^Even if you were originally told that if you completed a set of requirements, you'd be let back on? I know if it were me, I would understand if I weren't allowed back, but if I were told I would be and I jumped through the hoops, I'd be pretty pissed if I were denied after all of that.

The Gaff wrote on 07/13/11 at 13:28:45:


Also I must stress that I do not think this is fine in any way.
I worked on my timesset for months and played this game with great joy. Also I love you guys to bits (you know that Tom), so if I take the decision to drop my times from this site, it is with great pain.
However, I just find this whole situation unacceptable, so I'm kinda left with no choice.  

Vorsch wrote on 07/14/11 at 01:48:07:


Don't judge it on what it looks like to you, rather try to counter the reasoning with arguments. Our motives are not what's important here.

So far I have encountered 0 arguments that reason the logic behind the "he has cheated in MKDS, but not here" statement. That's conveniently ignoring parts of evidence*. To me this implies that the pro-Fenner movement seems to have a hidden agenda, not us. But I don't care, motives are not important, to come to an acceptable decision is.

Vorsch wrote on 07/14/11 at 01:48:07:


Could you point them out please? Also, Fenner is not just your average cheater, he is the only case I know of that has been repeatedly caught accross the whole MK spectrum.

*For the millionth time, it's not evidence that his MKSC times are fake (those are very likely real), it's evidence his persona cannot be trusted, which is just as important, if not more.

KVD wrote on 07/14/11 at 02:13:49:


On smk, there is Guillaume Bertrand, which is a much more dangerous kind of cheater than Fenner ever was. He cheated multiple times on multiple games. He also used fake screenshot / videos to support his claims, which, as far as I know, is something that Terrence never did. On mk64, the members of the Hab trio (three people that reached #1 under a false name) are still allowed on the site, and even have 4 WR (three untied). The list goes on and on...


KVD wrote on 07/14/11 at 02:13:49:


We have evidence that Terrence has a strong tendancy to cheat, and therefore can't be trusted openly. But I simply don't care about that. The only thing that matters to me is whether his current timeset is real or not. I think that he gave us enough evidence about that (you say it youself, that his times are very likely real). As long as we have enough proof about his current timeset, I'm fine with him staying on the site. I'll develop that point of view below.


The goal of a proof policy is not to verify that a member is trustable. Why? Because such a thing is impossible to verify. Can you propose a scientific method to determine whether a human being can be trusted or not? Of course not! The whole idea is ridiculous. That's why a proof policy based on trust can't work. The Terrence case is a perfect example of that : I personally believe that he won't cheat again on the mksc site, you believe the contrary, and both side have reasonnable arguments. Trust is subjective.

That is why the goal of any sensible proof policy should simply be to verify the times of a person. That is an objective fact, and we have several objective methods to determine is the times are really driven or not. To me, that is the only kind of proof policy that makes logical sense.

Detective Spril wrote on 07/13/11 at 11:01:56:

I've been making videos since the start of '07

MD_Neo wrote on 07/14/11 at 04:04:13:

Not Boom3r too!!!  God-damn it!

The Gaff wrote on 07/14/11 at 02:33:57:

My DSi shoulder buttons are fucked beyond belief...and when I get a job in the future (hopefully before Dec. 21, 2012), I'll buy both the DSiXL & 3DS

if you want my FC on Nintendo DS, go to this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbbD7scnLQ

I don't have wi-fi

Vorsch wrote on 07/14/11 at 03:01:49:


Hab trio is a completely different situation, as they never submitted actual fake times to the site. Though if it were up to me, they would be banned as well yes. People have to learn to play by the effing rules.

As for Guillaume Bertrand, could you specify which games he was caught cheating in? And how this happened? He originally tried to pass his TAS-ed SMK runs as WR's, but never submitted them as such to our site, so technically he hasn't attempted to cheat. I agree, it's a shady case though. He should probably be removed as well, in the strictest sense. I can't think of others on the SMK site; the list certainly doesn't go on and on. Also, I'm fairly certain Fenner has been caught cheating at least twice as much as the next most caught cheater in the MK scene.


Vorsch wrote on 07/14/11 at 03:01:49:


What can automatically be derived from your reasoning is that there is no proof policy known to man that can resolve the Fenner case. Like you said, you can only determine to a large degree of certainty, which times are real and which ones aren't. But that's not the most important thing.

Vorsch wrote on 07/14/11 at 03:01:49:


Trust is the only sustainable way through which these websites can be maintained. You cannot possibly verify every single time of every single member, therefore we have to make the assumption that we can trust a member. Proof policies come into play once certain performances come under suspicion for whatever reason. Once these policies have caught a cheater, it means that person has breached the trust system, and has thereby demonstrated a complete lack of respect of the ultimate cornerstone that these rankings are based on. You have to understand that proof policies are not meant to 100% verify every single performance of a karter from a certain point onwards; that'd be quite ridiculous and the amount of effort that is necessary for such a high sustainment of proof is completely out of proportion. No, the goal of the proof policy is to demonstrate if someone is cheating; if not that person can be incorporated into the trust system again (eventually).

As Florent stated, once you have proven that a person can not be trusted (that's more often than not the way science works; you can't prove a positive, you can only eliminate which scenarios are false), that should be it. Especially if it is proven reproducably.

It boils down to how you view the site. Is it a place where you just come to fight against performances of other karters (your only interest are the times), or is it a place where you can enjoy the competition with people that respect the community and your mutual trust?

Fenner,

Lets take this slow then,

1) Do you have an interconnect connection? Answer is yes, this is connected to your computer which you use to do your live streaming. This is connected via a LAN cable. How long is this cable? Approximately?

2) You said you have a short lead on your webcam. I presume your webcam is plugged in low behind the tower and then the webcams sits on your desk or monitor quite high. How long is this lead/cable?

KVD wrote on 07/14/11 at 07:39:13:


You have to understand that a lot of people fall into the second group. You will lose those, as they are simply not interested in competing with someone like Fenner.

MD_Neo wrote on 07/14/11 at 04:04:13:


There you go, the stakes are raised. Are you willing to sacrifice your most talented member and record Champion for the sake of propagating the presence of a proven cheater in your rankings?

ok, lets suppose i sent you my old laptop as i wont be needing it anymore. Its a 2gb sony vaio. I sent you a lan cable (12 foot long) so the laptop is anywhere in your room and a 12mp webcam which is moveable (its not build in) for you to attach to it.

You set this up in your room so that everytime you play mksc you could live stream WITH THE CAMERA RECORDING YOU PLAYING from over your shoulder or a position where the screen is visible throughout.

If you dont pr you delete the session, if you do pr then you keep it and post it etc.

Can you see any problem with this? Would you be prepared to do it? Would you be able to play with the webcam showing you play/recording?

I dont see why you could not do this but would you be able to?

KVD wrote on 07/14/11 at 08:01:55:


If Seb has an issue then he is more than welcome to contact me about it. So far seb has not contacted me (or april to my knowledge). If he feels he does not want to compete with Fenner then fine, he doesn't have to. He knows that Fenners times are real and completely possible.

The stakes are not raised, this is straight forward. After being banned for years, we gave Fenner criteria to prove himself. He has done so. He can do whatever the fuck he wants on any other site and it wont effect this one. This is a mariokart timetrialling site where we are showing the world exceptional skill and ability from the best players.

The irony is, i would hazard a bet that Fenner himself wouldn't care that much if we removed him. Because he knows he's number 1. And the WR videos posted all over youtube would show him as number 1. It would be only this site which shows him as unranked.

Realistically, although it is ridiculous - i'm going to lengths now to try and make it that every WR he sets from now on is "live" as much as possible. And therefore impossible to cheat. Short of me moving in and sleeping on his ironing board we can't do anymore than that.

There are people on the kart sites which have done alot worse things than cheat in other games and have questionable personalities but they are happily allowed to kart. Where do you draw the line?

The Gaff wrote on 07/14/11 at 08:21:26:

He could be ranked on the SMK NBT & non-NBT site with the loads of PRs he broadcasted on YouTube, including a non-NBT WR on CI2 NTSC. But all of them are performed with emulators and he kept on flooding the SMK board with this videos whereas he knew they made no sense and that Sami would never allow him to join the SMK page.

And once again, I'm sorry Gaff but I can't prevent myself from laughing out loud when you write "he knows he's number 1". Of course it's easy to pretend you're number 1 when you perform dozens of unproven WRs in less than two months, while being "protected" by a blind trust from the site holders.