Account Sitting Abuse - josko.ri [warned]

[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?

[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?

^ Trolling

Rather than trolling, I'd call that "on-topic". Do you see a defense Metsfanmax? No? Neither do I. Is Night Strike not allowed to guess as to why there is no defense forth-coming? And, isn't that a valid, and in fact, an expected opinion? Otherwise, why not make the defense in public? If you think everyone will believe you, then what other motivation would you have?

[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

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.

Every post for the last few pages in this thread has done nothing to help the C&A mods resolve the situation; it has simply been back and forth banter over ground that has already been covered. I do not feel like reporting 100 posts.

Rather than trolling, I'd call that "on-topic". Do you see a defense Metsfanmax? No? Neither do I. Is Night Strike not allowed to guess as to why there is no defense forth-coming? And, isn't that a valid, and in fact, an expected opinion? Otherwise, why not make the defense in public? If you think everyone will believe you, then what other motivation would you have?

My opinion on this is not important; the fact is that by calling them "scared," NS is quite obviously baiting these people. There were many other ways to get the point across without trolling them. And in fact the point has been made; I don't see why people keep on demanding something when it is clear they aren't going to get it.

[Night Strike]

Every post for the last few pages in this thread has done nothing to help the C&A mods resolve the situation; it has simply been back and forth banter over ground that has already been covered. I do not feel like reporting 100 posts.

Maybe if the members of KORT had posted their defense in public, we could actually be discussing IT rather than discussing why it isn't being posted. Sounds like a winning plan for all sides (except maybe for KORT, but that's to be expected).

[Metsfanmax]

Every post for the last few pages in this thread has done nothing to help the C&A mods resolve the situation; it has simply been back and forth banter over ground that has already been covered. I do not feel like reporting 100 posts.

Maybe if the members of KORT had posted their defense in public, we could actually be discussing IT rather than discussing why it isn't being posted. Sounds like a winning plan for all sides (except maybe for KORT, but that's to be expected).

I'm just asking everyone to chill out until such time as they decide to post that defense. If they do, great, more discussion can happen then. If they don't, the only thing that more posting will lead to is unnecessary tension.

[sjnap]

Every post for the last few pages in this thread has done nothing to help the C&A mods resolve the situation; it has simply been back and forth banter over ground that has already been covered. I do not feel like reporting 100 posts.

Maybe if the members of KORT had posted their defense in public, we could actually be discussing IT rather than discussing why it isn't being posted. Sounds like a winning plan for all sides (except maybe for KORT, but that's to be expected).

Buddy, your attitude is so annoying.
Good there is no medal to gain for the most annoying person of the site.

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.
All we want is to have fun and play some games/wars together. And this is what we do !
Sometimes we win, sometimes we dont. We beat you fair ! Not the first time and it will not be the last time.
Well, actually i hope we will never play you again.
Very dissappointing to see this childish behaviour of some members of G1.

[owenshooter]

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.

see, but the problem is, people have given concrete evidence of abuse and you have not really offered a defense other than, "we don't cheat." do you see where the problem lies with that? the last person to be let off the hook due to "reputation" was sits-a-holic, and they came back and actually looked at the evidence and we all know what happened to him. unless you put up some evidence, your defense doesn't hold much water...-el Jesus negro

[niMic]

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.

see, but the problem is, people have given concrete evidence of abuse and you have not really offered a defense other than, "we don't cheat." do you see where the problem lies with that? the last person to be let off the hook due to "reputation" was sits-a-holic, and they came back and actually looked at the evidence and we all know what happened to him. unless you put up some evidence, your defense doesn't hold much water...-el Jesus negro

Do you really think Josko would be let off the hook for "reputation"? Josko? He's not exactly the darling of the community, however unfair that may be.

As for the constant demands that evidence needs to be publicly shown.. maybe the C&A guys need to do their job and either post the evidence publicly if they intend to, or start moderating this thread if they don't. Why is it on us? The evidence has been sent to everyone who should have it, they need to decide what to do with it. For all I know they wouldn't like us making the entire defense known.

[eddie2]

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.

lol i got 3 words and you asked for this.


kort v tofu

[gameplayer]

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.
All we want is to have fun and play some games/wars together. And this is what we do !
Sometimes we win, sometimes we dont. We beat you fair ! Not the first time and it will not be the last time.
Well, actually i hope we will never play you again.
Very dissappointing to see this childish behaviour of some members of G1.

"We beat you fair"? Are you implying that G1 is somehow upset that we lost this clan war, and is turning this into some sort of petty revenge thread? I don't think you understand G1 very well because that's not the way our clan works. We like to do our best to go out and win every challenge, but we know we probably aren't going win every challenge, especially against the top tier clans, and we like to have fun more than anything else. We've lost plenty of clans wars before and accepted those losses gladly, because the games were fun and enjoyable for both sides. This post by bart sums it up pretty well, made in the kort thread before the challenge even started:

There are clans that require minimum scores to join or want to only take generals or some things like that. There are others that will accept lower ranks but won't let them play in challenges etc. That isn't our way and never will be. It isn't that we don't want to win, we do. However, one of the guiding ideals of G1 has been that everyone should participate in clan wars, events, forums, etc as much as they'd like to. Would we fare better in clan leagues and wars if we sent out ZionT, BaldAdonis, Timminz, Bones2484, Hath, Gameplayer and Tripitaka more often? Probably so, but that isn't the way we've done things in the past and its not the way we're going to do things in the future. That isn't to say that those clans that do things this way are wrong. They do what's right for them, it just isn't right for us.

This thread isn't about the final score of the challenge. This is about a player coming in and ruining the spirit of the game by taking many turns for other players when they were capable of taking the turns themselves. G1 thinks this is against the rules of the site, which is why we posted the C&A report in the first place. 17 pages later, we haven't had a straight answer from KORT as to why josko is taking all the turns when the players are perfectly capable of taking the turns themselves. Sure, there have been one or few small explanations, "I was tired and fell asleep" kinds of things, but they don't explain such a broad pattern of abuse, and they don't even justify the sitting of the turns in the first place. This thread has been sitting here for three weeks now with all sorts of players derailing the thread, attacking certain clans or members, and arguing petty semantics, but I haven't seen a single concrete explanation for the original accusation. Before the thread went crazy, the debate was something like this:
KORT members have a habit of consulting with their teammates before taking their turns, which often results in them running low on time. The players are online during their allotted 24 hours, but don't take their turn because they want to talk to their teammate. However, "something" happens, they don't take their turn, the teammate comes on with only a few hours left on the clock and takes the turn for them. This has been documented happening in at least 16 games in the last year, with previous complaints from other clans going back further than that. The question is, is it okay for players to be in a habit of doing this, or is it against account sitting rules, because the player was on during the 24 hour time period and chose not to take their turn? Hopefully a firm line can be drawn on this case so this sort of matter can be firmly moderated in the future.

[Chuuuuck]

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.)

I completely agree Foxxy that the public is not always fair and balanced, but the way their system is set up, it is up to the public to bring evidence and charges in any abuse case. You can not reasonably ask two parties to debate a topic if you shield one party from being knowledgeable of what is even being said in the debate.

[barterer2002]

We, KORT, dont need to cheat for playing games/clanwars. And surely dont have intention for winning games/wars unfairly.
All we want is to have fun and play some games/wars together. And this is what we do !
Sometimes we win, sometimes we dont. We beat you fair ! Not the first time and it will not be the last time.

I've always had great respect for KORT as player and I enjoy playing against them as great challenges and an opportunity to better my own game (something i need to pay more attention to I think).

I totally agree that KORT doesn't need to cheat, you have enough quality players to play fairly and win. Rodion himself is a General and certainly knows enough about the games and strategy to win.

The question then is why is josko taking his turns.

Now, KORT may not think that this is cheating and they may be right, I don't know but if the idea here is that 1 teammate can take all the turns in a team game whenever they "need" to then doesn't that cheapen the team aspect of the game. Do we have Quad games coming where there is one controller and 3 puppets in a Josko vs. Blitz type of thing? While I would certainly love to see a 1v1 quad format we don't have that yet.

In this case josko is certainly the poster boy but I doubt it limited to him or to KORT. Its clearly an issue that its good to debate. If we want to make a situation where the clan wars become wars between the top two players in each clan controlling all the participants then by all means lets do that but lets be open about it.

[Metsfanmax]

I completely agree Foxxy that the public is not always fair and balanced, but the way their system is set up, it is up to the public to bring evidence and charges in any abuse case. You can not reasonably ask two parties to debate a topic if you shield one party from being knowledgeable of what is even being said in the debate.

Once the evidence and charges have been brought up, does there need to actually be a debate of interpretation? It seems that this implies that the C&A team does not have the capability of understanding what's going on by themselves.

There were dozens of pages of posts on the Blitz thread but ultimately most of them were entirely irrelevant to the decision -- only the ones that provided factual information that had not yet been disclosed.

[Night Strike]

I completely agree Foxxy that the public is not always fair and balanced, but the way their system is set up, it is up to the public to bring evidence and charges in any abuse case. You can not reasonably ask two parties to debate a topic if you shield one party from being knowledgeable of what is even being said in the debate.

Once the evidence and charges have been brought up, does there need to actually be a debate of interpretation? It seems that this implies that the C&A team does not have the capability of understanding what's going on by themselves.

There were dozens of pages of posts on the Blitz thread but ultimately most of them were entirely irrelevant to the decision -- only the ones that provided factual information that had not yet been disclosed.

When the C&A is making a decision based on interpretation of the rules, in my opinion, it makes sense to get feedback on how the community interprets the rules. That way they can either correct misinterpretations or get help formulating their own opinion on the situation as chances are they have never actually had to make a decision on a case like this one.

Of course, if KORT posted their defense to the public, if it's convincing enough, maybe even the accusers will drop the complaint. But alas, they're not allowed that option.

[Metsfanmax]

I completely agree Foxxy that the public is not always fair and balanced, but the way their system is set up, it is up to the public to bring evidence and charges in any abuse case. You can not reasonably ask two parties to debate a topic if you shield one party from being knowledgeable of what is even being said in the debate.

Once the evidence and charges have been brought up, does there need to actually be a debate of interpretation? It seems that this implies that the C&A team does not have the capability of understanding what's going on by themselves.

There were dozens of pages of posts on the Blitz thread but ultimately most of them were entirely irrelevant to the decision -- only the ones that provided factual information that had not yet been disclosed.

When the C&A is making a decision based on interpretation of the rules, in my opinion, it makes sense to get feedback on how the community interprets the rules. That way they can either correct misinterpretations or get help formulating their own opinion on the situation as chances are they have never actually had to make a decision on a case like this one.

Of course, if KORT posted their defense to the public, if it's convincing enough, maybe even the accusers will drop the complaint. But alas, they're not allowed that option.

Well, this is a fair point. The problem that I see is that many of the people in this thread have not been able to contain themselves from turning into a clan war; that's the problem I have with these public debates, is that many seem to want to turn it into an attack against a person or a group of people rather than a chance to be part of establishing a set of rules that affects everyone in the community equally. After all, although josko is in the public eye here, undoubtedly there have been instances in the past in other clans where people probably toed the line for what is acceptable sitting behavior, because there does not seem to be a clear guideline. I hope that this case will establish that guideline, but in any case, I also hope people will see it for what it is, and not take it as an opportunity to bash other people. That's what GD is for guys

[sonicsteve]

...many of the people in this thread have not been able to contain themselves from turning into a clan war; ... many seem to want to turn it into an attack against a person or a group of people rather than a chance to be part of establishing a set of rules ...

Have to disagree with you here, mets.

Firstly I don't believe this has turned into a clan war, of course the clans are naturally the interested parties since the alleged cheating occurred in clan wars, but there has been an absolute minimum of trolling, baiting and flaming. On the contrary most of the posts are well thought out and some good evidence has been brought.

Secondly, I firmly believe the defence should be posted here for public appraisal. If, on reading the defence case, people are unable to contain themselves from launching a clan war, then the thread should be locked and offenders dealt with in the normal way.

C&A shouldn't avoid posting the defence evidence just in case it causes a riot when no riot was caused by the prosecution evidence.