by mg_ » Sat Jul 02, 2011 4:20 am
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 circumstantial 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.
[quote="juliowinnfredo"]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.[/quote]
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 circumstantial 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.