Nineteen Eleven

Wint0 wrote:BRAD!!!!! **** LOVE.

Just added you to Facebook. Accept that shit.

CAL-ac|Murdock was kicked by CAL-DoD|Rich (Idling is not allowed, especially scrub admins!)

I giggled.

juliowinnfredo wrote:Well without getting any more into Theory of ACing, I'm going to exit the thread stating I don't have any clue how people are 100% certain this is cheats. I can understand suspicion, but not absolute certainty. This isn't a dustin young demo. If a demo of any number of top players now (tox, jaggon, ryanemo, austin, taylor, etc.) was sent in, WITHOUT their name on it, they would probably get banned according to this standard. Any demo of those guys playing that route on lennon will show tons of attempted wall shots, I promise you that.

Look, this isn't 100% certainty. This is about different standards. Anti-cheat work, just like criminal work, couldn't operate on such a threshold because you would never be 100% sure someone did it. There has to be a balance between what is good for the well-being of the community and the vindication of the individual's rights/entitlements/privileges.

Generally speaking, punitive actions are approached with the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard because they deprive someone of something or prohibit something. The working standard that I've seen most responsible ACs work with is a "reasonable doubt" one. It isn't 100% certainty. Hell, there might been unreasonable doubts a person might not be cheating based on your own personal relationship with a person, but that doesn't mean it isn't the proper standard.

You've presented a pretty lame straw-man argument to blunt the really unreasonable nature of hypothetical. I don't expect 100% certainty with anything we do in life, I don't know what I'd expect differently from pro bono anti-cheat admins. It is subjective and unfortunately there will be decisions that are wrong in hindsight. However, if the AC is doing its job honestly and earnestly, then that is part of the real world. Believe it or not, but sometimes we will make the wrong decisions in hindsight without any wrong-doing. That doesn't mean this decision is wrong.

On the other hand, your hypothetical would never convict anyone because you're not not there to witness the events as the transpire or occur. If you're honest with yourself, then you could never be 100% sure. You can be sure of a decision at a point when it is beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the facts.

To your other point that people shouldn't be banned from on-going interaction with a person. Again, this isn't workable in the real world. Rarely do demos ever present themselves that are the smoking gun. Sometimes they do, but that's not how all cheaters work. Do we not take an individual to trial in the real world that we suspect of committing the crime if we don't have that actual smoking gun? No. Do we not convict people of securities fraud because we don't have them on a wiretap saying "I am committing securities fraud". Instead, we look at the facts, look at the behavior and piece together a case. Even a massive abundance of **** evidence can provide a constructive smoking gun. Why did he do X? What is his motive for Y? This is the same.

People who cheat intentionally hide or attempt to hide that fact. So, you have to investigate and put together a case against them. This isn't as punitive as going to prison, but the two are the same. You watch the demos look at what is going on. Consider whether or not they're in vent. Consider the sounds. You consider the shots. Consider where they've spawned at and why they're at connector all of a sudden and randomly walling. This stuff adds up one way or another. Sometimes it is incidental and luck. However, sometimes that stuff begins too add up in such a statistically ridiculous way it cannot simply be explained by shear luck. You have to be open to all possibilities, but you also have to add it all up too.

It's a weird balance. You have to look at the individual "shady" moments on their own and explain it from both sides, but you also cannot be mired down in 1 moment in a demo and miss the forest for the trees.

It is probably a good thing you're not an AC anymore.

I don't know about Poizoned's case. I didn't watch the demos and I'm not here to comment on his particular situation. I am going to tell you this scenario you've presented is completely unrealistic.

Yeah it was unreasonable for me to say admins have to be "100% certain" to convict someone of cheating. But to hold yourself to an incredibly strict standard isn't. I'm not going to risk putting it quantitatively again, for fear you or someone else may blow it apart again so eloquently, but as a TPG AC I understood and guided my decisions with a certain perspective that I honestly don't think many others here share.

This is similar to a criminal court like you and others have intimated here, except without a trial by jury. This is three guys determining whether or not to deliver a "dod death penalty." Unless Poizoned wants to sneak back in league dishonestly, his competitive dod hobby is dead. There is very little at risk by letting a potential cheater go free when compared to the harm of depriving someone of their hobby. And the decision lay in hands of 3 people now.

Ruining Poizoned's hobby vs letting dpk advance in the playoffs with a possible cheater at 99's expense. To be honest, 99's playoff run and being able to have a gotcha moment, posting a suspension on the front page with personal satisfaction the league is nice and clean, isn't that big of a deal compared to kicking Poizoned out of competitive dod, telling him he can't take part in the league anymore. This is why every demo I reviewed as an AC had to have a preponderance of minor evidence or one totally damning incontrovertable piece. And yeah, mistakes are made and cheaters go free sometimes by this standard. Example: I had been calling cheats on rdk incessantly in scrims before he actually got disputed in a match by SuaP. When the demo came in for me to review though, I just wasn't absolutely certain and I voted against a ban. Turns out I was wrong.

I still stand by that standard though. You and others have drawn comparisons between the AC process and a criminal court, and you're correct to do so. But the one, truest, similarity everybody keeps missing is that the verdict carries consequences. And in the case of dod AC, a conviction has MUCH more impacting consequences than an exoneration. You're potentially banishing someone from a community and denying them access to their hobby in the future.

So you need to be as close to 100% certainty as possible and you should always default to a favorable ruling for the accused unless absolutely compelled to do otherwise. I was compelled to convict hydro, caliban, kwonyuri, dkiw, and Jesus. And all I've been saying from the start is that this demo simply doesn't, in my opinion, have the ability to compel. I just don't think there is enough evidence to compel a good AC that upholds a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" to deliver such a weighty sentence as a one year ban from competitive dod.

Edit: Lastly, I think this philosophy is exactly why I was a GOOD AC. And for ****'s sake why does every post in this thread commending the ACs' decision include a "i haven't personally watched the demos" statement?

mg_ wrote:
It's a weird balance. You have to look at the individual "shady" moments on their own and explain it from both sides, but you also cannot be mired down in 1 moment in a demo and miss the forest for the trees.

It is probably a good thing you're not an AC anymore.

And where the hell did you get the idea that I personally got mired down in "1 moment?" From the start I said you have to look for a preponderance of things ---or--- that "1 moment."

nerd alert

juliowinnfredo wrote:

mg_ wrote:
It's a weird balance. You have to look at the individual "shady" moments on their own and explain it from both sides, but you also cannot be mired down in 1 moment in a demo and miss the forest for the trees.

It is probably a good thing you're not an AC anymore.

And where the hell did you get the idea that I personally got mired down in "1 moment?" From the start I said you have to look for a preponderance of things ---or--- that "1 moment."

It was a general statement. You're really touchy, brah.

Preponderance of evidence is also a different standard than reasonable doubt.

juliowinnfredo wrote:

You're going to be a hilariously bad law student.