|
Hello, all!
It's become quite apparent that many of you are not reading the first post carefully.
Failure to do so in the future will be met with swift punishment. And as always, remember to be civil.
Thanks,
Empyrean. Time stamp: 03:59 KST. |
United States4796 Posts
On May 08 2011 06:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 06:37 TL.net Bot wrote:IdrA was just temp banned for 90 days by Liquid`Nazgul. That account was created on 2004-07-31 20:59:50 and had 11027 posts. Reason: A few days ago, one of our moderators (Chill) banned Idra for 2 days. After the ban, Idra encouraged his fans, through twitter, to harass and spam him on TL. We spoke with Idra and he stated that he does not regret his actions and will not change his behavior on our forums. Thus, we've decided to ban him for 90 days. Regardless of whether he felt the 2-day ban was justified or not, we cannot tolerate a forum user publicly encouraging harassment of our moderators. We understand that this decision may be unpopular among Greg's fans, but we have warned and banned him before about his conduct toward our staff members. We simply cannot accept this sort of abuse and insults directed toward our volunteer staff members who work very hard to make TL what it is. Idra's stream will still be listed in the stream section. Our stream list is an informational resource much like the TLPD, Calendar, or Liquipedia. We believe for these resources to function properly, they must be comprehensive and complete and thus we do not remove banned pro players from them. Feel free to discuss this here as long as things stay civilized. We're going to ban for flames and insults from either side.
This is badass. That is all. (Also, I agree with the ban.)
On May 08 2011 07:40 Mataza wrote:
Why can´t people simply behave? I think maybe Teamliquid should treat everyone equally.
Incontrol had a point in the last state of the game. He said Teamliquid should become a bit more professional as e-sports evolves.
I think you're asking for a lot but I definitely think you have the right point. It's happening though. Looking at where TL is now relative to where it's been in the past (before I joined, and then before StarCraft 2) it's really gotten more professional. Have faith. 
|
|
|
On May 08 2011 07:43 Omoplata wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it. Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Regarding point 5, IdrA had plenty of reason to suspect that Cruncher stream cheated, and was justified in making the accusation. If you see someone standing over a dead body, holding a gun, and bullet wounds in the corpse, you have every right to think they had something to do with the body ending up in that condition. To simply say, "Well, he says he didn't do it, and I didn't see it, so I guess I'm out of line for making the accusation." is stupid. Cruncher had the stream open. Cruncher blind countered IdrA's build. Cruncher isn't half the player IdrA is. Pretty reasonable to suspect he used the stream to his advantage.
Nope. Regarding point 5 I was completely correct. It's been proven cruncher has used the EXACT same build before, on the exact same map, even with players like ret.
|
I fully support this action, I just hope that these 90 days are going to be a lesson learned, and not return back to the usual business after.
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 Omoplata wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:44 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:38 ibreakurface wrote:
Idra is scum, anyone who says he doesn't deserve a ban is being COMPLETELY bias. Looking strictly at the rules idra should have been banned a looooonnnnnngggg time ago. His post quality is horrible considering it is either whining or BMing.
There is no proof of cruncher cheating, he said he had the stream open so he could get into the same game as idra. Calling idra scum isn't worth a ban? Yeah, right, nice moderation. I guess its because you don't have anything against ibreakurface? This. What's good for the goose, and all that. Calling someone scum seems right on the same level as calling them a waste of life to me.
Give the mods some time, they don't read every post live and Chill and Nazgul are probably busy with a lot of angry PMs.
|
I'm with TT1 on Idra.
The sad thing is that perm'ing him would be a defeat for the TL moderation staff, and to newer forumgoers it would make GG.net sound smarter than TL.
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 Kralic wrote:
People are mad they will get over it. Honestly in SC2 IdrA hasn't helped(posting wise) out the community like he did in BW. The ban was long overdue, and it is not like you can't follow IdrA's games on here.
You can't because he refuses to stream.
So because of Chill's decision to ban him, 20K viewers at any one point in time probaby around 35K of the community suffers. Chill needs to suck up his pride and realise that he should just unban him for the sake of the community.
|
You can call idra scum without getting banned lol. TL is so biased. HuK BM´ing idra is all good I guess, ah well Nazgul has to protect his investment in a suck ass team I guess, except Ret, cause he´s a boss.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 howerpower wrote:
Lol wow Chill post this in idra's stream topic:
He's just being childish and spiteful. Not streaming is just his choice.
continue shoving your foot into your mouth until the community ends up somewhere else.
leave then.
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 Frozenserpent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:24 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:21 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:19 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:18 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:15 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:00 Chill wrote:
[quote]
No. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to. But surely that makes it pretty darn obvious that he was cheating?? Surely it doesn't prove anything. Cruncher has dual monitors..i mean you are basically saying "the stream was open right there in front of him but we can't prove his eyes were pointed in that direction" I'm saying we don't act on accusations without evidence. Well i'm giving you evidence short of the direction his eyes were facing He said the stream was muted and minimized. You're saying that there is no evidence of ghosting. But there simply is, which you've admitted yourself. The case for Cruncher cheating is: Cruncher has dual monitors (this I don't personally know, but from the sounds of it is already known). Cruncher has the stream open for the duration of the game. Cruncher had suspicious behavior in-game. The defense for Cruncher is: he says that he had the stream muted and minimized. Is this not quite strong evidence? Suppose Cruncher was caught having maphack on his computer. You ask him about it, and he says, "oh, i just have maphack because I only use it for custom games with friends. I don't use it for ladder." Would you declare that there is no evidence against him then? Suppose Cruncher was taking a test and was caught with a book open with the answers. "Oh, I was just studying for the test beforehand. I wasn't looking at the book." Would you declare that there is no evidence of cheating taking place? Evidently there is some evidence. As for cheating cases go, it's quite a bit of evidence. Maybe you want to trust Cruncher on his word. That's fine. But don't act like there isn't a good reason to think that he ghosted. After all, the evidence for Cruncher ghosting is enough evidence to cause a student to be declared a cheater on a test. And I can understand why mods would want to ban Idra for 90 days after his twitter, but take another real-life scenario that we can relate to. Suppose Idra got arrested by a police officer, and he felt it was unjust. He tweets about the incident and asks people to contact the police officer in question if they feel strongly about it. Would that be cause for Idra to be arrested for a longer period of time? I don't think so. It's fine to be upset about an incident and to urge people to contact a figure of authority. In the end, TL mods can do whatever the hell they like. There isn't a rigorous code they must abide by. They don't have to be consistent in judgments. Personally even though I am a huge Idra fan I can't really fault TL too much for how they handled it. But you have to admit that there is reason to see why some Idra fans think it's unjust. If similar things were to happen in real life (outside of TL), Cruncher would be the one in legitimate trouble and Idra wouldn't be, with the same kind of evidence.
What you're talking about is circumstantial evidence. Nothing of what you claim is evidence he cheated proves he did. What you're saying proves he could, but not that he did.
|
On May 08 2011 07:42 Monolithic- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it. Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Nope. You're wrong. If you look at the character of the accused individual it's definitely something he would do. It's all about saving face after his pompous interview. This will go nowhere because there is no way to prove anything even though it's pretty obvious that CrunCher was cheating. The point is IdrA should not receive a ban for being mad about CrunCher being connected to his stream while they are playing.
Let's look at the facts:
#1: Cruncher was connected to IdrA's stream.
#2: We do not know whether or not Cruncher was ghosting IdrA's stream. If having two monitors means you ghost, most pro's would be banned.
#3: Cruncher might have reacted well to IdrA's all-in bust, but then again, Cruncher didn't scout and prepared defensively for any possible aggression. It is a good reaction to no scouting information. IdrA could have macro'd like a madman (like he can), and possibly taken the game.
#4: IdrA has received mulitiple bans and warnings already, most people would already be permabanned if you look at the moderation of the common TL user. TL staff has acted lenient with IdrA's behaviour, and it's great that they are now strict with the rules.
Cruncher's behaviour should be regarded as childish and BM, yes, but isn't his attitude exactly the same as what IdrA's been doing for years?
And what has happened to 'innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt'
|
On May 08 2011 07:47 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:43 Omoplata wrote:On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it. Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Regarding point 5, IdrA had plenty of reason to suspect that Cruncher stream cheated, and was justified in making the accusation. If you see someone standing over a dead body, holding a gun, and bullet wounds in the corpse, you have every right to think they had something to do with the body ending up in that condition. To simply say, "Well, he says he didn't do it, and I didn't see it, so I guess I'm out of line for making the accusation." is stupid. Cruncher had the stream open. Cruncher blind countered IdrA's build. Cruncher isn't half the player IdrA is. Pretty reasonable to suspect he used the stream to his advantage. Cruncher built zealots when idra was coming with roaches. That is not a counter. building zealots is to pressure against fast 3rd with 4 ling defense, not to defend against roaches.
Ah, so by that 1 bit of knowledge that makes everything else null and void?
|
What kind of actions will be taken against idra if he gets himself banned again after the 90 days?
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 Frozenserpent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:24 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:21 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:19 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:18 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:15 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:00 Chill wrote:
[quote]
No. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to. But surely that makes it pretty darn obvious that he was cheating?? Surely it doesn't prove anything. Cruncher has dual monitors..i mean you are basically saying "the stream was open right there in front of him but we can't prove his eyes were pointed in that direction" I'm saying we don't act on accusations without evidence. Well i'm giving you evidence short of the direction his eyes were facing He said the stream was muted and minimized. You're saying that there is no evidence of ghosting. But there simply is, which you've admitted yourself. The case for Cruncher cheating is: Cruncher has dual monitors (this I don't personally know, but from the sounds of it is already known). Cruncher has the stream open for the duration of the game. Cruncher had suspicious behavior in-game. The defense for Cruncher is: he says that he had the stream muted and minimized. Is this not quite strong evidence? Suppose Cruncher was caught having maphack on his computer. You ask him about it, and he says, "oh, i just have maphack because I only use it for custom games with friends. I don't use it for ladder." Would you declare that there is no evidence against him then? Suppose Cruncher was taking a test and was caught with a book open with the answers. "Oh, I was just studying for the test beforehand. I wasn't looking at the book." Would you declare that there is no evidence of cheating taking place? Evidently there is some evidence. As for cheating cases go, it's quite a bit of evidence. Maybe you want to trust Cruncher on his word. That's fine. But don't act like there isn't a good reason to think that he ghosted. After all, the evidence for Cruncher ghosting is enough evidence to cause a student to be declared a cheater on a test. And I can understand why mods would want to ban Idra for 90 days after his twitter, but take another real-life scenario that we can relate to. Suppose Idra got arrested by a police officer, and he felt it was unjust. He tweets about the incident and asks people to contact the police officer in question if they feel strongly about it. Would that be cause for Idra to be arrested for a longer period of time? I don't think so. It's fine to be upset about an incident and to urge people to contact a figure of authority. In the end, TL mods can do whatever the hell they like. There isn't a rigorous code they must abide by. They don't have to be consistent in judgments. Personally even though I am a huge Idra fan I can't really fault TL too much for how they handled it. But you have to admit that there is reason to see why some Idra fans think it's unjust. If similar things were to happen in real life (outside of TL), Cruncher would be the one in legitimate trouble and Idra wouldn't be, with the same kind of evidence.
Very well said. Exactly how I also feel.
As someone else said. Think of it like this:
Some guy in a cardgame hides aces up his sleaves. After the game the cards in his sleaves are discovered. I dont think the simple claim that he didnt use them would be enough in this case to get him out of trouble.
|
On May 08 2011 07:46 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:42 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:38 PanN wrote:On May 08 2011 07:32 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:27 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:25 Monolithic- wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:20 scrim wrote:On May 08 2011 07:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On May 08 2011 07:07 shmee wrote:
Oh no in my first post I said I completely understood the reason for the ban. I'm not saying it's not right or not in TL's rightful authority to give idra this 90day ban.
My issue is that I feel like both idra and cruncher are in the wrong here. If it's Chill's opinion that stream ghosting isn't a punishable offense, then he doesn't see cruncher as being in the wrong. That's also completely fine, but this sets the precedent that TL can't punish anyone for ghosting a TL member's stream while claiming objectivity. You haven't been reading. Ghosting is not fine. There is no reason to assume Cruncher was ghosting, and even less proof of it. Then go get the fucking replay of the game and analyze it. Don't care enough to do so? Well, then your kind of moderation is horrible because there could be your damn proof but you aren't investigating it. IdrA won't release it? Go ask cruncher, he wasn't doing it after all, he shouldn't have any reason not to release it. Analyse what? What would you possibly find in a replay that would definitively prove that he was watching Idra's stream? You're just being stubborn. It was quite obvious that cruncher knew what idra was doing and he prepared perfectly for it. I don't see how cruncher being connected to idra's stream isn't proof enough. If he wasn't cheating and cared to avoid any accusations he would have closed the stream as soon as he was matched with idra. How is that obvious? I've played and seen hundreds of games where someone seems completely prepared, just because of luck or intuition. Just because someone looks ready doesn't mean they were cheating. I see nothing wrong with using the stream to join at the same time as Idra, then minimizing it. What's the difference between having it open and minimized? The difference is that it's pretty common for people to have dual monitors and CrunCher is OBVIOUSLY not going to admit to cheating. It's totally expected for him to say he had it minimized and muted because it was already proven that he was connected to the stream so it's not like he could deny that part. He lied about what cannot be proven/disproven. Him and IdrA have a grudge and IdrA constantly beats and BMs CrunCher. There's your motive. IdrA had every right to be angry about the situation, and banning him for something like this is totally unreasonable and biased towards CrunCher. Nope. You're wrong. 1.) Yes, cruncher is obviously going to admit to not cheating, but that does not mean he did cheat. That's stupid. 2.) There was nothing to "prove" when it comes to whether or not he was connected to the stream, he admitted he was, it's not like he tried to hide it like you're implying. 3.) Prove that "he lied" before you call him a liar, that's a pretty big claim. 4.) Motive for what? Stream cheating? His motive for connecting to the stream in the first place is the most obvious and logical assumption, he wanted to queue the same time as idrA. 5.) What situation did idrA have to be angry about? He started this whole situation. He assumed Cruncher cheated without evidence, then made an extremely bad manner comment on the forums about him because of said assumption. 6.) Regarding your mindblowingly stupid assumption that TL is biased towards Cruncher, um, that is beyond false. You can find in this vary thread pictures of idrA's ban history, if they have shown any bias at all, it's FOR idra, NOT AGAINST. Nope. You're wrong. If you look at the character of the accused individual it's definitely something he would do. It's all about saving face after his pompous interview. This will go nowhere because there is no way to prove anything even though it's pretty obvious that CrunCher was cheating. The point is IdrA should not receive a ban for being mad about CrunCher being connected to his stream while they are playing. Yeah, well guess what? Your point is wrong. idrA didn't "receive a ban for being mad about cruncher being connected to his stream while they are playing.". idrA received a ban for making an extremely rude remark about a fellow competitor. Also, stop spreading false information, that's really wrong of you. Stop saying he cheated when you admit in the same sentence its unprovable.
I really hope you are never given jury duty or a murderer or rapist might very well walk.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 08 2011 07:45 Frozenserpent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:24 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:22 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:21 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:19 Karthane wrote:On May 08 2011 07:18 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:15 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:13 Chill wrote:On May 08 2011 07:11 pStar wrote:On May 08 2011 07:00 Chill wrote:
[quote]
No. This is honestly ridiculous. How is that ok in anyway? How is what? There's literally zero proof Cruncher was watching Idra's stream while playing. The only proof is that he had the stream open, which he's admitted to. But surely that makes it pretty darn obvious that he was cheating?? Surely it doesn't prove anything. Cruncher has dual monitors..i mean you are basically saying "the stream was open right there in front of him but we can't prove his eyes were pointed in that direction" I'm saying we don't act on accusations without evidence. Well i'm giving you evidence short of the direction his eyes were facing He said the stream was muted and minimized. You're saying that there is no evidence of ghosting. But there simply is, which you've admitted yourself. The case for Cruncher cheating is: Cruncher has dual monitors (this I don't personally know, but from the sounds of it is already known). Cruncher has the stream open for the duration of the game. Cruncher had suspicious behavior in-game. The defense for Cruncher is: he says that he had the stream muted and minimized. Is this not quite strong evidence? Suppose Cruncher was caught having maphack on his computer. You ask him about it, and he says, "oh, i just have maphack because I only use it for custom games with friends. I don't use it for ladder." Would you declare that there is no evidence against him then? Suppose Cruncher was taking a test and was caught with a book open with the answers. "Oh, I was just studying for the test beforehand. I wasn't looking at the book." Would you declare that there is no evidence of cheating taking place? Evidently there is some evidence. As for cheating cases go, it's quite a bit of evidence. Maybe you want to trust Cruncher on his word. That's fine. But don't act like there isn't a good reason to think that he ghosted. After all, the evidence for Cruncher ghosting is enough evidence to cause a student to be declared a cheater on a test. And I can understand why mods would want to ban Idra for 90 days after his twitter, but take another real-life scenario that we can relate to. Suppose Idra got arrested by a police officer, and he felt it was unjust. He tweets about the incident and asks people to contact the police officer in question if they feel strongly about it. Would that be cause for Idra to be arrested for a longer period of time? I don't think so. It's fine to be upset about an incident and to urge people to contact a figure of authority. In the end, TL mods can do whatever the hell they like. There isn't a rigorous code they must abide by. They don't have to be consistent in judgments. Personally even though I am a huge Idra fan I can't really fault TL too much for how they handled it. But you have to admit that there is reason to see why some Idra fans think it's unjust. If similar things were to happen in real life (outside of TL), Cruncher would be the one in legitimate trouble and Idra wouldn't be, with the same kind of evidence.
I feel this pretty sums up what I'm thinking, also. I don't think idra's tweet had a hostile intent, but rather just letting those know what's happening. His tweet seemed to exploded into something it isn't.
|
On May 08 2011 07:48 Pwnographics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 07:45 Kralic wrote:
People are mad they will get over it. Honestly in SC2 IdrA hasn't helped(posting wise) out the community like he did in BW. The ban was long overdue, and it is not like you can't follow IdrA's games on here. You can't because he refuses to stream. So because of Chill's decision to ban him, 20K viewers at any one point in time probaby around 35K of the community suffers. Chill needs to suck up his pride and realise that he should just unban him for the sake of the community.
When a progamer holds a community hostage there is something fucked up with that. It is not like they are going to put a black bar through all the tournament streams he is on.
|
On May 08 2011 07:46 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
I think people need to realize just how little this matters. IdrA posts seldom, even when unbanned. When he does post, while there are some funny or informative ones, most of them are usually nothing special.
He's not banned from tournaments. He's not stopping streaming as some sign of protest. TL, while important to the starcraft community, being banned from posting on the forums does not suddenly mean he's a black sheep or incapable of doing other things. I think that also point to the fact that people think he will, "learn a lesson", are incorrect. There's nothing to learn from IdrA's perspective.
Exactly. 100% correct. Well said.
|
On May 08 2011 07:43 Shockk wrote:
It's been close to a year now that I've been registered here on TL. My opinion thus won't be the most important, but I'd like it to be heard anyway. Over this year I've followed pretty much every SC related headline and much of the pro gamer activity on this board.
Idra should long ago have been permamently banned from this site. There's some truth to the idea of "bad boys making things interesting" - but Idra's not a bad boy. He's a disgrace to this community. We cherish SC/BW and SC2 as games of sportsmanship and manner. This probably won't apply to everyone's battle.net experience, but SC/SC2 still beats the hell out of most other gaming communities in that regard.
Ill-mannered players like Greg spurn everything this community stands for (ecept for skill). And I don't see how his skill and occasional strategy forum input can compensate for the horrible role model he is. His abilities in-game can be respected (I do, when he delivers), but his behaviour should be universally punished instead of being condoned.
Time and time again I see him getting temp banned for things regular players would long have been IP-banned. I don't fathom how, considering his history, he gets away with a temporary ban after mobilizing his fans to harass someone, and especially Chill of all people. All this after he's insulted this site's staff, fellow players and users countless times over the course of years, with a continuity that's just sad.
Do this whole community a favor and ban him. Right now he's once again toying with TL, deliberately breaking rules and getting away with it yet again. A 90 day temp ban might be the the last thing before a permanent ban, but still, he's been given a chance when he has lost the right to receive yet another on a long time ago.
I feel exactly the same. Just look at his ban history, he has the same attitude as 2004 (lol wtf).
Normally you shouldn't prefer a person in your behavior against him, even if he is good in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
