Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [retracted]

chessplaya · Post by **chessplaya** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:33 pm

I dont get it Scott.... why dont u stop being an ass ... and stop coming back to this none sense thread!

Scott-Land · Post by **Scott-Land** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:19 am

chessplaya wrote:I dont get it Scott.... why dont u stop being an ass ... and stop coming back to this none sense thread!

It's a crock of shit that he said there were games that were questionable. A terrible ruling-- absolutely terrible...

Why don't you mind your own business Chess- I recently remember you going nuts when someone said that you needed my advice to win a speed game you were in. Why did you answer that nonsense ? Prolly the same reason I'm furious..... your name and ability were at stake?

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:59 am

This is an unsatisfactory ruling because it is far too ambiguous, we have no idea what games have been noted and it leaves 3 players under a cloud.

Bruceswar · Post by **Bruceswar** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:06 am

comic boy wrote:This is an unsatisfactory ruling because it is far too ambiguous, we have no idea what games have been noted and it leaves 3 players under a cloud.

Under a cloud? Soo comic if someone calls you out like this and it gets noted are you under a cloud as well? Remember any cook can call you out. Say you are in a game with Paddy, Enelra, and then 3 lower ranks join an open game 2 of them being cooks. Game is over and one of the higher guys wins it. Cook comes to post here he thinks you 3 are in a secret alliance. Now anybody in there right mind would know that this is not true, but this could still get noted due to the fact you have probably played many games with this 2 people and one of you 3 winning most of them. I would say this is due to the fact you 3 are better than most, but some would say you 3 are a secret alliance. But I do agree this ruling is unsatisfactory. Just for the sake I am not saying the 3 mentioned players are involved in anything, just picked some high ranking names at random.

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:43 am

There Scott, the mods ruled you for being a cheat.....just accept that you cannot reach your rank by the honest way and face up to your inadequacies.

CHEAT CHEAT CHEAT, no doubt about it and maybe next time you look carefully at yourself before smearing and libeling others. There is no excuse for this!!

Bruceswar · Post by **Bruceswar** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:27 am

roadwarrior wrote:There Scott, the mods ruled you for being a cheat.....just accept that you cannot reach your rank by the honest way and face up to your inadequacies.

CHEAT CHEAT CHEAT, no doubt about it and maybe next time you look carefully at yourself before smearing and libeling others. There is no excuse for this!!

The mods never said he was a cheat. They just said some games looked suspicious. In America Suspicious does not mean you are guilty.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:37 am

Bruceswar wrote:
comic boy wrote:This is an unsatisfactory ruling because it is far too ambiguous, we have no idea what games have been noted and it leaves 3 players under a cloud.

Under a cloud? Soo comic if someone calls you out like this and it gets noted are you under a cloud as well? Remember any cook can call you out. Say you are in a game with Paddy, Enelra, and then 3 lower ranks join an open game 2 of them being cooks. Game is over and one of the higher guys wins it. Cook comes to post here he thinks you 3 are in a secret alliance. Now anybody in there right mind would know that this is not true, but this could still get noted due to the fact you have probably played many games with this 2 people and one of you 3 winning most of them. I would say this is due to the fact you 3 are better than most, but some would say you 3 are a secret alliance. But I do agree this ruling is unsatisfactory. Just for the sake I am not saying the 3 mentioned players are involved in anything, just picked some high ranking names at random.

I agree that anybody who has been around this site a while will know its nonsense,I have already said as much, but being under a cloud means that known cheats can vent their bile in revenge,roadwarrior just proved my point !

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:49 am

Bruceswar wrote:
roadwarrior wrote:There Scott, the mods ruled you for being a cheat.....just accept that you cannot reach your rank by the honest way and face up to your inadequacies.

CHEAT CHEAT CHEAT, no doubt about it and maybe next time you look carefully at yourself before smearing and libeling others. There is no excuse for this!!

The mods never said he was a cheat. They just said some games looked suspicious. In America Suspicious does not mean you are guilty.

Didnt know we were all in America, but crack on!! And poo maker its a known fact that high rankers would rather lose to high rankers, so lets cut the bull crap. being a high ranker myself , i can safely say that on a number of occasions high rankers have stated that they would rather lose to me than a low ranker. This in itself, if accepted is a secret alliance. There is a grey line here, thats for sure!

madmort0 · Post by **madmort0** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:41 pm

i agree.throwing a game to another ranked player is unfair.its protecting points rather than trying to win a game.when u sit at a table and play in real life u never try to save points u try to win till the end.the honorable thing to do is to try to win...but honor is sometimes thrown out the window at this site.so the lower ranked player would feel like he was being cheated in this kind of scenario,and rightfully so.for the record...ive stated many times i respect scotts ability to play the game...i just think hes a jerkoff asshole.if my neg feedback had been left on him i never would have come to the forum to exhibit my childish behaviour.he had ALOT of neg feedbacks removed. that alone makes him look like hes up to something.

wrestler1ump · Post by **wrestler1ump** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:54 pm

Good job mods. Keep him on probation and keep an eye on his behaviour.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:15 pm

wrestler1ump wrote:Good job mods. Keep him on probation and keep an eye on his behaviour.

The best proof yet of what a poor decision has been made

KoE_Sirius · Post by **KoE_Sirius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:55 pm

Noted doesn't mean anything.Its just a word.They haven't been blocked or anything.

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:53 pm

comic boy wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:
comic boy wrote:This is an unsatisfactory ruling because it is far too ambiguous, we have no idea what games have been noted and it leaves 3 players under a cloud.

Under a cloud? Soo comic if someone calls you out like this and it gets noted are you under a cloud as well? Remember any cook can call you out. Say you are in a game with Paddy, Enelra, and then 3 lower ranks join an open game 2 of them being cooks. Game is over and one of the higher guys wins it. Cook comes to post here he thinks you 3 are in a secret alliance. Now anybody in there right mind would know that this is not true, but this could still get noted due to the fact you have probably played many games with this 2 people and one of you 3 winning most of them. I would say this is due to the fact you 3 are better than most, but some would say you 3 are a secret alliance. But I do agree this ruling is unsatisfactory. Just for the sake I am not saying the 3 mentioned players are involved in anything, just picked some high I ranking names at random.
I agree that anybody who has been around this site a while will know its nonsense,I have already said as much, but being under a cloud means that known cheats can vent their bile in revenge,roadwarrior just proved my point !

Oh come now comic, don't be ridiculous. Anyway this is about Scott and he was investigated and why are you so sensitIve? In particular, it seems that you have double standards. I was sort of curious and glanced at your histories together and my oh my, isn't there a long one. At the least, it looks like when you don't like your buddies accused, you come to their defence such as Scott and yet you turned around and be a hypocrite when it concerned others.

I did a quick and preliminary analysis of your games together and it is startling so lets talk facts and stats:
#of standard games (with comic & Scott present)=73
No of wins= 26 (comic won 16 while Scott won 10 games)
Win %= 35.6%

I do believe the above is an exceptional win % when both of you are present in the game together. However, I do not believe that you two are exceptional singles players as you may want to think. There are a few such exceptionals and I know who they are but you two do not belong in that category of players.

I could compare you win% on your own but there are simply too many games. It is sufficient if I were to compare my own statistics with you. I have played enough times with you guys to comment about your abilities.For example, comic is 2-2 but Scott has a losing record with me (0-2). In the case of comic, both times he won was when at least one other fellow Thota clan member was also present in the games (but that is not to suggest anything).

In terms of my own win % (I am not saying that I am better than you two, just that you two are not better than me for sure) is only 24.7%. From what I heard, this is definitely higher than the norm.

Your win % together takes the cake at 35.6% which is puzzling to me considering your actual abilities.

Nothing you say therefore is credible like the lying Luckywar and Scott, you are the same as them. Anyone who is wise should be extremely careful in future games with you and Scott in there together.

Scott-Land · Post by **Scott-Land** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:29 am

Hehee-- this is too much Road..... digging your grave against one of the most respected players on the site not to mention one of the top 5 singles players of all time. Absolutely comical-- I'll respond in detail tomorrow when I'm sober.

*giggling hysterically*

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:18 am

Scott-Land wrote:Hehee-- this is too much Road..... digging your grave against one of the most respected players on the site not to mention one of the top 5 singles players of all time. Absolutely comical-- I'll respond in detail tomorrow when I'm sober.

*giggling hysterically*

Scott, whether you are sober or not, it will be the same gibberish from you. Don't continue to be flippant.

I am not disputing that comic is one of the most respected players in the site but only saying that his opinions are biased judging from your play histories together. Regards gameplay abilities, I also can comment after having played with you so that I actually disagree with his assessment that you are one of the best escalating players in the site.

The point about your histories together was raised by an earlier comment so that I only follow-up with datas....staggering isn't it? You must have been too embarrassed this came out in the open.

And why do you say I am digging my own grave for voicing an opinion based on datas? Should it be that those who dare to report you or hold you to account be threatened in such a manner? Wow what a threat.. to silence others so you can say what you want of others.

I do not know what kind of person you are in real life but it sure sounds like you are a nasty person out of control.

KoE_Sirius · Post by **KoE_Sirius** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:10 am

QFT...Having now read the whole thread.I'd just like to add that all three of these players have been on my ignore list for sometime before this was ever brought up.One of them is childish and was dragged up with no manners and the other two I have seen cheat.Yes letting a higher rank win despite yourself is cheating!I have them on my foe list(which doesn't spread over pages.It has a meager 9 people on it) now so I don't have to read all the dribble too.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:57 am

Being accused by a cheat ( and ive seen the Pms that prove you are ) is a bit like being attacked with an axe made out of candy floss

Its the old story of somebody who has been caught out, chucking a load of mud around hoping it will deflect criticism from them. Strange though that you would keep sending me PMs begging me to play you or did I only become a cheat yesterday you moron

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:11 am

comic boy wrote:Being accused by a cheat ( and ive seen the Pms that prove you are ) is a bit like being attacked with an axe made out of candy floss Its the old story of somebody who has been caught out, chucking a load of mud around hoping it will deflect criticism from them. Strange though that you would keep sending me PMs begging me to play you or did I only become a cheat yesterday you moron

I pmed you out of courtesy for the past invites you sent me. It is true that I joined your invites especially the early days but later I declined many of your subsequent invites as I have begun to hear some rumours. I leave it to you to imagine what those rumours are. Still, I harbored no ill feelings towards you and extended out invites only on 1 vs 1 (lets be clear about this).However, you let your personal bias ruin the whole thing. If you do not wish to play that is fine, you need not resort to personal attacks like that. Shows what a mean person you are. If you think that those are proofs, you should be the first to call Scott a cheat by the same logic. You are the real moron in this case.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:22 am

roadwarrior wrote:
comic boy wrote:Being accused by a cheat ( and ive seen the Pms that prove you are ) is a bit like being attacked with an axe made out of candy floss Its the old story of somebody who has been caught out, chucking a load of mud around hoping it will deflect criticism from them. Strange though that you would keep sending me PMs begging me to play you or did I only become a cheat yesterday you moron
I pmed you out of courtesy for the past invites you sent me. I harbor no ill feelings to you only you let your personal bias ruin the whole thing. If you do not wish to play that is fine, you need not resort to personal attacks like that. Shows what a mean person you are. If you think that those are proofs, you should be the first to call Scott a cheat by the same logic. You are the real moron in this case.

Your PMs asked other players in a game to share information outside of game chat - that is cheating ! If I had evidence that Scott or anybody else had done the same then I would also call them out for cheating. You got caught so live with it and show some dignity instead of throwing around random accusations to make yourself look better.

MOBAJOBG · Post by **MOBAJOBG** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:29 am

When roadwarrior senses something is not right, if he should decide to send a pm which is rare I'm sure he'll declare it in the Game Chat later for all to read so that it's fair and square.

I'm one of his regular teammates, so I know about this fact and also, roadwarrior does not condone to the act of suicide into low ranks to preserve points.

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:37 am

MOBAJOBG wrote:When roadwarrior senses something is not right, if he should decide to send a pm which is rare I'm sure he'll declare it in the Game Chat.

I'm one of his regular teammates, so I know about this fact and also, roadwarrior does not condone to the act of suicide into low ranks to preserve points.

Thank you moba,

Anyone can check my games, If I lost I did not gift the game away to anyone and not least suicide into someone else so to deprive low ranks of a win. This is cowardly act besides being a cheat, it detracts from the game experience of all players.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:38 am

roadwarrior wrote:
comic boy wrote:Being accused by a cheat ( and ive seen the Pms that prove you are ) is a bit like being attacked with an axe made out of candy floss Its the old story of somebody who has been caught out, chucking a load of mud around hoping it will deflect criticism from them. Strange though that you would keep sending me PMs begging me to play you or did I only become a cheat yesterday you moron
I pmed you out of courtesy for the past invites you sent me. It is true that I joined your invites especially the early days but later I declined many of your subsequent invites as I have begun to hear some rumours. I leave it to you to imagine what those rumours are. Still, I harbored no ill feelings towards you and extended out invites only on 1 vs 1 (lets be clear about this).However, you let your personal bias ruin the whole thing. If you do not wish to play that is fine, you need not resort to personal attacks like that. Shows what a mean person you are. If you think that those are proofs, you should be the first to call Scott a cheat by the same logic. You are the real moron in this case.

There are no rumours about me cheating and never have been - you are lying plain and simple !

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:43 am

MOBAJOBG wrote:When roadwarrior senses something is not right, if he should decide to send a pm which is rare I'm sure he'll declare it in the Game Chat later for all to read so that it's fair and square.

I'm one of his regular teammates, so I know about this fact and also, roadwarrior does not condone to the act of suicide into low ranks to preserve points.

I can understand you defending a teammate but the fact is he did send PMs which were not declared in chat, I have seen them and there was a cheating thread about it so its a matter of record. He lied on that thread and he has lied on this one, what else can one deduce except he has a capacity for dishonesty.

roadwarrior · Post by **roadwarrior** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:49 am

comic boy wrote:
MOBAJOBG wrote:When roadwarrior senses something is not right, if he should decide to send a pm which is rare I'm sure he'll declare it in the Game Chat later for all to read so that it's fair and square.

I'm one of his regular teammates, so I know about this fact and also, roadwarrior does not condone to the act of suicide into low ranks to preserve points.
I can understand you defending a teammate but the fact is he did send PMs which were not declared in chat, I have seen them and there was a cheating thread about it so its a matter of record. He lied on that thread and he has lied on this one, what else can one deduce except he has a capacity for dishonesty.

Comic: you are so strange why raised these now when you could raise it back then? Just read the thread and all that needed to be said has been explained so that what you just raised is trite and moot. The mods have found nothing wrong for further action. In fact, there is a majority of players in the polls that also have no issue with this. The fact that you are raising it now, just proved my point that you are acting bad faith. Lets not detract from Scott your buddy whom as you say is under the clouds of being a cheat. Actually, he is a cheat despite of what you say. You are just trying to deflect attention from him. Oh for the record, the liars are your buddies, luckywar and Scott.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:11 am

One of the players in that game happened to be my father, he showed me the PM you sent him, neither he or my eyes decieved me

Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [retracted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]

Re: Buizerd,Scott-Land,jan1976 [noted]