Review this one game. This is cheating. I spoke with one of your role mods and that convo included her saying, "calvin abt to lose his trophy for bogus reasons..."
deletedabout 8 years
To summarize:
Perfectly reasonable stance to have: dope shouldn't trophy because he had an advantage in his games with annabelle.
Unreasonable and pretty darn rude stance to have: dope is a cheater because he linked his girlfriend to his games.
deletedabout 8 years
IDK what y'all are saying though, Edark spent like 3-4 hours talking to us about each and every game he found "suspicious" while vilden was shitposting and having a mental breakdown on the forums. If the dude literally spent all this time i was sleeping to go through the games while also being devoid of any rest and simultaneously having a breakdown, idk why you think what he's saying is credible at all
I dont really think the SO gets any pleasure of lynching her/his running mate regardless of alignment, or at the very least not as much as if you townread them correctly,
I actually made a bin if you guys wanna check which I then showed anna and calvin and had a long chat with.
they still dont deserve a trophy, they didn't earn a trophy if they played a third of their games with someone who wont scumread them for outside of game reasons
deletedabout 8 years
I dropped some wicked psychology on these suckers.
What do you think is more likely?
1) Calvin links annabelle games he's in because he enjoys playing with her?
2) Calvin links annabelle games because he's believes he's more likely to win with her on the table?
deletedabout 8 years
we already went over each and every suspicious game with edark personally, you can stop the witch hunt now. thanks.
So if you have logs of Calvin saying "yeah i'm linking annabelle to all my games because she'll never hammer me ^_^" then yeah, call him a cheater.
Otherwise step off.
deletedabout 8 years
Unless, you know, the runner wasn't intentionally exploiting someone they knew would be unlikely to scumread them and instead they were just, you know, wanting to play with people they enjoy playing with. Then calling them a cheater is really, really sh*tty of you.
to prove it's actual throwing, you need to look at the mafia games by the possible thrower, not the town games. in fact you need to compare the thrower's games as mafia when they're playing with the running player and when they're playing without them (or with them when they're not running).
if there's a significant difference, you've got throwing. if not, the worst you've got is someone who has an aversion towards scumreading someone as explained by that risk/reward grid.
imo you can argue with legitimacy, depending on context, for suspending someone for abusing that. i personally think it's really heinous to ban them/call them cheaters for it though since at the end of the day they're just playing with people they want to play with.
funny how players like skydemon or rooo who arent circlejerkers can get decomped with no proof, while a circlejerker wont get banned even with proof of unfair play
You guys need to understand the pressure edark is in. The accused party includes so many people including cody. Taking curses from so many people is not easy when there is no skype logs.
Also the act of continuing to play with that person knowing that they have an aversion to scumreading you should be considered cheating because at that point you are exploiting that person's meta abuse. It's hard to argue that you did not know that was the case when you are competing in a game of logic.
deletedabout 8 years
actually i made the axis wrong technically they should be flipped but you get the point. what's happening is the false negative condition in the bottom left box is weighed heavier than the false positive condition in the top right box. whereas the two desirable outcomes are weighed roughly equally.
