|
07:06 KST - method linked here has been disproved here10:54 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 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. Why shouldn't they do that... if he hacks then he should get fucked too right? Only Fair.
|
On June 06 2012 01:29 Twistacles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:23 Wolfe87 wrote:On June 06 2012 01:18 whiterabbit wrote: So if somehow Spades magically defends himself from these accusations, what will happen? Nothing. Bad taste will stay. Bunch of people and players will remember him as player who hacked in BW and player who possibly hacked in SC2. Half of the scene and probably every foreign pro saw this thread and like 3 discussions on top SC2 page at Reddit. Who will be guilty for ruining someone's career? Especially one from player who even went to Korea to practice etc. No one will be guilty, we have OP under smurf and Catz+friends who will just say "Oh well, we really thought he hacked and we had "evidence" to back up our claims, sowwy....", will there be 160+ page thread about CatZ and him taking rushed decision to benefit from all of this? No, there won't be any thread.
Basically this entire thread is one much bigger problem then finding real proof if Spades hacked or not. We just let smurf and mob full of people who didn't even bother looking at replays/VODs ruin someone career without REAL proof.
And ex-manager/owner of Reign saying Koreans are stream cheating and getting help from co-players at big LAN tournaments...all that... without any substance to back up those claims? Really? God.
Way to go TL. Way to go Reddit. This is sad day for SC2 scene no matter how you look at it. I could not agree more. Spades is ruined by this accusation alone. What would need to happen is full and complete apologies from all parties involved if he is absolved from this matter. This is getting out of hand imo and resulting in a lot of unprofessional behaviour, however the damage has been done already and I am not sure what will happen now. Could not agree more. The fact that this wasn't shut down immediately is sad. People are jealous that others are living up the life that they want so they try to shit on their careers, like orb. Disgusting. At this point, even if Spades is hacking, the people that brought up this issue in this way are way more in the wrong than spades is, going McCarthy trials on our ass
"Even if Spades is hacking, the people that brought it to our attention are more wrong than Spades is."
Why are people like this even in the community? Why are they in this conversation?
|
For the love of God.
Close this thread.
This "discussion" is no discussion at all. It's a purposeful, malicious, and blatant attack on Spades as a person, Spades' career, and Spades' future as a professional gamer. Western Wolves even made a twitter post hinting at possibly not keeping Spades on the team due to the information in this thread. Which if proven to be a hacker, then Spades should be booted off his team, and given a temp/perm ban on competing in tournaments (al la combatex). But if he is not proved to be a hacker, what then? How does he recover as a professional SC2 gamer? If he cheated, what needs to be discovered is how he accomplished this; and how to detect this sort of cheating in the future.
If this thread was about, let's say Liquid Jinro (sorry Jinro first Liquid player to pop into head), do you think that Team Liquid would have reopened this thread? Or would they have kept it closed, done their due diligence and investigated the matter (consulted Blizzard, and hacking experts) and then pronounced any findings of the investigation (that they deemed worthy to air in public). I would hope that Team Liquid would afford the same consideration to other Professional Gaming Teams that they would afford to themselves.
This whole ordeal has been poorly handled here on TL.net; but it is the prerogative of Team Liquid's Forum Management to keep this thread open. I understand that it is something of a tightrope walk for them, being the largest western community forum/news site for Starcraft/SC2 and being a professional gaming team. As well as understanding that the mods want to allow communication to be fostered in the hopes of A) getting to the bottom of this and/or B) allowing people to vent there frustration here instead of going to sponsors and yelling at them. But there are somethings that are best handled behind closed doors (or private Skype conversations) especially when it comes to someone's livelihood. If it were you in Spades (wrongly accused or guilty as presumed) situation what would you think your experience at MLG Anaheim is going to be like? Do you think people are going to be happy to see you compete, or are they going to be yelling, "Cheater!" and "HAXOR! You don't deserve to be at this tournament!" There are ramifications that go far beyond words on some "random website" on the internets that have yet to be considered.
|
On June 06 2012 01:06 Xadar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:03 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: When were the games played in relation to the stream. Could it have been stream cheating and not maphacking? No it cant. If you are maphacking, you will eventually look into fog of war in a best of 7 at some point. Also, he pulls off scans that are, without a hack, physically impossible to pull off.
I'd just like to know if it was a possibility. Watching the replays, it appears that both Lucifron is a significantly better player and the games should never have been as close as it was, and it is apparent that during the 7-9 second screen drops, he is either maphacking, or looking at another computer with the stream up.
Just looking at the game from Lucifron's perspective instead of Spade, his camera movements are so rapid and all-over it makes you sick, which is exactly what all pro-replay perspectives that I've watched have looked like.
|
On June 06 2012 01:28 Topdoller wrote: We all know map hacking is happening at some level during games by a lot of players on the ladder, but the fact E-Sport is general is starting to attract decent money for players and companies alike means cheating of any nature should be discoraged at any cost
If the sport is deemed to be crooked then it will fail eventually. Boxing, Football, Cricket have all had their problems and they in general deal with these people severely.
In the case of Spades what makes me personally think he is guilty is that when you compare the series v Lucifon and his normal habits when he is streaming it is like you are watching 2 different players
1 - Never having the camera in the fog of war during the series, when in streaming his does 2 - Scanning habits different compared to his usual style of play 3 - Siegeing \ Unsieging and unit movement with an uncanny knowlage of the opponents unit movements
His past history doesnt help from BW either in this case
One think for sure is that the hacks are becomming so sophisticated that without the players computer being inspected online tournements will be become a joke and the Ladder will die off completly
Prehaps there should be no fog of war in this game?, either that or Blizzard start working out a method of making cheating more difficult as after all they have 2 more expansions to sell, this will hit sales.
Without fog of war I'm not even sure SC2 would be worth playing...
|
On June 06 2012 01:33 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:24 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:16 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:08 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:07 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:03 Condor Hero wrote:On June 06 2012 00:58 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. There is no such thing as credibility of the person presenting EVIDENCE. This is again a deference to authority. "oh hes a proplayer surely he knows best". "oh he's a spanish guy so I don't believe him". Analyse the evidence. Don't be lazy and have others do it for oyu. Would you rather have a doctor's opinion of what's wrong with your spine or a janitor's? Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. It's actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authorityAnd pretty much everything related to "who is the OP" links back to here. I can promise you that Sir Scoots or the CEO of GomTV is not behind that name. Unless the majority of experts (read: Blizzard and expert professional star craft 2 players) agrees with the OP irrelevant of who they are, it is a fallacious appeal. When you or someone else who does not fall under the category of "expert" demands to know, it is so that you can fallaciously appeal. Your last sentence is just false, sorry. I want to know because I want to know if he has any particular "special interest" in this case. Similarly, I'd like to know why, if he's a relevant personality, he didn't post it from his main account (like others have done in the past). If this person is revealed to have a particular vendetta against Spades (which may or may not be the case) then it casts his evidence in an entirely different light. Please stop assuming things about the intentions of people in this thread, and please stop trying to appeal to superficially esoteric philosophy under the guise of unnecessary Latin. My point in response to you (namely that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a "fallacy of logic") is still entirely true. I only knew it by the Latin term, and I didn't look it up before hand to check for the English equivalent. I apologize if this was a horrible thing to do, I meant no harm. But even if the OP is Spades' long lost twin brother who has sworn to destroy everything Spades holds near and dear, it does not mean that he is lying or wrong. Similarly, even if it's Dustin Browder, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is right. However, if either of these two cases were true, I can promise you the vast majority of people would assume that they are wrong or right respectively. You've seen the vast levels of stupidity in this thread, have you not? Don't go overestimating everyone's willingness to remain unbiased based on the source. If the OP turns out to be (say) Lucifron himself or one of his sponsor affiliates (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, PEOPLE) then it would cast doubt on the good faith of the accusations. If it actually was Dustin, then we'd do well to take his word for it, because he probably has methods for detecting hacks (and experience doing so) that we don't have.
|
On June 06 2012 01:26 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:24 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. If you actually read the thread you'll find that many of the initial arguments are no longer being discussed because they're invalid (e.g. complaints about off-center scans, etc). The main things people are discussing now are the following two points: 1) the CK siege/unsiege/siege. 2) the scan on Shakuras A far cry from the initial post in the thread. lol? And what's your brilliant explanation to dismiss the fact that he doesnt look a single time at fog of war during the Bo7 when he does every 5 second in his streamed games? I don't have an explanation for this. I still don't think that's necessarily damning evidence, though.
Of course it's evidence. There is absolutely no possible explanation other than the camera lock when he does look through fog of war. You can't even think of one and still you say it's not evidence. I think you're more trying to prove him innocent for the sake of it rather than tryin to find the truth imo
|
Rofl 1 post by the OP, i cant help but think its LucifroN feeling he got cheated
|
On June 06 2012 01:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:16 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:08 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:07 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:03 Condor Hero wrote:On June 06 2012 00:58 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. There is no such thing as credibility of the person presenting EVIDENCE. This is again a deference to authority. "oh hes a proplayer surely he knows best". "oh he's a spanish guy so I don't believe him". Analyse the evidence. Don't be lazy and have others do it for oyu. Would you rather have a doctor's opinion of what's wrong with your spine or a janitor's? Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. It's actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authorityAnd pretty much everything related to "who is the OP" links back to here. I can promise you that Sir Scoots or the CEO of GomTV is not behind that name. Unless the majority of experts (read: Blizzard and expert professional star craft 2 players) agrees with the OP irrelevant of who they are, it is a fallacious appeal. When you or someone else who does not fall under the category of "expert" demands to know, it is so that you can fallaciously appeal. Your last sentence is just false, sorry. I want to know because I want to know if he has any particular "special interest" in this case. Similarly, I'd like to know why, if he's a relevant personality, he didn't post it from his main account (like others have done in the past). If this person is revealed to have a particular vendetta against Spades (which may or may not be the case) then it casts his evidence in an entirely different light. Please stop assuming things about the intentions of people in this thread, and please stop trying to appeal to superficially esoteric philosophy under the guise of unnecessary Latin. My point in response to you (namely that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a "fallacy of logic") is still entirely true.
no it doesn't... even if spades fucked his girlfriend and he now tries to ruin spades's career it doesn't make any evidence less you look at the evidence completely neutral and withouth thinking about the intentions of the author because it's EVIDENCE that is being judged not the person who posted it or his intentions
so it is actually better that we don't know the author so we can all be unbiased except some people like you that just don't want spades to be guilty and now want to find a way to change make the evidence look biased when in fact evidence can either prove that you are guilty or that you aren't but it can't possibly be biased no matter who presents it...
|
On June 06 2012 01:36 SolidMustard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:26 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:24 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. If you actually read the thread you'll find that many of the initial arguments are no longer being discussed because they're invalid (e.g. complaints about off-center scans, etc). The main things people are discussing now are the following two points: 1) the CK siege/unsiege/siege. 2) the scan on Shakuras A far cry from the initial post in the thread. lol? And what's your brilliant explanation to dismiss the fact that he doesnt look a single time at fog of war during the Bo7 when he does every 5 second in his streamed games? I don't have an explanation for this. I still don't think that's necessarily damning evidence, though. Of course it's evidence. There is absolutely no possible explanation other than the camera lock when he does look through fog of war. You can't even think of one and still you say it's not evidence. I think you're more trying to prove him innocent for the sake of it rather than tryin to find the truth imo Try actually reading my post. I said I don't think it's necessarily damning, not that it's not evidence. Jesus Christ.
|
On June 06 2012 01:34 metbull wrote: For the love of God.
Close this thread.
This "discussion" is no discussion at all. It's a purposeful, malicious, and blatant attack on Spades as a person, Spades' career, and Spades' future as a professional gamer. Western Wolves even made a twitter post hinting at possibly not keeping Spades on the team due to the information in this thread. Which if proven to be a hacker, then Spades should be booted off his team, and given a temp/perm ban on competing in tournaments (al la combatex). But if he is not proved to be a hacker, what then? How does he recover as a professional SC2 gamer? If he cheated, what needs to be discovered is how he accomplished this; and how to detect this sort of cheating in the future.
If this thread was about, let's say Liquid Jinro (sorry Jinro first Liquid player to pop into head), do you think that Team Liquid would have reopened this thread? Or would they have kept it closed, done their due diligence and investigated the matter (consulted Blizzard, and hacking experts) and then pronounced any findings of the investigation (that they deemed worthy to air in public). I would hope that Team Liquid would afford the same consideration to other Professional Gaming Teams that they would afford to themselves.
This whole ordeal has been poorly handled here on TL.net; but it is the prerogative of Team Liquid's Forum Management to keep this thread open. I understand that it is something of a tightrope walk for them, being the largest western community forum/news site for Starcraft/SC2 and being a professional gaming team. As well as understanding that the mods want to allow communication to be fostered in the hopes of A) getting to the bottom of this and/or B) allowing people to vent there frustration here instead of going to sponsors and yelling at them. But there are somethings that are best handled behind closed doors (or private Skype conversations) especially when it comes to someone's livelihood. If it were you in Spades (wrongly accused or guilty as presumed) situation what would you think your experience at MLG Anaheim is going to be like? Do you think people are going to be happy to see you compete, or are they going to be yelling, "Cheater!" and "HAXOR! You don't deserve to be at this tournament!" There are ramifications that go far beyond words on some "random website" on the internets that have yet to be considered. What the fuck are you talking about? This is the best Starcraft 2 community with many pros right in it. So if there is a place to discuss something like this, this is the right place. And seriously: if we destroy the career of a cheater that's really great. Have you watched the VODs of Catz analysing the replays? Some things are so obvious you can't deny it. The fact he never looks into the FOV is pretty much enough of an evidence.
The fact he's an accepted progamer although he already hacked earlier is a joke to be honest. I don't think a cheater deserves a second chance if he probably earned money by cheating...
|
On June 06 2012 01:36 Soulstice wrote:Rofl 1 post by the OP, i cant help but think its LucifroN feeling he got cheated data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt=""
Didn't he win?
|
On June 06 2012 01:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:16 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:08 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:07 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:03 Condor Hero wrote:On June 06 2012 00:58 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. There is no such thing as credibility of the person presenting EVIDENCE. This is again a deference to authority. "oh hes a proplayer surely he knows best". "oh he's a spanish guy so I don't believe him". Analyse the evidence. Don't be lazy and have others do it for oyu. Would you rather have a doctor's opinion of what's wrong with your spine or a janitor's? Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. It's actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authorityAnd pretty much everything related to "who is the OP" links back to here. I can promise you that Sir Scoots or the CEO of GomTV is not behind that name. Unless the majority of experts (read: Blizzard and expert professional star craft 2 players) agrees with the OP irrelevant of who they are, it is a fallacious appeal. When you or someone else who does not fall under the category of "expert" demands to know, it is so that you can fallaciously appeal. Your last sentence is just false, sorry. I want to know because I want to know if he has any particular "special interest" in this case. Similarly, I'd like to know why, if he's a relevant personality, he didn't post it from his main account (like others have done in the past). If this person is revealed to have a particular vendetta against Spades (which may or may not be the case) then it casts his evidence in an entirely different light. Please stop assuming things about the intentions of people in this thread, and please stop trying to appeal to superficially esoteric philosophy under the guise of unnecessary Latin. My point in response to you (namely that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a "fallacy of logic") is still entirely true.
Isn't it as simple as: This is no court, it doesn't matter who the accuser is, others have validated/supported his claim which makes this a legit issue. Who cares who brought it up, if the claim would have been unreasonable this topic wouldn't still be open.
|
On June 06 2012 01:37 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:24 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:16 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:08 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:07 Chargelot wrote:On June 06 2012 01:03 Condor Hero wrote:On June 06 2012 00:58 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. There is no such thing as credibility of the person presenting EVIDENCE. This is again a deference to authority. "oh hes a proplayer surely he knows best". "oh he's a spanish guy so I don't believe him". Analyse the evidence. Don't be lazy and have others do it for oyu. Would you rather have a doctor's opinion of what's wrong with your spine or a janitor's? Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. It's actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authorityAnd pretty much everything related to "who is the OP" links back to here. I can promise you that Sir Scoots or the CEO of GomTV is not behind that name. Unless the majority of experts (read: Blizzard and expert professional star craft 2 players) agrees with the OP irrelevant of who they are, it is a fallacious appeal. When you or someone else who does not fall under the category of "expert" demands to know, it is so that you can fallaciously appeal. Your last sentence is just false, sorry. I want to know because I want to know if he has any particular "special interest" in this case. Similarly, I'd like to know why, if he's a relevant personality, he didn't post it from his main account (like others have done in the past). If this person is revealed to have a particular vendetta against Spades (which may or may not be the case) then it casts his evidence in an entirely different light. Please stop assuming things about the intentions of people in this thread, and please stop trying to appeal to superficially esoteric philosophy under the guise of unnecessary Latin. My point in response to you (namely that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a "fallacy of logic") is still entirely true. no it doesn't... even if spades fucked his girlfriend and he now tries to ruin spades's career it doesn't make any evidence less you look at the evidence completely neutral and withouth thinking about the intentions of the author because it's EVIDENCE that is being judged not the person who posted it or his intentions so it is actually better that we don't know the author so we can all be unbiased except some people like you that just don't want spades to be guilty and now want to find a way to change make the evidence look biased when in fact evidence can either prove that you are guilty or that you aren't but it can't possibly be biased no matter who presents it... You just proved my point. Read your second paragraph again, and think about how you attacked my credibility to support your argument. I actually don't give a shit whether Spades is found guilty or not; I just want the truth to be found.
|
On June 06 2012 01:17 Bogeyman wrote: Okay fine... instead of jumping the band-waggon "blindly" (I saw Catz and co stream their analysis) I'll look through the replays myself. I haven't even looked at the exact points brought up in the OP, and I'll just look through the replays myself and see if I find anything strange. I'll rate everything in terms of how suspicious I find it. Even though I'm not exactly qualified to make exact judgments on how suspicious something is, it is a clear way for me to explain myself.
Class 1 - Could be co-incidence or just smart/prepared play Class 2 - Rather odd Class 3 - Seems fishy Class 4 - Highly unlikely behavior Class 5 - Clear proof
Map: Shattered Temple 6:03 - Class 1 - Blindly builds a raven a few seconds after cloak and a banshee starts for Lucifron. In Spades' defense he was already going for double-gas and was looking to go for either banshees or a raven way before it was clear that Lucifron was gonna go banshees. 7:09 -> 7:20 - Class 2 - Spades is staring at his base for a long time. What is he doing? With the screen right there, why isn't he building SCVs? 7:20 - Class 1 - Ravens and marines move into a good position to intecept the incoming banshee. Spades has no vision of it nor does he have any conclusive evidence that Lucifron is going banshees. However, he does see a hellion at his front, and since it's close-by-air it's not a bad idea to prepare for banshees so it could just be smart play. 8:00 - Class 4 - Screen pans towards Lucifron's main but stops dead before it reaches the fog. His raven+viking is issued a command to move over the gap between the bases, and shortly thereafter Spades also clicks them into the main without looking there, so unless he hacks he would have to click the minimap. It seems highly unlikely to pan towards a location, stop right before the fog, click over the gap on screen then move your cursor to the minimap and click in the main from there. The more likely behavior is to keep panning into the main (if you're already panning, and it's a short distance) and click when you reach the end location. This type of behavior, if consistent during e.g. a showmatch but basically never happens in normal play on ladder and such, should be enough to be considered as some sort of proof. On it's own it's just really weird behavior. 11:59 - Class 0 - Here Spades genuinely looks through the fog, at Lucifron's main base. It is part of moving his medivac over here, so he's obviously right-clicking the ground (three times, nothing weird about that). So this makes me wonder about what I heard regarding over-riding the screen lock if you right-click. We really need some sort of confirmation on that until this point can be dismissed as counter-evidence. 11:57 - Class 0? - Upon further examination I noticed some clicking in the main of Lucifron. It's right-clicking with the medivac, but you can't see these initial clicks if you stick the the Spades cam. These clicks probably only mean he first right-clicked on the minimap, then left-clicked and continued to right-click on the ground. There's even a brief pause between these clicks before looking at the fog and then the subsequent clicks looking at the fog. So there's really no doubt this is what happened, and it's not anything weird. I still mention it because it may be important once we know exactly how the screen locking works. Spades did look straight into the fog before right-clicking there on the ground but after right-clicking there via the minimap. Can this be replicated with the screen locking hack? If not, well then that's in Spades' favor. If it can be replicated, well then it just means that it's not in favor of either side of the argument.
I'll analyze the rest of the replays later. I've already missed quite a bit of E3.
I look forward to more of your analysis.
Edit: Papaz and others interested in the OP's identity will find a more suitable thread here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=14942771
|
On June 06 2012 01:36 Soulstice wrote:Rofl 1 post by the OP, i cant help but think its LucifroN feeling he got cheated data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt=""
It doesn't matter who the OP is. But Lucifron looked clearly above and away the better player if you watch the replays from both perspectives.
|
On June 06 2012 01:36 SolidMustard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:26 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:24 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. If you actually read the thread you'll find that many of the initial arguments are no longer being discussed because they're invalid (e.g. complaints about off-center scans, etc). The main things people are discussing now are the following two points: 1) the CK siege/unsiege/siege. 2) the scan on Shakuras A far cry from the initial post in the thread. lol? And what's your brilliant explanation to dismiss the fact that he doesnt look a single time at fog of war during the Bo7 when he does every 5 second in his streamed games? I don't have an explanation for this. I still don't think that's necessarily damning evidence, though. Of course it's evidence. There is absolutely no possible explanation other than the camera lock when he does look through fog of war. You can't even think of one and still you say it's not evidence. I think you're more trying to prove him innocent for the sake of it rather than tryin to find the truth imo
This time, to avoid confusion, I will actually post from wikipedia.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).
|
On June 06 2012 01:36 Soulstice wrote:Rofl 1 post by the OP, i cant help but think its LucifroN feeling he got cheated data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt=""
LucifroN won.
|
On June 06 2012 01:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:36 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:26 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:24 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. If you actually read the thread you'll find that many of the initial arguments are no longer being discussed because they're invalid (e.g. complaints about off-center scans, etc). The main things people are discussing now are the following two points: 1) the CK siege/unsiege/siege. 2) the scan on Shakuras A far cry from the initial post in the thread. lol? And what's your brilliant explanation to dismiss the fact that he doesnt look a single time at fog of war during the Bo7 when he does every 5 second in his streamed games? I don't have an explanation for this. I still don't think that's necessarily damning evidence, though. Of course it's evidence. There is absolutely no possible explanation other than the camera lock when he does look through fog of war. You can't even think of one and still you say it's not evidence. I think you're more trying to prove him innocent for the sake of it rather than tryin to find the truth imo Try actually reading my post. I said I don't think it's necessarily damning, not that it's not evidence. Jesus Christ. I apologize for his innacuracy. But why is it not damning if there is no plausible alternate causality?
|
On June 06 2012 01:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 01:36 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:26 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:24 SolidMustard wrote:On June 06 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 01:02 Scootaloo wrote:On June 06 2012 00:55 Shiori wrote:On June 06 2012 00:54 Jinsho wrote:On June 06 2012 00:48 Shiori wrote: I want to know if he's unbiased. Judge the evidence, not the person presenting it. This is the kind of thinking that makes people susceptible to authority. Considering a good deal of the OP has been shown to have been exaggerated, the OP's credibility has been called into question. With exaggerated you mean not everyone agrees with it? Considering that if OP posted his name the Spades defenders would, in true liquidian fashion, open a witch hunt on him for any unscrupulous behavior ever it's very understandable. If the only way you'll believe it is some undoubtable proof of hacking then you'll never believe it as this proof can not exist under the current circumstances, Spades lies and Blizzard is incompetent. If you actually read the thread you'll find that many of the initial arguments are no longer being discussed because they're invalid (e.g. complaints about off-center scans, etc). The main things people are discussing now are the following two points: 1) the CK siege/unsiege/siege. 2) the scan on Shakuras A far cry from the initial post in the thread. lol? And what's your brilliant explanation to dismiss the fact that he doesnt look a single time at fog of war during the Bo7 when he does every 5 second in his streamed games? I don't have an explanation for this. I still don't think that's necessarily damning evidence, though. Of course it's evidence. There is absolutely no possible explanation other than the camera lock when he does look through fog of war. You can't even think of one and still you say it's not evidence. I think you're more trying to prove him innocent for the sake of it rather than tryin to find the truth imo Try actually reading my post. I said I don't think it's necessarily damning, not that it's not evidence. Jesus Christ.
Whatever, you do realize it's a solid proof of hack and you keep defending him, which is pretty absurd to me
|
|
|
|