|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 7, 2006 19:06:58 GMT -5
In the interest of fair representation for accused players, the administration feels it is important to make it known when someone is investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing.
In this case, Yumpak was found to have possibly cooked games with Trrrr, and was suspended for 5 days as a result.
No hard evidence in the form of save games or any other concrete, demonstrable prove was shown to exist tying Yumpak to any form of cheating or hacking behaviors, and as such, he has been released from his suspension after the five days which have already passed, and is now free to play as before.
Should any parties have any information on this issue, confirming or clearing, as always, please correspond directly with an administrator.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 7, 2006 20:37:26 GMT -5
Hmm, the way it was done it dont matter, the damage has been done IMO
EDIT: not by admin for the record, by Mr whine theory.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Feb 7, 2006 21:47:46 GMT -5
First, I want to reiterate what Fried says.
Second, I hope in the future that people will come directly to the admins. This case was complicated by the fact it all started with a bunch of posts here. It's fairer for these matters to be dealt with discreetly without the glare of public attention.
Third, some good did come from this. A serious bug was discovered (that when game asset files don't match, that the only person who sees the warning message is the guilty party). This has been fixed in the upcoming patch already and has been beta tested.
Fourth, I am deleting the other thread since it was mostly innuendo and try as I might to disguise the name of [the accused] - at this stage of things - It's time to remove it and move on.
Fifth, I just want to say that Yumpak was extremely cooperative, 100% denied the accusations, and asserted that his wins were due to skill and not to cheating. From the save I observed there was no evidence of cheating and considerable evidence of skill. Case closed.
Let's *ALL* remember that the ladder is about good sportsmanship and not win at any cost. We play hard sometimes, but we play honestly.
Sincerely, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Feb 7, 2006 22:54:16 GMT -5
Yumpak was right. It was like Salem's Lot around here and I apologize for throwing a few logs on the fire myself. I did however add that I was uncertain of cheating the more I considered the game when the saves were sent to the admins. And I was going to write a post stating this earlier but all the threads were locked and I feared starting another.
Most impressive play then. Maybe yumpak will dish out a couple of strategy nuggets in Friedrich's Den.
Yumpak, just take it as the ultimate compliment. I wish someone would accuse me of cheating. Then I would feel like a real bad :oss civer.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Feb 7, 2006 23:09:31 GMT -5
I'll add that it would be better to consider a player innocent and clear until he's declared guilty for cheating with evidence.
Why did you put him in the box while investigating ? This raises a lot of suspicion on the player and his reputation is now established : most will consider him as a "smarter than admins" cheater.
I know you did your best to prevent cheating but it's just unfair to prevent player from playing on the ladder if there is no evidence... but good job on posting the results of your investigation ;D
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Feb 8, 2006 3:38:15 GMT -5
For the record the hacking and cheating thread was started in regards to another player and not Yumpak, it wasn't until another player brought up yumpak that I went and played him and wrote what I did in the already started thread. If Yumpak isn't a cheater he is a skilled player and is able to analyze the game in a fantastic way, good for him...........
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Feb 8, 2006 9:50:29 GMT -5
Why did you put him in the box while investigating ? This raises a lot of suspicion on the player and his reputation is now established : most will consider him as a "smarter than admins" cheater.
The box time was for reports from reports from same ip. trrr to Yumpak. We took advantage of those 5 days to investigate all that we could on the matter. After five days we foun dthat theyre was likely no cheating involved and he was cleared for ladder play once again.
|
|
|
Post by draconus on Feb 8, 2006 10:31:52 GMT -5
Regarding the game files not matching i have no mods loaded or any other downloads, but i always get that message aginst certain people. I have reloaded civ 4 times makes no diffrence the only people i do not get this message aginst is anyone who did not download the first patch which i didnt. Three other members of the clan i belong to who also didnt download the first patch also get this message.
|
|
reptile
Worker
in desperate need of a new avatar
Posts: 106
|
Post by reptile on Feb 8, 2006 11:09:12 GMT -5
No hard evidence in the form of save games or any other concrete, demonstrable prove was shown to exist tying Yumpak to any form of cheating or hacking behaviors, and as such, he has been released from his suspension after the five days which have already passed, and is now free to play as before. Why did you underline the words? Do you want to imply that he still is a cheater, but we don´t know it yet? Why do you add the word "hard"? Is there a "soft" evidence accusing yumpak? A high win streak is not a piece of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Feb 8, 2006 16:28:44 GMT -5
I talked a couple times to trrr and yumpak and they just said they didnt cheat .. usually cheaters are proud on their actions - they didnt seem to like the acccusions
as said never acccuse before prove - at least not in these forums pls
anyway time to invite yum to some teamer to get rid of his streak ...
oh well on hard evidence thing ... they might have found some lil exploit
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Feb 8, 2006 19:27:57 GMT -5
No hard evidence in the form of save games or any other concrete, demonstrable prove was shown to exist tying Yumpak to any form of cheating or hacking behaviors, and as such, he has been released from his suspension after the five days which have already passed, and is now free to play as before. Why did you underline the words? Do you want to imply that he still is a cheater, but we don´t know it yet? Why do you add the word "hard"? Is there a "soft" evidence accusing yumpak? A high win streak is not a piece of evidence. Okay, since we're playing that game.... Why did you automatically assume the worst possible connotation from my underlined words? Why not consider other possibilities that don't immediately villify administrators, or possibly Yumpak? Why are you immediately looking for a way to negatively cast my statement? Is there a reason or problem you have here? Do you want to imply that I or the administrative team has an ulterior motive? A suspicious attitude is not a piece of evidence. Weee! Was that fun for you? The reason for the underlined section was to clarify that hard evidence is what is required to make "conviction" against another player. Many accusations were handed out towards that player, but none of them supplied evidence which was either convincing or significant. Thus: no hard evidence.Any other interpretive questions?
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Feb 8, 2006 22:34:15 GMT -5
When implying something like that you don't underline the phrase, you put quotes around it. It would look like this. No "hard evidence" in the form of saves was found.
Just thought I would join the game. Seemed like you all having such fun.
|
|
reptile
Worker
in desperate need of a new avatar
Posts: 106
|
Post by reptile on Feb 9, 2006 8:21:23 GMT -5
Why did you underline the words? Do you want to imply that he still is a cheater, but we don´t know it yet? Why do you add the word "hard"? Is there a "soft" evidence accusing yumpak? A high win streak is not a piece of evidence. Okay, since we're playing that game.... Why did you automatically assume the worst possible connotation from my underlined words? Why not consider other possibilities that don't immediately villify administrators, or possibly Yumpak? Why are you immediately looking for a way to negatively cast my statement? Is there a reason or problem you have here? Do you want to imply that I or the administrative team has an ulterior motive? A suspicious attitude is not a piece of evidence. Weee! Was that fun for you? The reason for the underlined section was to clarify that hard evidence is what is required to make "conviction" against another player. Many accusations were handed out towards that player, but none of them supplied evidence which was either convincing or significant. Thus: no hard evidence.Any other interpretive questions? First, I was writing an answer to all your questions until I realized that this would lead to a rather useless sparring match - especially since we both know what I was assuming. But, my post was neither "automatically" nor "immediately" - I don´t have inborn anti-Fried-reflexes. And I don´t accuse the admin team of having ulterior motives. The admin team cleared Yumpak of the cheating accusations.
|
|
|
Post by skidbladnir on Feb 9, 2006 9:16:17 GMT -5
actually i had the same feeling as reptile.. maybe underlining "no" as well, or just "no evidence" would have avoided the little doubt that one gets when reading this
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Feb 9, 2006 9:25:35 GMT -5
U guys are u censors ? I played with 2 guys only 1 time and i kno something is wrong. I dnt have HARD EVIDENCE for accusations or sending files to admin bc i cant acces their XML config files or saved game files. Also accused players must have save game interval = 1 and get pw to admin for investigation. Doubt they have it. Only hope for ant-cheating is firaxis OOS. Now i waiting that some 1 told that OOS was bc Mongols settling bug. Saved game files without config files dnt mean nothing. Then i forget on those strange games till i saw this topic.
|
|
|
Post by meatthingy on Feb 9, 2006 12:06:36 GMT -5
heh... Well done Yumpak. You've pulled the wool over some eyes today.
What is hard evidence? I don't even know what a "cooked game" is? Could you be any more vague?
I think the average person sees what is obvious here. We know why you underlined "hard evidence" (underline, quote, whatever). There is no hard evidence.There is no possible way of getting "hard evidence" apart from Yumpak's confession. Even the Firaxis stance (or rumoured Firaxis stance) changed from "there is no way of changing game files without an OOS message" to "we will correct this issue next patch". Something big has been touched on here. But no "hard evidence".
It is my understanding that during Yumpak's time in the box, he played many games with people on the ladder and lost most or even all of this games. Come on... Someone with a 107 winning streak just suddenly starts losing games while in the penalty box and desperately trying to prove his innocence? Does no one else smell fish?
I don't know. I'm sure I'm not alone here. Rational thought just does not allow this. Any ladder admins here going to 100% back this guy and say without a shadow of a doubt he is innocent or is the lack of "hard evidence" line the best we are going to get? Thats what I need because I know what I saw, and I know what he was saying or admiting to in a non-ladder game.
Further more I see this same behaviour has been noted by other people that I don't even know, or care about. No. Too convenient for me to believe.
This whole thing just seems like it has come to an inconclusive conclusion where there was "no hard evidence" to back the claims, but also no evidence proving him innocent. Fair enough, innocent until proven guilty, but he proved himself guilty to me during a non-ladder match. I mean am I to understand that Trrrr is also yumpak (again you guys have just been too vague). So he'll stoop low enough to lie about who he has won against (even when he has the supposed skill to win against 107 people straight) but not low enough to cheat... come on....
I'm still not going to play against yumpak. I saw what went on during a non-ladder game between what he must have thought were non-ladder people. Nothing that you admins have said has cleared my concerns about this, all you've said is that you have no "hard evidence", and thats right, you don't but many different people with no common link have all seen the evidence.
No "hard evidence"? Not good enough. Can one of the ladder admins come forward and say without any doubts that yumpak is 100% legit?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Feb 9, 2006 12:47:30 GMT -5
U guys are u censors ? I played with 2 guys only 1 time and i kno something is wrong. I dnt have HARD EVIDENCE for accusations or sending files to admin bc i cant acces their XML config files or saved game files. Also accused players must have save game interval = 1 and get pw to admin for investigation. Doubt they have it. Only hope for ant-cheating is firaxis OOS. Now i waiting that some 1 told that OOS was bc Mongols settling bug. Saved game files without config files dnt mean nothing. Then i forget on those strange games till i saw this topic. "Mongol Settling Bug" If this is a legimate and repeatable bug please send me saves and/or screenshots documenting this, time is short to get fixes in the next patch. CS
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Feb 9, 2006 12:53:46 GMT -5
heh... Well done Yumpak. You've pulled the wool over some eyes today. What is hard evidence? I don't even know what a "cooked game" is? Could you be any more vague? I think the average person sees what is obvious here. We know why you underlined "hard evidence" (underline, quote, whatever). There is no hard evidence.There is no possible way of getting "hard evidence" apart from Yumpak's confession. Even the Firaxis stance (or rumoured Firaxis stance) changed from "there is no way of changing game files without an OOS message" to "we will correct this issue next patch". Something big has been touched on here. But no "hard evidence". It is my understanding that during Yumpak's time in the box, he played many games with people on the ladder and lost most or even all of this games. Come on... Someone with a 107 winning streak just suddenly starts losing games while in the penalty box and desperately trying to prove his innocence? Does no one else smell fish? I don't know. I'm sure I'm not alone here. Rational thought just does not allow this. Any ladder admins here going to 100% back this guy and say without a shadow of a doubt he is innocent or is the lack of "hard evidence" line the best we are going to get? Thats what I need because I know what I saw, and I know what he was saying or admiting to in a non-ladder game. Further more I see this same behaviour has been noted by other people that I don't even know, or care about. No. Too convenient for me to believe. This whole thing just seems like it has come to an inconclusive conclusion where there was "no hard evidence" to back the claims, but also no evidence proving him innocent. Fair enough, innocent until proven guilty, but he proved himself guilty to me during a non-ladder match. I mean am I to understand that Trrrr is also yumpak (again you guys have just been too vague). So he'll stoop low enough to lie about who he has won against (even when he has the supposed skill to win against 107 people straight) but not low enough to cheat... come on.... I'm still not going to play against yumpak. I saw what went on during a non-ladder game between what he must have thought were non-ladder people. Nothing that you admins have said has cleared my concerns about this, all you've said is that you have no "hard evidence", and thats right, you don't but many different people with no common link have all seen the evidence. No "hard evidence"? Not good enough. Can one of the ladder admins come forward and say without any doubts that yumpak is 100% legit? MT, we can't say that you are 100% legit, there's always a chance that someone is cheating somehow and getting away with it. The only difference between you and Yumpak is he had a 107 win streak, and that doesn't constitute evidence of cheating. So I would stop suggesting/implying that Yumpak is a cheater in a public forum. If you or anyone else has evidence email it privately to the admins, and we will deal with it. The good thing about all this is that it has exposed a bug in the way modified assets are reported and that will be fixed inthe next patch. CS
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 9, 2006 13:07:26 GMT -5
In most skill based games I would agree, 107 game win streak constitutes as nothing. But in civ, with the way combat is so incredibly random, I find it very hard to believe that a player could surmout such a streak even with the greatest skill possible, purely because the combat is notoriously inconsistent. He may not be hacking, but I am pretty sure has found an exploit (perhaps involving slavery, I noticed that he had a size 1 city for a very long time in my game against him). On a side note, there is also no doubt that he does have considerable skill, but the fact that he has skill doesn't change how unrealistic 107 game win streak INCLUDING CTON GAMES is.
|
|
|
Post by deviousdevil on Feb 9, 2006 13:36:29 GMT -5
A size 1 city for a long period simply means that the chap is building a worker from the off.
Not a fan of that style of play, I prefer to pop to 3-4 and then worker simply as it is more flexible, especially if you are choked early.
Congratulations to Yumpak on being cleared, be glad to play you anytime. Congratulations to Civ IV MP on being cleared of having let haxxors run rampant.
As for the comment re: streaking 107 playing ctons against anybody that turns up. That is far more possible than by playing teamers, I'd have some unholy streak were it not for my partaking in team games where I've found it far harder to win consistently.
|
|