|
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 13:33 figq wrote:
Unless he's used to saying stuff like "all-in / bm" to see how the opponent responds in chat or something, I find it really very difficult to explain, except with some kind of cheat. I hope Spades clarifies later, if possible; to me it makes no sense.
It's could be like Poker players calling an opponents cards out-loud at a table to get a read on them. But yeah, it's a reach.
|
On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him.
1. so watched hundreds of replays, and the only point you bring up is APM, how low apm is completely different to high apm?, in what way does it change everything?, it doesnt change that much, he probably micro a bit less in ladder, but saying is completely different is false.
On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
on another note, innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, should and must hold true in these type of situations. .
2. sorry but "innocent until proven guilty" doesnt apply to rapers, pedophiles, ex-cheaters, because you have a past.
On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:show me a replay where he obviously reacts to something that he could only have known about with hacks (example the protoss maphacker from the thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342704 HRGZack blindly building his mass cannons to defend the allin) show me something that cant be explained away without map hacks and i will gladly take back my defense of spades but as it stands im not convinced. i still think hes innocent. .
3. so you think he is still innocent in BW right?because thats what you saying. because he didnt get cought with what you call "100% proof" he got caught based on statistics. you think we need "100% proof" but we dont. so dont come asking "100% proof" not gonna happen.
|
On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him.
This is probably because MLG has converted their APM numbers in the player profiles to real-time, rather than Blizzard time. Converting 384 real-time APM back to Blizzard-time APM (384 / 1.38) gives 278. It also may be the case that one of your samples is using APM while the other is using EAPM (which are apparently reversed due to a bug).
|
On June 07 2012 13:33 psychotics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:25 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 13:16 dvorakftw wrote:
btw, I keep getting confused. I keep hearing that never looking in fog of war is clear proof he is cheating expect for all the times he does look at fog of war which are also always evidence of cheating. Do I have that right? The way he looks FOW so infrequently is what is telling. The way he doesn't screen scroll into fog of war as is normal for any player of his level. The way his scans land then he looks instead of the reverse. The way that, on the couple of occasions he actually did look into FOW, he was moving perfectly to avoid or hit something invisible. Forget the way the hack works. Lets just talk about this. And then the way he looks at FOW in his ladder games (normally, like any good player would) and the way he looks at FOW in his shady games (abnormally and scarcely) is in stark contrast. That is the crux. No progamer with ultra-fluid, hardened mechanics of screen scrolling suddenly decides not to use them. No progamer with safe and useful scouting habit in ladder games decides not to use them in important games vs respected opponents. thats actually not true the part about scouting... there was a string of games in GSL where MKP didnt scout at all, (he faced alot of builds designed to punish that fact and lost alot of games because of it) but on his stream he regularly scouts when playing on ladder. when ur playing against an opponent u know is better then u (spades admitted he felt he was the lesser player) it is often common to cut corners (ie not scouting to get better econ early) and also to do a ton of research into the opponents play style and try play against their trends (i believe spades said he studied his opponent and knew his trends on certain maps and played accordingly in his build decisions). lack of scouting is not evidence of anything in a match between 2 well known players because they can be studied and educated guesses can look like blind counters. just something to keep in mind.
That's not what he means...he's not talking about strategy or gamesense or scouting, he's talking about the most fundamental of fundamental mechanics that don't suddenly change overnight.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37065 Posts
Damn 200 votes. Appreciate u guys for voting 
Poll: How well have you kept up with this thread?I've only read the pros' comments (84) 35% I've read the whole thing and I keep coming back for new posts (74) 31% I've read bits of this thread here and there (56) 24% I started reading the whole thing, realized how much I would actually have to read, and gave up (17) 7% Other (specify) (6) 3% 237 total votes Your vote: How well have you kept up with this thread? (Vote): I've read the whole thing and I keep coming back for new posts
(Vote): I've only read the pros' comments
(Vote): I've read bits of this thread here and there
(Vote): I started reading the whole thing, realized how much I would actually have to read, and gave up
(Vote): Other (specify)
|
On June 07 2012 13:33 psychotics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:25 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 13:16 dvorakftw wrote:
btw, I keep getting confused. I keep hearing that never looking in fog of war is clear proof he is cheating expect for all the times he does look at fog of war which are also always evidence of cheating. Do I have that right? The way he looks FOW so infrequently is what is telling. The way he doesn't screen scroll into fog of war as is normal for any player of his level. The way his scans land then he looks instead of the reverse. The way that, on the couple of occasions he actually did look into FOW, he was moving perfectly to avoid or hit something invisible. Forget the way the hack works. Lets just talk about this. And then the way he looks at FOW in his ladder games (normally, like any good player would) and the way he looks at FOW in his shady games (abnormally and scarcely) is in stark contrast. That is the crux. No progamer with ultra-fluid, hardened mechanics of screen scrolling suddenly decides not to use them. No progamer with safe and useful scouting habit in ladder games decides not to use them in important games vs respected opponents. thats actually not true the part about scouting... there was a string of games in GSL where MKP didnt scout at all, (he faced alot of builds designed to punish that fact and lost alot of games because of it) but on his stream he regularly scouts when playing on ladder. when ur playing against an opponent u know is better then u (spades admitted he felt he was the lesser player) it is often common to cut corners (ie not scouting to get better econ early) and also to do a ton of research into the opponents play style and try play against their trends (i believe spades said he studied his opponent and knew his trends on certain maps and played accordingly in his build decisions). lack of scouting is not evidence of anything in a match between 2 well known players because they can be studied and educated guesses can look like blind counters. just something to keep in mind.
Okay. Above I strike the underlined - anything I said about varying scouting patterns. Now please redigest the post without it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2012 13:32 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. on another note, innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, should and must hold true in these type of situations. show me a replay where he obviously reacts to something that he could only have known about with hacks (example the protoss maphacker from the thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342704 HRGZack blindly building his mass cannons to defend the allin) show me something that cant be explained away without map hacks and i will gladly take back my defense of spades but as it stands im not convinced. i still think hes innocent. Maybe Zack just felt like the opponent was going to do it, or knew what their particular playstyle on that map was, or he saw something that we aren't aware of, or he just made an awful play and it happened to get lucky and work, or xyz? Since this is the type of response that continues to be given to wildly justify insane coincidence decisions from Spades, I'll not bother providing the multitude of examples again. The reason you are so quick to write off Spades' decisions is because he hasn't been caught with a definitive blink hack proof yet. Yet, there are some things that happen in Spades games that are just as much lucky coincidence as some things in Zack games.
give me a break u cant write off zacks play as lucky coincidence. if u actualy watch the game you'd see that he had 0 vision of anything that could have hinted in the slightest to the attack coming, random lucky chance can happen ill give u that, sure he could have just thrown down the cannons for no reason and got lucky but come on get real hes a GM player thats not something that a GM player just does, but thats has nothing to do with Spades play i have yet to see anything as blatantly obvious that makes me feel that without a reasonable doubt Spades cheated. i dont care if he cheated in BW that holds on baring on the present. show me a something that is blatant and obvious and ill will take back my statements in Spades defense
|
On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:31 Antylamon wrote:On June 07 2012 06:19 Spades wrote:
[quote]
how so? we are laughing at how stupid this whole situation is, and all the "evidence" gets debunked shortly after. I'm in a chat with 20 people, including pro gamers. IF YOU CANT TELL, WE ARE ROLLING OUR EYES AND JOKING ABOUT THIS. I AM NOT A HACKER CAPABLE OF HACKING THE PENTAGON OR CREATING UNSTOPPABLE HACKS, I AM NOT A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER Oh, wow, I just found out you are Brian Francis. I thought you got someone else to write the program for a sec there  Also, your reaction to the entire thing is soooo suspicious. I would've raged at everyone in sight if this happened to me, but you've only done that to a couple people. Can you address that? I don't want to call you out with certainty until I can be 110% sure. We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective".
KEY. FUCKING KEY. Bravo sir.
|
On June 07 2012 13:40 psychotics wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2012 13:32 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. on another note, innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, should and must hold true in these type of situations. show me a replay where he obviously reacts to something that he could only have known about with hacks (example the protoss maphacker from the thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342704 HRGZack blindly building his mass cannons to defend the allin) show me something that cant be explained away without map hacks and i will gladly take back my defense of spades but as it stands im not convinced. i still think hes innocent. Maybe Zack just felt like the opponent was going to do it, or knew what their particular playstyle on that map was, or he saw something that we aren't aware of, or he just made an awful play and it happened to get lucky and work, or xyz? Since this is the type of response that continues to be given to wildly justify insane coincidence decisions from Spades, I'll not bother providing the multitude of examples again. The reason you are so quick to write off Spades' decisions is because he hasn't been caught with a definitive blink hack proof yet. Yet, there are some things that happen in Spades games that are just as much lucky coincidence as some things in Zack games. give me a break u cant write off zacks play as lucky coincidence. if u actualy watch the game you'd see that he had 0 vision of anything that could have hinted in the slightest to the attack coming, random lucky chance can happen ill give u that, sure he could have just thrown down the cannons for no reason and got lucky but come on get real hes a GM player thats not something that a GM player just does, but thats has nothing to do with Spades play i have yet to see anything as blatantly obvious that makes me feel that without a reasonable doubt Spades cheated. i dont care if he cheated in BW that holds on baring on the present. show me a something that is blatant and obvious and ill will take back my statements in Spades defense
dude in the first part he was being facetious.. to illustrate how absurd the counterargument is.. i think you need to step out
|
On June 07 2012 12:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 12:42 Bogeyman wrote:
The next time he:
1. Doesn't scan as his army walks that direction (16:00) despite having good reason to suspect an army is around there
2. Goes to his main and doesn't look at his army at all while he selects buildings for no reason, as he can't macro whatsoever since he's maxed already.
So the question is: what kind of gnome took control of Spades brain at that moment? Never thought about this but yeah, that's a good point.... I can't think of too many pros who regularly stare at and spam buildings while maxed, and I can't think of any times I remember him doing it in his ladder games.
Macroing while 200/200 would be a pretty good sign of suspicious play.
|
On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:31 Antylamon wrote:On June 07 2012 06:19 Spades wrote:
[quote]
how so? we are laughing at how stupid this whole situation is, and all the "evidence" gets debunked shortly after. I'm in a chat with 20 people, including pro gamers. IF YOU CANT TELL, WE ARE ROLLING OUR EYES AND JOKING ABOUT THIS. I AM NOT A HACKER CAPABLE OF HACKING THE PENTAGON OR CREATING UNSTOPPABLE HACKS, I AM NOT A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER Oh, wow, I just found out you are Brian Francis. I thought you got someone else to write the program for a sec there Also, your reaction to the entire thing is soooo suspicious. I would've raged at everyone in sight if this happened to me, but you've only done that to a couple people. Can you address that? I don't want to call you out with certainty until I can be 110% sure. We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective".
That depends I guess, does he smell like fuel or urine, is he the only person that's wet, is his umbrella wet? There are so many extra tests I can perform and get information from. I can also look outside and see if it's raining, which seems pretty impressive doesn't it?
I'm sorry, but interestingly, courts also often use juries and these are the people you have to convinced of this perponderance of evidence, and I guess I'm just not convinced by the 'eye witnesses'.
|
On June 07 2012 13:36 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. This is probably because MLG has converted their APM numbers in the player profiles to real-time, rather than Blizzard time. Converting 384 real-time APM back to Blizzard-time APM (384 / 1.38) gives 278. It also may be the case that one of your samples is using APM while the other is using EAPM (which are apparently reversed due to a bug).
if u watch the MLG games u can see a clear change in pure speed from his stream, u wouldn't even need to see the numbers to recognize the change. and it makes sense im sure pros will agree that they dont play 100% on ladder games. why play all out in ladder? you cant play at 350+ apm for multiple hours a day and not be seriously running the risk of some sort of injury. and no it isnt converted to realtime they put the apm meters up in games sometimes and the numbers for DRG are almost always mid 300's
|
On June 07 2012 13:40 psychotics wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 07 2012 13:32 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. on another note, innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, should and must hold true in these type of situations. show me a replay where he obviously reacts to something that he could only have known about with hacks (example the protoss maphacker from the thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342704 HRGZack blindly building his mass cannons to defend the allin) show me something that cant be explained away without map hacks and i will gladly take back my defense of spades but as it stands im not convinced. i still think hes innocent. Maybe Zack just felt like the opponent was going to do it, or knew what their particular playstyle on that map was, or he saw something that we aren't aware of, or he just made an awful play and it happened to get lucky and work, or xyz? Since this is the type of response that continues to be given to wildly justify insane coincidence decisions from Spades, I'll not bother providing the multitude of examples again. The reason you are so quick to write off Spades' decisions is because he hasn't been caught with a definitive blink hack proof yet. Yet, there are some things that happen in Spades games that are just as much lucky coincidence as some things in Zack games. give me a break u cant write off zacks play as lucky coincidence. if u actualy watch the game you'd see that he had 0 vision of anything that could have hinted in the slightest to the attack coming, random lucky chance can happen ill give u that, sure he could have just thrown down the cannons for no reason and got lucky but come on get real hes a GM player thats not something that a GM player just does, but thats has nothing to do with Spades play i have yet to see anything as blatantly obvious that makes me feel that without a reasonable doubt Spades cheated. i dont care if he cheated in BW that holds on baring on the present. show me a something that is blatant and obvious and ill will take back my statements in Spades defense
"if u actualy watch the game you'd see that he had 0 vision of anything that could have hinted in the slightest to the attack coming, random lucky chance can happen ill give u that"
Hmmm now where have I heard this before. Ah yes, in pros giving their take on the incidents of Spades.
It's the same scenario. It's the same kind of random chances with the same kind of uncannily bad play that actually turns out to be an amazing blind reaction.
|
On June 07 2012 13:46 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:31 Antylamon wrote:[quote] Oh, wow, I just found out you are Brian Francis. I thought you got someone else to write the program for a sec there Also, your reaction to the entire thing is soooo suspicious. I would've raged at everyone in sight if this happened to me, but you've only done that to a couple people. Can you address that? I don't want to call you out with certainty until I can be 110% sure. We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective". That depends I guess, does he smell like fuel or urine, is he the only person that's wet, is his umbrella wet? There are so many extra tests I can perform and get information from. I can also look outside and see if it's raining, which seems pretty impressive doesn't it? I'm sorry, but interestingly, courts also often use juries and these are the people you have to convince of this perponderance of guilt, and I guess I'm just not convinced by the 'eye witnesses'.
You're just in the audience. The pro jury is already deliberating.
|
On June 07 2012 13:29 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 12:10 Bogeyman wrote:
And my take is that the not stimming part doesn't necessarily mean anything, but his army movement combined with not scanning combined with just leaving the army and staring at his main is so crazy and stupid that I don't see any reasonable explanation beyond him hacking. Without any other of the odd things seen in the game and in other games, it's not enough to condemn him, but even by itself it's a complete mind-fuck for anyone who understands TvT. Oh oh oh! I have another question. The look at the base is supposed to represent him looking somewhere in Fog of War right? Where do you think he is looking and what information is he getting? He just saw LucifroN's army a minute earlier so it's not going to be that different and as you said he has a lot of scans so the theory is he is too dumb a hacker to scan about where he needs to hide the cheating
I'm not sure he's screen locked at all to be honest. He might be, but then it would have to be a map hack that features a screen lock that e.g. when activated moves vision to a hotkey of your choice, or your latest selected building hotkey or something or just something that enables selection of buildings while looking at the fog of war or even does that automatically while the screen lock is active to avoid reaching 0 APM while looking around. But we can't possibly know, right?
I don't really know what he would want to look at in the fog of war, it could be a lot of things. Perhaps if the middle mouse-button (scroll wheel) activates screen lock (like the popular hack does, right?) he could from the moment he's looking in the fog of war where the medivacs are and to where he's sending his army (it's right under the medivacs, I forgot to mention that) click the mouse wheel to pan up to the left to check exactly how out of position Lucifron's army is or see how many tanks and marines are there so he more easily can make a good decision when he reaches the medivacs at which point he scans the rest of the army as he sees it approaching to justify his action, which was moving back instead of stimming forward to kill medivacs because they had moved too close to the rest of the army.
But this is all speculation. Why are you so curious about my opinon on this?
|
On June 07 2012 13:48 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:46 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:
[quote]
We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective". That depends I guess, does he smell like fuel or urine, is he the only person that's wet, is his umbrella wet? There are so many extra tests I can perform and get information from. I can also look outside and see if it's raining, which seems pretty impressive doesn't it? I'm sorry, but interestingly, courts also often use juries and these are the people you have to convince of this perponderance of guilt, and I guess I'm just not convinced by the 'eye witnesses'. You're just in the audience. The pro jury is already deliberating.
Seriously, TL admins/writers must be compiling something huge as TT1 suggested.. there's no way this thread would remain open if they weren't intrigued/informed by pro opinion
|
On June 07 2012 13:46 psychotics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:36 Severian wrote:On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. This is probably because MLG has converted their APM numbers in the player profiles to real-time, rather than Blizzard time. Converting 384 real-time APM back to Blizzard-time APM (384 / 1.38) gives 278. It also may be the case that one of your samples is using APM while the other is using EAPM (which are apparently reversed due to a bug). if u watch the MLG games u can see a clear change in pure speed from his stream, u wouldn't even need to see the numbers to recognize the change. and it makes sense im sure pros will agree that they dont play 100% on ladder games. why play all out in ladder? you cant play at 350+ apm for multiple hours a day and not be seriously running the risk of some sort of injury. and no it isnt converted to realtime they put the apm meters up in games sometimes and the numbers for DRG are almost always mid 300's
Did you watch this game yet?
On June 07 2012 13:33 figq wrote:The "precog" case really gets me. Replay here: http://www.sc2-replays.net/en/replays/8460-goldenlight-vs-spades,dual-sightWatch 7:00-7:30 from Spades vision. He doesn't really see anything with the hellions, I don't think he even sees the count of the cocoons at the natural, because in the replay he spends a hell of a lot time in his base again at this crucial scouting moment. He then immediately declares the all-in of his opponent. To me this is much stronger evidence than the rest, because he announces his knowledge verbally, not by actions. Whereby his actions could be just random or lucky and not really a sign of knowledge; here he declares his knowledge. Unless he's used to saying stuff like "all-in / bm" to see how the opponent responds in chat or something, I find it really very difficult to explain, except with some kind of cheat. I hope Spades clarifies later, if possible; to me it makes no sense.
|
On June 07 2012 13:46 psychotics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:36 Severian wrote:On June 07 2012 13:20 psychotics wrote:
one thing i would like to add to this is i'd like to take a chance to try and give some feedback against the people saying "oh his streamed ladder games he played different then the show match, he must be hacking because no one can change play-styles like that" this is completely false actually. i have watched hundreds of games streamed by players and have also watched hundreds of games by the same players in MLG thru the First person cam view. and i can say that many people would be surprised to know that many players play completely different on stream then in tournaments. DRG for example plays alot slower on ladder then in tournaments same with stephano. theres a notable difference in the APM and speed they play at. in MLG DRG averages something like 350+ apm (i think last time i saw the number was 384) his stream he plays in the mid 200's. does this prove that spades was cheating, no, does it prove he wasn't, no but it does mean that just because his play looked different isnt necessarily evidence against him. This is probably because MLG has converted their APM numbers in the player profiles to real-time, rather than Blizzard time. Converting 384 real-time APM back to Blizzard-time APM (384 / 1.38) gives 278. It also may be the case that one of your samples is using APM while the other is using EAPM (which are apparently reversed due to a bug). if u watch the MLG games u can see a clear change in pure speed from his stream, u wouldn't even need to see the numbers to recognize the change. and it makes sense im sure pros will agree that they dont play 100% on ladder games. why play all out in ladder? you cant play at 350+ apm for multiple hours a day and not be seriously running the risk of some sort of injury. and no it isnt converted to realtime they put the apm meters up in games sometimes and the numbers for DRG are almost always mid 300's
Speed and screen habits are not even in the same league of comparison to me. Everyone has their fast days and their slow days you are correct. But I've never known people to completely change the way they look at the map. This can't be explained by being tired like sluggish actions can.
|
On June 07 2012 13:42 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:31 Antylamon wrote:[quote] Oh, wow, I just found out you are Brian Francis. I thought you got someone else to write the program for a sec there Also, your reaction to the entire thing is soooo suspicious. I would've raged at everyone in sight if this happened to me, but you've only done that to a couple people. Can you address that? I don't want to call you out with certainty until I can be 110% sure. We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective". KEY. FUCKING KEY. Bravo sir.
By these standards, George Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder.
Pursued and confronted an unarmed man? Check. History of discrimination/profiling of Black people? Check. Motive? Check. Documented history of instability/belligerence/overagressiveness? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations (i.e, going into hiding for a month before being arrested)? Check.
Oh yeah, did he shoot and kill a guy? Check.
As long as you ignore or discount all alternative explanations, he must be guilty.
Not defending Spades. He's probably a hacker. I just hope people keep searching for proof.
|
On June 07 2012 13:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2012 13:42 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 13:33 Daniel C wrote:On June 07 2012 12:49 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:39 StarStrider wrote:On June 07 2012 12:37 hinnolinn wrote:On June 07 2012 12:35 MuseMike wrote:On June 07 2012 06:36 Spades wrote:On June 07 2012 06:35 Reptilia wrote:On June 07 2012 06:34 Spades wrote:
[quote]
We are clearly joking around here We are clearly trying to find objectively whether you are guilty or innocent.* Theres maybe 10 people objectively finding if I am guilty or innocent, I am not naive enough to think most of this is objective. I appreciate the objective people, and I hope they find results, one way or the other. Objective people would realize you have cheated in the past and look at it as such. The giant conspiracy to ruin you is far fetched. Objective people would look for objective evidence rather then the subjective evidence we have now. There is too much evidence of all shades for you to continue to use this easy broadbrushing dismissal. Please tell me you're joking, there is only one shade here, and it's most definitely not anything falsifiable, which would be objective. I'm pretty sure nothing would convince you outside of a video camera behind Spades showing him cheating or the use of super-human hacks such as auto-blink. What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? If a man walks into a room soaking wet with an umbrella on a stormy day, would you draw the conclusion that it's raining outside?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict somebody in the court of law if the evidence is strong enough. Previous hacking history? Check. Motive? Check. Meteoric rise to #1 GM? Check. Clear differences in mechanics/camera movement in his showmatch and ladder replays? Check. Suspicious game sense? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations? Check.
While none of these evidences are decisive on their own, a jury may decide if combined evidence in this case is strong enough for a conviction (and according to the jury of pro-players, it is). It ain't a smoking gun but you can't throw everything out the window just becase it's "subjective". KEY. FUCKING KEY. Bravo sir. By these standards, George Zimmerman should be found guilty of murder. Pursued and confronted an unarmed man? Check. History of discrimination/profiling of Black people? Check. Motive? Check. Documented history of instability/belligerence/overagressiveness? Check. Defeatist attitude towards accusations (i.e, going into hiding for a month before being arrested)? Check. Oh yeah, did he shoot and kill a guy? Check. As long as you ignore or discount all alternative explanations, he must be guilty. Not defending Spades. He's probably a hacker. I just hope people keep searching for proof.
Found guilty of murder? Nah that's not fair as far as proof required to compare murder to this case. But arrested until convicted? Hell yeah that's enough evidence to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
