Warrior General Games

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by joemalaka


This deserves a repost. Lies again. Two players traded, yet claim one. Horrible at covering up what was done.

I admit I forgot about that guy at first. He was traded before any of this stuff happened, so I forgot about him.

But it begs the question, why didn't I trade the level 15 HB or the level 14 HB instead of a level 8 (7 at the time) guy?


Because the team didn't need that high of a level. Would have been level 16 soon and if they wanted him boosted would have needed to give him a new contract and a big bonus.

More to this game than just getting tons of the highest rated players.

Originally posted by Ballbright
Let me try to point this out in a different way.

What if I PMd Vilita (canberra Strike Owner, as two of my players)about trading my lvl 17 G and C ( on the GBR Sharks where I'm owner)...and offered to take an inactive player back in return?

Would the Bandits be upset? You're damn right they would be. It would be colluding, whether Vilita knew or not what I was doing. Because I was using my position on both teams to better one team at the expense of another. It doesn't take two "people" to collude here, it only takes one person with position on two teams.

Don't make sense. People here don't want to make sense. They wouldn't have been upset...they would have thrown you a parade!

Originally posted by joemalaka

Because the team didn't need that high of a level. Would have been level 16 soon and if they wanted him boosted would have needed to give him a new contract and a big bonus.

More to this game than just getting tons of the highest rated players.

The Bandits have a multi-HB offense, and are now forced to start a level 12 PR who was never intended to be an active HB. If we were colluding, we most DEFINITELY would've gotten the Bandits a level 15 HB.

Originally posted by atm490


It is a debatable point. It just depends on your definition of active. Several players from the team have said that the owner was never there, and even more have said that he didn't and does not respond to any PMs. Some people may say that defines a person as 'inactive'.

Others might say that as long as somebody logs in once every three days, they're active.

So, in your opinion, based on your definition of active and inactive, you believe that the owner of the team was active.

I disagree.

Based on who?


The GM's story which everyone knows?


The owner's side of the story is quite different. He did respond to PM's and he didn't really post too much on the team forums but gave his input in when necessary. You heard just one side of the story from the GM. And judging from what the other guy who was originally on the gutted team said, I'm more inclined to believe the owner's side of the story.


The GM was responsible for everything and betrayed the owner's trust. And some players wanted out because of the team's losing record and if that's the case, it's up to the GM to find fair trades yet he just gutted the team for inactives and dummy players and even some legit players (who were probably part of the random trades) who are not stuck on a gutted team and their playing experience is terrible now. If the GM cared soooooooooooooo much about the players, why trade for these players who are now stuck on a gutted team? It was an "accident" right? It was an accident that those players just HAPPENED to land on the team the GM was on too right? Everything I brought up happened by accident I guess. *rolls eyes*.

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by joemalaka


This deserves a repost. Lies again. Two players traded, yet claim one. Horrible at covering up what was done.

I admit I forgot about that guy at first. He was traded before any of this stuff happened, so I forgot about him.

But it begs the question, why didn't I trade the level 15 HB or the level 14 HB instead of a level 8 (7 at the time) guy?


Because every would have been all over it from the start. Your teams big need isn't HB, you have two pretty competent ones. Anyone with a modicum of scouting knowledge could see that it was easy to pass on your reserve corners, and that was the way to beat you. You knew corner was a deficiency and tried to get the one that wouldn't raise suspicion, as well as shoring up your supposed HB problem by picking up a one that was low lvl enough not to raise suspicion.

The more you avoid coming clean on this the more suspicious I get...

Originally posted by billyvassi
PS3, why do people keep telling me a "mod" by the name of PS3 keeps PMing them?

I never claimed I was a mod......................................


If you're trying to make stuff up to try to get me to go away, it's not gonna work lol.

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by joemalaka


This deserves a repost. Lies again. Two players traded, yet claim one. Horrible at covering up what was done.

I admit I forgot about that guy at first. He was traded before any of this stuff happened, so I forgot about him.

But it begs the question, why didn't I trade the level 15 HB or the level 14 HB instead of a level 8 (7 at the time) guy?


LOL look through the game logs.......... he was traded after game 12, the trade deadline. So he obviously wasn't traded before.....

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by joemalaka


Because the team didn't need that high of a level. Would have been level 16 soon and if they wanted him boosted would have needed to give him a new contract and a big bonus.

More to this game than just getting tons of the highest rated players.

The Bandits have a multi-HB offense, and are now forced to start a level 12 PR who was never intended to be an active HB. If we were colluding, we most DEFINITELY would've gotten the Bandits a level 15 HB.



Cats responded that he needed a CB, not a HB. If Mojo wasn't moved out of FB the team wouldn't need a HB now. Since Cats removed Mojo the team might need a better HB, but not huge for them.

Originally posted by Ballbright


Because every would have been all over it from the start. Your teams big need isn't HB, you have two pretty competent ones. Anyone with a modicum of scouting knowledge could see that it was easy to pass on your reserve corners, and that was the way to beat you. You knew corner was a deficiency and tried to get the one that wouldn't raise suspicion, as well as shoring up your supposed HB problem by picking up a one that was low lvl enough not to raise suspicion.

The more you avoid coming clean on this the more suspicious I get...

Wow you're quite an investigator.

Except you're making up motivations for people. You can't just make something up and assign it as someone's thought. It doesn't work that way. You're simply dead wrong in what you're saying.

Originally posted by methomps



Wait, are you suggesting that to get a small move (backups for backups) billy and catspaw colluded to nuke an entire team? This is getting absurd.

Nah, not just one team, a few teams like I said. This kinda stuff happens all the time, it's never a whole team that gets traded from one to another, that's just absurd. A few teams got some holes to fill and that's what it looks like to me.

"Saying it was absurd" doesn't refute anything. Looks like that team made some depth moves to help them come playoff time. The GM just happened to be on that team right?

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by Ballbright



Because every would have been all over it from the start. Your teams big need isn't HB, you have two pretty competent ones. Anyone with a modicum of scouting knowledge could see that it was easy to pass on your reserve corners, and that was the way to beat you. You knew corner was a deficiency and tried to get the one that wouldn't raise suspicion, as well as shoring up your supposed HB problem by picking up a one that was low lvl enough not to raise suspicion.

The more you avoid coming clean on this the more suspicious I get...

Wow you're quite an investigator.

Except you're making up motivations for people. You can't just make something up and assign it as someone's thought. It doesn't work that way. You're simply dead wrong in what you're saying.

If Mojo was not benched, the Bandits would not have needed a HB like you are stating earlier. You are basing the need on what happened after Mojo was benched.

Originally posted by PS3

I never claimed I was a mod......................................

If you're trying to make stuff up to try to get me to go away, it's not gonna work lol.


More than one person has gotten that impression from something you've said in a PM to them. Just interesting is all, since it's probably against the rules to impersonate one.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.

Originally posted by PS3
Originally posted by atm490



It is a debatable point. It just depends on your definition of active. Several players from the team have said that the owner was never there, and even more have said that he didn't and does not respond to any PMs. Some people may say that defines a person as 'inactive'.

Others might say that as long as somebody logs in once every three days, they're active.

So, in your opinion, based on your definition of active and inactive, you believe that the owner of the team was active.

I disagree.

Based on who?


The GM's story which everyone knows?


The owner's side of the story is quite different. He did respond to PM's and he didn't really post too much on the team forums but gave his input in when necessary. You heard just one side of the story from the GM. And judging from what the other guy who was originally on the gutted team said, I'm more inclined to believe the owner's side of the story.


The GM was responsible for everything and betrayed the owner's trust. And some players wanted out because of the team's losing record and if that's the case, it's up to the GM to find fair trades yet he just gutted the team for inactives and dummy players and even some legit players (who were probably part of the random trades) who are not stuck on a gutted team and their playing experience is terrible now. If the GM cared soooooooooooooo much about the players, why trade for these players who are now stuck on a gutted team? It was an "accident" right? It was an accident that those players just HAPPENED to land on the team the GM was on too right? Everything I brought up happened by accident I guess. *rolls eyes*.




Originally posted by PS3
Originally posted by atm490



It is a debatable point. It just depends on your definition of active. Several players from the team have said that the owner was never there, and even more have said that he didn't and does not respond to any PMs. Some people may say that defines a person as 'inactive'.

Others might say that as long as somebody logs in once every three days, they're active.

So, in your opinion, based on your definition of active and inactive, you believe that the owner of the team was active.

I disagree.

Based on who?


The GM's story which everyone knows?


The owner's side of the story is quite different. He did respond to PM's and he didn't really post too much on the team forums but gave his input in when necessary. You heard just one side of the story from the GM. And judging from what the other guy who was originally on the gutted team said, I'm more inclined to believe the owner's side of the story.


The GM was responsible for everything and betrayed the owner's trust. And some players wanted out because of the team's losing record and if that's the case, it's up to the GM to find fair trades yet he just gutted the team for inactives and dummy players and even some legit players (who were probably part of the random trades) who are not stuck on a gutted team and their playing experience is terrible now. If the GM cared soooooooooooooo much about the players, why trade for these players who are now stuck on a gutted team? It was an "accident" right? It was an accident that those players just HAPPENED to land on the team the GM was on too right? Everything I brought up happened by accident I guess. *rolls eyes*.




Based on the old thread on this topic, I forget where it was, that had players supporting Billy because they said the owner wasn't active.

To be clear, because you're attacking me, which is bullsh*t... I don't agree with what Billy did. At all. I've been a teammate of his for a whopping three days, so I don't care if he goes untouched or is permanently banned. But I've read the entirety of all of these threads, and my opinion is that the owner of the team that Billy gutted was inactive, and has only become active since someone alerted him that Billy gutted his team. Your opinion is that he was active. There's no way to tell here, because like I said before, which you clearly didn't comprehend... "active" is subjective. Some people think that "active" means you have to stay up until 3 am every night if you're a GM. I disagree. Some people believe "active" means you check in once every three days to toggle settings. I disagree. I think it's somewhere in the middle, and my opinion, based on what I read in both of these threads, is that the owner was inactive. Get it? Wonderful.

Originally posted by Ballbright
Let me try to point this out in a different way.

What if I PMd Vilita (canberra Strike Owner, as two of my players)about trading my lvl 17 G and C ( on the GBR Sharks where I'm owner)...and offered to take an inactive player back in return?

Would the Bandits be upset? You're damn right they would be. It would be colluding, whether Vilita knew or not what I was doing. Because I was using my position on both teams to better one team at the expense of another. It doesn't take two "people" to collude here, it only takes one person with position on two teams.

If you are going to accuse Catspaw and Brisbane of collusion, then yes it requires two people. And you've done that.

Originally posted by Ballbright

Because every would have been all over it from the start. Your teams big need isn't HB, you have two pretty competent ones. Anyone with a modicum of scouting knowledge could see that it was easy to pass on your reserve corners, and that was the way to beat you. You knew corner was a deficiency and tried to get the one that wouldn't raise suspicion, as well as shoring up your supposed HB problem by picking up a one that was low lvl enough not to raise suspicion.

The more you avoid coming clean on this the more suspicious I get...

So simply trading the two players (without doing the firesale) would've raised suspicion? This is where conspiracy theories start to unravel: where they ask you to simultaneously believe that the alleged conspirators were genius and stupid. If they wanted to make the moves without raising suspicion, the firesale would never have happened. They would've just made the two trades and nobody would've been the wiser. This is only being discussed because of the high-profile firesale.

And now you are saying the lvl 12 RB wasn't as expendable as you initially claimed. So after they traded the RB for the CB, they had to trade for another RB (and stupidly did so with the same team) to shore up what was previously fine?