ManofManyAliases posted:

Tane

ManofManyAliases posted:

Tane

I.N.R.I posted:

I agree

D_Smart posted:

I have a lot of faults, but I don't make up lies in order to win a point or argument. People who know me, know that it's just not something that I would do because for me, there is no shame in being wrong - only the ensuing hilarity because that's how trolling works.

D_Smart posted:

Up to this point, as I've said, as a dev, I can't in good conscience breach their NDA by creating a video proving my point. I wouldn't want my gamers doing that to me either.

D_Smart posted:

Also, it could possibly also expose that account and allow CIG to ban it; while also leaving me open to a legally actionable lawsuit over breaching an NDA, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a binding agreement. Even a C&D would be something that, even without merit, would be regarded as a "win" for CIG and you rear end-clowns hoping they come after me. Something that despite my prayers to all the Gods that I know, for some reason, they still haven't.

D_Smart posted:

ps: I am willing to toxx my SA account over my claims. So if the mods want to make that happen, I'm in.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Beer-evocati are playing and testing it right now. Derek is saying it's not even in there.

alf_pogs posted:

toxx or gtfo you coward

D_Smart posted:

MoMa, before I place you on ignore, I would like to issue a statement saying why.

Since you appeared here and got on with the shilling, you have been an endless source of hilarity and excitement.

While we don't always see eye to eye, and despite the fact that back when I was mod and you were an incessantly annoying poo poo, and people asked me to ban you via a mod challenge, I refused. The reason being, annoying doesn't warrant such action.

Also, despite our differences, when we're not pissing about with Star Citizen, I have found you to be a pretty affable and hilarious guy; even amid the massive onslaught of derision that you get here.

So it brings me no pleasure today that I am going to set you to ignore (without setting to ignore those who quote you) because I feel that you have crossed that boundary between shill and blatant liar.

Now, to be fair, you have said that you don't have Evocati access, and that you are relying on third-party people you trust. However, the fact that you keep parroting that info as fact, even as I get derided for doing the same thing - despite the fact that I tend to be more right than wrong, makes you responsible.

That said, I want to go on the record with this, even as I sit atop this here hill that I am fully prepared to die on:

- Star Marine is not enabled for play in the 2.6 Evocati build that was pushed 48hrs ago. This is a fact.

- Star Marine, like Arena Commander, is accessible from the main menu, where it has always been.

- If the server is down and you try to connect/launch the game, you get an error warning (which I can simulate and post a screen shot if you'd like, since I know exactly what packets the client is sending. yay, Wireshark).

- The original version for 2.6.XXX is just that: 2.6. There is no a, b, or c

- The minor update they pushed shortly (some got it yesterday?) after 2.6, is a staggered minor update which, by all accounts, could be "b" (in your nomenclature)

Whatever they are about to push, won't be "b", that would be "c". Note that SC has never - ever used alphabets in their numbered builds.

- And the fact that they are about to push another update - according to you - so the game is inaccessible, is just plain FALSE. Just because they are doing a server-side push, doesn't prevent you from starting SC, then clicking on AC or SM icons. It doesn't work that way because SC is a client-server session based executable in which the client launches and can still run without ANY access to the server. This is why people can fire up the game, hack the files, and play SM off-line solo. That "waiting for player" message in the GUI is what I said above, about the client checking for a server connection to match to an instance.

Since the start I have said that you guys are running a campaign of lies designed to cover for CIG, while misleading other backers who contributed to this project's $137 million budget.

So it appears to me that if they are going to be now pushing an update in which SM is going to be enabled (without hacks), that would go toward the narrative that it was enabled all along, when in fact it wasn't - and there was no proof that it was or wasn't. It's a deception.

I have access to the Evocati build, as do other people I know. I have sources who work on this project and who would know more about it than you or I.

I have a lot of faults, but I don't make up lies in order to win a point or argument. People who know me, know that it's just not something that I would do because for me, there is no shame in being wrong - only the ensuing hilarity because that's how trolling works.

Up to this point, as I've said, as a dev, I can't in good conscience breach their NDA by creating a video proving my point. I wouldn't want my gamers doing that to me either.

Also, it could possibly also expose that account and allow CIG to ban it; while also leaving me open to a legally actionable lawsuit over breaching an NDA, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a binding agreement. Even a C&D would be something that, even without merit, would be regarded as a "win" for CIG and you rear end-clowns hoping they come after me. Something that despite my prayers to all the Gods that I know, for some reason, they still haven't.

To be clear. Yes, people* do have access to the 2.6 build with Star Marine enabled. But those people are not in the Evocati because the UI icon option is enabled.

Even though you are relying on third-party information, possibly from people who have an internal build that is NOT the same public Evocati 2.6, you are still aiding and abetting the on-going deception of other backers who, believe it or not, are entitled to knowing what is in a build they have paid for. To that I say: SHAME ON YOU!. I thought you were better than this.

*


ps: I am willing to toxx my SA account over my claims. So if the mods want to make that happen, I'm in.

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

Proof?

ManofManyAliases posted:

Is there an eye roll emote?

You know I can't show it Beer.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Is there an eye roll emote?

You know I can't show it Beer.

ManofManyAliases posted:

Is there an eye roll emote?

You know I can't show it Beer.

Decrepus posted:

What if Moma and Derek are both in the Evocati but they were given different secret builds so they are both right???

ManofManyAliases posted:

Is there an eye roll emote?

You know I can't show it Beer.

Decrepus posted:

What if Moma and Derek are both in the Evocati but they were given different secret builds so they are both right???

Fat Shat Sings posted:

i agree with fyad now

time to give this thread the old yeller treatment

Fat Shat Sings posted:

Indiana Jones is a prime candidate for nostalgia based overrating. I never liked the adventure serials they were based on and I wasn't old enough to see them when they were new but I did kind of like Temple. I didn't like the others though and don't understand why The Last Crusade is held up as one of the best movies of all time.

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

Proof?

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

thatguy posted:

I didn't read Derek's novella (as usual) so can someone point out exactly what claims he's toxxing over?

TheAgent posted:

star marine isn't currently playable for the evocati