|
On May 06 2011 20:13 Loooui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:04 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:58 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 19:34 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:14 Nemara wrote:People really should stop to be hypocritical. Cruncher did not ever do this response, idra does not all in every game vs FFE, he said that.
If you do that opening, see zerg hasnt taken his expand yet whilst yours are done, and you dont prepare against a roach ling all in, you're bad and you'll lose 90% of your games. Bad mindset. Because if the zerg saw that you did not scout, he can just expand and you are behind. That is one way to think about it, but even though Cruncher might not have scouted it he probably based his decision on previous games where idra all in after a late natural expansion when the protoss took fast nexus. Sure cruncher took a risk but this game is full of risks. To call Cruncher a cheater based on that he countered idras all in is ridicolous and makes no sense at all. You cannot say he cheated without any proof, and saying "his counter was to strong without scouting!" dosn´t count as proof. You know, there are things called game sense and luck in this game too. Every decision dosn´t have to be based on scouting. This new thing calling people to left and right "cheater!" must stop. Unless you have real proof you should not speak of cheating, it is devastating for the whole starcraft-scene. I can't share the proof, but I know he cheated, I saw the account of Cruncher in the list of the players during the match. I did not take a SS, so I can't share it. I don't call someone a cheater if I don't have a proof. List of players in chat?! The thought that someone smurfed his nickname occured to you? And even if it was him he could have muted the sounds when he realised he met idra, etc. It is hard to call it real evidence for cheating. I myself have been laddering and had a good players stream up at same time, and then i faced him in ranked. I usually just mute it and go back to playing since it is pretty fun to read the chat after the game.
Sometimes it's just ridiculous to defend the the opposite of the evidence. Idra hate cruncher, cruncher hate idra, they both want to humiliate each other, and cruncher had the best opportunity to do it. He always cheese idra, because he know he can't win in a macro game. This time he could humiliate him in a "standard" way just by listening the stream, why should he does not do it ?
Let's be honnest guys.
|
United States42974 Posts
On May 06 2011 20:19 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:13 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:04 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:58 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 19:34 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:14 Nemara wrote:People really should stop to be hypocritical. Cruncher did not ever do this response, idra does not all in every game vs FFE, he said that.
If you do that opening, see zerg hasnt taken his expand yet whilst yours are done, and you dont prepare against a roach ling all in, you're bad and you'll lose 90% of your games. Bad mindset. Because if the zerg saw that you did not scout, he can just expand and you are behind. That is one way to think about it, but even though Cruncher might not have scouted it he probably based his decision on previous games where idra all in after a late natural expansion when the protoss took fast nexus. Sure cruncher took a risk but this game is full of risks. To call Cruncher a cheater based on that he countered idras all in is ridicolous and makes no sense at all. You cannot say he cheated without any proof, and saying "his counter was to strong without scouting!" dosn´t count as proof. You know, there are things called game sense and luck in this game too. Every decision dosn´t have to be based on scouting. This new thing calling people to left and right "cheater!" must stop. Unless you have real proof you should not speak of cheating, it is devastating for the whole starcraft-scene. I can't share the proof, but I know he cheated, I saw the account of Cruncher in the list of the players during the match. I did not take a SS, so I can't share it. I don't call someone a cheater if I don't have a proof. List of players in chat?! The thought that someone smurfed his nickname occured to you? And even if it was him he could have muted the sounds when he realised he met idra, etc. It is hard to call it real evidence for cheating. I myself have been laddering and had a good players stream up at same time, and then i faced him in ranked. I usually just mute it and go back to playing since it is pretty fun to read the chat after the game. Sometimes it's just ridiculous to defend the the opposite of the evidence. Idra hate cruncher, cruncher hate idra, they both want to humiliate each other, and cruncher had the best opportunity to do it. He always cheese idra, because he know he can't win in a macro game. This time he could humiliate him in a "standard" way just by listening the stream, why should he does not do it ? Let's be honnest guys.
It's actually really common to just casually watch the stream while waiting for a player and then mute it when they're ready. I do it in brood war fairly often. It's not that difficult to believe.
|
You just forget the context, wich is the most important part.
|
I'm disappoint. Want Idra to stream 
|
can't believe he got banned for that..
but why not stream anyways?
cmon idra
User was temp banned for this post.
|
damnit chill wtf am i supposed to f5 tl.net every 10 minutes for now?
|
On May 06 2011 20:22 Leavzou wrote:
You just forget the context, wich is the most important part.
The context is not proof. Sure you can argue he got more incentive to cheat than the average joe idra plays, but it does not make real evidence. I would argue the opposite of your post before that it is ridicolous to not defend cruncher when people have no real proof.
Lets be honest here yes, and by honest i mean not accusing a player for cheating without real proof.
|
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof.
|
On May 06 2011 20:21 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 06 2011 20:19 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:13 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:04 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:58 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 19:34 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 19:14 Nemara wrote:People really should stop to be hypocritical. Cruncher did not ever do this response, idra does not all in every game vs FFE, he said that.
If you do that opening, see zerg hasnt taken his expand yet whilst yours are done, and you dont prepare against a roach ling all in, you're bad and you'll lose 90% of your games. Bad mindset. Because if the zerg saw that you did not scout, he can just expand and you are behind. That is one way to think about it, but even though Cruncher might not have scouted it he probably based his decision on previous games where idra all in after a late natural expansion when the protoss took fast nexus. Sure cruncher took a risk but this game is full of risks. To call Cruncher a cheater based on that he countered idras all in is ridicolous and makes no sense at all. You cannot say he cheated without any proof, and saying "his counter was to strong without scouting!" dosn´t count as proof. You know, there are things called game sense and luck in this game too. Every decision dosn´t have to be based on scouting. This new thing calling people to left and right "cheater!" must stop. Unless you have real proof you should not speak of cheating, it is devastating for the whole starcraft-scene. I can't share the proof, but I know he cheated, I saw the account of Cruncher in the list of the players during the match. I did not take a SS, so I can't share it. I don't call someone a cheater if I don't have a proof. List of players in chat?! The thought that someone smurfed his nickname occured to you? And even if it was him he could have muted the sounds when he realised he met idra, etc. It is hard to call it real evidence for cheating. I myself have been laddering and had a good players stream up at same time, and then i faced him in ranked. I usually just mute it and go back to playing since it is pretty fun to read the chat after the game. Sometimes it's just ridiculous to defend the the opposite of the evidence. Idra hate cruncher, cruncher hate idra, they both want to humiliate each other, and cruncher had the best opportunity to do it. He always cheese idra, because he know he can't win in a macro game. This time he could humiliate him in a "standard" way just by listening the stream, why should he does not do it ? Let's be honnest guys. It's actually really common to just casually watch the stream while waiting for a player and then mute it when they're ready. I do it in brood war fairly often. It's not that difficult to believe.
I use a knife in the kitchen fairly regularly, nothing strange about it. But if my cheating wife gets mysteriously stabbed to death and I get caught standing over the body, knife in hand, I'm gonna get arrested. Whether or not I get sentenced depends on the evidence and how many well paid lawyers i can afford.
I'm not saying the evidence is overwhelming here, I'm just saying...9 times out of 10 the husband with the motive did it, even if the knife he was holding wasn't the murder weapon.
|
On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof.
Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof.
And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before.
|
To settle the matter, I suggest to weigh Cruncher and a duck. Then we will now.
|
On May 06 2011 20:46 Loooui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof. Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof. And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before.
Take the witches example is freaking bad. There was no proof about the existence of witches, it was just assumptions based on beliefs.
The fact that cruncher cheated IS possible.
Imagine it's a murder case, tribunal blablabla...
What is the role of the court ? Take all the elements wich says that cruncher could stream cheat and the others elements, then decide if cruncher stream cheated or not with those elements.
With your method, the only murderers who should be guilty are these who made a murder under the eyes of the judge.
It's just freaking pointless, and this is why tribunals exist.
|
On May 06 2011 20:55 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:46 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof. Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof. And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before. Take the witches example is freaking bad. There was no proof about the existence of witches, it was just assumptions based on beliefs. The fact that cruncher cheated IS possible. Imagine it's a murder case, tribunal blablabla... What is the role of the court ? Take all the elements wich says that cruncher could stream cheat and the others elements, then decide if cruncher stream cheated or not with those elements. With your method, the only murderers who should be guilty are these who made a murder under the eyes of the judge. It's just freaking pointless, and this is why tribunals exist.
If this case some way were to go up in swedish court (lol!) I would be sure that cruncher never would get convicted. To get convicted for something here you have to prove without doubt that the accused person is guilty, something you already agreed on isn´t possible in this case.
|
On May 06 2011 12:40 absalom86 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 09:02 arQ wrote:On May 06 2011 08:31 jakekosberg wrote:
This shouldn't be a big deal, but the bias moderation on this forum is a joke.
User was banned for this post. Is this 1984? What is going on? You cant express an opinion about the moderators of TL? I dont care much about fanboism, Idra, or Cruncher, but do not treat people like this for stating their opinion. That is ridiculous. Does the owners of TL.net think that this kind of moderating is a good thing? I doubt it considering the fact that it turns people off from the main SC2 hub in the west. Edit: And now it says i cant talk about that either. Are you defending someones right to call another person a waste of life on here ? TL admins hold the forum to a high standard of no insults and so on and a star player like IdrA does not get special treatment in that regard. Test calling someone a waste of life and a cheater on here and you'll be permanently banned, IdrA is IdrA so he only gets a 2 day ban and should be happy about that.
AARGH THE CONTRADICTIONS! IdrA did get special treatment. Have you seen his banlog? Anyone else would've been perma banned ages ago. But then again, this is TL and the rules apply to those the TL staff feels like enforcing them on.
|
On May 06 2011 21:04 Loooui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 20:55 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 20:46 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof. Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof. And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before. Take the witches example is freaking bad. There was no proof about the existence of witches, it was just assumptions based on beliefs. The fact that cruncher cheated IS possible. Imagine it's a murder case, tribunal blablabla... What is the role of the court ? Take all the elements wich says that cruncher could stream cheat and the others elements, then decide if cruncher stream cheated or not with those elements. With your method, the only murderers who should be guilty are these who made a murder under the eyes of the judge. It's just freaking pointless, and this is why tribunals exist. If this case some way were to go up in swedish court (lol!) I would be sure that cruncher never would get convicted. To get convicted for something here you have to prove without doubt that the accused person is guilty, something you already agreed on isn´t possible in this case.
That's completely false. Almost nothing outside math or logic is provable "without a doubt" people simply don't understand what a justifiable belief is. Someone having gun-powder residue on their hands, owning a gun of the same model that shot someone, having a bullet missing from their gun, making multiple death threats to the person, having no alibi, having a video of their car in the area where the shooting took place, which they had no reason to be in, fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene...
None of that is anything even remotely close to "proof without a doubt." The public idea of proof is so utterly mangled, inconsistent in nearly all cases, and generally incoherent. People will believe in the Loch Ness Monster due to a grainy picture before they believe someone is hacking if you have 5 video evidence replays of them doing it with the knowledge that hacking is a real occurrence amongst random SC2 players. It's just silly.
|
On May 06 2011 21:25 Lochat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 21:04 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:55 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 20:46 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof. Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof. And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before. Take the witches example is freaking bad. There was no proof about the existence of witches, it was just assumptions based on beliefs. The fact that cruncher cheated IS possible. Imagine it's a murder case, tribunal blablabla... What is the role of the court ? Take all the elements wich says that cruncher could stream cheat and the others elements, then decide if cruncher stream cheated or not with those elements. With your method, the only murderers who should be guilty are these who made a murder under the eyes of the judge. It's just freaking pointless, and this is why tribunals exist. If this case some way were to go up in swedish court (lol!) I would be sure that cruncher never would get convicted. To get convicted for something here you have to prove without doubt that the accused person is guilty, something you already agreed on isn´t possible in this case. That's completely false. Almost nothing outside math or logic is provable "without a doubt" people simply don't understand what a justifiable belief is. Someone having gun-powder residue on their hands, owning a gun of the same model that shot someone, having a bullet missing from their gun, making multiple death threats to the person, having no alibi, having a video of their car in the area where the shooting took place, which they had no reason to be in, fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene... None of that is anything even remotely close to "proof without a doubt." The public idea of proof is so utterly mangled, inconsistent in nearly all cases, and generally incoherent. People will believe in the Loch Ness Monster due to a grainy picture before they believe someone is hacking if you have 5 video evidence replays of them doing it with the knowledge that hacking is a real occurrence amongst random SC2 players. It's just silly.
Well it is actually "proven beyond reasonable doubt" pardon me. But there are reasonable doubt in this cruncher case and you should not deny that.
|
Sad tl moderators are so biased.
User was warned for this post
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2TgJN.png)
User was warned for this post
|
On May 06 2011 21:34 Loooui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 21:25 Lochat wrote:On May 06 2011 21:04 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:55 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 20:46 Loooui wrote:On May 06 2011 20:38 Leavzou wrote:
It's remind me when france said that the tchernobyl's toxic cloud stopped at our border... this is just bs, there is no proof about this but eveyone know that the cloud did not stopped at the border, and they just said that to no scare frenchies..
This is really freaking boring how people still defend cruncher. Everyone know that he stream cheated, but there is just no proof. Your example dosn´t make sense. I could bring up thousands of examples in which someone was accused of something and without proof people "knew" he/she did something terrible. Let´s start with the witch hunt a few hundred years ago, people "knew" they were witches didn´t they?! and that without any real proof... This is exactly as good of an example as yours, just with another twist at the end. The point is that you cannot convict someone for cheating without proof. And lol the only boring thing are those haters who scream "cheeeeeat!!!" at any point idras opponent wins. I watched idras stream the last days and i have never seen so many people act like douchebags in chat before. Take the witches example is freaking bad. There was no proof about the existence of witches, it was just assumptions based on beliefs. The fact that cruncher cheated IS possible. Imagine it's a murder case, tribunal blablabla... What is the role of the court ? Take all the elements wich says that cruncher could stream cheat and the others elements, then decide if cruncher stream cheated or not with those elements. With your method, the only murderers who should be guilty are these who made a murder under the eyes of the judge. It's just freaking pointless, and this is why tribunals exist. If this case some way were to go up in swedish court (lol!) I would be sure that cruncher never would get convicted. To get convicted for something here you have to prove without doubt that the accused person is guilty, something you already agreed on isn´t possible in this case. That's completely false. Almost nothing outside math or logic is provable "without a doubt" people simply don't understand what a justifiable belief is. Someone having gun-powder residue on their hands, owning a gun of the same model that shot someone, having a bullet missing from their gun, making multiple death threats to the person, having no alibi, having a video of their car in the area where the shooting took place, which they had no reason to be in, fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene... None of that is anything even remotely close to "proof without a doubt." The public idea of proof is so utterly mangled, inconsistent in nearly all cases, and generally incoherent. People will believe in the Loch Ness Monster due to a grainy picture before they believe someone is hacking if you have 5 video evidence replays of them doing it with the knowledge that hacking is a real occurrence amongst random SC2 players. It's just silly. Well it is actually "proven beyond reasonable doubt" pardon me. But there are reasonable doubt in this cruncher case and you should not deny that.
Where is the doubt ? The only doubt is "we have no SS of cruncher with the stream non-muted while playing", wich is just impossible to get.
|
Excellent stream, crazy high quality SC2 play from this zerg god.
However his constant depressing drones about how bad sc2 is and how his opponents have no talent what so ever are beginning to diminish it a little. I mean come on, the opponents he was playing against were just random ladder folk.
I'd seriously hate to be so damn negative about everything in life ahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
