|
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 10:02 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:59 Shiori wrote:On June 07 2012 09:57 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The very fact that NRGzack is willing to use an obvious blink hack means he simply has no caution about getting caught. What is your standard for judging careful hackers? How can we surmise that someone is hacking except through examining subtle inconsistencies in the games in question vs the ones on ladder as we have done with Spades? It could be the case that there really is no way to tell when someone is hacking, and that we'll just have to deal with that until Blizzard figures out how to make it less of a liability. IMO, the accusations are just way too weighty and devastating to be made on such little evidence. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we probably won't get a super conclusive proof no matter what, but we might just have to bit the bullet and say "yeah, it's possible to hack sufficiently well that we can't discern it from plausibly innocent play." There's nothing shameful about that. Are you kidding me? Lol if all this is "little evidence" Then I would love to see a case that got alot of evidence. Jesus crist man how much more do you need?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342704
Here you go, there's a thread which seems to have a lot of evidence which is falsifiable, that as far as I know has yet to be shown false. That's what we're looking for.
|
On June 07 2012 10:03 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 10:01 caradoc wrote:On June 07 2012 09:59 Shiori wrote:On June 07 2012 09:57 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The very fact that NRGzack is willing to use an obvious blink hack means he simply has no caution about getting caught. What is your standard for judging careful hackers? How can we surmise that someone is hacking except through examining subtle inconsistencies in the games in question vs the ones on ladder as we have done with Spades? It could be the case that there really is no way to tell when someone is hacking, and that we'll just have to deal with that until Blizzard figures out how to make it less of a liability. IMO, the accusations are just way too weighty and devastating to be made on such little evidence. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that we probably won't get a super conclusive proof no matter what, but we might just have to bit the bullet and say "yeah, it's possible to hack sufficiently well that we can't discern it from plausibly innocent play." There's nothing shameful about that. If we had a large enough pool of games where he was suspected hacking vs. a large enough pool of games where he was confirmed not hacking, there should theoretically be a way of statistically analyzing behaviour patterns that is reliable. Whether this is at all practical or not is another question completely. There'd probably need to be a crapload of variables controlled here to do a proper statistical analysis with a low sigma.
That's one of the issues. In BW it came down to a single variable-- clicking on a unit. Here it isn't so simple. The thing that immediately comes to mind is fog of war perusing and utilization of scans, but these aren't completely reliable.
Other options that come to mind have a manual side to them-- you'd need to tag instances manually, and it becomes unfeasible-- things like behavioural changes in reaction to information that is not available. A few replays I looked at featured him stopping in base panning just prior to a drop on him that he shouldn't know about. Given that I noticed it a couple of times suggests that it's a habit and it would become statistically significant if analyzed over hundreds of games. This is obviously not feasible, and it isn't a method that is exportable to other players, so it's not really worth the effort.
Theoretically there should be something though.
|
On June 07 2012 09:59 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:57 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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. The very fact that NRGzack is willing to use an obvious blink hack means he simply has no caution about getting caught. What is your standard for judging careful hackers? How can we surmise that someone is hacking except through examining subtle inconsistencies in the games in question vs the ones on ladder as we have done with Spades? Apparently, in SC1, the hackers did not click on the enemy unit once for 15 games. We don't have anything like that here
i dont know how you dont see the pattern? , in SC1 the posibility of a semi Pro, playing a game without selecting enemy units exist but is very very low, yeah sure 1 or 2 games could be luck, but 14 games is not normal , is abnormal behavior and the veredict was that he is guilty of hacking.
right now, he plays entire 7 games using only minimap, and hes ladder games he plays and entire different camera behavior, is not normal. add to that a shitload of fishy play. the veredict should be obvious.
100% proof wanst required. if you want it , well thats you. but dont say its required to prove someone is hacking.
|
On June 07 2012 10:02 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:59 jacksonlee wrote:On June 07 2012 09:57 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. The very fact that NRGzack is willing to use an obvious blink hack means he simply has no caution about getting caught. What is your standard for judging careful hackers? How can we surmise that someone is hacking except through examining subtle inconsistencies in the games in question vs the ones on ladder as we have done with Spades? Apparently, in SC1, the hackers did not click on the enemy unit once for 15 games. We don't have anything like that here So what do we have? All I am hearing is "too bad, so sad, nothing can be done to indite a hacker. Hackers, if you're not using an obvious tell like auto production or auto blink, then you can't be caught, so hack away with no worries!"
Frankly, we have to wait until that "hero" someone makes a foolproof method. Contrary to what you've been saying, SC1 has shown that there can be a method that is 100% foolproof. This situation is no different than back then.
|
Ok, for any detractors -- please explain why he (almost) never looks at the FoW in the bo7 ? Yea I saw him do it when he needed to expand, and maybe one odd time during each match, but this is still suspiciously low in frequency. Look at his MLG replays or his stream vods and even on the same maps he's looking into the fog of war for rallies and scouting all the time, basically as frequent as one would expect.
I've viewed the replays myself and Catz analysis and been following this thread, and I'm pretty convinced. mid masters one season, #1 GM the next.. okay.
|
On June 07 2012 10:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:59 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 09:57 Shiori wrote:On June 07 2012 09:55 EtherealDeath wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Some parts are shady, some parts are really not. Initially when I read the OP's post I was convinced that it was all shady, but pretty much all of it has plausible explanations. Even Illusion's analysis rested rather heavily on some particular siege moments which have been shown to have plausible motives. Each incident has plausible explanations....by itself. They would be plausible if they were isolated and sparse. They are too frequent in all the same series to be just dumb luck and 'trying a different way of playing' compared to the ladder control group. But let's be honest: probably like 80% of the initially marked "shady moments" were actually not shady at all. You could have a billion of them in succession and it still wouldn't be shady. Look at the sheer number of so-called questionable actions called to attention in this thread. How many of them were not summarily disregarded by the first pro to walk in? Maybe 5? Even Illusion's analysis is pretty dismissive of a lot of the accusations, chalking them up to bad play or mistakes. So yeah, we have some shady shady moments like the weird siege on CK and that moment on TDA, but I wouldn't say we have enough jarringly shady moments to make a conclusion like the one you're saying, especially since now a decent rationalization of the CK siege is being developed. I think we need to come to terms with the fact that we basically have not got enough evidence to convict Spades. We can't say for certain that he's innocent, but that is the default position.
I think it is unfair to say 80%. I agree that many have been explained away, maybe even a majority, but I don't think the vast majority of them are completely natural and sensible happenstances and decisions. And when you add up each incident with all the others and don't try to treat each point as it's own separate proof, you are shown a much more shady picture than just keeping this and throwing out that.
They CAN be chalked up to bad play or mistakes in dismissiveness, but SHOULD they when there are just so many of them, things that just flat DON'T OCCUR in the control group of ladder games?
|
I think I will add to this thread, from my perspective and from my background.
My relevant Background -
I have been a gamer since prior to 56k modems were on the market. I was the captain of the top team in arguably the first MMOFPS game Aliens Online, a Kesmai and later EA product. I was rated as one of the top 10 players of that game at the time, till it was shut down by EA in 1998.
I was also a Kesmai and EA employee, in that I was an in-game operator. My job was to regulate and enforce the terms of service - in plain English catch hackers in the act, and ban them in real time. Ultimately, the two together meant I was semi-pro. I was paid, though not well, to work in the game in which I also was a top player, and one served the others purposes and vice versa. I'd often have two games open for each of my logins, and I'd bounce back and forth from my player account and my Operator account.
I also been professionally employed as a private Bailiff in the Province of Ontario, as well as a paralegal.
As players, we all hate cheaters. We loathe them. As a group, we lynch them, and have witch hunts. Accusations fly. In some cases, teams and organisers will take action based on accusations alone. I do not think this is a fair way to deal with players that "might" cheat.
To this, I apply an analogy. Is it right or legal, or both, for a company to fire an employee because an individual was accused - and you can read this as little as a detective suspecting foul behaviour and making a nasty phone call to the employer, or as much as being arresting and formally charged for an offence, and the detective doing the same phone call? To that, I say no, it is not legal, nor is it right. The employer should allow the justice system to take its course, and a firm guilty verdict to be handed down. Once that negative verdict is passed, can the employer lawfully and rightfully fire the employee - and even then I could argue that if the conviction was not related to the duties and tasks of the employee in any way, it should not apply and the employee should retain their employment.
Applying my Operator experience, we were not able, not by rules or the like but by ethics and our own personal code, to ban a player for suspected hacking. It had to be obvious, provable, and blatant hacking. We had to see it with our own eyes. At the top level of play, what might appear as hacking to a lesser player, is very well legitimate play to a high speed player with good intuition and skills.
Having played Broodwar at a C- level of play, and now a platinum level SC2 (darn I wish my fingers would move faster, like years ago in my prime), and my AO experience, I recognise that a good pro level player has the ability to whip up what might seem as magical or perceived as hacking. That isn't always the case. Some say that scouting is important and I agree - mostly it is. But the absence of action also is an indicator of an alternative action. If one scouts a basic starter build, a push or attack could be assumed to come at a certain time. If that attack does not come, a secondary push might be the logical conclusion.
We've seen replays posted and reviewed. A GM, Master, or Diamond level player will often boast that their rank affects their ability to review a replay, and to be frank - it matters not above the rank of Gold. Decent game sense, build orders, and the ability to OBSERVE are the most important things. Not ones rank and ability as a player to take wins vs. losses.
I've personally watched some replays, and there is "some" fishy stuff. Nothing that I would deem conclusive clear evidence of hacking. I'm not sold 100%, but unless I see a replay where there is NO DOUBT that a hacker is doing so, I won't pass judgement. I wouldn't now, or if I was an in game Operator from days of old either. But there is enough that I'd be watching closely.
Regarding this specific instance for player Spades:
Spades has clearly said he has never hacked in Starcraft 2. He also states that he streams 90% of his ladder games. There is proof that in cases where the player 'could' have hacked to gain advantages for tournaments in an online fashion to gain entry into LAN tournaments, that it does not appear that he did to gain wins or an advantage. Spades has decent results, but in some cases poor results at times when he could have hacked, IF he was a hacker. A top level player hacking would take wins and place consistently well in online tournaments where he is not being physically observed. Spades does exhibit some game play that is suspicious, and is out of the ordinary, which is grounds for investigation and research, but I do not feel it is sufficient to blatantly accuse a player of hacking in a public and popular forum.
Regarding the OP's true identity. If the OP is willing to make a post so aggressively to discredit another player, that person should do so in the public eye. Hiding behind a false account to avoid scrutiny is not in good conscience. IF TL knows that the OP individual has a primary account, I feel that it should be revealed. Just as the severity of the accusation and its consequences are to the player, the same should apply to the accuser. I base this argument in a level of Fairness. Is it FAIR for an anonymous individual to accuse an individual of cheating, and in the case where the accusation fails, they can hide behind that secondary and false account to avoid negative attention, repercussions, credibility to their primary name, meanwhile the accused player receives the same automatically simply from the accusation, and not by any clear and rightful verdict? I do not feel it is. We are raised in society largely with the ideas of fairness, truths, and the right to face ones accuser, and I do feel that applies, even on a private forum. That said - the key part is the final edge in that last sentence. TL is a private forum, privately operated, and as such, it is up to the TL moderation staff to make their decision(s), and ours as its patrons to accept it.
So, unless a replay pops up where hacking is clear and decisive, I say let the man attend some LANS, and show us what he can really do. Take games on his opponents, or at the very least let him do what many only dream of doing at a LAN - try to win - on his own merit, in the public spotlight.
Remember - suspicion is not conclusive.
|
On June 07 2012 08:04 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 08:00 revel8 wrote:On June 07 2012 07:49 mcleod wrote:
Did anyone else notice from Spades stream session yesterday that he has HRGzack on his real friends list? Another known hacker
had to lol at this Really? Where and when is this visible? http://www.twitch.tv/kingspades/b/32050138018:45 Zack Allen (HRGzack) Hmm, real ID friends with a proven hacker.
by this logic about 99% of the people on this forum are some kind of criminal because all of us know atleast one shop lifter, drug dealer etc. Who cares who his friends are? I'm friends with a builder, doesn't make me one....
|
On June 07 2012 10:08 Chessz wrote:
Ok, for any detractors -- please explain why he (almost) never looks at the FoW in the bo7 ? Yea I saw him do it when he needed to expand, and maybe one odd time during each match, but this is still suspiciously low in frequency. Look at his MLG replays or his stream vods and even on the same maps he's looking into the fog of war for rallies and scouting all the time, basically as frequent as one would expect.
I've viewed the replays myself and Catz analysis and been following this thread, and I'm pretty convinced. mid masters one season, #1 GM the next.. okay.
The fog of war thing is open to a manual statistical analysis. If someone did the stats on minimap usage in the bo7, and was able to compare it with say 20-30 games that are confirmed hack-free, that would be pretty damn strong evidence. The thing is, this isn't amenable to scripting. bleh. who wants to go over that many replays manually?
|
This witch hunt needs to stop. I have seen spades play and watched him and Future practice on streams and there is by no mean a hint of him map hacking. The guy knows what he is doing, he is extremely smart and knows the mechanics of this game greatly.
Also why do I feel like normal timings not being mentioned in this threat something interesting? I watch 90% of the tournys out there and notice one thing, people react to timings. Like Stephano will blindly put roaches in a drop area when a drop was on the way and no overloard picked up on it. Even casters where like "ok I don't know how he knew that was coming besides he is that good and probably knows when to expect a protoss drop play to come and the time it comes." Hell even I myself at my lower ranking levels will do the same cause I can get an odd feeling "ok, he hasn't done anything with what he has out and what he knows I have, a drop must be coming or dual pronged attack." and blindly try to be safe with it. If a drop didn't come, well that sucks but if so, great to catch it. Or as someone said before, his "100% counters" are interesting if a 3 CC expand is countered by a... 3CC as well. Or the 5th game vs Lucifron, when Spades just got udderly destroyed.
Also, why do I keep hearing this "once a hacker, he needs to leave forever." Well if that is the case, one player comes to mind. TT1. WHY the hell is there so much love for him then? TT1 is a fav. of mine too, but the hypocrisy I have heared through this situation and his situation is just sad to see. I don't want this amazing eSports community we have .had. turn to a baseball effect where anyone does good "is on roids or corked bat."
I always had in my mind that the StarCraft community was a friendly, helpful community. This is just sad to see how much hatred really seems to linger. These kind of accusations needs to be closely watched, it doesn't matter if someone truely hacks or not, but in a huge community, that is all that is needed to ruins someone's reputation and all the things they have achieves through hard work and determination. If you catch the person guilty, great! You succeeded in clearing that up to not run into again with that person. If you call them on false claims, doesn't matter, you ruined what he worked so hard to obtain. And for what did anyone gain out of that situation?
|
On June 07 2012 10:11 CarpetmoOse wrote:
This witch hunt needs to stop. I have seen spades play and watched him and Future practice on streams and there is by no mean a hint of him map hacking. The guy knows what he is doing, he is extremely smart and knows the mechanics of this game greatly.
Also why do I feel like normal timings not being mentioned in this threat something interesting? I watch 90% of the tournys out there and notice one thing, people react to timings. Like Stephano will blindly put roaches in a drop area when a drop was on the way and no overloard picked up on it. Even casters where like "ok I don't know how he knew that was coming besides he is that good and probably knows when to expect a protoss drop play to come and the time it comes." Hell even I myself at my lower ranking levels will do the same cause I can get an odd feeling "ok, he hasn't done anything with what he has out and what he knows I have, a drop must be coming or dual pronged attack." and blindly try to be safe with it. If a drop didn't come, well that sucks but if so, great to catch it. Or as someone said before, his "100% counters" are interesting if a 3 CC expand is countered by a... 3CC as well. Or the 5th game vs Lucifron, when Spades just got udderly destroyed.
Also, why do I keep hearing this "once a hacker, he needs to leave forever." Well if that is the case, one player comes to mind. TT1. WHY the hell is there so much love for him then? TT1 is a fav. of mine too, but the hypocrisy I have heared through this situation and his situation is just sad to see. I don't want this amazing eSports community we have .had. turn to a baseball effect where anyone does good "is on roids or corked bat."
I always had in my mind that the StarCraft community was a friendly, helpful community. This is just sad to see how much hatred really seems to linger. These kind of accusations needs to be closely watched, it doesn't matter if someone truely hacks or not, but in a huge community, that is all that is needed to ruins someone's reputation and all the things they have achieves through hard work and determination. If you catch the person guilty, great! You succeeded in clearing that up to not run into again with that person. If you call them on false claims, doesn't matter, you ruined what he worked so hard to obtain. And for what did anyone gain out of that situation?
so you think he is stupid enough to hack on stream? lol. thats way more insulting than saying he maphacks.
|
On June 07 2012 09:41 zefreak wrote:
I missed the last 30 pages or so, did anyone explain the drop at 17 minutes or so at the guys unscouted 4th?
The best explanation that I know of (which is my own explanation) is the following:
he scans what would normally be the 3rd before sending his medivacs, and sees it's empty. He's obviously preparing a drop at that point, and since the 3rd is empty he assumes the protoss must have expanded elsewhere, and the bottom right isn't a bad place to hide your 3rd (though the protoss should've put a pylon to spot for drops coming from the left, but that's irrelevant). He's very quick about it. The base is probably there, but he can't know. It can't really be a two-base push either. The timing is way too late, so there has to be another base, or the protoss is just bad.
A bit odd is at 15:14 when he plants his 4th CC in his nat. At that point he only knows the protoss has two bases (but in fact he has his 4th on it's way), and can assume there's a 3rd somewhere. And I suppose he's fairly well defended with 4 tanks, ~20 marauders almost 30 marines and soon 2 thors. Also, he can infer that there was no ultra fast 3rd base, because of the fast colossus drops with speed, so maybe he's confident that there can't be a really powerful 3-base push coming.
In short: he can assume there is a 3rd somewhere, and it's not where he scanned, so it's not a bad guess that it's in the bottom right. It's still sort of odd. Would you normally scan the 3rd before you send the drop? Not as likely as scanning just before your drop gets there, so you know if there's any defense in position. That way you don't let the opponent know that you know where it is and may consider a drop. Either way it's possibly legit, yet still a suspiciously random occurrence.
|
On June 07 2012 10:12 insanet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 10:11 CarpetmoOse wrote:
This witch hunt needs to stop. I have seen spades play and watched him and Future practice on streams and there is by no mean a hint of him map hacking. The guy knows what he is doing, he is extremely smart and knows the mechanics of this game greatly.
Also why do I feel like normal timings not being mentioned in this threat something interesting? I watch 90% of the tournys out there and notice one thing, people react to timings. Like Stephano will blindly put roaches in a drop area when a drop was on the way and no overloard picked up on it. Even casters where like "ok I don't know how he knew that was coming besides he is that good and probably knows when to expect a protoss drop play to come and the time it comes." Hell even I myself at my lower ranking levels will do the same cause I can get an odd feeling "ok, he hasn't done anything with what he has out and what he knows I have, a drop must be coming or dual pronged attack." and blindly try to be safe with it. If a drop didn't come, well that sucks but if so, great to catch it. Or as someone said before, his "100% counters" are interesting if a 3 CC expand is countered by a... 3CC as well. Or the 5th game vs Lucifron, when Spades just got udderly destroyed.
Also, why do I keep hearing this "once a hacker, he needs to leave forever." Well if that is the case, one player comes to mind. TT1. WHY the hell is there so much love for him then? TT1 is a fav. of mine too, but the hypocrisy I have heared through this situation and his situation is just sad to see. I don't want this amazing eSports community we have .had. turn to a baseball effect where anyone does good "is on roids or corked bat."
I always had in my mind that the StarCraft community was a friendly, helpful community. This is just sad to see how much hatred really seems to linger. These kind of accusations needs to be closely watched, it doesn't matter if someone truely hacks or not, but in a huge community, that is all that is needed to ruins someone's reputation and all the things they have achieves through hard work and determination. If you catch the person guilty, great! You succeeded in clearing that up to not run into again with that person. If you call them on false claims, doesn't matter, you ruined what he worked so hard to obtain. And for what did anyone gain out of that situation? so you think he is stupid enough to hack on stream? lol. thats way more insulting than saying he maphacks.
IS there a reason why he definitely wouldn't hack on stream? assuming one could have a hack open on another desktop that wasn't being streamed, I don't see a reason that would definitively disqualify it.
The reason I bring it up is that if we would want to statistically analyze replays, being able to confirm one way or another whether a hack is being used would help the signal to noise ratio.
|
FFS people need to stop trying to white knight this kid if they haven't even watched the replays. The evidence is pretty conclusive to me. Watch Catz's analysis http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912
His troop movement spells H A C K S
100% hacker IMO.
|
On June 07 2012 10:10 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 08:04 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 08:00 revel8 wrote:On June 07 2012 07:49 mcleod wrote:
Did anyone else notice from Spades stream session yesterday that he has HRGzack on his real friends list? Another known hacker
had to lol at this Really? Where and when is this visible? http://www.twitch.tv/kingspades/b/32050138018:45 Zack Allen (HRGzack) Hmm, real ID friends with a proven hacker. by this logic about 99% of the people on this forum are some kind of criminal because all of us know atleast one shop lifter, drug dealer etc. Who cares who his friends are? I'm friends with a builder, doesn't make me one....
I simply stated the facts and said hmmm. You implied the logic.
|
and 272 pages of "productive" discussion later........
+ Show Spoiler +has there been any more forward moving discussion about the hack; and not spades?
|
On June 07 2012 10:16 metbull wrote:and 272 pages of "productive" discussion later........ + Show Spoiler +has there been any more forward moving discussion about the hack; and not spades?
Plenty.
|
On June 07 2012 10:05 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 10:01 JustTray wrote:On June 07 2012 09:57 Shiori wrote:On June 07 2012 09:55 EtherealDeath wrote:On June 07 2012 09:54 Shiori wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Some parts are shady, some parts are really not. Initially when I read the OP's post I was convinced that it was all shady, but pretty much all of it has plausible explanations. Even Illusion's analysis rested rather heavily on some particular siege moments which have been shown to have plausible motives. I don't want you to take offense to this, but what league are you? I mean, what is the highest league in starcraft 2 that you have EVER been? You make a lot of posts declaring this evidence isn't damning, when myself, someone who has played maybe 5k games of master level of every race, including numerous games versus hackers, conclusive. I would just like to know what basis of experience you are basing your opinion. My guess is very little to none other than your very opinionated beliefs. I would also be interested in this. Would everyone simply state their race and league and games played on their home realm real quick? Just so we can get an idea of the level of understanding we have of the game? Terran Rank44 Masters NA 3200+ games played.
1900+ Ork, 1900+ Chaos, 1800+ random, top inf/switcher. Wait which game are we talking about now again? I'm chobo at SC2, was top 200/top 100 EU (random, always said my race) a couple of times in beta, snoozed my way into master a couple of times since then but didn't have the time to go pro so don't see any point in playing that much. If I had 3200+ games I'd probably be pro though 
Massing games doesn't necessarily mean understanding of the game. Rank doesn't mean understanding of the game has been achieved.
I watch a lot of sc2 when I've got time and I've got excellent game-sense. I've also seen plenty of hacker witch-hunts throughout several different games, helped debunk a lot of them as well. I started out pretty much convinced Spades was guilty again, but the evidence isn't there. Basically all that's left right now is "I wouldn't have done that" and a bunch of lucky moves (which were mixed in with at least as many unlucky/poor moves which lost him the series).
|
On June 07 2012 10:16 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 10:10 emythrel wrote:On June 07 2012 08:04 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 08:00 revel8 wrote:On June 07 2012 07:49 mcleod wrote:
Did anyone else notice from Spades stream session yesterday that he has HRGzack on his real friends list? Another known hacker
had to lol at this Really? Where and when is this visible? http://www.twitch.tv/kingspades/b/32050138018:45 Zack Allen (HRGzack) Hmm, real ID friends with a proven hacker. by this logic about 99% of the people on this forum are some kind of criminal because all of us know atleast one shop lifter, drug dealer etc. Who cares who his friends are? I'm friends with a builder, doesn't make me one.... I simply stated the facts and said hmmm. You implied the logic.
Wow this is most stupid thing I have ever read in my life. If you are going to be snide about this kind of thing, people should really just flat out ignore you.
|
On June 07 2012 10:13 Bogeyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 09:41 zefreak wrote:
I missed the last 30 pages or so, did anyone explain the drop at 17 minutes or so at the guys unscouted 4th? The best explanation that I know of (which is my own explanation) is the following: Show nested quote +he scans what would normally be the 3rd before sending his medivacs, and sees it's empty. He's obviously preparing a drop at that point, and since the 3rd is empty he assumes the protoss must have expanded elsewhere, and the bottom right isn't a bad place to hide your 3rd (though the protoss should've put a pylon to spot for drops coming from the left, but that's irrelevant). He's very quick about it. The base is probably there, but he can't know. It can't really be a two-base push either. The timing is way too late, so there has to be another base, or the protoss is just bad.
A bit odd is at 15:14 when he plants his 4th CC in his nat. At that point he only knows the protoss has two bases (but in fact he has his 4th on it's way), and can assume there's a 3rd somewhere. And I suppose he's fairly well defended with 4 tanks, ~20 marauders almost 30 marines and soon 2 thors. Also, he can infer that there was no ultra fast 3rd base, because of the fast colossus drops with speed, so maybe he's confident that there can't be a really powerful 3-base push coming. In short: he can assume there is a 3rd somewhere, and it's not where he scanned, so it's not a bad guess that it's in the bottom right. It's still sort of odd. Would you normally scan the 3rd before you send the drop? Not as likely as scanning just before your drop gets there, so you know if there's any defense in position. That way you don't let the opponent know that you know where it is and may consider a drop. Either way it's possibly legit, yet still a suspiciously random occurrence.
Actually I might have done the same thing with that drop. Former GM toss myself. I wouldn't be the type to go about hiding expands, but that's where it would be more likely than not, or in the nat thereof, in which case a drop in the main stimming into the nat would do the job pretty handily as well. There's much better evidence from gameplay imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
