Back to Epicmafia

Investigation for Round 310

Giga13
about 10 years

Togepi and myself collaborated on a pastebin to investigate Zwink, CocaCola, and RadioFire90 in Round 310. Understand that the pastebin itself isn't the cleanest; rather our two bins were just put into one big bin because Togepi and myself are exhausted (I myself apologize for the poor formatting in my half, it's pretty bad) Nevertheless, the evidence is there. Other evidence was submitted by another user as well which helped us reach our verdict. Three moderators (Togepi, Sims, and myself) were involved in agreeing to the following verdict:

We have not concluded that cheating occurred between Zwink, CocaCola, and/or RadioFire90. We did however, have reason to believe that meta abuse occurred in Round 310 within this group.

The Verdict: Cocacola is going to be banned from winning trophies for 3 months due to meta abuse in the form of playing in favour of another user (Zwink) over the course of a Round. RadioFire90 is innocent. Zwink will be allowed to trophy this Round.

Cocacola will still be allowed to play gold heart games during this trophy ban. We (Togepi, Sims & myself) believe that Zwink's run in Round 310 was not tainted enough by CocaCola's meta abuse and interference to justify stripping Zwink of any possible trophy that she might win this round.

For those questioning the length of ban: Meta Abuse varies from situation to situation. The three moderators involved in this did not think that applying a Cheating violation to CocaCola would be appropriate in this particular instance, so we felt that the most fitting consequence would be to apply a ban on winning trophies for 3 months--half of what a normal cheating violation calls for. CocaCola and all of their alts will also be monitored whenever they are playing games with Zwink from now on in Competitive Rounds.

Here is the pastebin created by Togepi and myself: http://pastebin.com/rwJkeA5d

pereking
about 10 years

dustmote says

I agree with guyfawkes. When I play with any of the people I really like, I am less likely to n1 them, and more likely to gun them etc etc etc. Heck, I am even more likely to gun or protect people because I like their cute avi more than a noavi. It's not about meta abuse, it's just that if the game demanded that people Random n1'd or random gun'd/investigated/etc on n1 --- (or any other time where some kind of reason that is pertinent to the game is not in play) --- then the admin would have just made a function that required a truly random selection picked by the computer.


this has nothing to do with n1
deletedabout 10 years
I agree with guyfawkes. When I play with any of the people I really like, I am less likely to n1 them, and more likely to gun them etc etc etc. Heck, I am even more likely to gun or protect people because I like their cute avi more than a noavi. It's not about meta abuse, it's just that if the game demanded that people Random n1'd or random gun'd/investigated/etc on n1 --- (or any other time where some kind of reason that is pertinent to the game is not in play) --- then the admin would have just made a function that required a truly random selection picked by the computer.
deletedabout 10 years

Nahdia says

It's honestly something a lot of people are guilty of; you're playing comp games with your friend and you know they're trophy running, so you want to avoid lynching them because you want them to trophy. Since, you know, they're your friend.

The fact is though that on multiple occasions CocaCola seems to scumread Zwink but refuses to lynch her. I don't think this was him consciously thinking "I'm going to risk losing just to make sure Zwink wins." It was probably unconscious; he had a bias against lynching Zwink because Zwink is his friend and he could cost her a trophy if he lynches her, so he looks for ways to justify not lynching her.


I think this is exactly what happened and this is also the reason I lose so often when playing with close friends who happen to roll maf when I'm town-sided.

#freeCoca
Myths
about 10 years
you guys realize this is a game right
Zwink
about 10 years
#freecoca
GuyFawkes85
about 10 years

Tinkerer says

I'm pretty sure that if you compare any two players that played a lot together over a certain amount of time you'd get some sort of similar results. This evidence is iffy as hell and feels a lot like confirmation bias.


I agree with Tinkerer, quite probably if you check ANY couple of friends here on EM (it might be any pair you can think of, celebs or not) you'll have similar results. Coca's only fault is to have met Zwink in a round and to have played with her a good number of games, being often aligned the same (based on the stats Nahdia provided)
Burnmad
about 10 years

Tinkerer says

Also is there any round in recent history where something like this didn't happen? What's even the point of comp?


I think a while back someone gave a vacation as a prize for most trophies in a certain time period?

Not sure if they delivered, but either way I'm sure that only served to heavily increase the number of cheaters.

If someone ended up getting a vacation, though, good for them.
Tinkerer
about 10 years
Also is there any round in recent history where something like this didn't happen? What's even the point of comp?
deletedabout 10 years
the dude is a banned user by the way
Burnmad
about 10 years
I was originally going to just comment on how this thread was even funnier than the last one, but, so as to not give the appearance of being a trolly lurker, I'll just say that, as unlikely as it is that Coca intentionally threw for Zwink, this is a good verdict. Non-punishments like this should be handed out more often. As it's less harsh than a ban, a trophy bar has less of an effect on the many innocents that would receive one (because let's face it, trophies are like medals for being a tryhard lol), while the people who actually cheat are foiled in their goal.
deletedabout 10 years
Hmm yes let's trophy bar anyone who feels bad for their friends loss
GrapsusGalois
about 10 years
I think Nahdia has a very strong point, heck, even if you're not friends but know someone is running, you're less likely to shoot them. (I had this with Doctor/Kawa/Tim near end of round.) Because misfiring them feels worse than misfiring someone else and you're never 100% sure. I'm against the verdict.
Tinkerer
about 10 years
I'm pretty sure that if you compare any two players that played a lot together over a certain amount of time you'd get some sort of similar results. This evidence is iffy as hell and feels a lot like confirmation bias.
deletedabout 10 years
Togepi and Giga wrote the bin.
runwithfire
about 10 years
Just wondering, who was involved in this pastebin. Very unclear
deletedabout 10 years
It's honestly something a lot of people are guilty of; you're playing comp games with your friend and you know they're trophy running, so you want to avoid lynching them because you want them to trophy. Since, you know, they're your friend.

The fact is though that on multiple occasions CocaCola seems to scumread Zwink but refuses to lynch her. I don't think this was him consciously thinking "I'm going to risk losing just to make sure Zwink wins." It was probably unconscious; he had a bias against lynching Zwink because Zwink is his friend and he could cost her a trophy if he lynches her, so he looks for ways to justify not lynching her.
deletedabout 10 years
It's not about misreading. Meta-abuse was a terrible way to frame it. It's about favoring which is sort of a Throwing Lite. CocaCola wasn't necessarily playing against his own win condition, but was subtly (and probably unconsciously in my opinion) playing towards someone else's win condition. Which means he wasn't playing to win himself. Which falls under GT.
TheeCake
about 10 years

Nahdia says

There are 15 games CocaCola has to form a legitimate read on Zwink (the other 8 are games Coca is either mafia or in one case they are templar partners). Of those...

CocaCola reads Zwink as town correctly 7 times.

CocaCola reads Zwink as town incorrectly 2 times.

CocaCola refuses to read Zwink 1 time (town is lynching Zwink but he tries to keep her alive saying "I can read Zwink in later days" despite him usually having a read on Zwink on d1 if d1 isn't instant or n2 if a templar).

CocaCola never outs a read on Zwink before Zwink dies 3 times (though one of those a null read stated at the n2 templar meeting).

CocaCola reads Zwink as mafia correctly 1 time. Notably this is their second game together.

CocaCola reads Zwink as mafia incorrectly 1 time. (It is not a strong read; he "policy lynches" Zwink d1 for claiming blue early)

Short version: reads Zwink correctly 8/15 times, doesn't read Zwink 4/15 times, reads Zwink wrong 3/15 times.



Nahdia says

@UniversalStudios & TheeCake Here you go. I never filled out Zwink's reads on CocaCola since mods ended up deciding this was a more one-sided thing.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17938zViFA4AduRonVT0X5C0IYUo8HD5x9cwv8879hTs/edit?usp=sharing

Out of the four games CocaCola never outs a read on Zwink, Zwink is always town except the time where he refuses to read her and she's lynched d1.

https://epicmafia.com/game/4157150/review - Never has a chance to out a read due to a fast d1 and Zwink dying n2
https://epicmafia.com/game/4157218/review - Never has a chance to out a read due to a fast d1 and Zwink dying n2
https://epicmafia.com/game/4157302/review - Refuses to read Zwink on d1 but she's lynched anyway
https://epicmafia.com/game/4160441/review - Is unsure on Zwink so never lists her alignment



So basically, out of 4 zwink maf games, Coca misreads zwink twice. It's hard to see the meta abuse.
deletedabout 10 years
I'm just happy that the admin for once (and team involved) and the balls to actually seek a punishment that isn't specifically "banned or not"

Idk how to explain it
Giga13
about 10 years
Judging this kind of thing is extremely difficult and is, I'd say, the hardest thing to do as a moderator. This is one of the lightest punishments ever for what we felt was meta abuse. It was really close, and we know that what we did here would originally be seen as "precedent" except there is no precedent for meta abuse since each situation is unique. but we want to make it clear that it's not tolerated.
Togepi
about 10 years

blacksnakemoan says


rutab says

but statistical information is factual and telling


This is the most laughable assertion in this thread.


Mte... oy.
deletedabout 10 years

CocaCola says

If I played against my own win condition, then how come their aren't any actual statistics to back up that fact? How was I convicted? There is so much wrong with the verdict the moderators involved came up with.


Out of 4 games where you were town and Zwink was mafia, you only lynch Zwink one of those and that's your second game together.

In the other three you either refuse to out a read on Zwink and try desperately to save her from being mislynched or you continually consider her as scum but end up deciding she is town in the end. You never have these sorts of strong doubts when Zwink is actually town. If you can read Zwink well like you claim then difference should be pretty clear but you failed to lynch Zwink regardless.
deletedabout 10 years
Nat is a blessing to EpicMafia
CocaCola
about 10 years
If I played against my own win condition, then how come their aren't any actual statistics to back up that fact? How was I convicted? There is so much wrong with the verdict the moderators involved came up with.
deletedabout 10 years
thanks nat