07:06 KST - method linked here has been disproved here
10:54 KST - Find a full timeline of pro comments (including Spades) in the topic here.
08:47 KST - Summary: Accusations of maphacking have the potential to destroy a player's career if left unaddressed. Because of the potential consequences, we should be careful about accepting unproven accusations. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be applied here. That does not mean that there has been a conclusion about this case, however, which is why this thread remains tentatively open.
Please discuss with caution and use evidence to back up your claims.
(also a summary post by an unnamed pro on reddit here)
On June 05 2012 23:35 i)awn wrote: I'm not an expert but the logical thing to do is to compare these replays to some other replays where you're certain he's not hacking. Also compare it to a pool of other players' replays and check if you see the same suspicious behavior else where. This has to be done by an unintersted team.
What CatZ and Co. Did was fine.. they compared his hacking games to a few of his non-hacking games and told us what made them think he hacks.. afterwards they all were in agreement that he was, in fact, hacking in the showmatch. Does that make it absolute? No. Does it mean he probably was yes? If you can't trust the pros opinions on a subject like this I don't know who we can trust.
I'm so glad the justice system doesn't rely on trust.
This thread has made me appreciate "innocent until proven guilty" even more.
this isnt a trial. spades will not get any punishment from people discussing this on a forum.
this debate is not different from media writing about OJ Simpsons or someone else suspected of commiting a crime.
do you think that a columnist or blogger shouldnt be allowed to say "i think oj simpson is a criminal" just because it can hurt his image and scare sponsors? what strange world do you want to live in?
The only thing that matters here is that Spades never once looks directly into the fog of war, thus indicating a camera lock. Now Catz and co aren't specifying this whole scan thing, and a lot of people in this thread have got the wrong idea. Its not that the scan is impossible, as it clearly is as demonstrated by Axeltoss, but its that spades never once looks into the fog of war while he does in all other replays provided. Fishy? Yes. Across 7 games in one of the biggest matches of his career (recently)? Hacking. Please guys, stop talking about this scan thing and just observe that in the replays spades never looks into the fog of war directly. Who does that? No-one, and this is the camera lock taking place whenever he goes to look through the fog of war using his hacks.
On June 05 2012 23:35 i)awn wrote: I'm not an expert but the logical thing to do is to compare these replays to some other replays where you're certain he's not hacking. Also compare it to a pool of other players' replays and check if you see the same suspicious behavior else where. This has to be done by an unintersted team.
What CatZ and Co. Did was fine.. they compared his hacking games to a few of his non-hacking games and told us what made them think he hacks.. afterwards they all were in agreement that he was, in fact, hacking in the showmatch. Does that make it absolute? No. Does it mean he probably was yes? If you can't trust the pros opinions on a subject like this I don't know who we can trust.
I'm so glad the justice system doesn't rely on trust.
This thread has made me appreciate "innocent until proven guilty" even more.
what do you mean it doesn't rely on trust? @@
police provide a report, the justice system has to trust that the report is accurate witness gives a testimony, the justice system has to trust on that unless there are strong presence of evidence that the witness might be brided or lying
Spades has been found "guilty". Tell me it isn't so?
I'm not going to talk about the justice system in general. There are lots of bad examples around the world. At least where I am from I can't say I have seen examples of people being convicted by the court because "there was a police report" or "there was this one witness".
There is a trial and there is evidence along with witnesses presented. The person on trial is still innocent until proven guilty.
Tell me that is the case with Spades? Tell me he is still seen as innocent? Because there is no evidence that he has hacked.
On June 05 2012 10:34 Rowrin wrote: Cant believe there are people questioning Spades credibility and not realizing the contradiction in taking the words of a guy with 1 post as law.
you have 47 posts, aside from the huge amount of irony this raises, do you think people should ignore you based of your low post count?
The 1 post count the OP has probably means that he is a regular here who created a new account just to post this. I think that damages his credibility moreso than the actual quantity of posts. He is accusing someone of cheating, he should put his name behind it. He is attacking someone else's reputation, yet he hides his identity so HIS reputation cant be taken into account (or damaged if he's wrong)? This shows a lack of character.
Exactly my thoughts. The OP is a coward.
Why is that a problem? It happens with anonymous tips to newspapers about stories or to the police about crimes all the time? If the option to remain anonymous wouldnt exist, a lot of stuff would never reach the surface. It might be cowardly, but hardly something to get upset over, nor something to take into account when discussing the topic.
Problem is, at least from my point of view, that the OP just made one post and that's it. He hasn't bothered to reply once more in this thread, considering the shitstorm he created, which would be nice. And doesn't the defendant has the right to face his accuser? I would like to hear more from OP and why he created this thread. Was it just to spite Spades or his moral demanded that he does that? If it was moral than it's funny that he used other/new account to do that.
I"m not sure what more the OP needed to provide. He provides plenty of evidence (that I admit is ambiguous). But as far as "why he created this thread," note that this has appeared within the same week as the GM Hackers thread here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340614
In other words, given the pre-existing TL discussion of GM maphacks, I don't think the OP needs to provide any more context.
On June 05 2012 23:14 floor exercise wrote: [quote] No, it would be something along the line of "using a maphack doesn't imply you will make consistently correct decisions"
Spades among many others have been caught map hacking before, and they never played perfect games despite having the significant information advantage afforded to them by hacks.
It's as absurd a defense as "look how bad he performs in lan" is as evidence to the contrary
Not really, this has nothing to do with decision making, a huge blob going through your minimap to ravage your third would take a guy with 30 apm and I.Q 44 to not notice it.
So he would be absolutely stupid to not notice it with a hack, what would that make him if he responded to it? What IQ would be required to realize in that moment how fishy it would look? 46? 47?
You really shouldn't be talking about IQ levels, when your main argument is "well, it's fishy"
Isn't that your argument?
"He's not hacking because he didn't perform an incredibly clearly fishy action in this particular circumstance"
is that not the basis of this argument about that one attack in the game? Who shouldn't be talking about IQ again?
On June 05 2012 23:21 IshinShishi wrote:
On June 05 2012 23:19 floor exercise wrote:
On June 05 2012 23:16 IshinShishi wrote:
On June 05 2012 23:14 floor exercise wrote: [quote] No, it would be something along the line of "using a maphack doesn't imply you will make consistently correct decisions"
Spades among many others have been caught map hacking before, and they never played perfect games despite having the significant information advantage afforded to them by hacks.
It's as absurd a defense as "look how bad he performs in lan" is as evidence to the contrary
Not really, this has nothing to do with decision making, a huge blob going through your minimap to ravage your third would take a guy with 30 apm and I.Q 44 to not notice it.
So he would be absolutely stupid to not notice it with a hack, what would that make him if he responded to it? What IQ would be required to realize in that moment how fishy it would look? 46? 47?
Wouldn't look fishy at all, at that point pretty much all his income came from his third, everyone should expect an attack there.
So he wouldn't need a hack to blindly counter that attack, but he doesn't hack because he didn't blindly counter that attack
This defense is getting less and less logical as time progresses
?Seems pretty logically flawless.The fact that he didn't defend his third should be attributed to simply bad play, point being, anyone with a hack would've seen a huge blob and defended it properly (and no one should call it fishy because defending your only source of income should be an obvious move), essentially, not doing it means not hacking, doing it doesn't mean anything in that particular instance.
Apparently it's a really obvious attack so he could justifiably defend it without being called a hacker but you are using it as proof that he isn't hacking. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
So in an alternate reality where he did defend it, you would be here saying that he just did the obvious thing and that it's not proof. How can you turn around and claim that it's evidence that he doesn't hack.
Are you trying to make my brain explode with your self contradictions because we're seriously getting there.
This whole line of reasoning makes no sense, especially when you consider that no one is using that attack as proof of him hacking. Meanwhile you're simultaneously showing how it is proof of both hacks and the absence of hacks. This is some Wookies on Endor type shit.
Not the proof of hacks, but the absence of it, I'm sure you are pretty much the only one failing to grasp the logic behind it really.
You have literally illustrated a scenario where someone could both defend and ignore that attack while either hacking or not hacking
You've proven that that attack means nothing in the ultimate determination of whether Spades cheats. That is a complete and utter contradiction when you are using it as proof that he does not cheat in any games.
You should read the whole post again, I'm tired of saying the same stuff over and over. Defending that attack doesn't mean anything, not doing it means that he didn't see a huge blob through his minimap, and that would take a total retard, especially considering the probability of an attack coming through to his third, at that point he wasn't maphacking, at all. Whether he did it or not in other parts of the showmatch is debatable and I did not take this into account when I made my first post, he most surely could use his hack only through certain periods of time, just in some games or in some other way, he is doing this for a living after all.
You've just made up a scenario that suits your conclusion based on assumption. You're asserting that defending the attack never proves hacks, but not defending it proves not hacking. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that in those few seconds in the heat of the moment that Spades came to the same conclusion as you that he would have plausible deniability in defending that blindly. You can't assume his mindset like that. It's as flawed as me saying he foresaw people questioning his decision to defend blindly and calling it hacking so he didn't do it.
All you've proven is that that scenario proves nothing, it's a flawed example to use of either condemnation or vindication. The problem lies in you resting your entire defense of Spades on it. You've certainly muddied the waters of that one attack, but no one is using it as a focal point of their reasoning to suspect him as a cheater.
On June 05 2012 23:53 the p00n wrote: Why Spades is not hacking
Antiga Shipyard 6:15 - conventional e-bay timing, there is nothing weird about this no matter how much you want it to be 9:11 - the '9 sec camera block' is him doing things in that area. He puts guys on gas, right clicks an SCV on his CC for whatever reason, then notices the supply block and orders an scv (in the same screen) to build a supply depot. 10:45 - he just right-clicked the minimap. Notice the great inaccuracy on his actual right-click waypoint: http://i.imgur.com/foEZE.jpg which further suggests he just clicked the minimap
Entombed valley 2:14 - he is just queueing up the move-commands for his SCV by using the minimap. I thought everyone scouted like this? http://i.imgur.com/xEOFI.jpg 7:47 - http://i.imgur.com/EevJO.jpg not only that, but it was safe to do this as the other guy rushed a banshee which typically means their siege tech is delayed, and yes, lucifron's siege tech was at 60/80 13:42 - here, you are simply stating what would be the optimal reaction - moving your army to your natural immediately so he doesn't get to siege on the high ground. Spades simply doesn't do this until the scan hits his natural 30 seconds later, which triggers the 'oh God he could be doing this' reaction which should have been triggered when he saw the 2 marines on the minimap. This is just bad play, and there are many, many, many situations where he pays dearly for this type of bad play ultimately resulting in him losing the series. 14:10 - this movement of his army was triggered by the scan at 13:56, which triggers the 'oh shit'-reaction (see 13:42) 20:30 - normal scan
CatZ VOD CatZ is simply oblivious as to how the player camera actually works. Take for example the replay Avilo posted on Cloud Kingdom against Spades. He scans the area at 14:38 by using the minimap and then clicks the same spot on the minimap immediately after that. What most players do is click the minimap first and then drag their mouse from the minimap to the middle of the map to issue the scan command. His way is superior, albeit slightly less accurate (as you are using the minimap instead of the main map). This is backed up by the same evidence I supplied in the Antiga Shipyard game at 10:45: http://i.imgur.com/ohBkr.jpg
All the other games are roughly the same things as these 2 games. If someone really wants me to, I shall analyze those as well and provide evidence, but it's honestly more of the same. Spades did not hack. The 'camera blocks' are just him doing stuff in that area, which is perfectly verifiable.
. Explain how he never looks at FoW dring showmatches but looks at it during ladder game.
Except that he does look at the FoW, many, many, many times. An example recently posted:
As things are now, there is no reason to not trust the CatZ' and the other progamers opinions, who analysed all the replays. They gave a sound explanation in every situation that looked fishy and even gave pros and cons in some, where there could be another reason for the things happening they way they happen. There is no security program which mysteriously uncovers a hacker. There is nothing like that at the moment so the only way to find out is by really dig deep and look at the situations very closely. Did he hack? It looks like it, but it can't be proven 100%.
If he did, then burn the motherfucker until there is nothing left of him. If he didn't, then it's time to apologize. Noname forum user John-Bob-Mofo89 and his colleagues Freddy95 and Anonbob20 with 10 forumposts are certainly not the ones who should be judging the situation here.
On June 05 2012 23:55 Tippecanoe wrote: That scan on shakuras.
God damn. Just god damn.
Yeah, I think it's just one of the best arguments. Nobody in their right mind (like above bronze), would waste a scan which has only 50% of landing on the opponent's fricking main at 5 minutes in the game, without waiting for the scouting SCV to at least confirm his spawning position. That's just retarded play. If you're not maphacking, that is...
On June 05 2012 23:10 Ballack wrote: Has anyone come up with any explanation to the magic scan on antiga against Lucifron? The one where he is scrolling up, stopping, scanning, etc.. It looks really fishy, and I just cannot believe Spades is innocent anymore, it is just too much of a coincidence.
You can't tell on a replay if he's scrolling up, because the replay will only follow his actions, not his camera view. If he scans up top, then the replay will move to that area, because he scanned there, not because his camera was. So the whole "magic scan" argument is 100% irrelevant, because that's not how the replay works.
Replays do record camera movement. Your counter-argument is 100% irrelevant.
No it doesn't, go check for yourself and come back apologizing. This isn't news.
Edit: decided to counter that uneducated "argument" of yours by posting a video of Axeltoss proving my point.
I won't come back apologizing because I obviously checked myself before posting. What you could maybe have said is that it's not 100% perfect recording, but you were acting like the camera info is lost forever in the replay, which it's not. It even records zooming bro. SC2gears displays these "Move screen x=X, y=Y" as "Inactions" Btw, I don't believe either the magic scan argument. Everybody knows that with Blizzard's annoying smoothening of camera view, you can't reliably tell that a player was really looking at what is apparently displaying on the replay.
Just wanted to "educate" you (what a ridiculous thing to say btw when you don't even know what replays really contain) a bit. I won't ask you to apologize either, how kind of me.
So are you going to keep saying I'm wrong or are you going to present factual proof that can back up your claims? Player camera does not record the camera view from the game, it records the players actions and fog of war. If I move units to x spot, the player camera will look at the selected units and then the destination. In reality, I could be looking at my base, selecting a hotkey and then use the minimap to move my units -- eitherway, the player camera won't show that.
But this is 100% wrong. It couldn't get wronger
I take it you're trolling. I just gave you a literal example on how the player camera works, as presented and explained by Axeltoss. He even makes my example very, very clear to everyone.
You are so utterly wrong, there's 10 people here explaining to you that you are but you just stampede over everything completely oblivious to facts.
All words, man.
Could you be more frustratingly oblivious to everyone and everything? Go play a game against a computer, stare at your mineral line. Now select a worker and send it anywhere via the minimap. Wait 20 seconds, select it again, and move it back to your mineral line.
NOW OPEN THE GODDAMN REPLAY AND WATCH IT.
Put it on your perspective and press "c" or if it's rebound press the "player camera" button. Now watch yourself be a total dumbass infront of everyone, and hopefully understand how infuriating you're being.
On June 05 2012 23:35 i)awn wrote: I'm not an expert but the logical thing to do is to compare these replays to some other replays where you're certain he's not hacking. Also compare it to a pool of other players' replays and check if you see the same suspicious behavior else where. This has to be done by an unintersted team.
What CatZ and Co. Did was fine.. they compared his hacking games to a few of his non-hacking games and told us what made them think he hacks.. afterwards they all were in agreement that he was, in fact, hacking in the showmatch. Does that make it absolute? No. Does it mean he probably was yes? If you can't trust the pros opinions on a subject like this I don't know who we can trust.
I'm so glad the justice system doesn't rely on trust.
This thread has made me appreciate "innocent until proven guilty" even more.
this isnt a trial. spades will not get any punishment from people discussing this on a forum.
this debate is not different from media writing about OJ Simpsons or someone else suspected of commiting a crime.
do you think that a columnist or blogger shouldnt be allowed to say "i think oj simpson is a criminal" just because it can hurt his image and scare sponsors? what strange world do you want to live in?
Comparing this to the OJ trial/circus doesn't really make it sound any better, lol.
On June 05 2012 23:55 Tippecanoe wrote: That scan on shakuras.
God damn. Just god damn.
Yeah, I think it's just one of the best arguments. Nobody in their right mind (like above bronze), would waste a scan which has only 50% of landing on the opponent's fricking main at 5 minutes in the game, without waiting for the scouting SCV to at least confirm his spawning position. That's just retarded play. If you're not maphacking, that is...
If it's not map hacking thats some next level meta game shit.
On June 05 2012 23:48 nkr wrote: I'm yet to see someone explain the scan on shakuras, when he hasn't scouted anywhere.
It could happen without hack. Why not? It could also happen that those Hellions on TDA escaped perfectly without hacking. It could also happen that in the game against Avilo he played super stupid and greedy and then did a money scan. It could also happen...
10% chance on that, 16% chance on that, 1% chance on that, 6% on that, and eventually you are as lucky as the guy that won 45 Million Euro on Euromillions.
This is the most important point that some people are missing. Yes, all of the fishy stuff he does could happen. It's rare for someone to get lucky like that, but it could happen. That's why you have to look at all of the evidence at the same time and you start realizing he got lucky way too many times for it to be luck. He misses some drops since the probability of guessing they are coming is too close to zero (and he knows that). Couple all of this with the difference in FOW vision between show match games and ladder games, and I think that should be enough proof.
You can't tell on a replay if he's scrolling up, because the replay will only follow his actions, not his camera view. If he scans up top, then the replay will move to that area, because he scanned there, not because his camera was. So the whole "magic scan" argument is 100% irrelevant, because that's not how the replay works.
Replays do record camera movement. Your counter-argument is 100% irrelevant.
No it doesn't, go check for yourself and come back apologizing. This isn't news.
Edit: decided to counter that uneducated "argument" of yours by posting a video of Axeltoss proving my point.
I won't come back apologizing because I obviously checked myself before posting. What you could maybe have said is that it's not 100% perfect recording, but you were acting like the camera info is lost forever in the replay, which it's not. It even records zooming bro. SC2gears displays these "Move screen x=X, y=Y" as "Inactions" Btw, I don't believe either the magic scan argument. Everybody knows that with Blizzard's annoying smoothening of camera view, you can't reliably tell that a player was really looking at what is apparently displaying on the replay.
Just wanted to "educate" you (what a ridiculous thing to say btw when you don't even know what replays really contain) a bit. I won't ask you to apologize either, how kind of me.
So are you going to keep saying I'm wrong or are you going to present factual proof that can back up your claims? Player camera does not record the camera view from the game, it records the players actions and fog of war. If I move units to x spot, the player camera will look at the selected units and then the destination. In reality, I could be looking at my base, selecting a hotkey and then use the minimap to move my units -- eitherway, the player camera won't show that.
But this is 100% wrong. It couldn't get wronger
I take it you're trolling. I just gave you a literal example on how the player camera works, as presented and explained by Axeltoss. He even makes my example very, very clear to everyone.
You've demonstrated you have zero understanding of how SC2 replays work, why are you still in this thread? This is an obscene level of ignorance
He's busy being top 8 Master and GM last season, silly, he doesn't have time to open literally any replay.
Ah, so that's how low we've sunk. That's cute.
The fact that you are so condescending and arrogant while being completely fucking wrong is really disgusting. But whatever.
You keep demanding proof to debunk your ridiculous theories on how the camera works, things you wouldn't need proof to dispute if you had ever watched a replay in your life.
I just joined a random game on Xelnaga Caverns. Hotkeyed my nexus and a random probe and told my probes to start mining. Then I looked around the map. You will see the camera followed me. I went back to my nexus, grabbed a probe, hotkeyed it to 1 and told it to build a pylon. Then I used the minimap to send my hotkeyed probe to my opponents base without looking. The camera stayed where I was, looking at my base. Again, centered on where my camera was, not any unit action. This directly disproves your theory that if you send hotkeyed units from your base then the camera will follow them, not stay in your base.
After that I just looked around a bit to show the camera following my actions and built a few pylons.
----
I really shouldn't have had to do that. 10 people are telling you that you are wrong, and the matter being discussed is extremely common knowledge to anyone who was watched a replay.
Please watch my replay. Or don't. But if you don't, stop being a blatantly incorrect asshole going around demanding proof and saying you don't care what people say, a random, mostly irrelevant youtube video proves you are right.
Do u think spades woke up today all sleepy and fuzzy headed and in a good mood before sudden realization came crashing down around him shit I wasn't dreaming.
EPT
