Account Sitting Abuse - josko.ri [warned]

[Night Strike]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

[thebest712]

We get it. You didn't look at all of KoRT's games, but from your research, you can assume josko cheated in most of them.

Yes, the defense has been sent privately. The only people who need to "see and counter it" are the admins & multi hunters. There's been enough hearsay and guessing games for one thread. The peanut gallery has been entertaining, but you guys will just have to find something else to keep yourselves busy for now.

it will come public I think

[Serbia]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

This. Obviously. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

[sjnap]

Potto

[drunkmonkey]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

If you don't feel the C&A team is capable of doing their job, that's something you should bring up to the admins. I'm sure they'll ask for your insight should they run into any problems.

[niMic]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

Did you miss the part where the defense has been sent in? If the C&A team feel like making it public, I'm sure they will. Until then, perhaps you should take it easy.

[Rodion]

The accused has had 3 weeks now to post a defense, which is much more time allotted than most other cases that come to the C&A forum. Are we going to actually see a defense or are the accused trying to just ignore the thread hoping it will go away? Let's get a ruling on this so clans and others can get a better idea of what is considered legal account sitting.

Or, is the defense in private which will not allow anyone else to actually see it and counter it?

Just in case it has been provided in private, I'd just like to state the following points of emphasis for the C&A team to consider:

- The 20 or so cases in the OP are from a total of three tournament/challenges. In the G1 challenge I checked every game, but for the TLO tournament and THOTA challenge I only looked at games in which josko was a part of. There are other games in these two that I did not look into to see if josko was taking turns.

- The cases in the OP are only the turns in which we felt abuse was happening. We deleted about 30 turns (again, only from those three tournament/challenges) from our listing in which we felt that legit account sitting was taking place by josko. This includes games for multiple players not included on the original report. Though, I have to say, 50 (30 legit + 20 abuse) turns over the course of around 80 games that josko was a part of is rather ridiculous... even if some of it is "legit".

- To give examples of how small a sample size this truly is, josko and Moonchild (who seems to be the main account josko takes turns for) have played 189 team games together. 35 of the 189 games are from the three tournament/challenges that I looked through and in those 35 games I found 8 games (23%) that I included in the OP. Extrapolating that over 189 games would give an estimate of 43 games of abuse. And this is for only one player, who knows how many games there are out there with numerous other teammates that I did not have the time/desire to do research on.

- If I want to take this further, though... I'll use the numbers stated above: 20 cases of abuse over 80 games. That's 25% (which is very close to the 23% calculated above for Moonchild). Josko has finished 323 team games. 25% of 323 would come out to 81 turns of abuse...

Statistically, the problem with small sample sizes is that they're usually not accurate and, as such, can't be used to induce the "bigger picture".

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

[Timminz]

The accused has had 3 weeks now to post a defense, which is much more time allotted than most other cases that come to the C&A forum. Are we going to actually see a defense or are the accused trying to just ignore the thread hoping it will go away? Let's get a ruling on this so clans and others can get a better idea of what is considered legal account sitting.

Or, is the defense in private which will not allow anyone else to actually see it and counter it?

Just in case it has been provided in private, I'd just like to state the following points of emphasis for the C&A team to consider:

- The 20 or so cases in the OP are from a total of three tournament/challenges. In the G1 challenge I checked every game, but for the TLO tournament and THOTA challenge I only looked at games in which josko was a part of. There are other games in these two that I did not look into to see if josko was taking turns.

- The cases in the OP are only the turns in which we felt abuse was happening. We deleted about 30 turns (again, only from those three tournament/challenges) from our listing in which we felt that legit account sitting was taking place by josko. This includes games for multiple players not included on the original report. Though, I have to say, 50 (30 legit + 20 abuse) turns over the course of around 80 games that josko was a part of is rather ridiculous... even if some of it is "legit".

- To give examples of how small a sample size this truly is, josko and Moonchild (who seems to be the main account josko takes turns for) have played 189 team games together. 35 of the 189 games are from the three tournament/challenges that I looked through and in those 35 games I found 8 games (23%) that I included in the OP. Extrapolating that over 189 games would give an estimate of 43 games of abuse. And this is for only one player, who knows how many games there are out there with numerous other teammates that I did not have the time/desire to do research on.

- If I want to take this further, though... I'll use the numbers stated above: 20 cases of abuse over 80 games. That's 25% (which is very close to the 23% calculated above for Moonchild). Josko has finished 323 team games. 25% of 323 would come out to 81 turns of abuse...

Statistically, the problem with small sample sizes is that they're usually not accurate and, as such, can't be used to induce the "bigger picture".

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

There's no need to extrapolate at all. 20 games with sitting abuse is far too many, no matter how big the sample size is.

[Bones2484]

Statistically, the problem with small sample sizes is that they're usually not accurate and, as such, can't be used to induce the "bigger picture".

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

There's no need to extrapolate at all. 20 games with sitting abuse is far too many, no matter how big the sample size is.

Agreed. I was told by an Administrator of this site before I posted this in C&A that the account sitting would be okay if it happened "once or twice under extreme conditions". The simple fact that I could find this happening 20 times in a "small sample size" (as you freely admit), is clear grounds for abuse. There is no way get around that fact.

[Chuuuuck]

I am not trying to be supportive of either side here, although I am very interested in the topic and have stated my opinion for the best interest of clans and the site in general a few times.

However, I do believe that the C&A hunters should make the entire defense public for it to be picked apart by the court of public opinion. If speculation or anything else starts happening then they should keep it on topic and ask people to stick to facts, however, they should give the public a chance to review and acknowledge the defense. I think this because this site does not go out and actively look for cases of abuse on their own, they leave it up to the community as a whole to bring cases to them, then, in addition to that, they leave it up to the community to amount evidence against the accused for them to punish someone. It makes absolutely no sense that you rely on the community to come up with all of the evidence, but then you don't let them see the defense to make their argument against it. Pretty one sided if it is not made public, you show the accused the accusations against them and all of the evidence, but you don't provide the accusers the defense and the chance for rebuttal.

[Foxglove]

However, I do believe that the C&A hunters should make the entire defense public for it to be picked apart by the court of public opinion.

The problem here is that the public is neither fair, nor balanced, nor free of malice - especially in regard to the people involved in this report.

The CC "court of public opinion" is a kangaroo court. For proof of this, please review any previous high-profile post in the C&A forum.

(Edit: Also, please review the usefulness, thoughtful contributions, and carefully considered judgement and evaluation of the facts presented in the post immediately following mine.)

[eddie2]

rofl this thread is funny

[Serbia]

I completely agree. You want to talk about legality, and compare this to a court of law - where do you ever have a prosecution make a public case before a judge, only to get sent out by the judge so the defense could be made in secret, then called back in only to be told of the judgement? That's ridiculous.

Chuuuuck is right on target.

[eddie2]

However, I do believe that the C&A hunters should make the entire defense public for it to be picked apart by the court of public opinion.

The problem here is that the public is neither fair, nor balanced, nor free of malice - especially in regard to the people involved in this report.

The CC "court of public opinion" is a kangaroo court. For proof of this, please review any previous high-profile post in the C&A forum.

(Edit: Also, please review the usefulness, thoughtful contributions, and carefully considered judgement and evaluation of the facts presented in the post immediately following mine.)

lol let me see ah the blitz case was it not for the fact of several players picking apart blitzs statement that got the case down to a correct ruling

[drunkmonkey]

I completely agree. You want to talk about legality, and compare this to a court of law - where do you ever have a prosecution make a public case before a judge, only to get sent out by the judge so the defense could be made in secret, then called back in only to be told of the judgement? That's ridiculous.

Chuuuuck is right on target.

You want to compare this to a court of law? Where do you ever have the defense present their case, and then the judge allows all the local children in to run around the courtroom and rattle off their nonsensical take on the evidence?

[Serbia]

I completely agree. You want to talk about legality, and compare this to a court of law - where do you ever have a prosecution make a public case before a judge, only to get sent out by the judge so the defense could be made in secret, then called back in only to be told of the judgement? That's ridiculous.

Chuuuuck is right on target.

You want to compare this to a court of law? Where do you ever have the defense present their case, and then the judge allows all the local children in to run around the courtroom and rattle off their nonsensical take on the evidence?

I don't want to, but Rodion did.

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

That is what I was referring to. And you can consider the "local children" to be witnesses. Some witnesses are more reliable than others, some shouldn't speak at all - just like real life, eh?

[drunkmonkey]

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

That is what I was referring to. And you can consider the "local children" to be witnesses. Some witnesses are more reliable than others, some shouldn't speak at all - just like real life, eh?

Except there's no "judge" to throw out incorrect evidence, no way to object to hearsay or speculation, or any of the many forms of misdirection that can be used...do you see how absurd the analogy is?

Saying "the onus of proof is yours" is accurate. This isn't a court of law, but if you want to accuse someone, you have to prove they did it. You can't just say "there's probably a bunch more" and make it so. The fact that he used the word "legally" doesn't mean we have to draw out a complete courtroom analogy. In fact, taking that little word to make such a ridiculous argument is one of the forms of misdirection I was referring to. And you wonder why he didn't post the defense publicly.

[Serbia]

Legally, as the accuser, the onus of proof is yours. You can't take a small sample size and "extrapolate" it. If you think there's more abuse in games you didn't check, you have to check them and find them.

That is what I was referring to. And you can consider the "local children" to be witnesses. Some witnesses are more reliable than others, some shouldn't speak at all - just like real life, eh?

Except there's no "judge" to throw out incorrect evidence, no way to object to hearsay or speculation, or any of the many forms of misdirection that can be used...do you see how absurd the analogy is?

Saying "the onus of proof is yours" is accurate. This isn't a court of law, but if you want to accuse someone, you have to prove they did it. You can't just say "there's probably a bunch more" and make it so. The fact that he used the word "legally" doesn't mean we have to draw out a complete courtroom analogy. In fact, taking that little word to make such a ridiculous argument is one of the forms of misdirection I was referring to. And you wonder why he didn't post the defense publicly.

Onus of proof - 20 cases were presented. That is considered the "proof" in this case. 20 cases is too many. Defend those 20 then. More cases are not necessary for the complaint. Your use of "You can't just say 'there's probably a bunch more' and make it so" is a ridiculous argument and a form of misdirection, which you keep referring to. And I don't wonder why he didn't post the defense publicly - I wouldn't want to explain my actions publicly, were I accused of something, either. I might come across looking guilty. Right?

[drunkmonkey]

Onus of proof - 20 cases were presented. That is considered the "proof" in this case. 20 cases is too many. Defend those 20 then. More cases are not necessary for the complaint.

- The 20 or so cases in the OP are from a total of three tournament/challenges. In the G1 challenge I checked every game, but for the TLO tournament and THOTA challenge I only looked at games in which josko was a part of. There are other games in these two that I did not look into to see if josko was taking turns.

<...>

- To give examples of how small a sample size this truly is, josko and Moonchild (who seems to be the main account josko takes turns for) have played 189 team games together. 35 of the 189 games are from the three tournament/challenges that I looked through and in those 35 games I found 8 games (23%) that I included in the OP. Extrapolating that over 189 games would give an estimate of 43 games of abuse. And this is for only one player, who knows how many games there are out there with numerous other teammates that I did not have the time/desire to do research on.

- If I want to take this further, though... I'll use the numbers stated above: 20 cases of abuse over 80 games. That's 25% (which is very close to the 23% calculated above for Moonchild). Josko has finished 323 team games. 25% of 323 would come out to 81 turns of abuse...

I'm done running in circles with you.

[Bones2484]

I completely agree that the onus of proof is on us. However in agreeing to that, I see no reason why I need to look into finding more games when all I needed to find was this happening "more than once or twice". The OP lists 20 occurrences from a small sample size (which has been admitted to by those on both sides of the argument).

It's not that much of a stretch to believe that there are many more games out there with problems, especially considering a few other game links have been posted in this thread... not to mention the one clan challenge where this all started hasn't even been discussed.

The post I made, that you quote above, was to further emphasize the small sample size since no defense was being posted. All I can do at this point, with the lack of public defense, is to try to make the point very clear to the C&A team that this abuse is happening a lot more often than in extreme circumstances.

[Night Strike]

We feel that the 20 or so games are proof enough to yield a guilty decision. If it's not, or if there is a relevant defense for those games, then the accusers should have the complete ability to do more research and post more games of possible abuse. Of course, by hiding your own defense we have no ability to make the determination as to whether we need to present more evidence. If you think your actions are pure and defensible, post them as such. Quit hiding behind PMs. You all believe that using other accounts for posting strategies or taking turns simply because people were waiting on strategies is perfectly legal, so provide the facts! If you all are cleared, we want to learn what it takes to ruin the fair play of all clan wars.

[drunkmonkey]

If you all are cleared, we want to learn what it takes to ruin the fair play of all clan wars.

Please, moderators, feel free to step in when you feel this reaches the level of trolling.

[Night Strike]

If you all are cleared, we want to learn what it takes to ruin the fair play of all clan wars.

Please, moderators, feel free to step in when you feel this reaches the level of trolling.

Where's the trolling? We legitimately feel that when 1 person is able to take turns on any account whenever they want, then there is no longer a fair level of competition. If you think that position is trolling, then maybe your clan should stop the actions that lead to unfair competitions.

[Metsfanmax]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

^ Trolling

[Bones2484]

So are you all too scared that your defense won't hold up to public scrutiny and are rather hoping that it all gets swept under the rug?

^ Trolling

As a mod you should be well aware that if you think someone is breaking the forum rules there's a handy little exclamation mark triangle right above every post that you can use to report a post, as I have done with yours. Posting nothing but "^ Trolling" is contrary to the goals of a thread and the only thing it can do is bring it even further off course.

Night Strike is trying to say that if they feel they aren't breaking any rules, then they should not be afraid to form a defense in public. Trying to be secret about anything only furthers the feeling that there is something shady that needs to be kept hidden.

Also, drunkmonkey, Night Strike's sentence that you pointed out is a fair comment that alludes to the dangers of an innocent ruling. If this kind of "sitting" is allowed, where does it stop? Would any player in a team game be allowed to let their timer fall down towards zero and have someone else swoop in and take the turn towards the end even though they are active in forums and other games? The precedent would be set for anyone to just claim "his timer was low, so I sat" and there would be nothing the C&A team could do about it. Where would that leave clan challenges and tournaments? What kind of credibility would be left with any team game in this scenario?