Thank you Stormbinder!

[Zapmeister]

I think you should continue enjoying Dom2 and simply be abit more careful who you play with.

Sure. But "being careful who you play with" can get you accused of narrow-mindedness. Zen had this to say about my ban on Norfleet:

Considering this is coming from someone who 'Banned' Norfleet months ago, I would have to venture a guess that your mind was made up long before any 'proof' or 'hard work' was given. The problem with the bandwagon is it's always ready for more members, on their way to other places.

Sure. But "being careful who you play with" can get you accused of narrow-mindedness. Zen had this to say about my ban on Norfleet:

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the reason you 'Banned' Norfleet was the same reason you Banned VQ's and Clams, and Castling?

You never Banned Norfleet for cheating, at least that was my impression. Otherwise I'm sure this type of discussion would have been had a few weeks ago. Or what is more likely is that you suspected him of cheating, couldn't prove it, so didn't want to play with him to avoid it.

There was a distinctive difference between your 'banning Norfleet' and say, Graeme's refusal to join games/have Norfleet play in games, with him. Graeme's particular method was by far, to my mind, less overzealous and attacking. Even though Graeme and Norfleet had disagreements on a personal and philisophic level.

With your recent adulation and statements, it appears that is just your personality.

[Zapmeister]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the reason you 'Banned' Norfleet was the same reason you Banned VQ's and Clams, and Castling?

You stand corrected. The reason for the ban was that Norfleet became a person I chose not to play with following the exposure of his dishonest behaviour in a game earlier in the year.

I was being "careful who I played with".

You stand corrected. The reason for the ban was that Norfleet became a person I chose not to play with following the exposure of his dishonest behaviour in a game earlier in the year.

Ah yes the "alternate persona" debacle. Forgive me if I can't keep everything straight as far as reasonings for people to not play with Norfleet, Clams, VQ's, Castles, or others I do stand corrected. While not in my mind a valid reason to ban someone (especially since he was obviously using alternate names it's certainly isn't because he was cheating, though I'm sure that thought crossed your mind.

It sort of goes back to your Dom1 days and going out of control about alliances and such. As far as I'm concerend you can not play with anyone you wouldn't like to, I certainly don't play with people I don't like, but I don't make huge announcements and flame them at every opportunity.

[Zapmeister]

It sort of goes back to your Dom1 days and going out of control about alliances and such. As far as I'm concerend you can not play with anyone you wouldn't like to, I certainly don't play with people I don't like, but I don't make huge announcements and flame them at every opportunity.

I sometimes have strong opinions, and I'm prepared to express them. Like you.
There has never been anyone, including Norfleet, that I've "flamed at every opportunity".

I think this discussion is in danger of becoming the kind of flamefest we both regard as counter-productive. Let's stop.

For that kind of obvious flame personality I'm going to have to respond with ...

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

(As the Torch would say "FLAME ON")

[Zapmeister]

I want to respond a second time to these statements from Gandalf, because an intervening dialogue between myself and Zen has buried the original. My concern (possibly unfounded - if so please put my mind at rest) is that these statements are a justification-in-advance for an announcement that the vulnerability will not be fixed:

Any protection from such rare cheating will cause alot complaints amoung the players...
... I think you should continue enjoying Dom2 and simply be abit more careful who you play with.

[Zapmeister]

(As the Torch would say "FLAME ON")

Er, what are you saying? That you want to start a flamewar with me? If so, I decline.

I want to respond a second time to these statements from Gandalf, because an intervening dialogue between myself and Zen has buried the original. My concern (possibly unfounded - if so please put my mind at rest) is that these statements are a justification-in-advance for an announcement that the vulnerability will not be fixed:

You must really have a low opinion of IW if you honestly think that they would not fix an exploit to the best of their ability/time. You seem to be forgetting that Gandalf is ever the diplomat when it comes to these things. It's a safety blanket. It means that if an exploit requires too much work (as in a total revamp) it may or may not be addressed. Or any number of other circumstances. It also means there are alot of ways for people to cheat within the limits of the game engine (with the fatherland file, etc) and the currently limited cheat prevention code.

If you want peace of mind, you can know that IW is on it and has several answers already in place in the Last day(s).

As for the Flame Warrior's link. Come on man, unclench a little, I was not biting my thumb at you. Some people take everything too serious.

[Gandalf Parker]

I want to respond a second time to these statements from Gandalf, because an intervening dialogue between myself and Zen has buried the original. My concern (possibly unfounded - if so please put my mind at rest) is that these statements are a justification-in-advance for an announcement that the vulnerability will not be fixed:

If it turns out to be hex editing then there is no vulnerability to be "fixed". That would mean that he directly edited the files. A file can always be hex edited. If you want to see it just open a DOS window and use debug to view the file. (NOT recommended)

More checks and encryption could maybe be added if the devs wish but that would tend to cause alot of complaints.