Forum

it’s because stv is more pink
am i right, Chris.

U
don’t
need
aim
in
left
for
dead.
Fuckin’ idiot

I’d like to respond to some of the most commonly recurring points. Firstly, the suggestion that information on Beavern’s background and character have no relevance. The first reason for including that section was to counter the accusation we’ve seen leveled at Beavern over and over again, virtually since we started playing TF2 – that there’s no way he can be that good after 50, 100, whatever number of hours. The fact is that Beavern has a long history of playing FPS games and much of that skill and knowledge is easily transferred to TF2, so I felt it was important to make that clear, rather than continue to let people assume he’d only picked up a mouse the day he got TF2 and then just botted his way to success to make up for his lack of prior experience.

The other reason for including personal details about Beavern was to reinforce that he’s actually a real person, with real teammates, who actually suffers when an injustice such as this is perpetrated. It’s easy to get blase about bans and league disciplinary action in general when all you see are a fairly anonymous string of names printed out in front of you every time ETF2L announce they are banning people, so I wanted to reinforce the fact that those punished actually have a history and face real consequences, and it’s therefore a serious matter when the innocent fall victim to wrongful conviction.

To those who claim there is no hard evidence of corruption, I refer again to my point about conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a form of corruption, and it is undeniably present in ETF2L. The only defence the admins have offered against this charge is essentially “trust us, we’re honest, really”, which, in the real world would be disregarded as a hopelessly weak riposte. Conflict of interest can only be resolved by structural changes, not by unverifiable claims made about the good character of those in charge. It doesn’t require admins to be in the same division as Beavern for them to potentially gain from his punishment; they could play him in cups, they could play him in the ladders, they could be embarrassed by him in a pcw or they could have friends that play regularly against Beavern and subsequently use their privileged access to admins to potentially influence them.

The point is this – there is a strong possibility that one or more admins will encounter Beavern in some form of competitive TF2 setting, and they therefore stand to gain from his removal from the scene. The suggestion that demos are analysed by American admins actually makes a great deal of sense to me, since they would almost certainly have nothing to gain personally when ruling on a player’s future. The workload could simply be swapped, with European admins reviewing American demos, so that US players also benefit.

If what people are looking for is a smoking gun proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that admins deliberately set out to ban Beavern for nefarious reasons, then obviously we do not have it. Unsurprising, given the secrecy with which the ACT operates. Therefore I urge people to look at the structural nature of the ACT, the snippets we’ve gleaned about their thought processes when convicting Beavern and the views of non-ETF2L anti-cheat admins, then let people draw their own conclusions about whether justice is likely to have been done. I will stress again, however, that despite going to these lengths to prove the fallibility of the ACT, the onus is not on us to expose their flaws. Power is not self-justifying – the burden of proof should be on them to show their competence and credibility, and to reveal the evidence they use when convicting players. I cannot remind people enough of this fact.

To list the charge sheet once again, however: we have evidence of conflict of interest; we have an organisation in the form of the ACT with zero transparency and zero accountability; as d2m states we have a process of reviewing demos submitted to the ACT that enables one admin’s comments to influence and potentially prejudice those of the others; we have a player who was convicted on the basis of just one demo, with according to d2m, only one moment of suspicious activity that could not easily be explained otherwise; we have documentary evidence of admins making reference to Beavern’s divisional status (which I cannot reveal lest I be banned for a year), implying that this entered into their thinking; we have documentary evidence of them making repeated reference to Beavern’s acquaintance with Aven (which I cannot reveal lest I be banned for a year), implying this influenced their thinking (refer to my original post for the invalidity of guilt by association reasoning); we have documentary evidence of the notes used when convicting Beavern (which I cannot reveal lest I be banned for a year), with all those outside ETF2L who have seen them commenting on the scarcity of real evidence present within them; we have over 83% of impartial non-ETF2L anti-cheat admins who possessed no prior familiarity with Beavern determining there is no evidence of cheating, while 100% of ETF2L admins, some of whom have already confirmed prior knowledge of Beavern, decided he was; we have an organisation that appears to revel in banning people.

This final point is one I intended to make reference to in my initial post, but left out for reasons of brevity (yeh, I know….). The tone of news posts announcing bans always alarmed me, even well before Beavern’s ban. In the real world, I was accustomed to news of disciplinary measures in sport, for instance, having a sombre tone, with the authorities expressing their regret at encountering infractions upon the rules, and similar disappointment at being compelled to take punitive action against it. It’s true, some ETF2L ban posts have this character, but many have an unsettlingly celebratory tone, which implies that banning is something admins relish, rather than something they regret being forced to do. A good example can be found here – http://etf2l.org/2010/07/25/b-is-for-bans/

The tone some of these posts has evokes Romans throwing their enemies to the lions, seeking the roar of appreciation from the crowd as they do so, and I would question whether the climate fostered by this sort of behaviour could potentially lead to more bans than would otherwise be the case. It’s like a festival of punishment, whereas in the real world announcement of punishment is more like a funeral. We’d all rather be at a festival than a funeral, so one has to wonder whether admins end up seeking such an occasion with greater frequency than they otherwise might were the tone more sober. It’s a tacky spectacle regardless, and should be dispensed with.

So yes, no smoking gun, but I would ask that the ETF2L community consider this evidence and draw their own conclusions about whether the ACT functions correctly, and whether their thought processes when considering Beavern’s case were of a kind likely to lead to a fair appraisal of the real evidence. I would dearly love to present more hard facts, but as I’ve stated, I can’t reveal our conversations with admins (which I feel are immensely incriminating) because we may suffer a 1 year ban. I can’t reveal the log used to convict Beavern (which I and many others feel contains zero clear evidence of cheating) for the same reason. Finally, I have yet to verify with the non-ETF2L admins their willingness to be quoted publicly on the verdict they passed on the demos. Pursuing this matter has already been a hugely time-consuming process, the bulk of it spent often fruitlessly tracking down admins outside ETF2L, waiting for a response, and only occasionally being able to convince them to review the demo.

Today a video will be posted on YouTube, however, featuring the demo linked to by d2m in his post. While the demo is already publicly available on ETF2L, we hope a video version one mouse click away will encourage as many people as possible to review the evidence for themselves, then draw their own conclusions about Beavern’s legitimacy. Thank you to all those who have supported us in this thread, particularly d2m who has the most to lose by taking the action he did.

Spin spin spin.

So let’s get this straight. You honestly believe that the ACT banned Beavern simply because he’s a good player? No wonder you can’t post any evidence to support your case. You can post essays of conjecture all you like and I guess your average forum lemming will jump in with blind support because HOLY CRAP LOTS OF WORDS, but at the end of the day the argument you are putting forth here remains shallow because it has no substance.

I’d like to respond to some of the most commonly recurring points. Firstly, the suggestion that information on Beavern’s background and character have no relevance. The first reason for including that section was to counter the accusation we’ve seen leveled at Beavern over and over again, virtually since we started playing TF2 – that there’s no way he can be that good after 50, 100, whatever number of hours. The fact is that Beavern has a long history of playing FPS games and much of that skill and knowledge is easily transferred to TF2, so I felt it was important to make that clear, rather than continue to let people assume he’d only picked up a mouse the day he got TF2 and then just botted his way to success to make up for his lack of prior experience.

Refer to, say, wndr (div 6 -> div 2) and Norrlääänningen (div 4 -> div 2). There are good players in lower divisions who are clearly capable of playing higher up and they do not get banned by the ACT during their time in lower divisions simply because they are good at the game.

The other reason for including personal details about Beavern was to reinforce that he’s actually a real person, with real teammates, who actually suffers when an injustice such as this is perpetrated. It’s easy to get blase about bans and league disciplinary action in general when all you see are a fairly anonymous string of names printed out in front of you every time ETF2L announce they are banning people, so I wanted to reinforce the fact that those punished actually have a history and face real consequences, and it’s therefore a serious matter when the innocent fall victim to wrongful conviction.

I completely agree. If someone innocent falls victim to a wrongful conviction there are serious consequences. Take it up with league admins and present your case to them, and being the reasonable people they are, they will likely reverse the punishment if it is unjust. Do not go directly to the ETF2L forum and make an unsubstantiated spin post about how the ACT are all corrupt individuals abusing their power to ban good players from the game for their own personal benefit because that does nothing to help your cause.

To those who claim there is no hard evidence of corruption, I refer again to my point about conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a form of corruption, and it is undeniably present in ETF2L. The only defence the admins have offered against this charge is essentially “trust us, we’re honest, really”, which, in the real world would be disregarded as a hopelessly weak riposte. Conflict of interest can only be resolved by structural changes, not by unverifiable claims made about the good character of those in charge. It doesn’t require admins to be in the same division as Beavern for them to potentially gain from his punishment; they could play him in cups, they could play him in the ladders, they could be embarrassed by him in a pcw or they could have friends that play regularly against Beavern and subsequently use their privileged access to admins to potentially influence them.

This argument is laughable at best (you have provided no evidence of conflict of interest!), especially as you contradict yourself later:

If what people are looking for is a smoking gun proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that admins deliberately set out to ban Beavern for nefarious reasons, then obviously we do not have it.

Therefore I urge people to look at the structural nature of the ACT, the snippets we’ve gleaned about their thought processes when convicting Beavern and the views of non-ETF2L anti-cheat admins, then let people draw their own conclusions about whether justice is likely to have been done.

Let’s continue to do that then, rather than spread rumours that the ACT are corrupt on the ETF2L forums.

I can’t be bothered to keep quoting here, but if you accuse the ACT of having a system whereby ACT members may influence the decisions of other members, I would argue that an approach that involves seeking outsiders to review a demo in an attempt to have Beavern’s ban overthrown is equally as influentially infective. You are seeking to have a player on your team unbanned from the start, and the motivation for seeking additional opinion is completely transparent to all.

Furthermore posts detailing the banning of players who have cheated in official league matches have no reason to be sombre in tone. You get what you deserve if you break league rules, there’s no need to sugar-coat it.

In the end you may indeed have evidence that you are unable to post here. However this begs the question as to why you are posting here in the first place. As much as I’d like to support you and the (un?)official “unban Beavern” Steam group campaign, I can’t. I can’t support an unsubstantiated smear campaign against the ACT who by necessity operate in privacy behind the scenes and undeniably ban legitimate cheaters in the majority of cases. If you want to get Beavern unbanned, go about it respectfully. Thanks.

Quoted from Sheridyn

Spin spin spin.

So let’s get this straight. You honestly believe that the ACT banned Beavern simply because he’s a good player? No wonder you can’t post any evidence to support your case. You can post essays of conjecture all you like and I guess your average forum lemming will jump in with blind support because HOLY CRAP LOTS OF WORDS, but at the end of the day the argument you are putting forth here remains shallow because it has no substance.

[…]
Refer to, say, wndr (div 6 -> div 2) and Norrlääänningen (div 4 -> div 2). There are good players in lower divisions who are clearly capable of playing higher up and they do not get banned by the ACT during their time in lower divisions simply because they are good at the game.

[…]
I completely agree. If someone innocent falls victim to a wrongful conviction there are serious consequences. Take it up with league admins and present your case to them, and being the reasonable people they are, they will likely reverse the punishment if it is unjust. Do not go directly to the ETF2L forum and make an unsubstantiated spin post about how the ACT are all corrupt individuals abusing their power to ban good players from the game for their own personal benefit because that does nothing to help your cause.

[…]
This argument is laughable at best (you have provided no evidence of conflict of interest!), especially as you contradict yourself later:

[…]

[…]
Let’s continue to do that then, rather than spread rumours that the ACT are corrupt on the ETF2L forums.

I can’t be bothered to keep quoting here, but if you accuse the ACT of having a system whereby ACT members may influence the decisions of other members, I would argue that an approach that involves seeking outsiders to review a demo in an attempt to have Beavern’s ban overthrown is equally as influentially infective. You are seeking to have a player on your team unbanned from the start, and the motivation for seeking additional opinion is completely transparent to all.

Furthermore posts detailing the banning of players who have cheated in official league matches have no reason to be sombre in tone. You get what you deserve if you break league rules, there’s no need to sugar-coat it.

In the end you may indeed have evidence that you are unable to post here. However this begs the question as to why you are posting here in the first place. As much as I’d like to support you and the (un?)official “unban Beavern” Steam group campaign, I can’t. I can’t support an unsubstantiated smear campaign against the ACT who by necessity operate in privacy behind the scenes and undeniably ban legitimate cheaters in the majority of cases. If you want to get Beavern unbanned, go about it respectfully. Thanks.

+1

Quoted from Sheridyn

Spin spin spin.

So let’s get this straight. You honestly believe that the ACT banned Beavern simply because he’s a good player? No wonder you can’t post any evidence to support your case. You can post essays of conjecture all you like and I guess your average forum lemming will jump in with blind support because HOLY CRAP LOTS OF WORDS, but at the end of the day the argument you are putting forth here remains shallow because it has no substance.

[…]
Refer to, say, wndr (div 6 -> div 2) and Norrlääänningen (div 4 -> div 2). There are good players in lower divisions who are clearly capable of playing higher up and they do not get banned by the ACT during their time in lower divisions simply because they are good at the game.

[…]
I completely agree. If someone innocent falls victim to a wrongful conviction there are serious consequences. Take it up with league admins and present your case to them, and being the reasonable people they are, they will likely reverse the punishment if it is unjust. Do not go directly to the ETF2L forum and make an unsubstantiated spin post about how the ACT are all corrupt individuals abusing their power to ban good players from the game for their own personal benefit because that does nothing to help your cause.

[…]
This argument is laughable at best (you have provided no evidence of conflict of interest!), especially as you contradict yourself later:

[…]

[…]
Let’s continue to do that then, rather than spread rumours that the ACT are corrupt on the ETF2L forums.

I can’t be bothered to keep quoting here, but if you accuse the ACT of having a system whereby ACT members may influence the decisions of other members, I would argue that an approach that involves seeking outsiders to review a demo in an attempt to have Beavern’s ban overthrown is equally as influentially infective. You are seeking to have a player on your team unbanned from the start, and the motivation for seeking additional opinion is completely transparent to all.

Furthermore posts detailing the banning of players who have cheated in official league matches have no reason to be sombre in tone. You get what you deserve if you break league rules, there’s no need to sugar-coat it.

In the end you may indeed have evidence that you are unable to post here. However this begs the question as to why you are posting here in the first place. As much as I’d like to support you and the (un?)official “unban Beavern” Steam group campaign, I can’t. I can’t support an unsubstantiated smear campaign against the ACT who by necessity operate in privacy behind the scenes and undeniably ban legitimate cheaters in the majority of cases. If you want to get Beavern unbanned, go about it respectfully. Thanks.

Although I agree that the claims that the etf2l AC admins are a shadowy organisation that is using their power to get ahead in the (virtual video game) league are laughable. I do have to say that if the accussations that the AC admins took into account both division and his friendship with aVen, then that is an issue. Although there is no evidence and if the punishment for releasing it is a ban, then we are in a rather difficult position.

Well is this a smear against the ACT?

I am not saying the ACT team is doing a bad job, if anything they are doing a good job but someone said they could ban 1 wrong person in 25 so be right 96% of the time. I am convinced BeaVerN is one of the few that are wrongly banned. On the other hand I haven’t seen what the ACT have judged, I am assured they wouldn’t ban without conclusive evidence. So we basically have to take their word on it and move on, I am sure the response against BeaVerN’s ban will hopefully have a few people check out the circumstances but if the Admins are satisfied with the ACT, then we have to trust them and move on.

The alternative is for anyone who believe there is something wrong with the ACT to boycott the league….

Quoted from CrashSite

[…]
I do have to say that if the accussations that the AC admins took into account both division and his friendship with aVen, then that is an issue. Although there is no evidence and if the punishment for releasing it is a ban, then we are in a rather difficult position.

The reason division is taken into account is to decrease the chances of an unfair ban. A lower division means that his opponents aren’t that good which can make any decent player look really good. A good player with good aim in Div5 can (and will) track often and hit a large percentage of shots for example.

His friendship with Aven wasn’t found out until after he was banned and did not affect our decision in the slightest. (iirc, we were told by his teammates that he was friends with aven)

Quoted from herpderp

[…]
At best this seems like an attempt to gather support to get him unbanned, because surely if alot of people can see no wrong then there must be no wrong.

Which is another reason we don’t hand out demos. Won’t prove a thing since the vast majority won’t be able to see anything.