Evidence Compilation for Saidin (Will be updated as Sketcheyes produces more)
Comments
-
Ellustrial wrote: »1. There is a video link showing Pete and Roth discussing ghosting.
2. There are several involved parties coming forward saying that they did, in fact, ghost.
3. In the Carbon situation, there was a video link showing several members of Carbon discussing ghosting.
4. In the Carbon situation, there were several involved parties who came forward and said that they did, in fact, ghost.
One thing you are forgetting.
A) Carbon members who came forward were still on the team, when the evidence came to light. It was only a day or two later when they came forward. There was no reason to question motives of the players coming forward because they were in fact caught (especially after David admitted it).
The ones who have come forward now are EX team mates, which brings into question the credibility and motive of those sources (regardless of who it is as well as the rest of the presented evidence). They could be doing this just to cause Ace Gaming some drama. Heck, even Erick said that he did this JUST to show that Roth and Malte were scumbags. You have to question it.
For example, there is the video of Roth and Malte discussing ghosting. At this point, all an ex-team mate would have to do is come out and say "Yeah, they definitely ghosted" and people would infer that because they even considered it (in the video) that it HAS to be true. You have to question it.
Look at that red dot video for example --- skewed to fit an opinion & very biased.
Credibility of sources still comes to question. I believe that's a completely reasonable and unbiased observation.
I'm not saying the rest is bogus. I'm just pointing out this one particular observation. -
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »One thing you are forgetting.
A) Carbon members who came forward were still on the team, when the evidence came to light. There was no reason to question motives of the players coming forward because they were in fact caught (especially after David admitted it).
The ones who have come forward now are EX team mates, which brings into question the credibility and motive of those sources (regardless of who it is as well as the rest of the presented evidence). They could be doing this just to cause Ace Gaming some drama. Heck, even Erick said that he did this JUST to show that Roth and Malte were scumbags. You have to question it.
Look at that red dot video for example --- skewed to fit an opinion & very biased.
Credibility of sources still comes to question. I believe that's a completely reasonable and unbiased observation.
I'm not saying the rest is bogus. I'm just pointing out this one particular thing.
I agree with this, 100%; however, I would like to present a counterpoint to you.
As I told Req, LifeLine is no longer a team. I would like to clarify that they are all ex teammates. That aside...
Malte and Roth said that they would never even discuss cheating. Doop still actively competes, yet said that he clearly remembers it. CK said that they definitely agreed to it, but that he thought it was a joke. CK is currently on Ace Gaming, and actively competes. Sketcheyes' initial comments could have been questioned, but not now that they have been substantiated by those who have something to lose.
In other words, the argument that "Sketch had nothing to lose, and could have just been stirring up trouble" is lost to the fact that his comments were substantiated by video and other witnesses.
Which makes me sad. I wish that I could discount it all as the ravings of a drug-crazed madman (like Blitzed tried to portray Sketcheyes initially)...unfortunately, that's simply not the case.
Edit: Please, for all of you who are going to inevitably seek to pressure holes in the evidence, and for those of you who are going to unquestioningly accept it..
Question it! Debate, argue, point out flaws, point out holes, find weaknesses. Please, consider other possibilities. I sincerely and wholeheartedly hope that I am wrong. That somehow, this is all a misunderstanding. That Doop is mis-remembering, due to some alcoholic binge he had back in 2013. That Sketcheyes really was just tripping out on xanax.
I am not pleased in the slightest to consider someone would do something so repulsive. I sincerely hope that you can raise significant doubts, so that I can believe that they are innocent. I would much rather do that than pursue a path of guilt.
However.
If you seek to argue your position, either for or against them, then I expect you to have solid reasoning behind your stance. There is no position worth holding which cannot be understood, and certainly not in something that could have serious repercussions in-game and potentially outside of it (Iceman is a staff member). -
You have to think though ---- with that video, all it would take is someone to come out and say "oh they ghosted" and it would be enough for people to infer that it actually happened. When in fact, there is still simply a discussion without action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Doop say that it MAY have happened? Or did that change?
I'm still seeing a lot of "facts" that aren't 100% facts. I'm seeing a lot of circumstantial evidence being used to make an inference that ghosting actually happened. Again, not refuting your points. Just pointing out that this is not iron clad, no matter how you look at it. Again, NOT saying they aren't low for discussing it because that is despicable.
That's all I see at this point. Some questionable "claims" of ghosting and a video that proves a discussion. I'm not sure if there should be a punishment for "pre-meditation" of ghosting, where we are not 100% that the action took place. That's why drug busts are usually made AFTER the exchange of product and money, so that there is 100% evidence that these things happened (I'm sure you'll find something to say about that example lol).
I'm not closed to further evidence either. I'm just as curious as anyone else. I saw Sketch posted something about 6/6/2014. I'm indeed awaiting to see what that is going to be about.
Oh also just to add about Carbon:
Carbon members were not banned immediately. We approached David about it and removed him from ESG that same night. It is at that time (within the next couple of days after the incident) that some of the other Carbon players came forward and admitted to it as well. We also waited for Saidin and co. to look at the evidence before making a final decision. So, there actually WAS substantial proof for bans at that point. -
Thank you, Polleus! I appreciate the logical discussion and argument you're using. It's refreshing, compared to the mindless rhetoric of Req and Purvis.[MOD]Polleus wrote: »You have to think though ---- with that video, all it would take is someone to come out and say "oh they ghosted" and it would be enough for people to infer that it actually happened. When in fact, there is still simply a discussion without action. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Doop say that it MAY have happened? Or did that change?
I'm still seeing a lot of "facts" that aren't 100% facts. I'm seeing a lot of circumstantial evidence being used to make an inference that ghosting actually happened. Again, not refuting your points. Just pointing out that this is not iron clad, no matter how you look at it. Again, NOT saying they aren't low for discussing it because that is despicable.
I am pointing out that it is the same evidence as used in the Carbon situation.
I agree with you that it's circumstantial. That it could easily be waved away. "Oh, all we have is a video of a conversation, and two people who say it happened. A third person says they all agreed to do it, but he thought it was a joke."
Now, let's look at the Carbon situation:
"Oh, all we have is a video of a conversation, and one person who says it happened" (as Brando and Bert only admitted it after the decision was made to discipline those involved).
You could argue the same thing about Carbon. The only difference is...nobody did. The evidence in each situation is the same. The only differences lie in the fact that Iceman, Roth, and Pete are denying it. And, Roth and Pete's testimony has shown to be invalidated by the video (I feel like a broken record). Therefore, it's Iceman vs Doop, Sketcheyes, and CK*.
When you have a situation of he-said, she-said, you turn to other witnesses for evidence, or for other supplements, to confirm who is speaking the truth. The situation was Sketcheyes versus Iceman (Roth and Pete go away for lying), but now you have a secondary witness (in Doop) coming forward. You also have a video. It's rather clear cut, if you look at it from a baseline neutral situation.
Also, Doop has admitted that it happened. He later said "maybe", but has since gone back to admitting that he remembers it. One of his most recent posts is:doop51 wrote:You're right. Two people admitting they cheated is completely impassable as evidence. A first hand testimony like this would never fly in a court.
*Interesting bit about CK. He was recently picked up out of the blue as a sub for Kanata, who CK had previously said he hated. CK is now changing his story to "we never ghosted, what? I don't hate Roth, he offered me a spot to play! It's nice to be on the winning team." Immediately after Doop posted his thread saying that they ghosted, Doop was also offered a spot.
lol.
Also:DavidLive wrote:Carbon members were not initially banned immediately. We approached David about it and removed him from ESG that same night. It is at that time (within the next day or so) that others came forward and admitted to it as well. We also waited for Saidin and co. to look at the evidence before making a final decision. So, there actually WAS substantial proof for bans at that point.
From what I remember, that had more to do with a question of how severe the punishment should be rather than a question of whether or not the evidence was enough, hah. That's a little disingenuous of you to imply. While you looked to the GMs for guidance in terms of discipline, you immediately acted in good faith on the evidence at hand (a video and David's testimony) and did what you felt was in your power (removed David). -
Here's something for you Ellustrial.
I was told you ghosted in a match, Polleus was also told you ghosted. Now we can upload a video of somebody having a conversation and not once saying ghosting or your name. Should we ban you for a year as well? Just off my word?
Because that's the amount of evidence this amounts to, somebody's word and doop who has changed his story a few times. And then ck says he thought they were joking but isn't sure, so it proves they had brought it up. That's pretty low in itself, but not ban worthy. Ck doesn't know for sure if they ghosted or who ghosted for them. And even if you take the short video and look at it biased that they did ghost, the video contradicts that and proves they didn't because they basically say they wanted to but didn't. If you wanted to rob a bank and thought about it but never followed through, you don't get arrested for robbing a bank.
I've told Erick that when they get more evidence to come to me, but there just isn't enough here for me to ban them. -
I've told Erick that when they get more evidence to come to me, but there just isn't enough here for me to ban them.
Sketch and I are now working with Mike and Polleus to provide any further evidence against Ace Gaming and co.
I really suggest everyone shuts the **** up about this until we prove it further. If you actually think there's enough evidence right now to ban them off this your judgement is terrible, and I don't think you would be able to administrate anything online or IRL. -
Ellustrial wrote: »If you seek to argue your position, either for or against them, then I expect you to have solid reasoning behind your stance. There is no position worth holding which cannot be understood, and certainly not in something that could have serious repercussions in-game and potentially outside of it (Iceman is a staff member).
This does not make sense.
Every piece of discussion or positional argument that has been brought up against your opinion has been met with:
"Yes, but the evidence I've submitted makes me believe I am right."
You're encouraging people to poke holes in your theory, but then when they do you just create new justifications.
I would encourage you to do more reading on Straw Man arguments which is basically what this whole thing is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's also worth pointing out that all your posts are extremely biased, and will immediately create a defensive position to anyone who wants to point out other things.
We have a situation, which occurred in real time during matches (incident with Carbon) in which a situation was uncovered and then admitted to by the participating party and then action was taken because of that admission because there was insurmountable proof.
Now we have a situation, which occurred 3 years ago, which has been backed by hearsay.
<edit: My apologies, I am confusing WCG with CFS. This is 1 year ago, not 3>
It now falls to someone in an authoritative position to make a ruling which has more roots in emotion than actual fact.
Here's what we know:
Disreputable members of the community have attempted to dig up information on an incident which may or may not have happened.
EX team mates have come to the defense of that incident. Even though there have been quoted conflicts of interest and quoted conflicts of memory. You have quoted doop saying it happened, then quoted him saying it may not have happened.
Now we also have 2 members of the team saying at one point they have never ghosted, then saying they would never even think about that. And then now what it would seem is that they have at one point put pen to paper on the thought of some sort of illegal action.
But that still doesn't actually show any implication.
Here's a few other facts:
Purvis has at the very least shown that 1 other person who plays competitive crossfire (him) has at one point or another spoken to, or alluded that he was involved in hacking.
Which was a screenshot. Which was just a bunch of chat dialogue. Which could easily be "set up", and in all likelyhood was set up.
Now my point here is not that this was set up, but that a bunch of chat logs does not a case make. It would be very easy for me to just assume that a bunch of people have hacked, have thought about hacking, or have discussed hacking on various websites, chat groups, in game etc.
I know for a fact that some players in the competitive community have hacked before. And I'm thankful that ESG's anti cheat has been so good as to pick up people who have the audacity to try it again.
This may not be ghosting, but the whole point is that if we're banning people because they say they have thought about doing something illegal then we can't let any of you play. And that's pointless.
David was removed and Carbon was banned because the incident is iron clad. The person admitted to it. They admitted to getting paid to do it. And they did it all after they got caught already in a youtube video of the mumble chats.
But let me get back to the real problem here.
We are left with this issue:
1) We believe the mob, and issue a ban to members of LifeLine.
2) We don't believe the mob, and don't issue a ban.
The problem here is that you're asking us to make a decision based on believing one person or another.
Finally as far as what will really happen with this, you guys got your wish, [GM]Sardine has moved away from dealing directly with CrossFire. Making a ruling on this is not my jurisdiction any more, and I'll have to speak to [GM]Juicebox on what he would like to do. Your Pitchforks and Torches worked. -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »This does not make sense.
Every piece of discussion or positional argument that has been brought up against your opinion has been met with:
"Yes, but the evidence I've submitted makes me believe I am right."
You're encouraging people to poke holes in your theory, but then when they do you just create new justifications.
I would encourage you to do more reading on Straw Man arguments which is basically what this whole thing is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's also worth pointing out that all your posts are extremely biased, and will immediately create a defensive position to anyone who wants to point out other things.
We have a situation, which occurred in real time during matches (incident with Carbon) in which a situation was uncovered and then admitted to by the participating party and then action was taken because of that admission because there was insurmountable proof.
Now we have a situation, which occurred 3 years ago, which has been backed by hearsay.
It now falls to someone in an authoritative position to make a ruling which has more roots in emotion than actual fact.
Here's what we know:
Disreputable members of the community have attempted to dig up information on an incident which may or may not have happened.
EX team mates have come to the defense of that incident. Even though there have been quoted conflicts of interest and quoted conflicts of memory. You have quoted doop saying it happened, then quoted him saying it may not have happened.
Now we also have 2 members of the team saying at one point they have never ghosted, then saying they would never even think about that. And then now what it would seem is that they have at one point put pen to paper on the thought of some sort of illegal action.
But that still doesn't actually show any implication.
Here's a few other facts:
Purvis has at the very least shown that 1 other person who plays competitive crossfire (him) has at one point or another spoken to, or alluded that he was involved in hacking.
Which was a screenshot. Which was just a bunch of chat dialogue. Which could easily be "set up", and in all likelyhood was set up.
Now my point here is not that this was set up, but that a bunch of chat logs does not a case make. It would be very easy for me to just assume that a bunch of people have hacked, have thought about hacking, or have discussed hacking on various websites, chat groups, in game etc.
I know for a fact that some players in the competitive community have hacked before. And I'm thankful that ESG's anti cheat has been so good as to pick up people who have the audacity to try it again.
This may not be ghosting, but the whole point is that if we're banning people because they say they have thought about doing something illegal then we can't let any of you play. And that's pointless.
David was removed and Carbon was banned because the incident is iron clad. The person admitted to it. They admitted to getting paid to do it. And they did it all after they got caught already in a youtube video of the mumble chats.
But let me get back to the real problem here.
We are left with this issue:
1) We believe the mob, and issue a ban to members of LifeLine.
2) We don't believe the mob, and don't issue a ban.
The problem here is that you're asking us to make a decision based on believing one person or another.
Finally as far as what will really happen with this, you guys got your wish, [GM]Sardine has moved away from dealing directly with CrossFire. Making a ruling on this is not my jurisdiction any more, and I'll have to speak to [GM]Juicebox on what he would like to do. Your Pitchforks and Torches worked.
Where do you keep getting 3 years ago/2011 from? -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »Finally as far as what will really happen with this, you guys got your wish, [GM]Sardine has moved away from dealing directly with CrossFire. Making a ruling on this is not my jurisdiction any more, and I'll have to speak to [GM]Juicebox on what he would like to do. Your Pitchforks and Torches worked.
Good job guys, you just wouldn't let it go without an eruption. Now that Saidin is gone, I applaud you "competitive community", more like "grow the F up community". -
Good job guys, you just wouldn't let it go without an eruption. Now that Saidin is gone, I applaud you "competitive community", more like "grow the F up community".
fk up goomba
OT: These things possibly happened in 2013 not 2011 and 3 years ago I don't understand how you keep getting those numbers. -
monSTARRRR wrote: »Where do you keep getting 3 years ago/2011 from?
Sorry I'm confusing WCG with CFS. CFS Season 1 was in 2013.
So 1 year ago.
The reason why I confuse it is because I keep thinking that we're talking about a game that LifeLine actually won. Previously they competed internationally at the WCG in Busan Korea. CFS Season 1 was in 2013, so this happened then, my bad. Still way longer than the relevance of the information that was brought up at the time when Carbon was found bribing a caster to attempt to win a match. -
-
[GM]Saidin wrote: »
Here's what we know:
Disreputable members of the community have attempted to dig up information on an incident which may or may not have happened.
I have no idea what drugs you are on but
I'm pretty sure Erick is considered one of the most respectable person in this small community. -
I have no idea what drugs you are on but
I'm pretty sure Erick is considered one of the most respectable person in this small community.
This is exactly why I can't make any final decisions. My perspective at this point has been too warped to make any sort of decision on this. Anything I say comes off as overly defensive and when that happens mistakes in judgment or information are bound to be made.
My involvement in CF has been changing for a while. I helped set up cash prizes for CrossFire competitions, after all these years, finally putting money in the hands of the people who wanted to compete for it. I am not in a position to make any definitive actions regarding this anymore. I tried to appeal to the players on an emotional level but that's obviously not the right approach to this.
As the contracted cash prize leagues that are operating, it will be up to ESG and ESL to make decisions based on whatever evidence they have. Or maybe new things will come to light to put this one to rest.
Future CFS Tournaments will be at the hands of the primary operating team for CrossFire. There have been official hints at the next CFS Tournament, but nothing has been confirmed on if and when it will happen.
ESG has been approved to run the qualifier for the next CFS Tournament, this was all contracted prior to any of this happening, and it doesn't really matter with it anyways. -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »This is exactly why I can't make any final decisions. My perspective at this point has been too warped to make any sort of decision on this. Anything I say comes off as overly defensive and when that happens mistakes in judgment or information are bound to be made.
My involvement in CF has been changing for a while. I helped set up cash prizes for CrossFire competitions, after all these years, finally putting money in the hands of the people who wanted to compete for it. I am not in a position to make any definitive actions regarding this anymore. I tried to appeal to the players on an emotional level but that's obviously not the right approach to this.
As the contracted cash prize leagues that are operating, it will be up to ESG and ESL to make decisions based on whatever evidence they have. Or maybe new things will come to light to put this one to rest.
Future CFS Tournaments will be at the hands of the primary operating team for CrossFire. There have been official hints at the next CFS Tournament, but nothing has been confirmed on if and when it will happen.
ESG has been approved to run the qualifier for the next CFS Tournament, this was all contracted prior to any of this happening, and it doesn't really matter with it anyways.
You should make me a MOD. No joke. I could do it fairly with little to no Bias, and have lots of experiences running events. Its just a bother I know to some that basically all of ESGs Staff are MODs right now aside from mike.
I'd be more than willing to chat though if you are interested in trying me out as a MOD. I feel like I could do a lot for the community and bring a good new outlook to the table since I am running NESL for CFNA right now, and have other past experience in League Administration and Forum Moderation.
Sorry you lost your passion for CF's competitive side, but I don't blame you when its a constant struggle just to have everyone not at eachothers' throats. -
You should make me a MOD. No joke. I could do it fairly with little to no Bias, and have lots of experiences running events. Its just a bother I know to some that basically all of ESGs Staff are MODs right now aside from mike.
I'd be more than willing to chat though if you are interested in trying me out as a MOD. I feel like I could do a lot for the community and bring a good new outlook to the table since I am running NESL for CFNA right now, and have other past experience in League Administration and Forum Moderation.
Sorry you lost your passion for CF's competitive side, but I don't blame you when its a constant struggle just to have everyone not at eachothers' throats.
No.
Saidin doesnt give hand outs. -
1. Ive talked to Saidin and well he doesnt like you.
2. This isnt football camp. We dont do tryouts.
3. You can put in an application like everyone else (Thats about 2,000 apps a day mostly spam)
I don't see why he wouldn't like me, but that's ok if he doesn't. I don't put in with the 2,000 other apps because I doubt they ever get looked at in depth very often. -
You should make me a MOD. No joke. I could do it fairly with little to no Bias, and have lots of experiences running events. Its just a bother I know to some that basically all of ESGs Staff are MODs right now aside from mike.
I'd be more than willing to chat though if you are interested in trying me out as a MOD. I feel like I could do a lot for the community and bring a good new outlook to the table since I am running NESL for CFNA right now, and have other past experience in League Administration and Forum Moderation.
Sorry you lost your passion for CF's competitive side, but I don't blame you when its a constant struggle just to have everyone not at eachothers' throats.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. -
honestly i'd be the best mod NA. Even Iceman agreed.
The "Best" mod?
Best in what way?
-Competitive?
-CrossFire Barracks?
-CrossFire Technical Support
See Denxi is a mod but he only does the Competitive side. (Hes not an active mod as of right now)
As for lets say Dot or Rory they do more in other sections than the Competitive side (I believe)
![[MOD]Polleus](https://forum.z8games.com/uploads/customavatars/7/navatar_8918107.gif){kind=avatar}
![[MOD]Zzxq](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/20/navatar_5345120.gif){kind=avatar}
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 710 CrossFire Announcements
- 712 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 320 Community
- 12 Modes
- 393 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 523 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic