jlam

This is a response directly from what I've skimmed: I'd like to clarify that I did not say my response didn't contain anecdotal evidence. Including everything I said before and from this point on everything I say is anecdotal, same as rayken. If you want to talk ad hominem I have a really good one for you. Rayken is a fucking douchebag. I used the ad hominem because I don't like you and what you're doing. It also doesn't detract from my argument because what I've said is valid. So mentioning my ad hominems is simply your use of a strawman. "Flare throwing, singing, and sitting around was mentioned several times, with protests from the group. Many of us did not speak up because we felt it was Caviano's mumble and there was nothing we could do. We followed the ring leader until the ring leader led bandits to our camp. You were one of the initial reasons Caviano was banned when we wanted an abusive member kicked out of the mumble. We spoke up. We made protest. We adamantly protested "Pumbas" being apart of the mumble, and instead of releasing him from the mumble, you unbanned him and he continued hopping back in our channel. This was around the same time you banned your good friend, Caviano, and he had to call Russel or someone to get him unbanned from the mumble for this." Need I mention again that you also enjoy throwing flares recklessly? I am the reason he got banned, I banned him and I subsequently unbanned him. What's your point? You made protest that had no merit. Asking too many questions is not a legitimate complaint. Pumbas felt wronged after you banned him and relayed his version of the story to us. From his account and your group's account I found that his ban was illegitimate. He did you guys no wrong but instead of helping him you decided to ban him. "So, I slander your good friend?" Yes. "It was around this point we all discussed the fact that the group could be heading south. We had no idea you Erik and Andrew would sabotage us the way you did. As for ad hominem attacks, I simply won't respond to "disgusting human being" and "worthless time" and "pathetic animal." For someone worried about slander you use straw men and attacks quite often even in your opening paragraph. How can anything you say be taken seriously, now?" If you weren't going to respond then don't bring it up. I explained myself with my opening. "How would you be aware of his contributions when you quit playing during the two weeks the core group was formed? In fact, how do you have the opinions you have when you were not with our group during the time that the incidents occurred? The only thing you were directly involved in was the banning of your good friend who contributed a lot to the group, Caviano, and continuing to allow Pumbas to call us faggots in our mumble chat." I know because I listen to the day-z channel. Mostly to spy on your positions. Once again pumbas did not call you faggots nor call you any other names. "Putting together a mumble and gathering us together means nothing when the very mumble we are assembled on is being ruined by people who founded it to begin with. All contributions become null and void when you lead mice to a trap, whether you are aware of it or not. I did not receive a single apology, simply feigned self-placed sympathy at the end of the other night from Caviano. None of you cared about our group, and I find it odd you would speak up to try to defend Caviano's contributions, when again, you did not play with us and banned him from his own mumble." It wasn't ruined by the people who founded it. It was ruined by guests like you who felt that other guests were not good enough to play with you because they were newbies to the game. I wasn't directly involved with your group, this is true. But it doesn't mean I didn't listen to your conversations. You don't deserve an apology. You were a contributing factor to the break up of the channel in our mumble. How did you know that we didn't care? It's our mumble of course we cared. Just because we don't play day-z as often as you do doesn't change that fact. "As for the taking of possessions, yes, Caviano regularly took things that were not his to take. What it seems to me, right now, is that you've made an account to just break down my post in your "good friends" defense." That's exactly what I'm doing, defending my friend. So what if I am? Another example of a strawman the hypocritical man likes to point out. Just like you asked for below, I'll once again ask for an example of caviano taking things that were not his to take. Typically you must provide examples. "This is fairly hypocritical. You say immediately before you accuse me of using anecdotal evidence that I am "grossly exaggerating the issues because I know Caviano." If you know Caviano, you are the one using anecdotal evidence. You are the one who is biased. I simply stated my observations from the course of two weeks." I've addressed this in the opening but I would like to add that rayken is also biased in this regard. "I simply stated my observations" sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. "Excuse me? I do not recall ever directly playing with you, nor do I understand how throwing a flare as a checkpoint compares to dropping flares in front of nightvision or illuminating current positions. The point of a checkpoint can vary; the point of dropping a flare on the ground or picking it up and running around in circles with it lighting up all of us at once is not very debatable." You claimed it as a checkpoint but that doesn't mean what caviano is doing isn't the same. You can say from your perspective that caviano is just fucking around but from my perspective you are doing the same thing. This issue is very debatable. "This is not what he was doing. You were not here for this, I am not sure how you can know this. He was laughing about it. I told him a few times to quit and he would run closer to me. I had to stop to turn off my sound, to which he responded with an "aw" of sorts. He wasn't reloading his gun for any tactical purpose, you are simply lying and I'm not sure where this came from. He even specifically said he was just tapping R as fast as he could, and he was being annoying. But again ,you could not know this; you were not there." Just because I'm not in the game doesn't mean I'm not listening. You are the one that is lying. "Trucks are random spawns? The Ural Civilian only has two spawn points and we camped both of them. Caviano "let us" find the truck and he then later brought us parts. I never used the term "Rayken's Men," I said the core group of players, which included Caviano. Brandon went out on his own to obtain the V3S which Caviano later jeopardized because he did no work to achieve the vehicle and so felt no obligation to keep it safe like we did." Random as in they don't always spawn at the predetermined spots. Okay, so he did bring you parts. If it weren't for the parts the trucks wouldn't even run. An example of a meaningful contribution that you asked for below. He didn't jeapordize the V3S it since there was no danger to begin with and he knew that. Nothing happened to the truck. "Let me clarify, or, to use your word, "edify;" Caviano's stories were not just exaggerated, they were outright fabrication. Many events do not match what actually occurred and instead of naming any of us, again, he called us "his men" and "my men." We were not individuals to him, we were simply a group created for his reputation. Many of the members recruited to his mumble recall being told "Please give me beans on the forums" in their private messages when they asked to join. Sure, asking for Beans shouldn't matter, but it makes it clear what Caviano was looking for." You like that word edify? It has a good ring to it. "My group of 8 survivors were travelling our Military transport truck that we recently rebuilt. It was night time, and the moon was high, so we were intent on making the most of our hidden tracks. We drove quite close to Cherno, about 800 meters North, in the fields. From the back of the truck I see a flare go off near the shore of Chernogorsk. "HALT!" The truck screeches to a halt. "Do we have any friendlies in Cherno?" A unanimous reply of silence... "I'm going in, come if you want, if you come, follow me lead." I said." An excerpt from one of caviano's posts. Not once did he say "my men." He referred to you as "my group" which has a comepletely different connotation than "my men" and uses the word "we" quite often. This story sounds just like the rescue mission you were talking about with some sprucing up. It doesn't sound fabricated like you said his stories were. Why does it matter if he uses the groups exploits or demises as a reference for a story? Why does this matter at all? What happens in the game is mostly out of his control so how does this affect his reputation? Perhaps, this is just a straw man concocted by rayken. "I am a great story teller, great enough to realize when a story is being fabricated, especially. But once again, you've used an ad hominem attack. My loose mind? Do you care to clarify what a loose mind and what makes my mind loose, or is that simply an empty attack of someone with no actual argument? " The idea that they were simply stories escaped you when you were befuddled by the idea that everything you've done in the last 2 weeks was destroyed. My argument is sound and to say otherwise is also just an empty blanket statement. I have provided evidence to support the contrary, although anecdotal, should not be discredited because your evidence was also anecdotal. "His use of pronouns prove that I am a bitter lying man? Excuse me?" Now that is a strawman, ladies and gentlemen. Take a good look because I want you all to be able to recognize them. "The big problem is that he parked it north of the Airfield totally exposed and we had to retrieve it because we believed it had parts we needed." You said you didn't have parts that you needed. But, now you believed that you did? "Read above. We never alienated him from the group, I told him on several occasions we felt he was the leader; however, he never took it upon himself to lead us, and all he ended up doing was leading bandits, you, Erik, and Andrew, to our camp." If you didn't feel like he was leading you then why did you follow him on that rescue mission of his? He lead you there and told you what he was doing. You followed him willfully. I also didn't say you were alienating at the time of the event. I said you were alienating him in your post. What I said was sound that he was being discredited and therefore alienated from the group. "I must stress this as much as I possibly can. Caviano sat around in the game. I was not referring to Caviano sitting around while he was at work. Why you thought I meant I would attack him for working is beyond me, but when I said "Caviano sat around" I meant physically, in the video game. When the truck was illuminated, we started taking shots, and Brandon and Vices had to move the truck as soon as possible. This is the only reason we saw the flares lit by Jack in Chernogorsk. Once again, you were not there, you have no knowledge of this event, saying "apparently nothing" is not appropriate from you as you were not apart of this event. Nothing of this event would be "Apparent" to you as you had no ability to perceive it in the first place." It is appropriate. I don't have to be in-game to see from what you wrote that nothing happened to the truck. "Bragging about us without mentioning us by name or what we contributed?" Yes. Why do you feel the need to have your name mentioned. You are implying that you aren't the type of person to crave attention, so there isn't a reason for you to bring this up. "They are fabricated and exaggerated. Something can be based in the truth and still be a grave fabrication. The story unfolded like this, "Theres a flare down there, I'm going, you don't have to come." "Yes we do, you lit up the truck, there could be people coming to kill us." "WE'RE FRIENDLIES IN CHERNO, WE'RE COMING IN THE FIRE STATION, FRIENDLIESSS IN CHERNO." Jay gets shot at in the church. We rescue a guy who needs a blood bag." It is based on truth as mentioned in the example above. That series of events could have happened regardless of caviano's actions. He was going to the fire house so it doesn't affect why jay got shot at the church. Two different places. You say it like the guy who needed a blood bag was expendable. This is just the friendly play-style that caviano has adopted. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have played with him. There are disadvantages to being friendly and that's risking the danger of being killed because you refuse to shoot first. I don't see how rescuing a guy who needed blood to be a bad thing. Jay didn't die and blood is so easy to come by. Especially in cherno. "I simply cannot respond to this. We tried to help Pumbas for approximately two hours straight. You were not there. You were not in our chat. You simply cannot speak about this. We already knew from the start that you decided to sabotage us when you banned your "good friend" from the Mumble server and would not ban Pumbas. Caviano informed us, "Yeah, lam has a little hardon for pumbas." And we knew right then things were going to go south. You did not fool any single one of us." If you can't then why did you? I can speak about this. It occurred on my mumble. Pumbas came and told me what happened and then I asked you guys what happened and both stories corroborated with each other. I asked you what your problem with pumbas was and your reply was that he asks rayken too many questions and when I asked pumbas about it he said it was true and that he was new to the game. What does time have anything to do with helping a new player? If you knew I was planning to wreck your party then why didn't you do anything about it. It's the fact that you were 50/50 with this idea that you didn't act on it. To know something is to be 100% sure. Not 50%. I fooled you and it was easy. "No more personal than anything involving us." Of course it is. I don't know you people, but I do know caviano. That's why it's more personal. I am indifferent to you people. "We reacquired the Blue Ural where Andrew alt f4'd yesterday. We left it out for another Bandit camp to acquire it and watched a pretty huge firefight go down today over it. We also moved all of the valuable weaponry and ammunition a day prior in the V3S Civilian, so you did not succeed in destroying anything. We ditched the mumble immediately because we knew You, Erik, Andrew, and whoever else was in the "dota 2" playing DayZ were plotting against us. We moved two steps ahead of you the entire time, and had camps set up all over the map ahead of time." That blue ural glitched and disappeared and it was checked for supplies before the truck was taken. This is just an attempt to save face. Yes, it was also the after I told caviano about everything that went on. So good job, Sherlock. Once again, an attempt to save face. "I did not call you ignorant. I called your plan ignorant. Although I can understand how someone who is simply lying to cover his friends tracks would take that comment as towards himself. Self-importance and arrogance reign supreme with you and Caviano, it would appear. Afterall, Caviano saw DayZ and just knew he had to do something "great."" The plan was fabricated by me and by calling the plan ignorant you were indirectly calling me ignorant. Another ad-hominem, everybody: My "self-importance and arrogance." It's just like that time you claimed to be a great story teller. "I'm well aware. I spoke with Andrew. He did nothing wrong. Theoretically, Lam, you did nothing wrong either. You are simply responding to protect Caviano for no reason. In reality, Caviano allowed the events that transpired to occur. There is absolutely nothing wrong with banditry, and we had already moved the important things out of the camp before any of you got to take any of it. The post I made was simply to deface Caviano's attempt to create a legitimate group by lying and creating further fabrication." Yes, you are well aware after the fact, key-phrase. Which makes you ignorant at the time of the event. I misspoke. The Mk 48 is very similar to M240. It uses the same ammunition which is the reason for the mistake. I said the "M240 scoped" on mumble as well while referring to the Mk 48. It did not slip my mind. "Lam, I think you may have mixed up why I posted what I posted. It was not about you, Erik, Andrew, or anyone else. It was simply about Caviano and what he led his "group" into, the group he was supposedly bragging about. If he couldn't defend us from his own real life friends, what is he supposed to do with a new group? We weren't just "on the right track," we were off the track and in an entirely new ballpark. Once again, Lam, there is nothing wrong with what you did. I was simply explaining what happened, I have no issue with banditry, especially when the important valuables are already removed." No, I didn't. I knew it wasn't about me or any of the other people. I knew it was an attack on caviano which was wrong. You shouldn't have posted anything about caviano. Caviano, as an individual, didn't lead your group into this. It was the entire group's doing when you and the rest of the group illegitimately banished pumba. It was in no way caviano's fault which is why I'm currently defending him. It was of my own volition to destroy your camp. On what grounds was I wrong and too proud to admit it? You were wrong about me stealing your Mk 48. I didn't steal it. "I apparently knew all I needed to know. You guys were planning to fuck us over from the Pumbas incident, and you tried and failed. What else is there to know? Caviano allowed these events to pass, and if you were truly his "good friend" you would've respected him a lot more than banning him over Pumbas and fucking up his group that he was apparently so proud of enough to brag about. You surely do not respect your "good friend" or his group of "men."" We didn't fail. We saw it with our own eyes that we destroyed most of your supplies. As a good friend I needed him to know that he was wrong to listen to you "men" whining about pumbas. I do respect him, but I do not respect you, his "men." "I'm not sure I can even respond to this if you called our groups stash a "hoard." One reason is because by using the term hoard you are attempting to vilify the idea of a group stash, And the second reason is because it was a testing grounds to see who we could ultimately trust in the end. Sorry you didn't catch that part because you were not playing with us." It is a hoard, you had no use. You can use any synonym you want for that word it won't change the fact. How exactly was it a testing grounds for trust? Like you've said things have been disappearing all the time. It is impossible to know who took what or when they took it. It wasn't a testing ground but merely a hoard. There's no reason to not use the things in the "stash" as you call it. If the items are useless or not being used. It's a hoard. "I would prefer the passive aggressive approach as opposed to the one you're using now. Ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments. "There's nothing wrong with taking things that aren't mine; it's a hoard anyway." "Caviano's my good friend. Don't argue with me about a personal issue where I banned him for trying to get rid of a Mumble chatter that was calling you faggots." Etcetera." Those things belong to the group and if the items are distributed among the group it isn't stealing. It's a hoard. Pumbas didn't insult you guys until after you banned him. Another straw man presented to you by yours truly, rayken, the worst type of human being. "I would simply respond to this and say this is all anyone needs to read to verify the fact you are a 14 year old, but I'll simply quote it at the bottom in the appropriate "tl;dr" section. And I don't recall ever being mad. " You're arguing with a 14 year old. Congratufuckinglations.

I'm glad you wrote a lengthy essay slandering my good friend here. What's really disgusting here is that you didn't protest any of this on mumble with your voice like a pathetic animal. Rather than actually talk about it you decide to go on the day-z forums to slander his forum thread. You are a disgusting human being. Now that that's out of the way. Let me address every issue you've taken your worthless time to write. "Myself and roughly 3 others formed a group with Caviano at the head. We spent approximately two weeks working with Caviano, whilst three or four other members spent over a week with him. This was our "core group" and we formed the backbone of the workforce." Look buddy, he contributed a lot to the group. It's unfair that you would lie about something like that, knowingly or unknowingly. You may have this perception of him after this debacle but I can assure you and everyone else here that he contributes more to this group than you have. He actually put the group together and provided a mumble for you all to use as well as working with the group to gather supplies which is all you guys do. If it weren't for him you would never have met the other squadmates. "Caviano's "survivor tactics" include singing songs through in game chat when no one wants to hear them, throwing flares when other members have night vision and are trying to find and locate a murderer; disrupting our night vision and effectively blinding us, saying disturbing and gross comments of sexual nature while getting incredibly high, and taking everything without ever adding anything." If no one wants to hear his songs why didn't any of them say so? It seems like instead of actually confronting the problem you simply put it aside so you can use it against him later; like you are doing now. I know caviano never actually sings an entire song on mumble. He may sing a line or two and if that irritates you then you've got bigger problems than video game e-drama. Can you give me an example where caviano "takes everything without ever adding anything"? You may be referring to him taking nightvision goggles whenever he needed it, but nightvision is very hard to come by and it wouldn't surprise me that with his passive play-style and the rare chance for nightvision to spawn that he never comes across this. This is an outright lie by rayken. He is grossly exaggerating the issues because I know caviano, and since you're just using anecdotal evidence, to be the type of person who contributes a lot to his gaming companions. "Let me go back to night runs, though; any night runs, in fact, would always bring along many flares from Caviano, illuminating our position to any potential snipers in the area, with little to no care from Caviano despite the fact everyone in the group had agreed the flares were irritating." Yes, he does love his flares, but so do you. I remember you would throw flares constantly, claiming that someplace is a "checkpoint." "Many of our runs back included him singing nonsense and constantly "reloading" his weapon to the point where I had to turn my in game sound off. Of course, when I said, "Okay, my sound is back on now." He did it one more time just as a "joke."" He's simply letting you know that he's reloading just in case anything happens. There's nothing wrong with that. And again, instead of confronting the problem, you save it for later. "Caviano treated the members of his group that provided the trucks and weaponry as if they were "his men." He took all the credit for our "missions" despite the fact the stories he posted on these forums are largely fabricated and "roleplayed" out. Consistently and nightly, all Caviano would care about was his "Bean count" on the forums and would ramble on multiple occasions about "Doctor Wastelands Whitelist." While the intricacies of why any of this mattered continue to elude me, this would not be what truly lit up Caviano's colors, despite the fact caring about only reputation and not doing any work for yourself is bad enough." Okay, so once again you're ranting about how he never contributes. Just because someone else in the group found the trucks doesn't mean he doesn't provide anything. You realize the flaw in your logic right? In case you don't, let me edify you. Trucks are random spawns, or as random as a random number generator can make it, and so just because caviano didn't find the truck doesn't mean he didn't find parts or gasoline for it. You're acting as if "his men" are now your men because apparently "rayken's men" found the trucks and not caviano an individual. Also, just because one person didn't contribute this one thing doesn't mean he didn't contribute in other meaningful ways. So what if his stories are exaggerated? They're simply just that, stories. But what you're doing is lying. He's contributing to a lively community with stories while you're on here talking shit about another player, it says a lot about you as a person. It says that you're just bitter and pessimistic but hold yourself in high regard whether or not it's true. Nothing is ever your fault it's always someone else's. Yeah and it also seems like the idea of story-telling has eluded your loose mind. How do you know that he only cares about reputation? He always mentions your day-z squad as "we" and never "I" so it would seem that he gives you full credit for the things you have done. Once again, lies by a bitter man. "Less than a week ago, a member called Petllama opened up a new home server for our core group mentioned in paragraph one. The core group prepared and readied themselves the entirety of the day to log on and get a hold of the Ural Civilian for our new home base camp. While we worked diligently, Caviano found his favorite "blue van" and drove it to the airfield with parts we didn't even need for the Ural Civilian. We also built the V3S Civilian later that night, which Caviano had no part in, but was sure to ride around in." So if he drove the blue van to the airfield with parts you didn't need then what's the big problem? It's possible this is a typo so I'll discontinue here. You didn't specify why he drove to the airfield and it's most likely to find some supplies for the group. Once again, you are alienating him from the group by discrediting him because he didn't contribute to one thing the group did. "The rest of the night was spent developing more vehicles, while Caviano sat around. The night ended with a lackluster run into town that only occurred because Caviano decided to throw a flare that illuminated our V3S Civilian on the hill above Chernogorsk. While we were moving, we noticed another flare in Cherno and Cav started running forward into survivor mode. No doubt he saw another opportunity for forum posts about us and more bean counts. The encounter ended with him insuring "Jack" that he make a post about this on the forums, or whatever. The entire encounter was written about in a largely fabricated post that contained nothing short of lies and deviation from the truth in grotesque ways. All for reputation. All for those beans." When caviano "sat around" he was at work. God forbid he has more important obligations than a video game. What happened when your truck was illuminated? Apparently nothing. It's not a problem for him to write about you guys in his forum posts. It isn't a bad thing. He's sharing the groups exploits. He's bragging about you guys. Once again, another redundant argument about how his stories are "fabricated". They're not fabricated as you've said so yourself by saying how he made a post about events that just occurred, they're exaggerated. And a story is just that, a story. "Some mumble drama occured where a user was not fit to be in our group, and instead of appropriately handling the situation and listening to the core group of players, Caviano got into an argument/fight with his "real life friends" while on Mumble which actually culminated in him being BANNED from his own mumble by his "real life friends." All the while our core group continued to be pestered and insulted and called faggots from this member whom Caviano refused to ban despite the fact we told him multiple times we were being called faggots. Caviano being banned from his OWN mumble was just the beginning of the "mumble antics," however." I was asking you guys why you didn't want to play with this guy and instead of actually saying anything of value like you're implying; "appropriately handling the situation." You all ramble at once and say that he asks "too many questions" or some non-sense reply like "'cause you know?" That is an illegitimate reason to exclude someone from the day-z group. This was actually what sparked the idea of sabotaging your entire group. The newbie did not call any of you faggots. This is a lie and can be corroborated by many eyewitnesses. You just didn't like that he was a newbie and made up lies about this account. "Oh no I'm being pestered with questions!!!?? BANHAMMER!!!" Go fuck yourself. The situation with caviano being banned was personal. He moved me out of the channel when I was trying to get some answers from you clowns, but I completely understand his intentions. In case you didn't notice he moved his friend out of the channel just so you can concentrate on your serious missions. "The grossest thing about Caviano's fresh new group post is what came from within his "best friends" in the mumble he invited us all to. There, within the confines of his Mumble server, 3 or 4 of his "neighbors" and real life friends plotted to ruin our entire camp, and they almost succeeded. Caviano got on a recruiting spree where he would introduce brand new members at a rate faster than any of the core group could get to know the new recruits or play with them at all, so trust was not built and these new members were nothing but tacked on. During this interchange of new recruits, one of his real life friends was already putting his ignorant plan into motion by pretending to play with our group, meanwhile, another one of his real life friends was busy sniping us off and killing us, getting ever closer to our camp that contained the Ural Civilian." We didn't almost succeed we were 100% successful in destroying your camp, maybe we didn't destroy some of your worthless cars but we destroyed both your trucks containing a mountain of supplies. You can't deny that this was not the breaking point for you guys because you ditched the mumble immediately after that and having some members say that they "give up." I'm ignorant? No sir, you are ignorant because I succeeded while you drowned in your own ignorance and fumbling to find the shooter in the woods. Sorry, but this is the god-given truth. You had no idea what I was doing at the time so to call me ignorant makes you pathetic because you're deflecting your own inadequacies onto me. "Erik as it were, brought in a new member, named Andrew, who was just out to kill all of us and succeeded in stealing the Ural Civilian. Meanwhile, Jlam had items of mine that were missing while Caviano continuously denied his friends dissent. Whatever the case may be, items were missing on a daily basis, at this point almost no one could be trusted, and Caviano continued to deny the truth to the point where he had a fairly hideous explosion on me, who had played with him for two weeks, which ended with him saying in his wisdom, "Dude, if you're really that paranoid you can just fuck off." Which I did. And so did the rest of the core group. Nonetheless, Caviano later comes into the chat, sounding depressed, no doubt needing pity or sympathy for himself, by saying "Man, I feel like such a douchebag... My friends were stealing shit and they fucked up the camp and I told everyone to fuck off, but like, I had to man, they are my real life friends, you know?"" Andrew at first, wasn't out to kill of you. It was after he discovered your personality and especially yours, that he decided that he would do it. I remember the M240 that you accused me of stealing. I didn't know where your camp was and only after you mentioned the missing M240 that caviano showed me where it was. Once again, you are the ignorant one. I found this M240 in the southern barracks of the northwest airfield just like I said before. If it's true that no one can be trusted then why solely place the blame on me? I guess you were on the right track because my plan was to destroy your camp, I'll give you that. There's no need to be sarcastic with the "wisdom" remark because you were wrong and too proud to admit it. "No, Caviano, I don't know. Neither does anyone else who played with you for multiple weeks." Speak for yourself. Don't just put words into someone else's mouth by saying something like that. You, yourself, may not know what caviano was saying, but you sure as hell don't know what the others know. But then again you don't know a lot of things. "All of the members Caviano recruited after the "core group" of members took without asking, borrowed without permission, died on a nightly basis with rare items that were increasingly hard to replace, did not put anything back into the trucks, did no work for us, did not help us, and Caviano was just concerned about "cruising around and doing pickups."" What's wrong with using the items that you were just hoarding? How exactly are these items increasingly difficult to replace? If I remember my 5th grade math correctly, these spawn points are independent cases from a probability standpoint. Just because someone took something doesn't make the item less likely to spawn. Just becase you weren't find the same items at the various spawns doesn't mean you didn't find items of similar value. It seems like once again, your concerns were not heard because you took the passive aggressive approach; by saving these anecdotes to post on the forum. "The bottom line is this. Caviano used the members of his group for reputation. In every single forum post he made, he never mentioned any of us by name. We were his impersonal men. His impersonal men that he ran around in circles while singing and throwing flares to give away our position despite the fact people asked multiple times for him to stop. He would never give us credit, the only thing he would ever care about was his beans, and he would always refer to us as an accessory to himself, not as the forerunners of the group which actually made things possible. He would constantly give away our possessions, argue about use of the vehicles we constructed, and then when possessions were outright stolen and it was obvious to everyone he told me to "fuck off" only to then come back later and say "I was such a douchebag" as if anything at that point he was saying was making sense. I had to struggle to fully interpret any of the things Caviano said to me and the rest of the group simply ignored most of it. In the end of it all, Caviano let bandits come into the group and take possession of all of our stuff and "forgave Andrew" and ignored the fact that he stole shit and ruined the entire group dynamic we had built for multiple weeks. Not only did he allow bandits and his "real life buddies" to fuck up all our of shit, but he threw flares around our V3S Civilian in Cherno which directly jeopardized all of our things so he could run in to do a rescue mission in Cherno which consisted of a song over in game voice chat, "We're friendlies in Cherno! We're friendlies in Cherno!" Where a vital member of our group was shot at by a guy who needed a blood transfusion. Okay. Right. I would highly advise anyone who is thinking about joining Caviano in his future endeavors to think twice. You will end up as another means of reputation and bean count for Caviano, as he attempts to do things that will get stories "posted on the forums." Including running two of his long time members out to give morphine to a guy who very clearly evaluated whether or not he should "take the shot" for a few seconds after we healed him. Of course, those few seconds after we healed him was him "in his inventory." according to Caviano. The same person who called his friends innocent and told his long time members to "fuck off" when they were right all along about theft and flat out bullshit that Caviano could not control in any way, shape or form. " No, the real bottom line is this. Caviano enjoyed playing with you guys and enjoyed telling stories about the sqaud. So what if he doesn't mention you guys by name? You're implying that you don't care about reputation by saying how he craves it. Like I mentioned before, you throw flares all the time too, at every "checkpoint." It's okay for you to do something but it's not okay for someone else. You are a hypocrite on top of being an ignoramus. So are you saying you guys weren't running in circles? It seems like every night you're going out to look for supplies so you can hoard them, but for what? To keep in a truck to look at? This is another reason that led to the sabotage. It was good that he gave some of it out he was being a friendly person and you're trying to make this look like a bad thing? You didn't gather everything yourself you know, it happened as a group and that's something you're ignoring with your story here. When caviano admitted to being a douchebag it was an apology. I don't know how you could sit around pretending to be a white knight all the while painting his apology in a negative light. Like you said so yourself, it was a group effort to build the vehicles. And If you can't understand something that he said then you must be stupid as fuck because caviano speaks fluent English. Unless you're lying and just saying that to prove your "point". It seems like you're the one that's ruining the group dynamic by slandering caviano in public. He didn't let me destroy your camp. He didn't know. The rescue mission had a huge following throughout the day-z community and he wanted to contribute. It didn't seem like you guys disagreed with this notion because you went out to perform this mission. I have to remind everyone that rayken himself likes to throw flares and was just irritated because he acquired nightvision and caviano had not. Caviano was just being friendly by claiming that he was friendly because it was a rescue mission. Was the guy who needed blood a member of the group? If so, then how does claiming to be friendly players directly cause him to shoot another group member? Does it even correlate at all? Did he confuse you guys with the simple phrase "we're friendlies in cherno!"? In the case that the bloodless guy wasn't a part of your group there is still no advantage to shooting another player if one needed a blood transfusion. And if that player was dumb enough to shoot then it was no fault of caviano's. I would highly advise anyone reading rayken's post to take it with a grain of salt because some parts were complete fabrications and not representative of caviano. Caviano is contributing to a growing community with his storie. It was in no way his fault some things turned out the way they did but you're using him as a scapegoat instead of actually thinking about what happened. What's wrong with helping a fellow day-z player? You putting down all of caviano's efforts to being a friendly player. If you didn't like the way he played then you should've left a long time ago instead of waiting for an incident like this so you can cut off ties with him and slander him in public. It's disgusting. I don't understand how evaluating whether to take a shot or not should deter another player from healing him. He didn't make you guys walk out there to give him morphine. He asked. And you were so wrong about the theft. So, so wrong. Like I explained above and as god as my witness that I had no idea where your silly camp was until after you mentioned your missing gun. You misplaced your gun and you had to blame me for it. Real fucking classy. You're right that it was out of Caviano's control, so why even make a post about this? Why blame him for your misfortunes? If there is anyone to blame it's me and I'm glad I sabotaged your shit. I would do it again. Especially to someone like you, "faggot." TL;DR Caviano was being a friendly person and player throughout this incident while I fucked their shit up and now rayken is madsauce 2 the max