Poizoned Down.

Schmiggs · Post by **Schmiggs** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:15 pm

I am fully aware that i am not as good as i used to be. I was pretty decent back in the day but real life has me putting more time into it than dod. However, that being said, my current skill level doesnt at all hinder the way i have and always will view demos. So if i am calling out people who dont agree about what i saw in his demo, i am sorry to offend you, but the fact is i have more experience in doing it than most of you. The fact is that this banning happened without me having viewed the demo. I came home from work, saw the thread and viewed the demos. Then posted. Tpg made the right call. I agree with it.nothing against poizoned, just think he was cheating.

On that note, i canttype on this evo on here. Late

Narc · Post by **Narc** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:02 pm

I liked the part when it said Narc was actually a pretty good AC.

Rambizzle · Post by **Rambizzle** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:57 pm

I didn't see anything that would make me think he was 100% cheating

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:17 pm

stevehisey_ wrote:hi dan i miss you.

hi steve, why aren't you famous yet?

toxinatoR · Post by **toxinatoR** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:19 pm

still never caught me.

motive · Post by **motive** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:37 pm

just watched the demos, not really convinced he was cheating

only things that really stuck out to me was that streak starting at 24:21 because he was peeking/looking a little too perfectly but whatevs it happens. and the wallbang at 28:30 from lower red into connector, idk why he made that snapshot, could've been a vent call

axis side nothing

compare the allies half (with vent) vs axis half (vent was purportedly broke/lagged/disconnected). allies side he's a lot more aware of his surroundings so he performs a lot better, axis side he tends to run around and get himself killed sometimes

mythbusted imo but people with a lot more experience doing this than me already weighed in so i defer to them

`NG · Post by **`NG** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:36 pm

sevEN wrote:if it looks like shit, smells like shit, it is most likely a giant pile of shit.

i haven't watched the demo, nor will i watch the demo. it just always seems funny to me that certain types of players are always associated with other fishy players, and they all look strange when they play, and they do strange things, and for years they always get accused.

beast in vent cheating = everyone knowing where to look.

james- · Post by **james-** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:33 pm

scorch- wrote: You're wrong. A legit player's demos will overwhelmingly prove their legitimacy if you watch enough of them. Humans are creatures of habit. In a game based on reaction, they act on instinct and routine. There will ALWAYS be a reason that a player (legit or not) does each thing they do in the game, even if they themselves don't realize why they're doing it. True, there are moments of "intuition" in a game where for no apparent reason you shoot a wall or realize someone is somewhere without any clue to suspect it. I think that happened like 3-5 times in all of the matches I ever played in any game. That's not 50 times in a year. Even in those cases, there's almost certainly some clue that you didn't realize at the time, but your subconscious did.

The best way to catch a cheater is to watch a LOT of demos and recognize why they do the things they do. Most often, actions coincide with information they have available to them (or might possibly have available to them through vent, etc). Cheaters will act on "unknown" information at a much higher rate than legit players. This is how you catch habitual cheaters, because they're not DUMB ENOUGH TO STARE THROUGH WALLS. Sure you catch the guy who is trying out a wallhack for the first time... but someone who actually wants to convince you that he's amazing? He's going to practice cheating and figure out how to cover his tracks pretty well. You can only really catch them by watching enough demos to understand his playstyle and determine why he's reacting the way he is. If his reactions are to unknown information, he's cheating. That's it. There's no reason that investigating multiple demos is based on "rumors and reputation."

Human behavior is a science.

If anyone's going to read a single post in this thread full of sore buttholes it should be this one.

You win, good sir.

bmurdock · Post by **bmurdock** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:05 am

He cheats. He's been banned before. CAL-ac|Murdock has ruled. /endthread

Wint0 · Post by **Wint0** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:07 am

BRAD!!!!! HOLYFUCK LOVE.

bmurdock · Post by **bmurdock** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:12 am

Wint0 wrote:BRAD!!!!! HOLYFUCK LOVE.

Just added you to Facebook. Accept that shit.

james- · Post by **james-** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:18 am

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

I giggled.

mg_ · Post 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.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:07 am

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 fuck's sake why does every post in this thread commending the ACs' decision include a "i haven't personally watched the demos" statement?

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:16 am

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."

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:55 am

nerd alert

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:10 am

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.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:11 am

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

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:16 am

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:22 am

juliowinnfredo wrote:

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

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:58 am

i hate you. i actually considered watching this demo.

ohhhhbeeee · Post by **ohhhhbeeee** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:29 am

i'm sure poizoned is still going to be doing his fair share of 12mans/pugs/scrims, and attempts at re-entering the league.

this is no dod death sentence.

Teapot_Dome · Post by **Teapot_Dome** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:44 am

I have always felt that banning a false positive hurts the community more than letting a potential cheater slip through and continue playing.

I have watched the demos. I agree they are suspicious, but they are just that. I am no expert in AC though, and at best I have only ever been an above average player in DoD.

rdk · Post by **rdk** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:47 am

hey, if poop was white would toilet paper be black or brown? i been thinking about it all day.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:31 am

Teapot_Dome wrote:I have always felt that banning a false positive hurts the community more than letting a potential cheater slip through and continue playing.

I have watched the demos. I agree they are suspicious, but they are just that. I am no expert in AC though, and at best I have only ever been an above average player in DoD.

So, you've completely disregarded the entire discussion about how ACs don't just always ban from 1 demo necessarily to make your point.

This is utterly irrelevant.

james- · Post by **james-** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:43 am

Mitch just lawyer'd all of your asses.

Sit the fuck down.

Airnick15 · Post by **Airnick15** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:00 am

AC are fallible and sometimes unqualified, I'm not stating that it is true in this scenario, but it seems like some people are ignoring the fact that there have been corrupt/incompetent cases that have played out from the beginning of the competitive scene. As a result, I think questioning the methods used to determine if someone is cheating or not isn't a bad idea, and has tangible value to detecting cheaters . Again, I don't really know much about poizoned's history/actually skill level as I haven't played against him very often, but a shady past (whether based on evidence or not) and association with other suspected/known cheaters means that some people will be unable to watch the demos without being biased, as they have pretty much made up their minds prior to loading, and one questionable incident will seal the deal for them. Not to mention that when a bunch of people then jump on the bandwagon and post that they agree that he was cheating (whether actually viewing the demos or not), this makes an already biased person even more prone to watching the demo without any hope of objectivity. Making comments about whether you think he is cheating or not without even watching the demos contributes nothing, and even some who watch the demos won't be particularly informed because as mentioned earlier in the thread, not everyone is capable of having a good eye for someone who is skilled at hiding their cheating. This community has always shown that some higher caliber players being are unable to concede that newer/formerly unknown players could actually be skilled as opposed to random scrubs whose only skill is finding the right place to go for cheats. Sometimes they have been right about an unknown not being legit, but this isn't always the case. Back in the day you could change people's minds by standing the test of time (not always) or the better option of actually doing it on LAN (hi Corey "I'm the best LAN player in DoD history" Marko). Without a large competitive scene the risk of cheaters not being detected definitely has increased, and people don't have the opportunity to either prove themselves or fail miserably on LAN. Again, I am not stating any opinion about poizoned, just some observations about what I've seen (and actually been a part of). /endrant

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:10 am

mg_ wrote:
Teapot_Dome wrote:I have always felt that banning a false positive hurts the community more than letting a potential cheater slip through and continue playing.

I have watched the demos. I agree they are suspicious, but they are just that. I am no expert in AC though, and at best I have only ever been an above average player in DoD.
So, you've completely disregarded the entire discussion about how ACs don't just always ban from 1 demo necessarily to make your point.

This is utterly irrelevant.

Well in this instance the ACs did only use these match demos to make their case for banning Poizoned.

lerfooled · Post by **lerfooled** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:19 pm

unfortunate time to be banned. i haven't watched the demos. i am aware of many people thinking pz is a cheater. i've played against him for a long time and consider him a rifle who can make good shots(better than the majority). honestly i highly doubt he would all of a sudden decide to cheat for this playoff match. does pz have the ability to or care enough to post previous demos(from recent matches ie lennon vs someone decent) for us to scrutinize?

Jb_ · Post by **Jb_** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:10 pm

lerfooled wrote:unfortunate time to be banned. i haven't watched the demos. i am aware of many people thinking pz is a cheater. i've played against him for a long time and consider him a rifle who can make good shots(better than the majority). honestly i highly doubt he would all of a sudden decide to cheat for this playoff match. does pz have the ability to or care enough to post previous demos(from recent matches ie lennon vs someone decent) for us to scrutinize?

Yeh that could help go a long way in clearing his name if they are available. Hell just any demos of his would be good to watch. Just to get a feel of what kinda player he is.

Teapot_Dome · Post by **Teapot_Dome** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:41 am

mg_ wrote:
This is utterly irrelevant.

is hyperbole commonly part of your deliberating arsenal?

ohhhhbeeee · Post by **ohhhhbeeee** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:47 am

it's not like he all of the sudden decided to start cheating. he's was cal banned before for cheating as well, unless that was also incompetence/corruption.

ppl just don't care much about dod anymore. if he played during dod's hay day he wouldn't have lasted as long as he has.

pinecone · Post by **pinecone** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:28 am

poizoned wrote:
i haven't watched the demo, nor will i watch the demo. it just always seems funny to me that certain types of players are always associated with other fishy players, and they all look strange when they play, and they do strange things, and for years they always get accused.
yea and i always find it funny that its always the same people draining my ball sacks out.

theres no reason to defend myself since you guys have your minds set that i cheat and i apologize to dpk that this happen again. im not fustrated at all about the banned but i'll be a lier if i said i didn't care a little about the banned since i personally know i don't cheat as well as my teammates, but theres no one way i can prove that especially since the odds are against me.

and yo it's the 4th of july weekened why do you guys care so much about me when you should be having a blast with family and friends drinking and partying.

i'll check this thread out on tuesday but on the mean time be safe virgins, peace!

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:46 am

Teapot_Dome wrote:
mg_ wrote:
This is utterly irrelevant.

is hyperbole commonly part of your deliberating arsenal?

Yes. Or people enjoy using adverbs.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:50 am

ohhhhbeeee wrote:it's not like he all of the sudden decided to start cheating. he's was cal banned before for cheating as well, unless that was also incompetence/corruption.

ppl just don't care much about dod anymore. if he played during dod's hay day he wouldn't have lasted as long as he has.

And TPG banned, no? Like, I don't know where this concept poizoned has always been legitimate came from. It's about the farthest thing from the truth.

hXc · Post by **hXc** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:32 pm

i was tpg banned for 28 years without any evidence.. who cares about a tpg ban.. doesn't mean a lot.

Airnick15 · Post by **Airnick15** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:11 pm

moosh wrote:
hXc wrote:i was tpg banned for 28 years without any evidence.. who cares about a tpg ban.. doesn't mean a lot.
How doesn't it? It's the standard now, and even when CAL was around they were honoring each others AC findings.

Not always

Wint0 · Post by **Wint0** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:05 pm

Airnick15 wrote:
moosh wrote:
hXc wrote:i was tpg banned for 28 years without any evidence.. who cares about a tpg ban.. doesn't mean a lot.
How doesn't it? It's the standard now, and even when CAL was around they were honoring each others AC findings.
Not always

You have to be one of the most bitter people I've ever encountered.

Airnick15 · Post by **Airnick15** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:07 pm

It lasted 2 months, not that bitter, just making an intelligent point. MY BAD

Wint0 · Post by **Wint0** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:10 pm

considering you jumped on my nuts when i first returned to this community about the same ban, that I don't even remember having a part of, seeing some of your other post and putting all that together, bitterness was a great hypothesis.

I stand corrected, your intelligent thought was spot on.

hildebrand · Post by **hildebrand** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:54 pm

jesus, i leave for the cottage for 2 days and this thread explodes to 8 pages. wtf.

james- · Post by **james-** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:19 pm

I finally found it.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:13 pm

Dude you seem strangely attached to this photo.

Just sayin'...

hXc · Post by **hXc** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:08 am

juliowinnfredo wrote:Dude you seem strangely attached to this photo.

Just sayin'...

Lol what he said

stile · Post by **stile** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:58 am

"hey man, im going to go dig through the interwebz to find that pic of hxc's chest! it's going to be so funny!"

Couple years too late on the bandwagon brah

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:27 am

k4b00m · Post by **k4b00m** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:19 am

Someone get ahold of poizoned. I require his services for Tpg

lolinus · Post by **lolinus** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:24 am

You'll need to ask nice then.

milo · Post by **milo** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:32 am

1) He wasn't cheating
2) Beast was cheating
3) Rwc banned poizoned without consulting his bros

Idiots