Forums

High ding rate = cheating?

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 10:30 AM

  AgentBrown123:

  Whether he did or did not cheat one way or other is just speculative from our view. Obviously wgt isn't going to disclose their evidence. 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 per 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.

  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

  Unless they're lying, in this case wgt's only evidence has been detailed earlier in this thread.  It would appear to me that wgt are the ones being speculative.  There was no "insurmountable evidence" involved, only some dodgy figures and a presumption of guilt.

  I applaud them for doing something about the cheating.  I do not applaud them for scapegoating an innocent man.

• AgentBrown123 907 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 10:36 AM

  mkg335:

  Unless they're lying, in this case wgt's only evidence has been detailed earlier in this thread.  It would appear to me that wgt are the ones being speculative.  There was no "insurmountable evidence" involved, only some dodgy figures and a presumption of guilt.

  I applaud them for doing something about the cheating.  I do not applaud them for scapegoating an innocent man.

  I see what you're saying, good point. But do you really think they're going to disclose everything to the public how they went about finalizing decision?

  If that's the case then I would think it would make it easier for people to find loopholes.

  To me, looking at the history of how they've dealt with cheating, they're pretty lenient, which is why I err on the side of wgt on this.

  AB

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 10:49 AM

  AB, fair enough, but what else could they have to disclose besides what they stated in their message?  They claimed to have ding rate figures, and I believe them, albeit the figures may be questionable to begin with.  They based the 9 hole trial on his ability to match those figures.  They didn't charge him with buying/selling credits on the black market.  They didn't charge him with using a packet editor.  Their only charge was that he must have been using an auto-dinger and they asked him to confess to doing so.

  Simply put, there are no other criteria they could have been using aside from the percentage of dings.  It's tempting to imagine there must have been more to it, but logic dictates there was no more.

• petervcpt 1,013 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:11 AM

  Howzit

  So here's a thought:

  We now know that WGT counts dinged shots.

  Which ones are important?

  How important really, on a par 4 or 5, is it to ding your drive? If you're on the short stuff it's all good.

  However, it's very important, on a par 4 or 5, to ding your approach shot, so that you get it into the sweet spot on the green.

  Perhaps, just perhaps, WGT's monitoring is slanted towards that?

  Cheers,

  Peter

• AgentBrown123 907 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:23 AM

  mkg335:

  AB, fair enough, but what else could they have to disclose besides what they stated in their message?  They claimed to have ding rate figures, and I believe them, albeit the figures may be questionable to begin with.  They based the 9 hole trial on his ability to match those figures.  They didn't charge him with buying/selling credits on the black market.  They didn't charge him with using a packet editor.  Their only charge was that he must have been using an auto-dinger and they asked him to confess to doing so.

  Simply put, there are no other criteria they could have been using aside from the percentage of dings.  It's tempting to imagine there must have been more to it, but logic dictates there was no more.

  I'll admit I read the beginning of this thread and might be missing bits and pieces about the other side to argument. I'll have to re-read.

  All that I'm trying to argue is that I would be really surprised if they gave all the information they had available into the banning. So, that in my eyes makes one's views on topic a bit unsubstantiated, including mine; we don't know if perhaps they did give all info. Albeit less likely than former

  Best,

  AB

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:41 AM

  AB, that's my point.  What could be the nature of any other relevant information?  Suppose that on his trial run he could have dinged at his previous rate.  One has to assume that wgt would then have reinstated him and said, "Well done, you've passed the test."

  It would appear they can't detect an auto-dinger nor a packet editor present on any particular computer.  Remember, they said, "Tell us what auto-ding program you're using so we can learn more about it."  Of course he couldn't because he wasn't using one.

  He was the innocent victim of a flawed security sweep that was compounded by a faulty assumption on wgt's part.

  That's where the speculation that there must be something more to it falls apart.  What more could there be, unless they paid someone in Indiana to look through his window while he was playing?

   

   

• WigerToods2010 8,447 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:45 AM

  I'm with AB on this.

  Laughable to think wgt would let it be known exactly how they arrived at their decision. To what end, to allow others to circumvent any deterrents that are in place?

  "Oh here you go Mr Cheat, here's how we know that you are a scumbag - don't forget to use that info when you open another account"

  For me the Email that's been posted is just a poorly worded piece of flannel from those in charge.

  Whatever you're doing wgt - keep doing it.

• AgentBrown123 907 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:51 AM

  Again it's apparent I need to re-read the other side to argument.

  The problem with wgt delving into the explanation of why he was banned is that you either need to explain it in full or nothing at all or you open a whole can of worms... If you explain why you banned him in all detail than you let other potential cheaters take advantage.  I doubt they would have gone with the former but I'll keep an open mind. I would have figured they would have given a very vague answer as to why he was banned or nothing at all, but maybe they gave more, I doubt it.

  I'll have to go back to this thread later...

  AB

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 11:52 AM

  WigerToods2010:

  I'm with AB on this.

  Laughable to think wgt would let it be known exactly how they arrived at their decision. To what end, to allow others to circumvent any deterrents that are in place?

  "Oh here you go Mr Cheat, here's how we know that you are a scumbag - don't forget to use that info when you open another account"

  For me the Email that's been posted is just a poorly worded piece of flannel from those in charge.

  Whatever you're doing wgt - keep doing it.

  J, read my reply to AB...they did let their criterion be known, and again I ask, what would be the nature of any other criteria?  They're limited in what they can know about any particular computer, and the limitation forces them to use what amounts to guessing.

  The problem with that is that it's easy to make the wrong guess, and if your starting point is "guilty until proven innocent" the wrong guess can result in an unjust banning.

• AgentBrown123 907 Posts

  Fri, Jul 22 2016 12:17 PM

  WigerToods2010:

  I'm with AB on this.

  Laughable to think wgt would let it be known exactly how they arrived at their decision. To what end, to allow others to circumvent any deterrents that are in place?

  "Oh here you go Mr Cheat, here's how we know that you are a scumbag - don't forget to use that info when you open another account"

  For me the Email that's been posted is just a poorly worded piece of flannel from those in charge.

  Whatever you're doing wgt - keep doing it.

  Bravo, someone gets it :)