Regarding cheating accusations... Whatever happened to...

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mikeylikesit17

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Layorz View Post
And how are you proven guilty? Evidence... There's plenty of it around the forums.

no there is really no REAL proof.. just a whole 2 screen shots...IF there really was cheating riot would have punished someone by now... aka THERE IS NO REAL PROOF.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ObscureClockwork

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrite Illusion View Post
In european justice systems you need to prove your innocence its that way in much of asia as well. Australia, Canada, USA and UK are somewhat unique in their justice system realtive to the rest of the world. But don't try explaining that to an American.
actually, i dont believe that to be true in asia or europe, ideally
its obviously not true once you factor in stuff like corruption, but to my knowledge, the basic idea of innocent until proven guilty is a idea, albeit unexpressed


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ObscureClockwork

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Layorz View Post
Any relevant evidence.

Riot are not impartial. It is not in their best interest to admit the cheating happened after they've cleared it already and stated several times they believe nothing bad happened.


Haven't some players involved admitted it? And you are mistaking a right to defend themselves with a right to remain silent. A suspect does not need to actually defend themselves to be charged; if a thief never speaks and never defends himself and rejects all charges, he can still be put away for theft.
the judge or jury is never impartial (sorry, we are human beings ) unfortunately, all justice systems currently in use still depend on a person or a group of persons that are not impartial. just lets hope they are as lose to impartiality as they can
is GD impartial? is anyone impartial? saying riot is invalid as a judge is just a correct as stating GD is invalid as a jury. thats the truth of it.

and ill apologize now for my bad wording. last i checked you have a right to defense, as in a lawyer to defend yourself in a court of law. yes, some people have admitted it (so thats intentionally giving up your right) but to my knowledge, most of the teams did some sort of screen watching (successful or not, should be considered cheating)

and also, a theif who doesn't speak and never defends himself can still go free, if the evidence is not conclusive enough.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jarix

Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Zenith View Post
Innocent until proven guilty?

On one hand some are in favor of justice, in the other, they ignore the right to due process.
I'm not big on spouting out about "my rights" and that is generally because my rights so often are simply moral guidelines, up for individual interpretation. However, most of us have the legal right to due process.

We can voice our opinions, that's often a legal right, too. However, I find there is an inherent flaw in saying "these people are cheats" before Riot has decided so. I know not all nations share this value of 'you are innocent until proven guilty by due process'... But on these forums, we're not all American.. or British... or Aussies - yet we abide by the rules which govern Riot games.

Let's show the Chinese, the Korean... the Taiwanese communities.. what it means to be a member of a Just society
- and we can start by giving them this basic right.
First of all, your assertions about rights only apply in the criminal sense. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies for the courts. This has nothing to do with courts.

Quote:
Haven't some players involved admitted it? And you are mistaking a right to defend themselves with a right to remain silent. A suspect does not need to actually defend themselves to be charged; if a thief never speaks and never defends himself and rejects all charges, he can still be put away for theft.
Actually, right to defend yourself is an inherent right in the US Justice system. Every person accused has a right to defend him/her self. However, they may choose not to exercise that right; i.e. plead guilty or no contest.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ObscureClockwork

Senior Member

10-07-2012

just watched reginald is not retiring

he states there isnt enough substantial evidence to accuse abuzu frost of any other team


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kelzare

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ObscureClockwork View Post
if i was on google maps, and said there would be a robbery in this walmart, and there is a robbery there 5 hours later, am i part of the robbers?

and last i checked, that game was invalid. it was restarted due to concerns of screen looking
How is that anywhere near similar? Your analogy is flawed.

A member of AF was seen looking in the direction of the minimap, which was then followed by a COMPLETELY blind ping which came down where TSM was. Then AF dismissed their very routine early game set up where the support wards for top, followed by Maokai setting up at enemy wraiths not even checking for enemies in a highly competitive tournament.

Not at all similar to being a bystander with no connection to Walmart tipping off the police by looking at a remote computer screen no where near the crime. In your analogy there is nothing connecting you to the crime other than your word.

A more accurate analogy would be:
The police enter a building looking for a criminal, and one of the people in the building knows where the police are but avoids them, setting up in a abandoned part of the building he knows no one will go to. Is that person a criminal?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Absinthe

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Well, Riot admitted they are guilty, so the point of this thread is?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sammystorm

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Layorz View Post
Any relevant evidence.

Riot are not impartial. It is not in their best interest to admit the cheating happened after they've cleared it already and stated several times they believe nothing bad happened.


Haven't some players involved admitted it? And you are mistaking a right to defend themselves with a right to remain silent. A suspect does not need to actually defend themselves to be charged; if a thief never speaks and never defends himself and rejects all charges, he can still be put away for theft.
The players who admited it are all from TSM. So TSM isn't even considered but AF is?
I am confused


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rumfro

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ObscureClockwork View Post
but not just any evidence
to convict someone, you have to prove beyond doubt.
Incorrect, sir. It's prove beyond REASONABLE doubt. A jury is able to convict someone as long as all the pieces fit beyond a reasonable doubt.

When there's clear evidence showing things like this, with a player happening to look up towards the mini-map screen, and suddenly a ping goes out at the enemies exact location, that's not a good sign.

Coupled with pictures like this one that clearly show that one team is easily able to look at the enemies mini-map, it's pretty damning evidence. Now, just because the capability to cheat was there, doesn't automatically mean that ever team did it. However, the ones who are easily shown looking in the general direction of the mini-map can be considered guilty.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Doc Zenith

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarix View Post
First of all, your assertions about rights only apply in the criminal sense. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies for the courts. This has nothing to do with courts.



Actually, right to defend yourself is an inherent right in the US Justice system. Every person accused has a right to defend him/her self. However, they may choose not to exercise that right; i.e. plead guilty or no contest.
The right to due process actually applys prior to court and protects legal persons from unlawful arrest and procecusion without fair trial in many developed nations like those in which Riot operates and is based.

I am obviously not arguing that this is lawsuit, and so I am not going to suggest that what some have said can be deemed as slander... However, citing law was not the aim of this post. This post was to provide a view to a more objective and fair approach to judging people, as opposed to morphing into a nasty mob of intolerant pitchfolk-wielding witch hunters.