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.
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)
Literally, I feel the mods did not really look into this. Based off that pastebin, they barely did any work. Looks like it took a maximum of 30 minutes each to make. This definitely deserves a second look at. It seems a good portion of people think I am innocent from what i have gathered between the two posts.
Being able to read someone as town after playing the same setup with them multiple times is rather easy......Hell, try it yourself, come play the same setup with me multiple times in a row and I guarantee you can figure it out fairly quickly solely based of strategies and language.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
86% wins in 14 games isn't really evidence of anything
1
deleteddeletedabout 11 years ago
Not really. It was a joke. The high win rate when you're both town is still notable though. I was just highlighting the stats because they're interesting, but they don't tell the entire story.
Round 301- I placed 11th in the competition. Not a single game was played with Zwink
Round 32- On my first account- I won gold trophy, not a single game was played with Zwink because Zwink probably hadn't even heard of EM yet.
I play to try to win competitions, never would i play against my own win conditions. I played by hardest, sure I had bad games, and I had good games. Some games I was exhausted because I work over 60 hours a week and only have time to play from 10pm-3am. i Still tried my heart out this round, I would have done just as well this round without Zwink. I feel like i should be allowed to prove that I can play and suceed competitively without Zwink. I did not play against my win condition, I used past games played to make reads on players. I used what is given like win percentages and what not to determine reads. I have my own tactics.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
Interesting stats...
Games won as the same alignment: 12/15 (all but one of these is town)
Literally, Zwink and I are pretty similar players.And the fact that we both played the same setup for most the round, often resulted in similar reads, and similar foses. After playing with someone after a few games, you easily understand their style of play, and when they're town/ scum. It is rather easy to figure out. If I played with Zwink as much as I did, and didnt even end up on the leaderboard, it would probably be me playing against my win condition. But the merry fact that i won multiple games without zwink, I won games against Zwink, means that this whole thing is just a bunch of bologna. mods really need to reevaluate this without take stuff out of context.
I tried to win every single game, whether Zwink was on my team or not in the end. Read the games, the evidence is there. all the arguments were taken out of context.
deleteddeletedabout 11 years agoedited
@Jaleb I mean, it's not quite gamethrowing in the sense we normally think of it since you're not playing against your own wincon & trying to lose, you're just playing for the wrong one. Which means you're not prioritizing your own win condition. Which means you're not playing to win. Which means you're throwing.
"Intentionally playing against your win condition or not playing to win."
Like why was i not allowed to defend myself as I got crucified? why is zwink 100% innocent. why am I guilty? I didnt even do anything wrong. I beat zwink in games, she beat me, sometimes we both won. Being able to read another individual is NOT something that is bannable
