|
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 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor.
Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved".
On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW.
Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o
|
On June 07 2012 09:39 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:28 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 09:26 RezJ wrote:
How would you know anything about the functionality of private hacks if they're truly private? This seems like an excellent question, why are people so sure there are hacks that do the things he's claimed of doing if the functionality is private? Pay to use is what is meant by private. There are many small hacking communities that provide hacks for virtually every major game, however, they come at a price. The difference between using a public hack and a private hack is similar to using TPB vs private trackers. One will get you caught much much easier and the other can get you caught, but not as likely.
I get that, I was being more satirical. Every time somebody has said that the hacks don't work this way, people have claimed it's probably a private(payed) hack that we don't know about. So the goal post of proving it's not a hack continues to move, which kind of confirms what Spades said at the beginning of this thread, there's really no way of proving the negative here.
|
I missed the last 30 pages or so, did anyone explain the drop at 17 minutes or so at the guys unscouted 4th?
|
On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o
But my whole argument was that he DOES in fact look at FOW, whether his units are selected or not
|
On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o
The point is that none of the most popular hacks (public or private) seem to have this functionality. Unless Spades belongs to some underground hacking group or is himself a hacker, it seems unlikely that he'd be deviating from the established paradigm. The only differences between public and private hacks are price and tendency for detection. There may be extra features, there may not be, but they're not secrets. Since the most popular public hack hasn't yet been blacklisted, there's no real reason NOT to use it (as opposed to other hacks), and thus the private variants are not significantly different from it.
|
I haven't read a big percentage of the thread, but I do know someone was accusing spades of stream hacking. If that's true, who does that? People that are comfortable with hacking. Cheating is cheating. Good players rely on their edge of being better than other players... Anyone that cheats should simply be irrelevant. If you played iccup during its first season, you know even the worst players can achieve number 1 and stomp some of the best players in the non Korean scene, when cheating.
If someone still cheats, they're not good and shouldn't be talked about. Find out the truth and move on. I personally don't even know why they get a second chance. The ones that reform and actually become good is probably so small, considering anyone can be "good" if they cheat. Plus, good players don't need to, even if they didn't have morals. I just hate the idea of considering one form of cheating lesser than another. Even so, both should lead to the same result.
|
On June 07 2012 09:44 playa wrote:
I haven't read a big percentage of the thread, but I do know someone was accusing spades of stream hacking. If that's true, who does that? People that are comfortable with hacking. Cheating is cheating. Good players rely on their edge of being better than other players... Anyone that cheats should simply be irrelevant. If you played iccup during its first season, you know even the worst players can achieve number 1 and stomp some of the best players in the non Korean scene, when cheating.
If someone still cheats, they're not good and shouldn't be talked about. Find out the truth and move on. I personally don't even know why they get a second chance. The ones that reform and actually become good is probably so small, considering anyone can be "good" if they cheat. Plus, good players don't need to, even if they didn't have morals. I just hate the idea of considering one form of cheating lesser than another. Even so, both should lead to the same result.
It's worth noting that the same posts which condemns Spades for streamcheating also indicts the entire Korean scene, all of whom have shown that they are not necessarily cheaters when it counts.
|
On June 07 2012 09:42 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o But my whole argument was that he DOES in fact look at FOW, whether his units are selected or not
Then I apologize, I thought you were suggesting something a lot of other dudes in the thread were.
|
How much better does a map hack actually make a player? It seems to me that a gm-level player would never lose a game if given a map hack.
|
Just looked at Zack's replays. I think he just uses straight up production tab/minimap/maphack with his blink hack. The only real suspicious stare I felt was against mayu, right as he started up 8 roaches (roach ling bust attempt). At that one moment he stopped doing everything for a couple seconds, as his screen froze in place. Other locks didn't really feel significant given what the opponent was doing.
Could be a coincidence, since it only happened once, maybe it was surprise since mayu had been spamming drops after his first few lings. I don't know. But, it seems Zack is smart enough to not be camera locking much. Really I don't know why one would need to given all the other amazing features of this maphack wow.
I mean, it's showing me the player cameras on the minimap, where there are clicking, and all that shit holy fuck. Shows their money, has a FULLY functioning observer tab... why would anyone camera lock?
I really don't think camera lock is a reliable way of finding someone, and the more I experience this hack the less I think anyone with half a brain would be utilizing camera hack as much as Spades is allegedly doing so.
Zack's hack matches all the specifications of (hack not named), but I really can't be sure. It is however the case that when he freezes in a way as to possibly be a camera lock, he actually stops performing actions momentarily, consistent with (hack not named). Someone pointed out they are real ID friends, so if Spades hacks as well it wouldn't be unlikely if they used the same hack.
That said, if Spades was camera locking, he's not using any public hack I've found. (hack not named) has the advantage of being super popular, written by a trusted hacker, undetected for 3 months now, comes with a truly absurd number of features, and is free. This I would imagine would be a hacker's hack of choice as far as free public hacks go.
And, if he is camera locking so much as to be noticed with a hack that is anywhere close to (hack not named), then he's just dumb.
Summary - the camera locking that is alleged with Spades looks different than the one with HRGZack. Spades' alleged hack does not match the public hacks I am seeing. They have fundamentally different behavior. HRGZack however does seem to fit within the boundaries of a popular, undetected, and multifeatured hack.
|
That does it;
In the name of hardworking men (and possibly women) of the Teamliquid community and in the name of justice, I, toiletCAT,+ Show Spoiler + hereby concludes, that the accusing portion of the community of Teamliquid.net, have yet to acquire definitive evidence of  Spades hacking. By the power of the burden of proof, Spades is not guilty. + Show Spoiler +
I'm dead serious guys, enough is enough, let's all end it now that we're cool with each other, once and for all.
|
Just would like to say that the "the current public hack doesn't allow actions while in camera lock" was debunked by a hacker about 75 pages ago, around page 190-205, I don't remember exactly. In fact, in this thread, a hacker came out saying he was one of a few select Grandmasters who developed a private hack and have been circulating it, and that he was going to contact someone in TL with names.
I would really like to know what came of this.
This person specifically stated that the camera lock feature could easily be adjusted, and in some verison of the hack I believe was an option to turn it on or off.
But ultimately, if you are going to say that this MOUNTAIN of evidence proving he's a hacker isn't enough, you simply cannot then make the argument that because one hack does not allow this feature that is proof he isn't a hacker. That kind of double think is simply retarded.
There should be zero more posts about the hack in question. It's irrelevant. It's just white knights grasping at straws who know it is incredibly likely Spades is a hacker.
|
Yeah, there's no evidence anymore. It's circumstantial at best, and if it happens again I'd be more likely to call him guilty, but we really have nothing.
|
On June 07 2012 09:42 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o But my whole argument was that he DOES in fact look at FOW, whether his units are selected or not
He looks at the FOW verrrry infrequently and not in normal ways as defined by the control group of his ladder games (and 95% of other pro's ways of looking at FOW). For instance, in his ladder games, and in any other foreign or korean pro game, the screen is scrolled into FOW to look at enemy base frequently. The screen is scrolled around just outside your army location, followed by scan drops. The lack of scouting in these games, the lack of normal screen movements, the fact that a scan drops THEN he looks at it, the fact that he blindly moves his army time and again into watchtowers and risky positions that just happened to not contain a siege line seven games in a row.....it just doesn't add up.
For each fishy incident you can come back and say 'well since we can't definitively prove this isn't just a coincidence in normal play we can chock that up to luck or gosu senses'. HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU SAY THIS before you must start to question whether these things can happen back to back over and over in several different series? How many inconsistencies can you see in these items as compared to the normalities of his ladder pack mechanics before you start to say it can't be mere coincidences that many times in a row?
Where is the line people? How many more fishy incidents do you need? We have 7 games with fishy incidents here, and 3 games of incidents there, then a few random 1v1's where similar weird things happened.
What is the number? 20? 30? How many games with unexplainable coincidences and uncharacteristic mechanics does it take before you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?
Or is there just never ever enough suspicious activity that will make up your mind, until you see it with your own eyes or are giving the positive results of a nonexistent hack scanner finding it to be true?
Short of him confessing which it's obvious he has no intention of doing, you must rely on the circumstantial evidence that has been provided
And then again my question becomes: where is that line? How much more shady shit do you need to see before you decide? How many more games? Say a number.
EDIT: to the inevitable response of "I can look at x number of games from any random pro and break it down and overanalyze it and find fishy shit all over it if I look hard enough"
To that I say: Fucking Do It already. Prove it to me that these things can be pulled out of thin air.
The very fact that we can't do it with the same player's ladder games should tell you something.
|
On June 07 2012 09:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:44 playa wrote:
I haven't read a big percentage of the thread, but I do know someone was accusing spades of stream hacking. If that's true, who does that? People that are comfortable with hacking. Cheating is cheating. Good players rely on their edge of being better than other players... Anyone that cheats should simply be irrelevant. If you played iccup during its first season, you know even the worst players can achieve number 1 and stomp some of the best players in the non Korean scene, when cheating.
If someone still cheats, they're not good and shouldn't be talked about. Find out the truth and move on. I personally don't even know why they get a second chance. The ones that reform and actually become good is probably so small, considering anyone can be "good" if they cheat. Plus, good players don't need to, even if they didn't have morals. I just hate the idea of considering one form of cheating lesser than another. Even so, both should lead to the same result.
It's worth noting that the same posts which condemns Spades for streamcheating also indicts the entire Korean scene, all of whom have shown that they are not necessarily cheaters when it counts.
To be fair, his accusation of korean stream cheating was based on hearsay (through Artist) whereas he apparently knew personally that Spades stream cheated.
I have mixed feelings. I was very confident that Spades was a hacker from watching the replays, and while more exact methods of detecting hacks have failed that just means the methodologies are incorrect. Then again, if the many suspicious situations have really been explained away (the drops, the army movements, the hellions, the lack of scouting, etc) I would like to know about it (without reading through 50 or so pages that I missed).
|
On June 07 2012 09:51 JustTray wrote:
Just would like to say that the "the current public hack doesn't allow actions while in camera lock" was debunked by a hacker about 75 pages ago, around page 190-205, I don't remember exactly. In fact, in this thread, a hacker came out saying he was one of a few select Grandmasters who developed a private hack and have been circulating it, and that he was going to contact someone in TL with names.
I would really like to know what came of this.
This person specifically stated that the camera lock feature could easily be adjusted, and in some verison of the hack I believe was an option to turn it on or off.
But ultimately, if you are going to say that this MOUNTAIN of evidence proving he's a hacker isn't enough, you simply cannot then make the argument that because one hack does not allow this feature that is proof he isn't a hacker. That kind of double think is simply retarded.
There should be zero more posts about the hack in question. It's irrelevant. It's just white knights grasping at straws who know it is incredibly likely Spades is a hacker.
If it's a private hack I can't say. If you're talking about a public hack, then as far as I can tell he's full of shit. But, he's referring to a private hack so I have no competence to comment on it.
He edited his post to "rainbow unicorns" or something like that btw ==
However I think some of the more technical-related evidence of Spades hacking may be bogus, and we should stick with the analytical evidence from the games themselves. Keep to that which is most evident and least improbable.
|
Lastly, as any masters or above player knows, maphack is very easy to feel out in a game. That's why the vast majority of pro players think this is a maphack, and all the players defending him are probably silver or lower, or simply don't play the game at all.
In a game of hidden information you simply don't make the kinds of moves Spades made.
|
On June 07 2012 09:52 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:42 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o But my whole argument was that he DOES in fact look at FOW, whether his units are selected or not He looks at the FOW verrrry infrequently and not in normal ways as defined by the control group of his ladder games (and 95% of other pro's ways of looking at FOW). For instance, in his ladder games, and in any other foreign or korean pro game, the screen is scrolled into FOW to look at enemy base frequently. The screen is scrolled around just outside your army location, followed by scan drops. The lack of scouting in these games, the lack of normal screen movements, the fact that a scan drops THEN he looks at it, the fact that he blindly moves his army time and again into watchtowers and risky positions that just happened to not contain a siege line seven games in a row.....it just doesn't add up. For each fishy incident you can come back and say 'well since we can't definitively prove this isn't just a coincidence in normal play we can chock that up to luck or gosu senses'. HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU SAY THIS before you must start to question whether these things can happen back to back over and over in several different series? How many inconsistencies can you see in these items as compared to the normalities of his ladder pack mechanics before you start to say it can't be mere coincidences that many times in a row? Where is the line people? How many more fishy incidents do you need? We have 7 games with fishy incidents here, and 3 games of incidents there, then a few random 1v1's where similar weird things happened. What is the number? 20? 30? How many games with unexplainable coincidences and uncharacteristic mechanics does it take before you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? Or is there just never ever enough suspicious activity that will make up your mind, until you see it with your own eyes or are giving the positive results of a nonexistent hack scanner finding it to be true? Short of him confessing which it's obvious he has no intention of doing, you must rely on the circumstantial evidence that has been provided And then again my question becomes: where is that line? How much more shady shit do you need to see before you decide? How many more games? Say a number.
I'd say if I see another series in the future with the same inexplicable behaviour which simultaneously contrasts with his performance at MLG/playstyle there, I'd be more inclined to call him a hacker. As it is, though...it's not really conclusive at all. It's not even close to it, honestly. He doesn't look NEARLY as shady as that Zack guy, even forgoing the obvious Blink hacks.
|
On June 07 2012 09:50 toiletCAT wrote:That does it; In the name of hardworking men (and possibly women) of the Teamliquid community and in the name of justice, I, toiletCAT, + Show Spoiler + hereby concludes, that the accusing portion of the community of Teamliquid.net, have yet to acquire definitive evidence of Spades hacking. By the power of the burden of proof, Spades is not guilty. + Show Spoiler +I'm dead serious guys, enough is enough, let's all end it now that we're cool with each other, once and for all.
You joined TL yesterday, and all your posts are in this and related threads. It's fair that you have an opinion, but I wouldn't expect it to be given much weight given this.
It's like if I said 'I think he hacks cuz my friends' friends' friend thought so and I think that guy is smart, and I think I'm smart too'. I can say it, it can be my opinion, but it's probably not worth much to the majority of people reading it given the context.
|
On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:52 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:42 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:40 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:30 toiletCAT wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the Flux Capacitor. Nice try, what you're saying is "if he's hacking he must be using [known-maphack], and [known-maphack] doesn't work that way, therefore it doesn't make sense!", and I'm saying "X occurs, therefore a hack which causes X is likely involved". On June 07 2012 09:29 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:28 RezJ wrote:On June 07 2012 09:25 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:22 RezJ wrote:
Guys.
GUYS.
Spades might not have used the hack you found with google.
Incredible, right?
Drop that argument already. Hacks are not limited to what you read on some forum or readme. You're doing exactly what I said in my post. It is unreasonable to accuse someone of one thing that he did, and when that's debunked, you conveniently say, "well that's because tha hxors are so 1337 they can do anything and hide every hacking activity." At what point do we draw the line and say, "well, our theory was wrong, let's look somewhere else." I"m talking strictly about the whole FOW argument Let me explain then: I'm saying he might have been able to lock his camera without being as limited as the public hacks are. Then how is FOW an evidence that he's hacking, if, as you propose, the so-called hack can cover all grounds in regards to FOW. Not sure I understand what you're asking, but the fact that the fog never comes into his vision could very well be used as evidence for cheating (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there an inconsistency here? o.o But my whole argument was that he DOES in fact look at FOW, whether his units are selected or not He looks at the FOW verrrry infrequently and not in normal ways as defined by the control group of his ladder games (and 95% of other pro's ways of looking at FOW). For instance, in his ladder games, and in any other foreign or korean pro game, the screen is scrolled into FOW to look at enemy base frequently. The screen is scrolled around just outside your army location, followed by scan drops. The lack of scouting in these games, the lack of normal screen movements, the fact that a scan drops THEN he looks at it, the fact that he blindly moves his army time and again into watchtowers and risky positions that just happened to not contain a siege line seven games in a row.....it just doesn't add up. For each fishy incident you can come back and say 'well since we can't definitively prove this isn't just a coincidence in normal play we can chock that up to luck or gosu senses'. HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU SAY THIS before you must start to question whether these things can happen back to back over and over in several different series? How many inconsistencies can you see in these items as compared to the normalities of his ladder pack mechanics before you start to say it can't be mere coincidences that many times in a row? Where is the line people? How many more fishy incidents do you need? We have 7 games with fishy incidents here, and 3 games of incidents there, then a few random 1v1's where similar weird things happened. What is the number? 20? 30? How many games with unexplainable coincidences and uncharacteristic mechanics does it take before you stop giving him the benefit of the doubt? Or is there just never ever enough suspicious activity that will make up your mind, until you see it with your own eyes or are giving the positive results of a nonexistent hack scanner finding it to be true? Short of him confessing which it's obvious he has no intention of doing, you must rely on the circumstantial evidence that has been provided And then again my question becomes: where is that line? How much more shady shit do you need to see before you decide? How many more games? Say a number. I'd say if I see another series in the future with the same inexplicable behaviour which simultaneously contrasts with his performance at MLG/playstyle there, I'd be more inclined to call him a hacker. As it is, though...it's not really conclusive at all. It's not even close to it, honestly. He doesn't look NEARLY as shady as that Zack guy, even forgoing the obvious Blink hacks.
Actually his play is really fucking shady lol, all technical-related "evidence" aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.radiospringshotel.com.au/home/images/stories/toilet-cat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/8cIq07QUm6FbJ7YTcH6rXRpwM7aNPQFtbX*Qzoj7wB1VKJSHsbCEFMieUIL2FifoGH-Iqa1Cnj8EFB3Po*iUe3di2*moNQaQ/Judge_Hammer.jpg)
