Forums

High ding rate = cheating?

• ct690911 7,205 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 7:28 AM

  Hate to see friends squabbling...I prefer the situation where, someone hi-jacks a thread, takes creative license with what Is posted (remiss of context or facts), so they can launch a drunken rant or childish personal tirade....no harm done by them.

  But, you folks; Baggs, Lonnie, Dan, etc., are all good lads. Perhaps agree to disagree and move on?...personalizing it never works...not for random trolls, and not for people who at least have conversations, or the odd game with each other.

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 8:43 AM

  This post is addressed to WT (Johnny) and Lonnie...

  You both have mentioned that Q's defenders have no proof of his innocence.  Now I realize this isn't a court of law, but do you see the problem with the accused having to prove his innocence, especially when he isn't told exactly what it is he's supposed to prove?  Not only is the demand illogical, it flies in the face of anything resembling fair play.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  I think we've raised reasonable doubt that the outcome was in any way fair and just.

  You both have also mentioned, again, the "WGT must have something else" objection.  And again I ask, what else could that be?  They have no way of monitoring or looking at programs in use on any particular computer, unless the player has task manager open and is allowing WGT to monitor via twitch or something similar.

  No one has yet provided an answer as to what the "something else" mentioned above might be...and that's because there is nothing else.  They made an assumption, then used a flawed method to confirm the assumption and to reach the wrong conclusion.

  In the end, you guys are correct that fair play and justice don't matter in a practical sense because WGT can do as they wish.  But do you not see the unfairness of assuming the player is guilty, then telling him to prove his innocence while at the same time not telling him the nature of the charge?

  This is what I mean by calling the situation Kafkaesque.  I should also have thrown in Orwellian.

• Robert1893 7,722 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 9:15 AM

  mkg335:

  You both have mentioned that Q's defenders have no proof of his innocence.  Now I realize this isn't a court of law, but do you see the problem with the accused having to prove his innocence, especially when he isn't told exactly what it is he's supposed to prove?  Not only is the demand illogical, it flies in the face of anything resembling fair play.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

  
  
  This is exactly correct. Attempting to prove a negative (i.e. that one did not do something) can be extremely difficult to do. And while this is not a court of law (as mkg notes), the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" still has value in life situations outside the legal system. In other words, it should be the default setting or preferred approach when determining if someone is guilty of a rules infraction. 

• lonniescott711 4,207 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 9:37 AM

  mkg335:

  This post is addressed to WT (Johnny) and Lonnie...

  You both have mentioned that Q's defenders have no proof of his innocence.  Now I realize this isn't a court of law, but do you see the problem with the accused having to prove his innocence, especially when he isn't told exactly what it is he's supposed to prove?  Not only is the demand illogical, it flies in the face of anything resembling fair play.  The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  I think we've raised reasonable doubt that the outcome was in any way fair and just.

  You both have also mentioned, again, the "WGT must have something else" objection.  And again I ask, what else could that be?  They have no way of monitoring or looking at programs in use on any particular computer, unless the player has task manager open and is allowing WGT to monitor via twitch or something similar.

  No one has yet provided an answer as to what the "something else" mentioned above might be...and that's because there is nothing else.  They made an assumption, then used a flawed method to confirm the assumption and to reach the wrong conclusion.

  In the end, you guys are correct that fair play and justice don't matter in a practical sense because WGT can do as they wish.  But do you not see the unfairness of assuming the player is guilty, then telling him to prove his innocence while at the same time not telling him the nature of the charge?

  This is what I mean by calling the situation Kafkaesque.  I should also have thrown in Orwellian.

  Like you said this is not a court of law so why do you act like its supposed to be handled that way .He was accused of using a cheat program to play the game . Although WGT could not name the particular program they were able to identify something . As to whether or not it is or was fair how WGT has handled this as far as they WGT feels yes it is . Their opinion is the only one that matters not yours or mine or any other player who comments in this thread . You or anyone else who wants to argue with me is wasting their time . I`m not the bad guy .

  You keep saying that WGT cant determine if a person is using cheat ware to play . To you I say then prove it . Because unless you work for WGT you cant and the fact that they wont reveal the how doesnt mean they cant . You keep omitting the fact that WGT doesnt even tell us what they are going to do to improve the game . So trying to bait them to say as to what they do have is a waste of your time .

  Like I said before I get what all of the fuss is about from page 1 to now I get it . None of you who are Qs friends feel that he got a fair shake I get it . That WGT set him up with a bogus round and then a flim flam reason as to why he was banned I get it . I get all 35 pages of everyones thoughts opinions points of views hey I get it . 

  Now the flip side of the coin is that none of you Q included can prove that he is innocent .None of you Q included can prove that WGT is just blowing smoke and that they dont have the means or ability to properly monitor this game against cheaters . None of you Q included has anything to fight with other than lip service and opinion .Which has no meaning or merit with WGT .

  So my bottom line your friend Q is just screwed and thats just the way it is . You or the rest of you may not like it but thats just the way it is . So you can run this thread for 30-50 more pages but it wont change a thing . This is why I refer to this thread as beating a dead horse . You all have voiced your opinions and said all that can be said and nothing has changed . Q is still banned and WGT is still standing by their decision and giving no further explaination . Thats just the way it is  M thats just the way it is . :-(

   

• jeffmatulich 482 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 9:56 AM

  LOL I can't believe this thread is still going......

  .

• lonniescott711 4,207 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 10:06 AM

  jeffmatulich:

  LOL I can't believe this thread is still going......

  .

  Even though its priceless you still better run .LOL :-)

   

• Jimbog1964 8,378 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 10:19 AM

  DodgyPutter:

  In the -8 round at St A's wgt have said he dinged at 40%, so we have a figure (my mentioning it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was cheating).  You have watched it (don't know if you still have access to, if so just post a link and I'll do it). All that needs done is a bit of counting..... some examples:

  If all shots were counted  11 dings would be  39.3%, 12=42.9%.  Excluding putts is harder as I don't know how many he had; (9 from the tee and 8-10 shots from the f/way so there would be 17-19 shots).  7 dings out of 17 is 41.2%, 7 from 18 38.9% and 8 from 19 42.1%.  The only way I can see that we wouldn't know what they counted would be if he only dinged 3 or 4 putts.

  Look the round was absolutely worthless for counting dings.  The meter was incredibly awful, bouncing around all over the place.  This is why people have been consistently agreeing the "trial" was a farce.  The "trial"  happened only at St As for that x1  -8 thru 9 round.  Trial in quotes as it's the date WGT set to get out so they could have a look.

  There is thus no point in applying any math to it as it was impossible to ding that consistently with that meter.  Now also remember Q entered that round not knowing what he was meant to have done wrong, not by way of anything from WGT anyway.  He turned up doffed his cap, task bar up, never dinged to much with a godawful meter.  Jumpin jack flash I jokingly referred to it as earlier as that is a firework that darts about radomly that no one can seriously catch and if they did they would get burnt anyway.

  BTW that round was taken down by Twitch.  I understand that's normal after that time, but was up for a full two weeks for anyone that really cared.  Q would not have thought about that as never attempted Twitch before as has a shyte upload speed.

  Up until this point all he was ever told was he is doing something wrong.  It is ONLY at this point he gets the judgement (refer page 6).

  The reasoning ( given) for the "judgement" is obviously absurd.  This part is not in dispute, not in anyway by anyone.  If you wish to you really would be the only one, but fair to say the rest are on the same page as me on this point.

  The dispute then comes as to whether anyone can consistently ding at 79% consistently.  We do not have enough information to definitely say for sure which type of shot WGT would look at in that count.  People can guess and make informed comments, but in the end they do not know.

  For clarity: The "trial" (or simply call it that St As round if like) proved nothing, and this is not in dispute.

  Thus if you take what WGT said as true he was banned for using an auto dinger of a type they have never seen before.  This would make sense as it would be 10 points better than any that exist (I have asked around a fair bit).  I am pretty confident on that point put it that way at least.

  Now lets call a spade a spade here:  The SSs are BS.  5 players, and all way overdue for a couple of them, and how long should it have taken to spot 7 irons flying balls 400 yards next to the pin.  Whatever they have or think they is not good enough at the v least, IMO.  

  Now if you go back a couple of pages and read what I quoted from Jay (as I completely agree) I say I call BS on the lot of it, and  that about sums up my view.  

  Then maybe throw in what MK says not far above about presumption of innocence, which we also agree on at RDG and several here too.

  Go back in the thread and you will see Q offered to Skype as many times as they like (low usage and better than Twitch for him and as good to them I am told).  They flat out said no or rather never responded to be exact.

  My feelings are low about WGT as it stands yes.  Personally the SSs have not been good enough, and the rest stinks.

  Apologies to several who I think have all this down and so repeating for many, but hopefully clears up where the defense is coming from for you.  And before anyone alse pipes up yes we fully know the horse bolted...EDIT: See two already did pull that one LOL....Go play on another thread please to those:)

   

   

   

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 10:22 AM

  WGT can examine circumstantial evidence...someone has a high ding rate (evidently they can mine shot data for that) and cleans up in tourneys, RG's and MPC...that information is available to the public (not the shot data, just that someone is piling up wins for credits).

  They can't look at programs running while you play unless you allow them to look via open task manager/twitch or something similar.  If someone in IT or otherwise expert in programming can show me otherwise, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong and eat my words...but you'll have to allow me some time, I've typed a helluva lot of words in this thread.

  btw, I think I saw the horse blink.

• WigerToods2010 8,447 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 11:27 AM

  mkg335:

  This post is addressed to WT (Johnny) and Lonnie...

  You both have mentioned that Q's defenders have no proof of his innocence.  Now I realize this isn't a court of law, but do you see the problem with the accused having to prove his innocence, especially when he isn't told exactly what it is he's supposed to prove?

  Mark,

  Let me clarify;

  Other members of your CC have posted that they do not know either way whether the banned player cheated or not. They too are utterly against the ban as much as yourself.

  I'm querying why YOU yourself are insistent that the player is 100% an 'innocent man'. What has convinced YOU? That's it. No more, no less.

  Re the banned player;  best I can offer is collateral damage without a drop of blood being shed.

  If the player in question is as passionate about this game as being portrayed then I'm sure, with their undoubted game knowledge,  they will already be walking the wgt fairways as I type.

   

   

  Let it be noted that this forum contributor proffered no threat of violence, real or virtual, whilst replying to this thread.

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Fri, Aug 5 2016 12:14 PM

  WigerToods2010:

  mkg335:

  This post is addressed to WT (Johnny) and Lonnie...

  You both have mentioned that Q's defenders have no proof of his innocence.  Now I realize this isn't a court of law, but do you see the problem with the accused having to prove his innocence, especially when he isn't told exactly what it is he's supposed to prove?

  Mark,

  Let me clarify;

  Other members of your CC have posted that they do not know either way whether the banned player cheated or not. They too are utterly against the ban as much as yourself.

  I'm querying why YOU yourself are insistent that the player is 100% an 'innocent man'. What has convinced YOU? That's it. No more, no less.

  Re the banned player;  best I can offer is collateral damage without a drop of blood being shed.

  If the player in question is as passionate about this game as being portrayed then I'm sure, with their undoubted game knowledge,  they will already be walking the wgt fairways as I type.

   

   

  Let it be noted that this forum contributor proffered no threat of violence, real or virtual, whilst replying to this thread.

  Johnny, I suppose you could base my assertion that he's an innocent man on the underlying principle previously stated, that the burden of proof is on the accuser.  In my view, the premise that he somehow must prove his innocence is impossible to satisfy, and is the primary reason it isn't valid in a court of law, nor in most other real life situations as mentioned a few posts up by Robert.

  Can I produce hard evidence that he wasn't using a cheat program?  No, I can't.  I can only testify regarding my interactions with him in our CC and the emails he and I have exchanged concerning the matter.  As Robert pointed out, how does one prove that one didn't do something?  If the premise is faulty, so are any conclusions drawn.

  That's why I say he's 100% innocent until proven guilty.  I maintain that the method used to determine his guilt was based on a faulty premise, thus leading to the flawed conclusion.

  Add to the above the admittedly emotional response that it just doesn't feel right, that wgt were mistaken in their methodology, and that they felt the need to ban some people under the nebulous parameters of some vague "security sweep", and I say the burden of proof is squarely on them.

  Is mine a voice crying in the wilderness?  Probably so.  Now wade into the water with me and prepare for a dunking.

  ;-)