[Stream] IdrA - Page 106

On May 07 2011 09:06 PanN wrote:


My point was that you said that this allegation should be dropped because of their score together.

That's absolutely, 100%, dumb. My point stands.

On May 07 2011 09:08 charlieso wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't understand why this is such a big deal? There are people in this page writing pages about the issue... This stems from a single ladder game. A LADDER GAME. Chill out.

On May 07 2011 09:08 charlieso wrote:Chill out.

On May 07 2011 09:09 PanN wrote:


If you can't see why it's an issue there is something wrong. It's an issue because the allegation is suggesting that a respected player cheated vs a respected player. That's what this comes down to. So of course it is important or enticing to the community. Whether it's a ladder game or not has nothing to do with what happened.

On May 07 2011 09:02 PanN wrote:


Yeah everyone, just drop the fact that cruncher might have cheated or didn't simply because of their score against each other, that will settle everything. Don't worry everyone, 1Eris1 has this one figured out.

Do you think before you post?

On May 07 2011 08:43 Frozenserpent wrote:


Well, personally I don't think we should condemn Cruncher all too much because, in the end, it is ladder and not too big of a deal, considering the circumstances.

However, for this kind of situation I really have to consider a scenario that is similar. The main piece of evidence is that Cruncher had the stream on during the duration of the game. The main piece of evidence for this is that Cruncher's justin.tv account was signed on for the duration of the game. Unfortunately, I don't have a screenshot proving this. However, I was watching this live, and it was simple for me to check this.
In addition, there were many other people in the chat who were also witness to this.

I think that we can safely conclude that Cruncher did have the stream on for the duration of the game. Even though we don't have a screenshot showing so directly, we have many witnesses that attest to this, and in real life, that is valid and strong evidence. An example would be, 30 people watch Person X vandalize the wall in front of them. Even though no one recorded Person X doing so, Person X would be found guilty because of those 30 people.

In this case, Cruncher is found "guilty" of having the stream on during the duration of the game.

In addition, there is some circumstantial evidence of irregular build order, throwing down a 2nd gateway instead of a cybernetics core is the big one, and chronoboosting 2 gateways simultaneously for 2 zealots to arrive before the all-in hits. That, by itself, isn't compelling evidence.

The question, then, is how strong of evidence is being on the stream?

One similar scenario I can think up of is cheating in an academic environment. Specifically, an important test. Maybe college entrance exams or something like that, or the final of a class.

Imagine if you are a teacher. You see a student taking the exam for your final. You see that the student has a book furtively open. It's placed in such a way that it is possible for the student to see the book. On the book page are essentially answers to the test. When you confront the student about the issue, he says that he was studying for the test right before test time, and during test time, he put the book away, and that he wasn't using the book to cheat.

When you look at the student's test, you find that the test has the correct answers for all of the information that the book gave. This is circumstantial evidence, analogous to Cruncher having the right "answer" to Idra's all-in.

As a teacher, do you think the student was cheating or not? I think the easy answer is that the standard case would be that the teacher will say the student is cheating, the student would be sent to the dean's office. The student would fail that class. And the student would have a academic record describing the incident. Or, at least, that would be what happens in my school.

So, what are the differences in Cruncher's case that makes people say that there is no evidence?

Sure, there isn't sufficient evidence to say 100% that he cheated. The problem is, it is virtually impossible to produce 100% certainty in evidence that someone cheated. Even when an athlete fails a drug test (which is probably the strongest evidence I can think of short of actually directly observing the cheating), they can deny it, saying, "Oh, I took substance X that is legal, but would cause me to fail the drug test. I just wasn't aware of the consequence." But in such a situation, the athlete would be condemned, if there were circumstantial evidence supporting it (in this case, perhaps the athlete started bulking up).

Now some people are going to say, it's an issue of having reasonable doubt, and that we need evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and having the stream on while playing Idra isn't sufficient enough. They would use the example of a real-life legal court, where criminal charges require (theoretically. in actual practice it varies quite a bit but such is life) that kind of evidence.

I feel like that is a poor point. Cheating isn't a criminal charge, and no one is accusing Cruncher of any crime. Just like how a teacher doesn't need evidence that stands up in court to accuse a student of cheating, as how an athlete may have an explanation for why he failed the drug test, or as how someone may be banned from a tournament because of maphacking outside of the tournament, none of these situations require 100% evidence.

So it seems that there is at least enough evidence to say that Cruncher probably cheated. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea that Cruncher didn't cheat. In fact, I wouldn't be extremely surprised if he didn't cheat, and I certainly hope he didn't. However, this sort of evidence would be enough to compel a teacher in an academic environment, where such cheating would be serious business.

As it stands, ultimately it's not such a serious issue that there was a good chance that Cruncher stream cheated. After all, is it egregious cheating if someone streams while you play? On a random ladder game? And if it was, what would TL's response be? Obviously I don't think TL should be punishing Cruncher, but there are people who state that there is flat out no evidence for Cruncher stream cheated, and I disagree with that.

On May 07 2011 09:49 Klogbert wrote:
The bigger story is that IdrA is punishing his own fans for his mistake and blaming it on Chill.

On May 07 2011 10:17 Mailing wrote:

He is not required to stream

On May 07 2011 10:23 Mailing wrote:
He said he will commentate for a week (7 days) when he streams. He didn't say he would stream every day.

And yes, he will probably continue the commentary when he streams again after NASL.

People are so entitled.

On May 07 2011 10:52 Mailing wrote:
Deal with it? He can stop streaming forever if you don't like it.

On May 07 2011 10:48 Swineflew wrote:


Yea, I hate when people act so entitled, like expecting someone to keep their word. People think they deserve everything that they're promised.

Oh and since you don't know what you're talking about his quote was "if we get 20,000 live viewers tonight ill do live commentary and analysis on my stream this week. everyone watch and bring your friends."

On May 07 2011 10:58 Lochat wrote:


You realize he's accurate down to the word, right?

He has done commentary and analysis on his stream this week. No one does it say he's forced to stream every day, while he streams during this week, he will do commentary. He has. He has, completely, kept his word.

The only difference is, due to what everyone already knows, he lost his motivation to stream for a few days. Yet, every single word he stated has been kept true.

If you want to pull out a quote, make sure it actually supports what you're saying. He's kept his word, exactly.