Forum

Boomeh, nice guy, came clean.
Beavern, nice guy, did not.

I think this evidence speaks for itself.

Btw whos beavern?

norla would creampie beavern

buy my light

Is it just me or has this thread run it’s course?

Quoted from Jude

do you honestly think that admins are, i dont know, scared of up and coming talent?

Quoted from Sheridyn

You honestly believe that the ACT banned Beavern simply because he’s a good player?

No, I never stated this. If you read my posts more carefully, you would see what I am pointing out are systemic flaws which I believe greatly decrease the likelihood of people being trialled fairly, not a direct accusation that the admin team deliberately ban people for personal reasons. I also notice that you more or less entirely ignore the laundry list of structural flaws in the ACT that I pointed out, the core of my last post, in favour of pursuing your invented claims that I think the ACT ban maliciously.

It also seems you lack the most basic understanding of the term ‘conflict of interest’. It does not refer to a scenario where someone takes action against someone else where it is clear it was only done for personal gain, it refers to a structural flaw where one cannot have full confidence that those in authority are totally disinterested in the matters they preside over.

So, if Alex Ferguson was on a disciplinary panel that could potentially rule on matters affecting Real Madrid, this would, before he had even ruled on a matter, immediately be termed a ‘conflict of interest’. This is equivalent to our case in ETF2L; Manchester United would not meet Real Madrid in the same division, but they could meet in a cup. Even if no one can prove conclusively that Ferguson would be biased in his decisions, no one would for a second consider it suitable that he should be part of such a panel, and we should treat anti-cheat matters the same. There should be no possibility of any personal gain from any decision the ACT makes. This is not currently the case.

People are right to comment that the core of our defence should be the views of the non-ETF2L admins who ruled that Beavern did not cheat, but as I have said, it takes time to get hold of people, especially since 2 of the admins are American and on a different time zone, and another is someone contacted via an acquaintance. As I have pointed out twice already, 83% of non-ETF2L admins ruled in Beavern’s favour, yet 100% of the ACT ruled against him.

The entire point of my posts thus far has been to connect this disparity to the systemic flaws in the ACT structure, because I don’t see how such an astonishing difference in views is explicable otherwise. The arguments prior to revealing this statistic are not just empty rhetoric, they are substantive points relating to obvious failings in the organisation that in my opinion clearly cause distorted verdicts to occur, and you should address them more directly in future, rather than inventing claims supposedly made by me.

If I may ask (as I see the admins are responding to the people in this thread), but in the past year, were there any higher players watched (div2 and div1) or at least suspected?

I don’t want any names, I just want to see if the players watched and suspected are only coming from the lower divisions.

Thank you.

P.S: I don’t support beavern or any cheater at all, I support the admins for doing a great job and banning those people.

Quoted from Kritzonite

[…]
So, if Alex Ferguson was on a disciplinary panel that could potentially rule on matters affecting Real Madrid, this would, before he had even ruled on a matter, immediately be termed a ‘conflict of interest’. This is equivalent to our case in ETF2L; Manchester United would not meet Real Madrid in the same division, but they could meet in a cup. Even if no one can prove conclusively that Ferguson would be biased in his decisions, no one would for a second consider it suitable that he should be part of such a panel, and we should treat anti-cheat matters the same. There should be no possibility of any personal gain from any decision the ACT makes. This is not currently the case.

FUUUUUUUUUUURGIEEEEEEEEE

Gets better each time. Good luck getting someone who doesn’t play the game to put more effort into it than the people who actually do. I also doubt any significant number of Americans would be interested in admining an EU league. The structure is what it is as a community run league for a relatively minor video game. You cannot even compare it to football, so don’t even try.

Do you actually know what you are writing yourself? Your posts have thus far amounted to accusing the AC team of willful corruption and banning players for personal gain. It’s not up to the AC team to prove their “innocence”, as the accuser the onus is on you to come up with evidence of their so called “corruption”.

However, you now do a complete 180 and pretend all you were pointing out are the flaws in the structure. Let’s agree that you mentioned nothing of corruption for arguments sake. Sure there are flaws, but you have yet to suggest any realistic alternatives.

I commend your heroic attempt at whistleblowing on what is clearly a conspiracy against the lesser denizens of ETF2L, but none of these posts are actually helping your friend get unbanned, as Racio has stated himself should evidence to the contrary appear Beavern will be exonerated. So start getting that evidence together and make your case.

Freeing ETF2L can come after your friend. Don’t want to betray him now do we?