point without taking into account much of what i've reiterated through everything
i disagreed with your idea hacks could be proven through video footage and gave several points on it, repeating myself several times why
i would say the most valid point was how new these hacks are to the community, there was not much knowledge on it prior (i did not know altering hitboxes/altering stab speed existed)
if the community has little to no knowledge of certain hacks, there would be doubt they even exist as they are unknown
with that, a video exposing, ill categorize them as "unknown/lesser known hacks," would not be sufficient as the doubt whether the hacks even exist remains
if there's doubt, there is not much you can really do, it will not look convincing to the community
that's why its much simpler (easier, in our minds) to get information on it from the direct source or distributor, of these hacks (Mercenary_Frank)
in the beginning, there was an accusation from you claiming movement and i accused matt in the first place with the underlying motive of "personal salt," you do not need to lie and misinterpret the statement as otherwise after i brought that up.
If you're going to accuse someone of hacking, at least bring the only real credible evidence, a video. Otherwise, it just looks like salt.
I genuinely could not care less what some shady dude who sells hacks says.
movement and i were the ones attempting to provide 'real credible evidence.'
you're directing this not at bill, as he was not the one throwing out the 'real credible evidence.'
that was directed as us, movement and i.
bill had no association with movement or i through this, he only heard about the accusations and felt the need to give his personal insight on what he thought of the entire situation.
at no point did movement or i also use bill as 'real credible evidence' we brought forward,
this is another thing you have assumed.
none of my or movements posts presenting evidence on the matter even contained bill within them, i guess your assumptions got ahead of you there
You're going to need to bring something better than that one time a guy [Bill] who accuses people who don't hack of hacking, made a video accusing someone of hacking. There is a certain credibility element to take into account.
you also accused movement and i of not giving a video after i explained why we found the difficulty/inefficiency of providing a video, which i stated was speculation/assumption of how we think/thought
You and movement concluding there's no accurate way to prove someone's hacking through video footage sounds like a convenient way to dodge having to post any significant evidence. As I said before, the receipt was nonsensical garbage that doesn't prove anything.
you think you know how we think.
that's where you're wrong and i pointed that out a while ago.
i explained why it would be considered obsolete as there are many ways to manipulate what goes into videos, (ie: toggle-able abilities, off camera type stuff) it does not paint the full picture
now you can question my intelligence and downplay my argument as if it is not of value and act like the intelligent superior, but if you are questioning my intelligence and playing the intelligence card, why are you even responding to me for so much and so long
i guess claiming another argument is "cringe" and "enough fse for one night" is valid to make an exit, fair enough perspective-wise but w/e.
