[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[Oxyphenbutazone]

No...

[Jowy]

[Ichabod]

Thanks, Scooter. I was in need of something to relieve the stress from the last happenings. This is really funny.

[Bobchillingworth]

Yeah, good catch.


Xenu or another mod can confirm- just compare the IP from Sulla's post at the start of this thread with "Mike's" latest.

[darrelljs]

Another (possibly ridiculous) coincidence is that on CFC profiles you can see the last 10 people to view his profile, and Sullla is one of them.

Clincher .

Darrell

[Jowy]

I have a dumb tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and since this game isn't all that interesting, I want to talk about it.

Dumb Conspiracy: I think Mikehendi might be Sullla.

Now, I realize Sullla may immediately reply to this which would immediately destroy this theory, but hear me out. At least the amazing similarities will be fun to laugh at when this is proven to be nothing more than a silly post.

* Mikehendi writes with a style remarkably similar to how Sullla has reported past games. Consistently shows units that are moving, a shot or so of the map, a shot of one particular city to highlight, and maybe demos. Explanation text is always under the pictures, no preface above it like a lot of people do. Many, many times I've been reading and thought his reports sound eerily similar to Sullla's. It's been a very popular thread to follow despite him being a virtually unknown name, and that's largely been because of the good reporting and above-average play. He has a very "teach-y" writing style, awfully similar to Sullla's. No walls of texts, no spammy posts, just consistent, well-illustrated reports. Even the lurker thread reactions of "whoa this guy might actually be pretty good" is super similar to how people started to realize that with Locke in PB4.

* Mikehendi hasn't really done anything here at the forums besides this game, which is what has made me think of pseudonym.

* Mikehendi is a known user account over at CFC, which is part of why I think people aren't thinking that's what's going on here. However, I went and checked on that account. He hasn't even logged in at CFC for about a year, and hasn't posted there for 2 years, but RB Mikehendi joined in October. He seems like a very ideal candidate for someone to "steal" his username/avatar and use here and be less suspected of being a pseudonym. Another (possibly ridiculous) coincidence is that on CFC profiles you can see the last 10 people to view his profile, and Sullla is one of them.

* Mikehendi seems to be favoring an early whip-heavy game (the capital whip cycle especially caught my attention), transitioning into a vertical over horizontal expansion strategy that emphasizes economy. Part of that is just dictated by his surroundings, but that's also the way Sullla has traditionally played games - all things being equal, often preferring an out-tech strategy rather than an out-expand strategy. Just a playstyle thing I noticed.

* On one or two occasions Mikehendi rubbed a couple people in this thread the wrong way. Not extensively, but the reasons were similar to why a few people complained about Sullla's threads in the past. Goes back to the "teach-y" writing style I mentioned.

* I glanced through CFC Mikehendi's threads. It's not inconceivable that he's the same person here at RB, but I see a lot of differences in writing style. It does make me think that whoever Mikehendi is here at RB is not the same person. At the very least, "RB Mikehendi's" writing style is much more similar to Sullla than CFC Mikehendi.

* Sullla did post in this lurker thread, but it was one of the first two posts, and it was long before there was any spoiler material in here. This may shoot the theory dead in the water, but if he was looking to fool everyone a second time, it would be a very clever way of supporting that.

Okay, am I a crazy person or what? Again, this has all come because I read Mikehendi's thread pretty religiously, and I can't shake the notion that his reporting and game is incredibly familiar to me, even down to the way he uses emoticons. Don't take this TOO seriously, I'm just kinda having fun with it, but at the very least the similarities are remarkable.

-Conspiracy Theory-

I totally thought that too. His reports are similar: very interesting and detailed, if not a little ostentatious. Still, I really doubt it.

Well, I have me some Mod IP check powers, so let's put it to the test:

They're the same!

[novice]

Also maybe I'm alone on this but since Gavagai was the one breaking the usual turn order to game for a tactical advantage, he could have had the courtesy to be pretty sure Bantams was actually done playing before starting his moves.

Hm, not sure what you're saying? What tactical advantage was he gaming for?

I do think it's poor form to be logged in when your adversary is playing.

[Ichabod]

Nicely done by Sullla too. He actually remembered that I played in some sucession games at CFC, to further impersonate the Mikehendi persona. Since I actually played a SG with the original Mikehendi, it made a lot of sense.

Scooter, your people-reading skills are amazing.

[Jowy]

Btw Bantams ragequit based on the chat log seemed more because of the war itself rather than the reload incident. And apparently because I managed to mess up his empire before he stepped in at T0, oh poor sub.

[Ichabod]

Also maybe I'm alone on this but since Gavagai was the one breaking the usual turn order to game for a tactical advantage, he could have had the courtesy to be pretty sure Bantams was actually done playing before starting his moves.

Hm, not sure what you're saying? What tactical advantage was he gaming for?

I do think it's poor form to be logged in when your adversary is playing.

I don't think gavagai was aiming for an unfair advantage. But I think both gavagai and bantams had legitimate expectations that they could move their units when they did (Gavagai due to bantams having ended turn, bantams due to the fact that he had been playing after ending turn since the beggining of the game). This makes the issue a bit more complicated than what I was assuming before (that bantams move was, from all possibloe points of view, the illegal one).