Forum

A cart in the essay genre. Or the other way around..

A little bit of maphack theory. Let's think together about what exactly maphack helps with — using additional information from the map to achieve a result (this is an important point, it must be admitted; if maphack is not aimed at winning, well, a pathological one... then it is practically undetectable). First thing that comes to mind is playing with restarts. It's quite difficult to prove, due to subjective reasons for taking [an action]. The sixth sense in the gut suggested it. And that happens too. But it's logical to assume that a maphacker must look at the map before the game, otherwise they could find themselves in a situation of maphacker powerlessness (oh, the shame). This is not proof, but a symptom. By the way, there is a very effective means of combating this — streaming the game. Let's reason further: in principle, one could imagine that highly professional play with a closed map would not differ much from similar play with an open map. Moreover, everyone strives for that. But where does the cheater gain an advantage? Obviously, in a random game, it's in scouting the territory. Here the cheater faces a dilemma: they need to find out the map, for efficient progression, and also simulate scouting to be elusive. But this is counting one's chickens before they're hatched. After all, if one simulates scouting the territory and checking objects before taking them to the fullest, then in principle, the same could be done with a closed map, given a sufficiently high understanding of the game's laws. That is, the snake eats its own tail. In real life, a maphacker MUST cut corners on scouting. And this is the second symptom. The more they economize, the greater the profit in development. Third, time: a maphacker will always play quickly, faster than they would play without knowledge of the map. There is a persistent myth that cheaters will take longer. Let's just think: for a hacker, there is no problem of a closed map, no problem of turning right or left, choosing the strong or the weak stack, needing a unit to move without penalty or not. What order to collect objects in. All of this is caught by an experienced eye directly from the map. By the way, I was surprised by this passage:
Neoandy:

Generally, I noticed with the Chinese players, and then it was confirmed in a conversation with Gomunguls, that they move very quickly. In the first week, my opponent took from 1 to 3 minutes (I started thinking either the layout was crap or he was a noob), and then he also took the ramp crypt in no more than 5 seconds (I saw that part of the spawn from the scout view). I decided I must have imagined it and simply didn't believe my eyes, but Gomunguls reported the same thing. I don't think they take objects on quick... Maybe they cooked up some program?

Well, if this is not artistic exaggeration, then of course, this is no longer a symptom but direct evidence. You might take a mini-crypt in 20 seconds, taking it in 10 seems incredible to me, anything less already requires special programs.
The fourth symptom is an extremely high "intuition". Like the player always gets the winning cards. This is not proof in itself, but the coincidence of symptoms is a very heavy argument for guilt.

And actually, what needs to be looked for (it's been said many times) — movements and transfers of heroes and troops that would look irrational with a closed map, but are (maybe very) advantageous with prior knowledge of the terrain.

Right here I'll throw in an objection — an addition for Wic: a person who examines, and most importantly takes responsibility, when identifying dishonest play, must possess the highest level of qualification. Which, by the way, was not observed in the World Championship situation. There are individuals I view favorably/neutrally in terms of human qualities, but who IMHO have not reached the necessary level to make balanced judgments.

A little about Thinkeer:

Unfortunately, this will be non-factual nonsense, as there is no way to get into the SoD game. But!

In my opinion, questions should not be built on the principle of 1. suspicious moment 2. suspicious moment... Investigation doesn't work that way. Questions should be different; preferably, completely harmless ones should be neighbors with those disguised as harmless — the person is no fool. To be caught out by cheap tricks. And cunning pitfalls can sometimes throw a person off balance, break their pattern. But since it's already too late for that, I would simply ask, besides what our accusers have written, for Thinkeer to provide a detailed analysis of one of his own games. Since the case seems non-trivial (that's what I think, despite the saves). Any game he wishes. But with strategic content, that is, not some balancing-Jebus Cross games, but preferably something XL, where thinking is much more multidimensional. Based on such a report, a lot can be said in addition to those "indictment" points.

Now about ethics. Topic tags.

There won't be such a peaceful, orderly, a-la Wic-fantasy anyway. In any case. Let's imagine there is a certain player we've known for more than a month or year. We constantly fight against them. And we both ended up in a tournament under the auspices of "THE ORGANIZER". And this person, without having properly played against my well-known opponent, starts spouting some nonsense about maphack-x.hack. How will I (should) act on this? Well, maybe it's not as logical as Wic's theses, but I truly would consider myself entitled to use my likely authority, weight, etc., to influence the judges. Maybe even at the cost of being disqualified from the tournament. This is not criminal! That's what KobRa and Forrest did — some of the best HoMM players in the world. Possibly in certain situations, I would have done the same. In my opinion, this is natural and organic. You don't give up your friends. Even "virtual" ones. In principle, one could conduct a long, tedious analysis claiming to consider the circumstances, adding arguments. BUT! This would require a considerable amount of my personal energy resources. As well as the judges' readiness for contact, and necessarily a subtle "feeling" for the game. Nothing less. That's the way it is, guys (or pies).

Now to the main bones of contention!

Why do I think Wic is guilty in the situation with the discharges at the World Championship. I am sure that his clear factual position "FOR" Rebellius from the start (relying solely on the game logic of actions) would not have allowed a deadlock to form. What happened? Rebella was disqualified, and the tournament was killed. Yes, yes, no matter how hard you try, now it's just a fan get-together. Whether it needs to be finished or not, I don't know; honestly, it's secondary to me personally. Well, remember the RP-tournaments (if this abbreviation means anything to you). Imagine Paladin being disqualified two rounds (for example) before the end. How do you finish the tournament after that? You can finish it, but it won't be an RP anymore! Just a strong fan get-together. Same here — REBELLIUS is the winner of WC_2012. For me!

(By the way, in the recent tournament with "World", a similar situation occurred. Samurai was disqualified, and for good reason. And the tournament died, SOMEWHERE. That's how it is, everything is very subtle, you had to feel it immediately).

ABOUT ETHICS:
Wic:

But where would it have gone without my intervention? Well, yes — then why does street magic not work on Thinker's case?

The situations are different. First there was a bonfire, then it grew into a conflagration.

Let me remind you that in jurisprudence in general and in judging in particular, logic is primary, and ethics is only involved where logical analysis shows the presence of several legitimate options between which a choice must be made.

10 times NO!!

Pure logic leads only to one thing: First, you will create a theory, assertion, conclusion — (e.g., Mr. X is guilty), and then, albeit very talentedly, fit the data to it. And by the way, this is your thought from who knows when — that an investigator intuitively looks for a criminal among the accused, and then starts to break them, dig deeper, and so on in that direction. So, whether it's true or not, if your ethical side of perception is flawed, you will be in the role of a careless engineering student who first builds a drawing or graph (and an incorrect one at that) and then stuffs real premises into it, even while following logical rules.

AND FINALLY. ABOUT THE COOL GUY. YES!!! THAT IS HOW IT IS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE!! THIS IS A REAL AND SIGNIFICANT ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE (but by no means for the prosecution). AND IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IT IS CALLED A PERSONAL/PROFESSIONALCHARACTER REFERENCE. AND IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO BUILD ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THIS VERY REFERENCE, AND THE VERDICT OFTEN, DEPENDING ON SUCH A CHARACTER REFERENCE, WILL DIFFER IN A REMARKABLE WAY!!

Thank you for your attention. I am confident in the innocence of the winner of WC_2012 — Rebelliousa.

P.S. Special thanks for not being included in Bay's tournament (in case of your decision)