|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 18 2009 05:53 TreK wrote:
I just dont think the line between judging if someone plays 100% or if its a freewin is judgeable, altho you can go with opinions, but it will never be fact.. i didnt exactly mean it wasnt cheating tho, it kind of came out wrong.
So incontrol must be awesome up on your high horse ofc
If by high horse you mean I never hacked I guess it is great up here. You should.. wait?
This is the internet. We don't need a court of law and 100% proof doesn't really exist. If a person has an account with the SAME IP that transfers to some random account then magically loses 3 games ALL WITH THE SAME IP we are going to go ahead and rule out that someone in that house is a secret SCBW gosu that was previously undiscovered even by the other gamer and the games were legit.
Trek this is like your 10th year on the scene, you should really know by now we don't go by 100% we go by huge overwhelming evidence which puts us at like 98%.
|
I share my PC with boxer
prove i don't!! 
|
On December 18 2009 06:40 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 05:53 TreK wrote:
I just dont think the line between judging if someone plays 100% or if its a freewin is judgeable, altho you can go with opinions, but it will never be fact.. i didnt exactly mean it wasnt cheating tho, it kind of came out wrong.
So incontrol must be awesome up on your high horse ofc If by high horse you mean I never hacked I guess it is great up here. You should.. wait? This is the internet. We don't need a court of law and 100% proof doesn't really exist. If a person has an account with the SAME IP that transfers to some random account then magically loses 3 games ALL WITH THE SAME IP we are going to go ahead and rule out that someone in that house is a secret SCBW gosu that was previously undiscovered even by the other gamer and the games were legit. Trek this is like your 10th year on the scene, you should really know by now we don't go by 100% we go by huge overwhelming evidence which puts us at like 98%.
Ofcourse! But i thought it was obvious i wasnt talking about people abusing with the same IP.
I meant, for example, that if u asked to play me and i happened to like u and thought u had a great shot at getting top 48, who is to know if i were gonna play my 100% or not? and i think everyone in the top layer of starcraft knows that if u dont give close to 100% it isnt very easy to beat top gamers, then how can one decide if it was abuse or not...thats was my point.
I think its great that abusers and others get kicked out, or else this tournament would have no credibility i guess, i just meant that there is a grey zone that is always impossible to catch.
|
We're working on some rules for future TSL's that pulls grey zone stuff into black zone stuff so that there can't be any confusion or suspicion. It's really not impossible but you'll hear about them by the time TSL3 comes along 
|
Osaka27177 Posts
Basically we are going to clone Nazgul 1200 times and send him to each players house. He will sit behind you while you play, eat all your food, and discuss MMA with you in his awesome Dutch accent.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
People weren't banned for merely winning against friends. That raised suspicion and no amount of rule setting will remove that suspicion. The things that lead to bans were the offrace play, time of games, length of games etc.. yes it is all circumstantial and at the end of the day it cannot be 100% but people should know better. If I 3-0'd artosis minutes before the ladder ended people would have the SAME suspicions with me. If artosis played Zerg people would "KNOW" that it was abuse.
Also I think we are getting ahead of ourselves.. TSL didn't "ban" dreiven they removed games they thought could have been played out of ill intent. They could be wrong so they went with a lesser penalty..
|
|
|
On December 14 2009 01:30 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2009 01:29 meRz wrote:
This is freaking disgusting.
There were a lot of players who were close or even in the top48 who fell out because they tried to keep up with the cutoff. Had these players not abused the cutoff would've never been this high and those people would've probably qualified.. ya actually thats the worst part of the whole thing. theres quite a few people who were 9500ish and kept playing, losing points, because the cutoff was inflated by these people. really really sucks for them.
Yea this.
At least somebody's day gets made by qualifying when they thought they wouldn't, it's just unfortunate that it's not the players it probably would have been.
edit: removed part of post
|
Well ye, but in almost every big tournament there will be bans and people who cant come.. so if you reset or stop playing when you are very close to qualifying then that doesnt seem very smart.
Altho i can see that most people(including me ofc) didnt think that this many would get banned for abusing
|
|
|
Ya i can understand TreK too.
|
|
|
haha :D why make me blush 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
