High ding rate = cheating?

• fatdan 3,379 Posts

  Thu, Jul 21 2016 7:19 PM

  ct690911:

  Dan, apparently you and I share same DNA...lol

  Welllll, I meant no more "novels", appeals to the Dictatorship for leniency, and such, I didn't say I wouldn't swat a fly here and there!  LOL

   

• Magpiesaregood 265 Posts

  Thu, Jul 21 2016 7:24 PM

  There has been a lot discussion on this topic. People have put forward their opinions, none of which are right or wrong, they are all valid. Most importantly non are definitively (well except WGT’s opinion and therefore decision).

  
  

  What it has highlighted without question, is that there is doubt. Is it true, was he, wasn’t he, is it possible to hit the ding at a certain %, there must be more to it etc etc.

  
  

  So without any definitive answer, and without question, a lot of doubt (even by your own correspondence to the said player as posted on this thread), how can the decision of banning a player still stand? WGT, eliminate the doubt or reinstate the player. How hard can that be? I think that is fundamental, particularly when making a decision of this magnitude to ban a player. If there is doubt, then provide the benefit of doubt, if there is no doubt, then prove it. No one can question that !!

  
  

  I have been reading that people are saying “it’s part of their T&C”, “their house”, “their website”, their game”, “their rules” etc. All true, they are. But does it make it right? Is it so set in stone that when certain situations arise that has not been thought of previously or due to the changing of the game e.g. security sweeps, that the T&C should not also be changed to keep up with the game?

  
  

  I’m not trying to be difficult or unreasonable, I’m just trying to highlight something that is fundamental !!

• Covenant 1,498 Posts

  Thu, Jul 21 2016 8:26 PM

  coors71:

   

  "Thank you for your message. Unfortunately this kind of information we are going to keep solely in our records. We don't want to give anyone a reason to speculate anything in our community by making these stats public, also, it takes an unreasonable amount of time to pull and receive this data.

  If you have any other questions, let us know.

  Sincerely,

  WGT Member Services" 

   

   

  I read this and my first thought was: doesn't it suggest that WGT at least thinks that there is a link between an high dingrate and cheating, because if there is not, there is no reason at all to add dingrate percentage to the stats?

   

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Thu, Jul 21 2016 9:23 PM

  Covenant:

  coors71:

   

  "Thank you for your message. Unfortunately this kind of information we are going to keep solely in our records. We don't want to give anyone a reason to speculate anything in our community by making these stats public, also, it takes an unreasonable amount of time to pull and receive this data.

  If you have any other questions, let us know.

  Sincerely,

  WGT Member Services" 

   

   

  I read this and my first thought was: doesn't it suggest that WGT at least thinks that there is a link between an high dingrate and cheating, because if there is not, there is no reason at all to add dingrate percentage to the stats?

   

  Covenant, I'm not sure what you mean by stats here.  Do you mean the data that wgt keep to themselves, or the stats available for everyone to see in a player's profile?

  But yes, I think a high ding rate probably raises a red flag for wgt and can cause them to investigate further.

  The point that many of us are trying to make is that the player in question, when given a 9 hole trial by wgt, scored as well with a relatively low ding rate as he had with a relatively high one over the previous 30 days.

  They had already made up their minds that he was using an auto-dinger and wanted him to confess to doing so.  He would have had to lie in order to confess.  That's the unfairness we're talking about, the presumption of guilt based on a weak supposition.

   

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Thu, Jul 21 2016 9:26 PM

  Tigerpaw509:

  This fellow also said he wasnt a crook

  I think if you read the thread you may see discussion on due process, and fair trial...Could have missed it, but feeling confident:)

  Ever considered another example?  Weird possibility even after "accepted" due process?

  Innocent Man Freed After 35 Years - Unfair Trial

  

   

   

• Magpiesaregood 265 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 12:39 AM

  Jimbog1964:

  Tigerpaw509:

  This fellow also said he wasnt a crook

  I think if you read the thread you may see discussion on due process, and fair trial...Could have missed it, but feeling confident:)

  Ever considered another example?  Weird possibility even after "accepted" due process?

  Innocent Man Freed After 35 Years - Unfair Trial

  

   

   

  Or even..........

  

• DodgyPutter 4,690 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 4:29 AM

  mkg335:

  But yes, I think a high ding rate probably raises a red flag for wgt and can cause them to investigate further.

  That does seem to be what it is about, and it seems we'll never know precisely what the 79%/around 40% refers to.

  mkg335:

  The point that many of us are trying to make is that the player in question, when given a 9 hole trial by wgt, scored as well with a relatively low ding rate as he had with a relatively high one over the previous 30 days.

  I'm not sure how relevant that is.  What I think of when this "otto" is referred to isn't something that hits the ding for you but something that slows the meter making it easier to do so.  It sounds in this thread like there may be others.

  I reckon you are clearly talking about a player close to the top of this game without any sort of cheating, that doesn't mean he wouldn't cheat.  I think Tasor would have been one of the top players without cheating.

  To such a player hitting the ding more often, and getting misses closer to it, would be worth what?  Maybe two shots a round? Hardly noticeable over St A's front 9 but very useful at the top level nonetheless.  

  Mags scores in the rounds  I looked at were all very good with a ding rate more akin to the 40% in the trial.  The first round in the VUSO was 40% (I didn't count putts) and although he managed to hole the longer putts on most occasions this wasn't always the case. What difference would even a shot every two rounds have made there?

  Again I don't think the trial was fair.  With the pressure of playing to stay in the game, bad connection etc, it didn't matter what he scored he had to ding close to 80%.

  It is hard to see what else they could do, off the top of my head let him sort out how to then get him to stream his next 100 rounds with the task manager open and count the dings.  I've really no idea how practical or fair that would be.

  Back to the main point for me, how is it nobody seems to know what wgt were counting with the 79%/around 40%.  Some seem to have watched the "trial" round (is there a recording) they say his ding rate was 40% there, so why not just count?

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 9:24 AM

  I don't think anyone (besides wgt) knows what they were counting, how the 30 day figures were compiled, nor the nature of any possible margin of error in the process.  I'd think there should be a standard deviation involved, and we have no way of knowing if this was taken into account as well.

  This is how the entire process is unfolding to my eyes...a store was robbed, Q was in the neighborhood at the time of the robbery, therefore he must have robbed it.

  That wgt either fails to see or just chooses to ignore the unfairness involved here is baffling to me.

• ct690911 7,205 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 9:43 AM

  I am, generously described, as an average player. Everytime I read threads as of late, I am grateful to be a 69 avg journeyman legend...it's almost like there is a witch hunt on for anyone who is any good at this game..lol

  ct

• AgentBrown123 907 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 9:56 AM

  Whether he did or did not cheat one way or other is just speculative from our view in my opinion but you know what they say about those :). I don't believe wgt is going to disclose their evidence or everything behind it anyway. It seems they're doing the best they can given the flash platform they're using. From what I have seen they are pretty lenient from a banning perspective in the past. They tend to only be temporary; allowing them to rectify their actions or at least explain what happened. That is what I've personally seen and read in various forums. My thinking is that there must have been insurmountable evidence of the aforementioned player that he was indeed manipulating the game towards his favour.

  I think everyone should cut wgt a bit of slack here. Everyone complains about wgt not doing anything about the cheating, then they do something about it and people torch them! Damned if they do, damned if they don't...

  They can't seem to win.

   

  AB