|
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 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time.
You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it?
Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said,
|
Unfortunately, as hacking is a big part of the SC2 world at this current time and due to his history in BW, people will look at the fishier and "non-standard" things and think someone is hacking.
Not saying he has or hasn't, haven't looked at the replays and wouldn't honestly know what to look for anyway.
All I will say is, Blizzard needs to come out with some way of detecting this as otherwise the SC2 eSports brand and more importantly the players who do this to pay the bills will be the ones who will take the full force of this.
|
What, to me, has been more damning than anything has been Spades' lukewarm defense, evasive answers and questionable "whether I'm guilty or not doesn't matter, my career is over" language. This demanded a strong statement and strong defense.
After I actually watched the games in question, it left very little doubt for me.
|
On June 06 2012 11:31 BalanceFx wrote:
If he had recently won 1,000s of dollars in online tournaments than maybe its an issue but it was a show match... Its not really a big deal.
Cheating tarnishes your reputation, it doesn't matter when, where or why you do it. It's as simple as that. If you cheat at any time, you really have no business anywhere near the pro scene because you are not a pro. You're a cheater.
|
On June 06 2012 11:33 Zydec wrote:
Unfortunately, as hacking is a big part of the SC2 world at this current time and due to his history in BW, people will look at the fishier and "non-standard" things and think someone is hacking.
Not saying he has or hasn't, haven't looked at the replays and wouldn't honestly know what to look for anyway.
All I will say is, Blizzard needs to come out with some way of detecting this as otherwise the SC2 eSports brand and more importantly the players who do this to pay the bills will be the ones who will take the full force of this.
Agreed. Blizzard should guarantee the integrity of their online tournament and 1v1 ladder play and we shouldn't even be talking about this. If I have to be online to play single player diablo than a 1v1 starcraft match should be guaranteed legit. (By them)
|
On June 06 2012 11:26 natebreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 06 2012 11:20 natebreen wrote:
It's basic psychology. You know what innocent people say when accused? IM FUCKING INNOCENT. They scream it from the rooftops. Their language and phrasing is confident and assertive. not always. i've known people who freeze up at any hint of accusation and they get really nervous of being seen as wrong no matter what, so they get the attitude of "fuck it, fuck them, fuck this" which can totally lead you to present a "i don't care" attitude. i'll say that yes, innocent people will usually be assertive in their innocence, but then again, so do guilty people. whenever i'm lying, i get louder and try to be more confrontational (thats fucked up now that i'm reading it) but when i'm telling the truth a lot of times i don't give a shit because im telling the truth. basically, in my experience, the LOUDEST people are about 50-50 guilty innocent (i just made that up but it's as valid as anything else) There are stages of response though. Even the meekest of people will offer some kind of defense. Spades did not pass go, he didn't collect $200. He just instantly went to his deflections and avoidance of addressing the issue at hand.
I have to agree with you. I followed plenty of scams over on the twoplustwo forums, and my feeling goes along with yours. Guilty parties try to deflect blame and often present themselves as the actual victims. What is not common is actively trying to prove their innocence, because that is incredibly difficult, tiring, and unnatural when you are actually guilty. People prefer telling the truth to lying, even when they are cheaters or scammers. And in their mind, they actually are victims, even if they are cheaters or scammers. The second post Spades made in this thread where he jumps straight to retirement and presents himself as totally victimized before offering any defense set off the alarm bells in my head very loudly.
|
On June 06 2012 11:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:26 natebreen wrote:On June 06 2012 11:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 06 2012 11:20 natebreen wrote:
It's basic psychology. You know what innocent people say when accused? IM FUCKING INNOCENT. They scream it from the rooftops. Their language and phrasing is confident and assertive. not always. i've known people who freeze up at any hint of accusation and they get really nervous of being seen as wrong no matter what, so they get the attitude of "fuck it, fuck them, fuck this" which can totally lead you to present a "i don't care" attitude. i'll say that yes, innocent people will usually be assertive in their innocence, but then again, so do guilty people. whenever i'm lying, i get louder and try to be more confrontational (thats fucked up now that i'm reading it) but when i'm telling the truth a lot of times i don't give a shit because im telling the truth. basically, in my experience, the LOUDEST people are about 50-50 guilty innocent (i just made that up but it's as valid as anything else) There are stages of response though. Even the meekest of people will offer some kind of defense. Spades did not pass go, he didn't collect $200. He just instantly went to his deflections and avoidance of addressing the issue at hand. thats my only problem though is that you're 100% right: even the meekest people will offer some kind of defense. EVERYONE will offer some kind of defense. oftentimes the loudest person is the liar, often times he's the guy telling the truth. im just uncomfortable with saying that any response besides a confession is a for sure sign of guilt, especially considering how i'm usually guilty as sin when i give an earnest, kind of pissed, defensive but not too defensive response. i'm usually innocent when im like "fuck it, i don't care if you believe me or not".
Because when you're lying you have no confidence in your statement because you know it to be false.
Humans pick up on these things. Moms know a kid is lying, girlfriend knows boyfriend cheated, etc.
We interact with people daily and have expected routines. Ways of acting that seem natural. When it feels unnatural, that's the all-too-often talked about "hair standing up on the back of your neck."
When I read all of Spades's posts, all I got was a very uncomfortable feeling and no confidence from him. Just a lot of avoidance. Screams that he has no confidence or truth to share.
|
On June 06 2012 11:33 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time. You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it? Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said,
In these replays he very very rarely moves his camera fully into the fog of war. For example, to click on a watch tower, or to scout an enemy base, or to move his army to a hidden position. In his ladder replays he does this ALL THE TIME. In these games he does it less than 10. It does happen a couple times.
The case in question he moves his camera slightly downwards where the enemy army is. It is still mostly viewing uncovered map area. This happens often during the replays. The area in question is hiding advancing units that he cannot see. He unsieged his tanks just a second before and immediately sieges them again, BEFORE seeing the army units. This is not standard terran play. His current game knowledge would encourage him to try to advance on the ramp and siege there, or even up the ramp. Instead he sieges to attack the high ground as if he knows what is there. He has a viking available that is already in position to view that high ground, but he has it placed far away so it is only uncovering the very edge of the cliff. Why didn't he put it in a better position? Probably because he can already see the high ground.
|
On June 06 2012 11:25 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 10:45 insanet wrote:On June 06 2012 10:34 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 06 2012 10:18 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 09:32 StreetWise wrote:
Reading through this thread I have several questions:
1. Who is the Judge in this matter. People keep saying he is innocent until proven guilty. Who is going to pronounce him innocent or guilty if not the community as a whole?
2. Secondly, its been mentioned that Spades hacked in BW. How was he caught/proven guilty back then and can the same methods be applied? It's called the court of public opinion and it's real. Just ask OJ Simpson about it. If the community deems him guilty his sponsors will probably not like that. Nobody wants to invest in an OJ Simpson spokesman. The method he got caught in bw by was because bw maphacks didnt have the failsafes sc2 ones have. Also when you've been maphacking for over a decade you learn what not to do. I.E. don't stare at proxy buildings out in the middle of nowhere, but with today's hacks you can do that and nobody knows because of the ol' screen lock. Actually it was because of a safety feature that he was caught in BW. The hack would delete selections of enemy units from the replays, to hide selections of units that the player should not have vision of if he were not hacking. However it is so highly unusual that enemy units were never selected ever(which good players did to check upgrades); it was discovered because of a lack of a normal activity, rather than an abundance of suspicious activity. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=69911Explanation of method When you select units (men/buildings) it is recorded in the replay. However, some map hacks remove the recording of selections on units which are not your own. This happens in any game type (UMS, Melee, etc.) and regardless of the number of players. The reason for this is because previously hackers have been caught by analyzing the replay and finding cases of them clicking on things which they could not see without a map hack. Because selecting an enemy unit is the only way to see things like upgrades, health, build progress, or distinguish buildings that are identical while they build, decent players do this quite often. In a game over 15 minutes, over 99% of the time a good player will have at least one selection of an enemy unit. All of the players in this list have several games played in a row (which are over 15 minutes) and without ever clicking an enemy unit once. While for only one game, there might be a 1% chance of this happening to even a legitimate player, the chance of this happening 5 times in a row is roughly 1 out of 10 billion. People should really read how he got caught in BW, he didnt click any enemy units for 14 entire games, he didnt get caught because MBS or automining or multiple selection, he did got caught because abnormal activity, he was guilty with way less data that what we have. Right now there is a shit ton of abnormal activity, and people still dont believe he hacks lol. i guess you still believe he was innocent in BW. Eh, in BW even his own team investigated into it and reviewed over 150 replays just to be sure over the course of a week. The detection method was probably? more accurate, too. And the entire process wasn't one anonymous tl member posting on a smurf, it was the joint work of many. And it wasn't released prematurely.
If you meant 150 replays for all of the hackers caught maybe. The old thread on it lists some of them being caught based on only 10 clickless replays. Spades was at 14.
|
On June 06 2012 11:37 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:26 natebreen wrote:On June 06 2012 11:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 06 2012 11:20 natebreen wrote:
It's basic psychology. You know what innocent people say when accused? IM FUCKING INNOCENT. They scream it from the rooftops. Their language and phrasing is confident and assertive. not always. i've known people who freeze up at any hint of accusation and they get really nervous of being seen as wrong no matter what, so they get the attitude of "fuck it, fuck them, fuck this" which can totally lead you to present a "i don't care" attitude. i'll say that yes, innocent people will usually be assertive in their innocence, but then again, so do guilty people. whenever i'm lying, i get louder and try to be more confrontational (thats fucked up now that i'm reading it) but when i'm telling the truth a lot of times i don't give a shit because im telling the truth. basically, in my experience, the LOUDEST people are about 50-50 guilty innocent (i just made that up but it's as valid as anything else) There are stages of response though. Even the meekest of people will offer some kind of defense. Spades did not pass go, he didn't collect $200. He just instantly went to his deflections and avoidance of addressing the issue at hand. I have to agree with you. I followed plenty of scams over on the twoplustwo forums, and my feeling goes along with yours. Guilty parties try to deflect blame and often present themselves as the actual victims. What is not common is actively trying to prove their innocence, because that is incredibly difficult, tiring, and unnatural when you are actually guilty. People prefer telling the truth to lying, even when they are cheaters or scammers. And in their mind, they actually are victims, even if they are cheaters or scammers. The second post Spades made in this thread where he jumps straight to retirement and presents himself as totally victimized before offering any defense is incredibly damning to me.
Yep, I've read pretty much all of 2+2 archives etc.
Guilty people and liars have zero confidence.
It's like a mom asking a kid if he stole a cookie from the jar. If he didn't, his response is "No, I didn't, why?" Or something like that.
When he did, it's something like "What do you mean cookie from the jar I didn't even know we had cookies!"
People who are in the wrong and lying don't address the actual issue. They dart around it and hide behind their refusal to answer a direct question. It's a way in their head of deflecting guilt.
Like you said, they always paint themselves as the victim. Maybe a scammer phrases it as he doesn't care about the people, or they're bad so they deserved it, or he deserves the money.
It's called cognitive dissonance. It's what pedophiles or rapists act on when they offend against children or other victims. It's a justification system like "she wanted it," or "the child loved me." They see the world differently, it's their psyche protecting itself.
Most people do not cheat, steal, etc, at least not on a grand scale that offends the sensibilities of society. The ones that do break the norms do so with a self-defense mechanism called that cognitive dissonance that allows them to do it without openly hating themselves.
Underneath it they often still do, but it gets buried under the layers of their lies and justifications.
|
Well he has a chance to rise from the ashes at MLG.
|
no dude, i'm dead serious, if i did steal the cookie i will give you a straight up "no". i will look you in the eyes and calmly tell you no, and if you press me, i will start to give you the "logical" reasons why i couldn't have stolen it. i will act slightly offended, but understanding. i won't quibble or pretend i don't know what you're talking about, i will just be like:
"nope. sorry"
now, i'm a pretty big liar, lot of practice and what not. but usually if i didn't take the cookie i'll be like "no" and if you don't believe me i'll probably either laugh or get sad and just walk away. either way, i fight WAY harder and WAY more "earnestly" when i am lying.
i get the idea that a lot of liars will give themselves away with their response. i'm telling you that a good liar (and sometimes a truthful person) doesn't necessarily work that way, at least not on the surface. it's like George Castanza in Sienfeld: "Its not a lie, if you believe it." it's not very hard to draw up some (very real feeling but fake) outrage at being accused.
i just don't think we're gonna agree here that every single human being that ever lied was defeatist about it.
|
On June 06 2012 11:33 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time. You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it? Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said,
Yes, that's correct. His camera seems to lock for about two seconds before the unsiege, then he unsieges and his camera pans erratically down to the FoW covered base/enemy army then back again. This is when he suddenly resieges, as the FoW hidden army comes into range of his tanks. The resiege animation finishes as the enemy army gets into viking sight range.
Other than this, he never once looked at fog of war, never once scanned, and never once scouted the enemy base. This is in stark contrast to his other ladder games where he does frequently look at fog of war in normal ways as any other player would.
In the next two games in this series, which I will analyze, he never looks at the fog of war either, and when he scans it seems to click the minimap then he looks at it precisely, instead of looking where he wants to scan and then scanning there as others have pointed out. That didn't happen in this game though.
|
again, has there been a statement in regards to how his game mechanics completely changed in his series vs lucifron and his ladder replays?
|
On June 06 2012 11:40 artanis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:33 Ryder. wrote:On June 06 2012 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time. You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it? Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said, In these replays he very very rarely moves his camera fully into the fog of war. For example, to click on a watch tower, or to scout an enemy base, or to move his army to a hidden position. In his ladder replays he does this ALL THE TIME. In these games he does it less than 10. It does happen a couple times. The case in question he moves his camera slightly downwards where the enemy army is. It is still mostly viewing uncovered map area. This happens often during the replays. The area in question is hiding advancing units that he cannot see. He unsieged his tanks just a second before and immediately sieges them again, BEFORE seeing the army units. This is not standard terran play. His current game knowledge would encourage him to try to advance on the ramp and siege there, or even up the ramp. Instead he sieges to attack the high ground as if he knows what is there. He has a viking available that is already in position to view that high ground, but he has it placed far away so it is only uncovering the very edge of the cliff. Why didn't he put it in a better position? Probably because he can already see the high ground.
This is exactly what I saw and described as well.
For anyone interested and doesn't have time to analyze the whole replay, just download it and skip to 9:45 with his camera selected. It's hard to interpret it any other way, but maybe I'm wrong.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295
|
On June 06 2012 11:40 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:25 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 06 2012 10:45 insanet wrote:On June 06 2012 10:34 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 06 2012 10:18 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 09:32 StreetWise wrote:
Reading through this thread I have several questions:
1. Who is the Judge in this matter. People keep saying he is innocent until proven guilty. Who is going to pronounce him innocent or guilty if not the community as a whole?
2. Secondly, its been mentioned that Spades hacked in BW. How was he caught/proven guilty back then and can the same methods be applied? It's called the court of public opinion and it's real. Just ask OJ Simpson about it. If the community deems him guilty his sponsors will probably not like that. Nobody wants to invest in an OJ Simpson spokesman. The method he got caught in bw by was because bw maphacks didnt have the failsafes sc2 ones have. Also when you've been maphacking for over a decade you learn what not to do. I.E. don't stare at proxy buildings out in the middle of nowhere, but with today's hacks you can do that and nobody knows because of the ol' screen lock. Actually it was because of a safety feature that he was caught in BW. The hack would delete selections of enemy units from the replays, to hide selections of units that the player should not have vision of if he were not hacking. However it is so highly unusual that enemy units were never selected ever(which good players did to check upgrades); it was discovered because of a lack of a normal activity, rather than an abundance of suspicious activity. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=69911Explanation of method When you select units (men/buildings) it is recorded in the replay. However, some map hacks remove the recording of selections on units which are not your own. This happens in any game type (UMS, Melee, etc.) and regardless of the number of players. The reason for this is because previously hackers have been caught by analyzing the replay and finding cases of them clicking on things which they could not see without a map hack. Because selecting an enemy unit is the only way to see things like upgrades, health, build progress, or distinguish buildings that are identical while they build, decent players do this quite often. In a game over 15 minutes, over 99% of the time a good player will have at least one selection of an enemy unit. All of the players in this list have several games played in a row (which are over 15 minutes) and without ever clicking an enemy unit once. While for only one game, there might be a 1% chance of this happening to even a legitimate player, the chance of this happening 5 times in a row is roughly 1 out of 10 billion. People should really read how he got caught in BW, he didnt click any enemy units for 14 entire games, he didnt get caught because MBS or automining or multiple selection, he did got caught because abnormal activity, he was guilty with way less data that what we have. Right now there is a shit ton of abnormal activity, and people still dont believe he hacks lol. i guess you still believe he was innocent in BW. Eh, in BW even his own team investigated into it and reviewed over 150 replays just to be sure over the course of a week. The detection method was probably? more accurate, too. And the entire process wasn't one anonymous tl member posting on a smurf, it was the joint work of many. And it wasn't released prematurely. If you meant 150 replays for all of the hackers caught maybe. The old thread on it lists some of them being caught based on only 10 clickless replays. Spades was at 14.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=69911¤tpage=28#550
|
On June 06 2012 11:40 artanis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:33 Ryder. wrote:On June 06 2012 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time. You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it? Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said, In these replays he very very rarely moves his camera fully into the fog of war. For example, to click on a watch tower, or to scout an enemy base, or to move his army to a hidden position. In his ladder replays he does this ALL THE TIME. In these games he does it less than 10. It does happen a couple times. The case in question he moves his camera slightly downwards where the enemy army is. It is still mostly viewing uncovered map area. This happens often during the replays. The area in question is hiding advancing units that he cannot see. He unsieged his tanks just a second before and immediately sieges them again, BEFORE seeing the army units. This is not standard terran play. His current game knowledge would encourage him to try to advance on the ramp and siege there, or even up the ramp. Instead he sieges to attack the high ground as if he knows what is there. He has a viking available that is already in position to view that high ground, but he has it placed far away so it is only uncovering the very edge of the cliff. Why didn't he put it in a better position? Probably because he can already see the high ground.
Well I don't play terran and I'm no way qualified to know what standard terran play is at that level so I won't address that. I was merely addressing the inconsistency between how the hack apparently works and what actually happens. Either the hack auto-locks or camera in place when you look into FOW (hence you can't look into FOW, which is an issue many people have brought up against Spades), or it doesn't. You can't use both 'he peeks into FOW hence it indicates he is hacking' and 'he never peeks into FOW for any reason which is suspicious, hence it is like he's hacking.
Either way it seems people are still uncertain about how the hack works, since people say it blocks your camera if you try peek into FOW, yet it lets you peek into FOW if the FOW is very near where your current vision is? I don't know, but we need some consistency.
|
On June 06 2012 11:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:
no dude, i'm dead serious, if i did steal the cookie i will give you a straight up "no". i will look you in the eyes and calmly tell you no, and if you press me, i will start to give you the "logical" reasons why i couldn't have stolen it. i will act slightly offended, but understanding. i won't quibble or pretend i don't know what you're talking about, i will just be like:
"nope. sorry"
now, i'm a pretty big liar, lot of practice and what not. but usually if i didn't take the cookie i'll be like "no" and if you don't believe me i'll probably either laugh or get sad and just walk away. either way, i fight WAY harder and WAY more "earnestly" when i am lying.
i get the idea that a lot of liars will give themselves away with their response. i'm telling you that a good liar (and sometimes a truthful person) doesn't necessarily work that way, at least not on the surface. it's like George Castanza in Sienfeld: "Its not a lie, if you believe it." it's not very hard to draw up some (very real feeling but fake) outrage at being accused.
i just don't think we're gonna agree here that every single human being that ever lied was defeatist about it.
You should read the book Blink. Give it a shot.
|
On June 06 2012 11:33 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 11:28 StarStrider wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=215#4295Guys I put a lot of work into this analysis, please take a look at it. The questionable move by Spades at 9:55 is HUGE. The camera does some really strange things too. It is a pretty hefty evidence to be added to the pile of evidences in favor of his guilt, and is very clarifying and reasonable about the issue. Please take the time to review it real quick and tell me your opinion. At least let me know it has been read so I didn't waste my time. You said at 9:55 he peeks into FOW? Hasn't one of the main arguments against Spades is that he never peeks into FOW because the camera lock doesn't allow it? Not sure if I am interpreting your analysis correctly so let me know if I misread what you said,
It wasn't fully in the fog of war, but rather high ground that was unseen. Spades was at the natural, close to the high ground of the main. He had a viking there but it did not actually see the high ground, which was in FoW. Spades unsieges his tanks, and then almost immediately resieges then a quarter second to the left, just as some marines are approaching them on the high ground. It was extremely fishy to watch, especially with how far his tanks move, almost not at all. Positionally it makes absolutely no sense. Unless he could see the marines approaching on the high ground his viking was just far enough away not to see. Or he wanted to advance his tanks closer, unsieges all three, and then suddenly changes his mind and decides that instead of taking a forward position closer to the ramp, that he would suddenly waste time to resiege his tanks and start slowly leapfrogging. Like most things, it can be written off as bad play(indecision), but combined with his consistent other lucky movements is suspicious.
Also, thank you for your writeups, StarStrider, I read it but I'm just too busy with d3 so I didn't respond. But since you're fishing for response, nice job.
|
On June 06 2012 11:25 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 10:45 insanet wrote:On June 06 2012 10:34 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 06 2012 10:18 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 09:32 StreetWise wrote:
Reading through this thread I have several questions:
1. Who is the Judge in this matter. People keep saying he is innocent until proven guilty. Who is going to pronounce him innocent or guilty if not the community as a whole?
2. Secondly, its been mentioned that Spades hacked in BW. How was he caught/proven guilty back then and can the same methods be applied? It's called the court of public opinion and it's real. Just ask OJ Simpson about it. If the community deems him guilty his sponsors will probably not like that. Nobody wants to invest in an OJ Simpson spokesman. The method he got caught in bw by was because bw maphacks didnt have the failsafes sc2 ones have. Also when you've been maphacking for over a decade you learn what not to do. I.E. don't stare at proxy buildings out in the middle of nowhere, but with today's hacks you can do that and nobody knows because of the ol' screen lock. Actually it was because of a safety feature that he was caught in BW. The hack would delete selections of enemy units from the replays, to hide selections of units that the player should not have vision of if he were not hacking. However it is so highly unusual that enemy units were never selected ever(which good players did to check upgrades); it was discovered because of a lack of a normal activity, rather than an abundance of suspicious activity. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=69911Explanation of method When you select units (men/buildings) it is recorded in the replay. However, some map hacks remove the recording of selections on units which are not your own. This happens in any game type (UMS, Melee, etc.) and regardless of the number of players. The reason for this is because previously hackers have been caught by analyzing the replay and finding cases of them clicking on things which they could not see without a map hack. Because selecting an enemy unit is the only way to see things like upgrades, health, build progress, or distinguish buildings that are identical while they build, decent players do this quite often. In a game over 15 minutes, over 99% of the time a good player will have at least one selection of an enemy unit. All of the players in this list have several games played in a row (which are over 15 minutes) and without ever clicking an enemy unit once. While for only one game, there might be a 1% chance of this happening to even a legitimate player, the chance of this happening 5 times in a row is roughly 1 out of 10 billion. People should really read how he got caught in BW, he didnt click any enemy units for 14 entire games, he didnt get caught because MBS or automining or multiple selection, he did got caught because abnormal activity, he was guilty with way less data that what we have. Right now there is a shit ton of abnormal activity, and people still dont believe he hacks lol. i guess you still believe he was innocent in BW. Eh, in BW even his own team investigated into it and reviewed over 150 replays just to be sure over the course of a week. The detection method was probably? more accurate, too. And the entire process wasn't one anonymous tl member posting on a smurf, it was the joint work of many. And it wasn't released prematurely.
In all likelihood, his team was either in the process of or would soon be looking into this accusation. I think any clean organization would want to get to the bottom of any accusation of cheating to either defend their player or keep their team in good standing.
By leaving his team before any statement from them could be made he saves himself from an internal investigation. There's no way to prove this is the reason for him departing, but I cannot see why someone under investigation would spontaneously leave their team if there wasn't something to hide.
I'd also like to add that the identity of the OP is as irrelevant as the accused for anyone trying to find the truth. You don't need to know their identity to realize that something is missing from the show match series that happens in every ladder game. That's quite the statistical anomaly. Far more impressive than the one that got him caught in BW.
On June 06 2012 11:49 dumrednek wrote:
again, has there been a statement in regards to how his game mechanics completely changed in his series vs lucifron and his ladder replays?
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
