FPC Case #362

Discussion about fairness-stuff. Advices of breach of rules and so on.

Moderators: systemmods, fairplaymods

lesossies
Site Admin
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:49 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by lesossies » Mon May 06, 2019 2:33 pm

1) 3, in my opinion, important members, luques, Huns and I were not sure if Aux was guilty or not.
It was for me enough to take this no-decision
and
2) I agree with team fls´opinion:
"1. I think it is good to discuss the way the FPC works and how it may be improved.
2. I think it is not good to openly display FPC members' votes without consultation.
3. The case is not clear at all, as in my view, the "evidence" does not show the accused guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Besides that, I also think that Aux is doing shady stuff in this game. But believing and thinking and feeling is not enough.
4. Any comparison with real life cases or situations is stupid. Apples and oranges...
5. It is up to the game owners to change things. Or give people the power to do so who will. It works for the calender, it works for the NC, so far it doesn't work for the FPC yet. Maybe leso giving the power to Luques works? Does he have the time to deal with this stuff?"

3) I have no opinion about Tuktahuaev or Trekken (who seemed to have no vote right for this case, I dont know why but it was a fact).
Maybe, the 2 are great guys, I dont know, I didnt decide to put them in the FPC.
Maybe the FPC members should be accepted by a vote. Is it possible ? I dont know.

and last : Sorry, I cannot give a 3M fine if I am not sure.
There are little decisions where the case is simple and clear where a simple majority is OK.
Other, like ban p.a., should maybe need unanimity.

Luques has all the power to make all what he want, I think.
It is maybe better, he concentrates himself on more positive thing and goes out of the fire line ;)
An other one can play for him the "Blitzableiter"

ProTour-Team
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by ProTour-Team » Mon May 06, 2019 2:47 pm

so 2 actual members of the fpc dont count for you while luq who isnt part of the fpc is an important member. but yet this still doesnt surprise me about you

lesossies
Site Admin
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:49 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by lesossies » Mon May 06, 2019 4:17 pm

I am working with luques, team fl and Huns since many years in some comitees and for different purposes.
The other are new in the job and it is the 1st time we work together.
This is the difference.

I am not sure if PTT is the right one to play the Chief Prosecutor.

And
There is only one guy by RSF (without Buhmann) who can change the decision and it is Luques.
If he does it, OK.
In any case, You have to accept it. He is the boss.

ProTour-Team
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by ProTour-Team » Mon May 06, 2019 4:50 pm

well and i am more than sure you definitly shouldnt be Chief Prosecutor.

but for sure i would love to hear in which comitees and for which purposes you have been working on RSF in the last years to value the opinion of 2 guys who arent in the fpc more than those 4 guys who actually are in the fpc - honestly that argument just sounds amazing, what do you think why they were added to the fpc? if you actually thought about that at all..

but like i said, it isnt the first time you give a crap about the majority of the fpc as long as their opinion isnt the same as yours and as long as you think of yourself as the head of the fpc rather than just the executer it will remain this way.

User avatar
Idéfix
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:26 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Idéfix » Mon May 06, 2019 7:00 pm

Sorry Leso, but something is shocking me.
Why opinion of 2 players who are not members of FPK - even if you know and appreciate them well - count more than 2 actual members of FPK?
May I call Obama to rule the States because I don't like the present one?
The way you act shows an appearance of democracy but it's a dictatorship. Nothing negative, it is a choice, excepted that you don't assume that.
Please say publicly that FPK are useless workforce only there to give a feeling of a fair game for all, but that in the end, it will only be your partial vision of fairness which will win.
And it is too easy to throw the hot potato to Luques about the decision in Aux case.
214 victoires

Classiques :
2 Ronde Van Vlaanderen (2016-2018)
1 Paris-Roubaix (2019)
1 GP de Plouay
1 GP de Montréal
1 Het Nieuwsblad
1 Paris-Tours


Tours :
1 Tour de Romandie
2 Tour de Catalogne
1 Campeonato de los Andes

User avatar
Idéfix
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:26 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Idéfix » Mon May 06, 2019 7:07 pm

PS :
I agree with you on one point: "I am not sure if PTT is the right one to play the Chief Prosecutor."
However, on this specific thread, i fully agree with free. And you know how much i do not like him^^
I do not make my opinions on what my friends think, but on what seems fair to me.

Ps2 :
You dont keep the same line on why you did not apply FPK's decision.
First you did not have enough opinions with 3 in favor of a bit fine, so there was a 4th one.
Then it is because you were not sure, and Huns too.
Then it is because your friends/"trustable people you know" are not sure.
And finally it is because you need unanimity...
Stop the joke and excuses, you took your decision, just assume it!
214 victoires

Classiques :
2 Ronde Van Vlaanderen (2016-2018)
1 Paris-Roubaix (2019)
1 GP de Plouay
1 GP de Montréal
1 Het Nieuwsblad
1 Paris-Tours


Tours :
1 Tour de Romandie
2 Tour de Catalogne
1 Campeonato de los Andes

scorpsche
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by scorpsche » Mon May 06, 2019 7:10 pm

Everything d'accord with what free and Ide wrote here before.

One thing to add regarding the case itself:
Boels team was created rightaway after Doria, Fedex and Astense were blocked due to vpn usage.

As far as I know all vpn cases so far were related to Aux and this one the most evident.
Unless Luques tells us different, but please reveal all blocked cases.
TeamSWE - Fairplay Bot, impossible to reprogram (Donkey theory :idea: )

"Re: Big Donkey - insult
Beitrag von Robyklebt » Do Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm
You clearly are a very very sick person."

Gipfelstuermer
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:43 am
Location: Sauerland
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Gipfelstuermer » Mon May 06, 2019 10:06 pm

Ok, fl, I value your opinion, so I have to examine your calculation.
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
Facts are:
- Boels team rides races after 21:00,
- Auxilium Torino rides races after 21:00
Correct. We agree:
Gipfelstuermer wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:16 pm
Assume that Boels Team joins C4F. He can only ride late evening (21h-24h).
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
-> Auxilium Torino rides very often. In November, December and January he rode 26, 26 and 27 races.
Not precisely the information we need. Truth is:
Gipfelstuermer wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:16 pm
Auxilium Torino rode 53 of 115 races during the active time of Boel's Team
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
I think it is highly likely that another team that prefers the same time will meet Auxilium Torino in races, eventually.
Correct conclusion. I calculated that.

But now comes the important part. In fact, I am afraid, you did not understand that calculation, because in the main chat you wrote "Team FL<15:39>: Gipfelstürmer hat einfach alle möglichen Zeiten für alle mögliche Rennen in diesem Zeitraum genommen. Natürlich kommt dann als Resultat raus, dass es höchst unwahrscheinlich ist. Nur sagt das nicht aus über eine Verflechtung der beiden Teams, aus dem eben geannten Grund."

This is a completely false understanding of my calculation. During Boels Team active time from November 23, 2018 to January 20, 2019 (i.e. 59 days), there were 115 races between 21h and 24h. Obviously, there were even more races in total, about 4-5 editions per race, so about 500 races!

But as I already assumed, that perhaps Boels Team could only ride later night, I started with these 115 races. Of these 115 races, Auxilium Torino joined 53 races.
Gipfelstuermer wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:16 pm
So the probability is 53/115 = 46.1%.
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
Even if you don't ride very often.
Incorrect conclusion. I calculated that.
Gipfelstuermer wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:16 pm
But what is the probability, that he meets Auxilium Torino 15-times in a row? It is approximately (53/115)^15 = 0.00089%.
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
So the fact that Boels team, who rode 15 races in the same time span, met Auxilium Torino in night races, is not very surprising
I actually find 0.00089% very surprising.

What is the intuition behin this low percentage? Think about, that we have one day races and tours, sometimes multiple one day races, sometimes multiple tours. If there is a one day race and a tour at the same time (which is most often the case), and two players always go for the same option (both one day race, then both tour, then both one day race, etc...), that is very unlikely to be random.

You can also think of the same percentages in a different situation: For example, think of Black Jack. How likely is it to go to the casino, play Black Jack and win 15 times in a row? Let's say the probability is 50% for one game of Black Jack. Then for 15 games it is 50%^15 = 0.00305%. If you started with 2 EUR, that gives you 2^15 = 32.768 EUR. Maybe you think winning a game of Black Jack is likely (or meeting Aux in a night race), but winning 15 games in a row (or meeting Aux in a night race 15 times in a row) is highly unlikely.

Thus, the correct mathematical conclusion is:
Gipfelstuermer wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:16 pm
So clearly not a random thing.
team fl wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 11:44 am
nor suspicious as a fact alone.
So, if you were a GM, you may have heard of circumstantial evidence. Here is the list:
- 0.00089% probability
- Usage of VPN
- Riding for sprint without a sprinter and without success
- No communication in race chat
- No answers to FPC
- No complains after Ban
- No explanation from Aux

To stay in the example in the casino:
- Suppose you own a casino.
- A man goes to your casino, wins 15 Black Jack games in a row, earns 32.768 EUR from 2 EUR bet.
- The man has 10 different fake passports.
- The man gives all the money to another man outside the casino.
- The man said no word at the Black Jack table.
- The man doesn't answer the police.
- The man doesn't complain about ban from the casino.
- The man outside the casino cannot explain why he received the 32.768 EUR.
So did the man count cards? And did he cooperate with the man outside the casino?
(For those who don't know Black Jack: It is illegal to count cards and make money out of that.)

Also, 4 of 5 professional Black Jack players say, that he must have counted the cards. But the owner of the casino says, that there is not enough evidence.

Only in the future other players start to complain. Because more and more people come with fake passports. More and more people say no word at the Black Jack table. There is always this suspicious guy in front of the casino taking the money. So the players, one after another, slowly but steadily, they decide to go to a different casino.

Robyklebt
Posts: 7815
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Robyklebt » Tue May 07, 2019 9:18 am

1) The calculation of course is wrong. 2 Tours. 7 one day races. So 9 races. And the noble prize winner rode less races too. I'll leave it to others to do the correct calculation. And to decide the influence of that on the Black Jack story. Maybe the casino is in Macao now?
Is the correct calculation actually important? Don't think so, but if we're playing the "I'm right" game(very boring game, I always win) the let's get it really right.

2) Completely irrelevant, should let it be, but....
Why would others leave the casino? The card counting doesn't affect them negatively at all. At Black Jack they are not playing against him, but against the house. They could even profit from him, seeing that he wins bet on his cards too.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

scorpsche
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by scorpsche » Tue May 07, 2019 10:05 am

Even with 9 races the certainty is 99.9% plus add the fact the account was created directly after the ban of Doria, Fedex, Astense plus the riding pro Aux...

It is "mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit" evident that Boels team is/was Aux multi - no other rational explanation.

Every normal judge on the planet (except in dictatorships of course :roll: ) would rule pro crime here.
Of course this doesn't hinder FL and the donkey to continue to flood this thread with wrong arguments.
TeamSWE - Fairplay Bot, impossible to reprogram (Donkey theory :idea: )

"Re: Big Donkey - insult
Beitrag von Robyklebt » Do Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm
You clearly are a very very sick person."

Z&B
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Z&B » Tue May 07, 2019 11:39 am

I'm not really sure if I should be part of this discussion, but to be honest.. this thread is heading into a dumb direction.

I don't know the whole backstory of Aux and the "shady" stuff he did. After reading this whole thread more than once, I understand both sides. Is it in my eyes a 100% fact that Boels was a multi of Aux? No. Def not. Some calculations, assumptions and his backstory aren't enough to call it a fact. 99,9% isn't a fact. It's the most logical conclusion, but still not a fact. That's why I can understand if some people think he deserves a fine/punishment.

I wasn't part of the races and I don't know if Boels always rode in Aux' favour or even completely unrealistic so just Aux profited out of it. Why didn't he ride in every race Aux was part of? Why just 15 races? Is there an unexplained reason for this so far?

You aren't happy how the FPC processed this case? Because you think he deserved a fine? Then keep your focus on the FPC and not this case alone. After all this, you should've noticed that there is a way to argue for a "no fine" and you should be mature enough to respect this point of view even if you have a different opinion on this topic. As I said.. there is no provable evidence that it was 100% Aux multi, just the logical conclusion. But would I be mad or say the FPC did a poor job if it decides to punish Aux nevertheless for it? No. Most logical can be enough. Should it be? Meeh, debatable too.

Just stop trying to convince the "enemy" that you are right and that there is just one way to decide in this case. Yet it's fine to discuss the way the FPC handled this case.

Robyklebt
Posts: 7815
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Robyklebt » Tue May 07, 2019 12:08 pm

Managed to delete my second post, more on topic on my mobile, so do it again now here from my beloved, even if worringly aging PC. Too bad SWE once again managed to put in a pointless ad hominem attack on people who don't exactly agree with his "opinion". And he blabbers on about democracy....

Anyway, on the case:

1) Point brought up by Carrera in the main chat. Why did it take 2 months and 15 race days to ban Boels? VPN's are banned in principle. Multi or not, doesn't matter, after the announcement somewhere last years VPN's are banned. Probably there can be exceptions, like if I was still in China and would be using a VPN now, I'd hope I'd get permission. But otherwise: VPN=ban. Of course I realize and fully agree not to ban anybody after one race, first contact the manager. No answer, try again. But here 2 months? How it should have gone: the the first 7 races, all in November are ok, contact him before or during da loony. No answer, short break., probably think he gave up, wait, next race, contact again, another break, Vamos a la Playa ... by then he should have been banned. Before stage 1, at the very latest during the race.
Why didn't that happen? Here I see the biggest problem in this case actually. Is it because the decision couldn't be taken without lesossies? But I thought (might be wrong) that the FPC had the power to give temporary bans even without lesossies blessing. Might be wrong, as I said, like to repeat myself, but wasn't that used in the BMX and free cases? Temporary open bans? Why not here? Anyway, here the important part is, it took way too long for Boels to be banned, the FPC has to improve on speed in cases like this, cases where the judgement is clear. Which VPN usage without any explanation surely is.

2) It's evident that..... In some cases where Gipfelstürmer uses that it's really not evident. It should read: It's likely, it's seems very likely, something like that. Not evident.
In the end the whole case is built on circumstantial evidence. There is no definite proof, no smoking gun. And in the end here we all have different standards for what is needed. Some in the FPC and commentators here feel that the circumstantial evidence is not enough, that they need more. Some feel that's enough. 2 different opinions. There really is no need to start attacking those who have a different standard. But of course it's happening anyway. I personally am not sure what I would have voted for in this case. While I'm pretty sure (but not 100%, again, likely vs evident) that our resident noble prize winner is behind Boels (and the Italians banned) generally I'm on the side of wanting definite proof. Is this here enough... not in the FPC so don't have to think about it too hard, but right now not sure. But if guilty, I certainly wouldn't go for a fine but for a temporary ban (2 weeks?) in addition as well. But again, would need to think about if this is really enough for me to go for guilty or not.

3) Boels in one race was in 4 different countries. That's an interesting fact that I would have liked to see expanded on. (Which if I was in the FPC could be an additional reason for voting one way or another)
a) Was that the only instance where Boels had 4 different IPs?,
b) If no, was there a similar pattern for the banned Italians?
If that happened regularly, for Boels and the Italians, that's another indice. If it was just an isolated case, ok, VPN trouble. If it happened regularly for Boels, never for the Italians, rather sows some doubt into the case, not decisive doubt, but some.

4) In 3 I treat the Italians as sure Aux multies... maybe I shouldn't, but I'm more convinced that those were teams used by Aux and/or Coroncina than in the Boels case.
Was that case actually actively pursued? If yes, what was the result of that? If no, why not. To me that case looks clearer, looks more promising. 2 of the 3 (? could be wrong again) banned teams started with different managers, they weren't accused or suspected of being multies for Aux, at least one riding completely different times early too. Those 2 managers have accounts in the forum. Start there. They never wrote anything. Aux spread some doubtful information in the days after the story broke, Mentioned in the main chat that "Simo" (think that was Fedex) wanted to defend himself but was blocked, if he could get his password. Not clear if he was talking about the forum or the game. But take him up on it, tell him the forum password. If that doesn't work, unblock Fedex, but don't let him ride races... .If Aux "plays the messenger" and says that one wants to give a statement, call the likely bluff. Plus some other weirdness, how he knew for sure that one VPN user hadn't been blocked, only Italians, ask for the name, and how one of the blocked assured him that he had never used a VPN, again, ask for clarification instead of letting him running wild with his desinformation campaign.
What I mean to say is: There was a much better chance of getting a statement of those 3 managers than of Boels, was an attempt made? A serious one. Of course their statements couldn't have been taken at face value automatically... but could have hoped that one of them has a conscience. No VPNs in the statement either.
To me the original case looked simply more promising than this one. Was it ignored or was there a case opened against Aux too? If it was opened, what was the result?
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

scorpsche
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by scorpsche » Tue May 07, 2019 1:18 pm

On a surface it looks that you want to go now in another, better direction by asking for sure partially good questions but in the end creating distraction with a long text.

Point 1.) 3.) and 4.) are about what could have been better handling this case and why there was no proper handling of the other vpn cases of Fedex, Doria and Astense.

Great - but it's not the topic here.
The topic here is that we have a disastrous decision to overrule the fpc fine which was in itself correct.

Now your point 2.) which is the only one referring to previous arguments.
It's a narrative you and FL keep up since almost one year: first coincidence, then likely and most likely but no facts and no evidence.
And this is wrong.
You might be able to convince other players with that - still it remains wrong.
So why it is wrong?
The argumentation of Gipfel is not limited to base/b percentage of "only" 99.9% and it can be extended.
And it is taking a lot of other facts into account which works mathematically as a multiply for the likelyhood that this is not a coincidence.
This means the percentage is de facto 100% that Boels team was used as multi by Aux.
I know this is maybe not easy to understand who have little knowledge of stochastic.
But it doesn't matter - physical and mathematical laws apply also if you don't know or "believe" them.
With your argumentation the next time a multi user can come and: "oh sorry my pc was hacked, someone controled it and created another account.". Can this be ruled out just the likelyhood is de facto inexistent? Or will we be able to never judge anyone anymore.

Completely ignored until now by FL, you and all the "is maybe just a coincidence" believers is the fact the creation of Boels team was after the vpn ban of Doria, Fedex and Astense.
Why is that important?
It does not only makes the "coincidence" / "not evident" part even less valid.
It also gives a motive to Aux.
Why he created another account? Because his old multies were blocked.
TeamSWE - Fairplay Bot, impossible to reprogram (Donkey theory :idea: )

"Re: Big Donkey - insult
Beitrag von Robyklebt » Do Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm
You clearly are a very very sick person."

Robyklebt
Posts: 7815
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Robyklebt » Tue May 07, 2019 2:44 pm

Thanks for this post, perfect introduction to the 3rd post here I have in me today.

What disturbing trend to we have here in this thread?

Attacks on other people.
First on lesossies, called dictator. In a non insulting way it's qualified later.
Then on Hunsrück. Qualified as well, didn't mean it like that when questioned. Took 2 questions for him to get an evading answer.
Then on lesossies again, more references to dictators, we can assume in a non-insulting way, since Gipfel clarified his usage of it, it's ok, isn't it. No matter that lesossies made it clear that he can't accept that insult? Well....
Then lesossies changing his story
And of course Mr Free Love, also known as FL, and the Big Donkey are accused of trolling, distracting and so on as usual.

Let's concentrate on lesossies: First, of course he deserves being attacked, after all he decided to delete the afternoon Vuelta in 2009 on very short notice, thus depriving el burro Ruiz of his only chance of winning a GT, and possibly causing the demise of Robyklebt as a team a few years later. Had the excellent Robyklebt won a GT earlier in his career he might not have been fired, and replaced by Petit Singe first, Big Donkey later. And wouldn't we all rather have the jovial, friendly and excellent Robyklebt instad of that asshole Donkey?? And of course hurting the Vuelta long term, since even Robyklebt, whose forgiveness is legendary, couldn't forget that and has since boycotted the Vuelta. But let's concentrate on the case here: He gets criticized.

Some of the criticism is in order, it seems pretty obvious (see, I didn't say it's evident) that the whole fairplay thing for him was always a bigger burden than the other things he did, that he always saw it as a distraction, a necessary evil, that had to be dealt with, but that he would much rather do something else. This job is one he probably should have given up earlier, seems he's trying to give it up now. But the criticism he gets is just weird. Especially because he's really the only one here that has actually proposed solutions, changes to the FPC, how it works.

This post here IMO was very good. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6954&start=25#p102229
But all he got was attacks. Criticism some will call it. Since I'm known for being concise and to the point, avoiding too lengthy posts, staying strictly on topic, posting only the absolutely necessary, no long sentences with countless commas that I might even forget to put in (or lengthy off-topic rants in parenthesis), I won't dissect the whole post including reactions, but just some parts.

First he explains
1) 3, in my opinion, important members, luques, Huns and I were not sure if Aux was guilty or not.
It was for me enough to take this no-decision
He clearly says why he didn't decide on a fine, but on a no-decision as he calls it. Can be criticized, the way it was done just seemed weird, polemic, not looking for a solution, not trying to make leso see what he did wrong (in their opinion), polemic and attacking.

Later he actually proposes some solutions for a better working FPC:
Maybe the FPC members should be accepted by a vote. Is it possible ? I dont know.

and last : Sorry, I cannot give a 3M fine if I am not sure.
There are little decisions where the case is simple and clear where a simple majority is OK.
Other, like ban p.a., should maybe need unanimity.
My favorite reaction:
Ps2 :
You dont keep the same line on why you did not apply FPK's decision.
First you did not have enough opinions with 3 in favor of a bit fine, so there was a 4th one.
Then it is because you were not sure, and Huns too.
Then it is because your friends/"trustable people you know" are not sure.
And finally it is because you need unanimity...
Stop the joke and excuses, you took your decision, just assume it!
That's not what lesossies is doing here.
He explained why he didn't give the fine. And then proposes ideas on how to improve how the whole process works.

He says that maybe FPC members should be voted in. Good idea? Bad idea? Rather bad one IMO, first, would we have enough candidates? Second... what kind of weirdos would we get in there then? Pro would be, we had Aux in the fairplay committee at one time, can't do much worse than that... Having them elected though would do nothing to alleviate the trust issue actually, it's just normal human behaviour, you trust those you know more or less (depending on how they are) than somebody you simply don't know. (As a compromise I'll try a snake parable. There is a snake under your house. 3 people have 3 different proposals. You know 2 of them well. A is a brilliant, down to earth, realistic guy. B is a very nice, super friendly guy, but you know he has horrible judgement, C, you don't know him well, you've only met him twice. They propose different things, that all sound ok, who would you trust most, who least?) Happy? And it can take time to get to know somebody, again, Aux was a member once, he seemed acceptable at one point in time.

Then he proposes that maybe some cases would need unanimity. He's looking for an excuse!!!! No it isn't. It's a proposal. Not a bad one. Again, would you be for or against that? Nobody seems to have an actual opinion, more interested in throwing stones. I think it's an idea worth contemplating, over some wine and cheese, maybe without ok too. The way I read it it implies that then the boss, for the moment lesossies, in those cases wouldn't have the final word anymore? But how to define those cases? Only bans? High fines? Let's say 500'000? Seems ok. Exact amount of the fine probably would still be needed to be decided by the boss.

The problem?

1) Sane reading of other peoples post. I won't get into SWE on this one, but the reading Idef gave to lesossies gave simply can't be called sane. He's interpretation, looking for excuses simply is not what lesossies is doing. He's actually proposing solutions, the one thing that the opening post seemed to want as main topic.
2) Accept opinions. Some people, especially SWE, who unfortunately hasn't been quoted here, but also Idef, seem to have trouble accepting other people's opinions. Accepting, not respecting, we're in complete agreement that some opinions deserve 0 respect, we just disagree on which ones. But accepting is the point. Especially SWE seems to be completely unable to do that. From implying senility in leso in the main chat, to claiming hidden agendas for FL and me... why can't he just deal with the stuff that other people actually write and accept that as their opinion? And then show them why he thinks their opinion is wrong. Not assign them motivations for their opinions, not assume you know what they are thinking, READ what they tell you (see no 1).

Solution:

Since lesossies is the main man in the line of fire here, how about if PTT (who hasn't been that bad here), Idef and SWE simply write down why they think lesossies took the decision he took. Then see and compare it with what leso himself writes. Something we will all be able to do. Then you can see (and we as well) if this "discussion" continues (or starts to) makes sense. A discussion only can make sense if you actually are somewhat aware of your discussions partners opinion, if your bias is too strong, if your assumptions too far off, you'll never get anywhere.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

scorpsche
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by scorpsche » Tue May 07, 2019 2:58 pm

Thanks for this post, perfect introduction to the 3rd post here I have in me today.

What disturbing trend to we have here in this thread?

Attacks on other people.
First on lesossies, called dictator. In a non insulting way it's qualified later.
Then on Hunsrück. Qualified as well, didn't mean it like that when questioned. Took 2 questions for him to get an evading answer.
Then on lesossies again, more references to dictators, we can assume in a non-insulting way, since Gipfel clarified his usage of it, it's ok, isn't it. No matter that lesossies made it clear that he can't accept that insult? Well....
Then lesossies changing his story
And of course Mr Free Love, also known as FL, and the Big Donkey are accused of trolling, distracting and so on as usual.
Congratulation after ad hominem you reached level 3 of the pyramid of disagreement.
"responding to tone" => criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument.
Bildschirmfoto 2019-05-07 um 14.51.06.png
Bildschirmfoto 2019-05-07 um 14.51.06.png (406.01 KiB) Viewed 709 times
Come back please once you have something to say about the arguments given here.
TeamSWE - Fairplay Bot, impossible to reprogram (Donkey theory :idea: )

"Re: Big Donkey - insult
Beitrag von Robyklebt » Do Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm
You clearly are a very very sick person."

luques
Posts: 2086
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by luques » Wed May 15, 2019 11:34 pm

Ok need to clarify some things as I am reading the posts.

1) Leso doesn't deserve to be called "dictator". I think some guys need to apologize on that. Luckily for you, you don't live under a dictatorship so you have probably no idea of what you are talking about.
If Leso was a dictator, this post would have been closed and the authors banned probably. Instead he is here, speaking with us trying to find solutions.

It was clear since the beginning and everybody of the FPK knew that Leso would take the final decision and that's how FPK works. We can change it? Sure, it's a dictatorship? No. Indeed, even more advanced democracies have a president that can sign or not laws. Without going too much in the past, in Italy the president REFUSED to create a government because of the presence of some ministers even if they were elected, so there were some changes to be made.

2) NO, the other members weren't informed about posting the full chat and votes, and I don't see it as really clever.
Firstly, because FPK member are RSF players and who didn't vote accordingly to the mood now risks (or has been) target of players that think differently.
Secondly, it creates imo a problem in the trust of other members, why should I post my theories in a private chat if then anybody else can make it public?
This post would have worked even without the chat imo.

3) Huns has always proved to be active, helping both in the FPK and NK. For a lot of time he has also been almost alone and worked always good, so he has all the support from my side.

4) About the other theory of the snake etc... we have a simple principle that I think is followed in democracies "in dubio pro reo". You are free to build up your dictatorships by excluding this principle.

5) About LENNAO, Luques didn't have the balls of do what? You don't need balls, you need to click a button. And if someone isn't convinced is just that... he isn't convinced. I don't think actually you understood the context here.

6) Why Leso listen to me and FL? Maybe because one is mantaining and developing the game and the other is the guy who gave most contributions to the FPK and rules in RSF? And what's wrong with that?
If you have to take a decision you never ask friends or guys that may have a different perspective or know previous cases and history? Don't see nothing bad, and again at the end one has to take the decision (go to point 1 in case).

7) For questions about VPN, the fact that he is in different countries it is just another proof that he is using a VPN, nothing strange as the nationality gets updated every time you close and open the browser or just by switching the server.
VPN gets detected manually, for this reason it may takes some time to get it, after all honestly wasn't that long, he was caught after 15 races.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the case.
In my opinion there was no real good or bad decision, both are understandable.

I perfectly understand those who think it is a logical conclusion considering the past as well, I understand as well Leso who thinks that there are not enough proofs to give such a fine.

However let's add some other things:

1) Boels would be the first accused Aux multi to be not italian (and also why with Dutch language?), as well having riders that are far from the naming of an italian.

2) Nobody even noticed something strange by Boels, not even SWE that without the opening of this post would have never known that. So what's the real benefit he got? 15 races where he was useful in a third? Seems really lot of work for nothing.

3) As the case exploded, did my checks as well about some dates.
On 16.11 Doria writes me on Skype asking to unblock his account because he has to use a VPN in the computer he uses for work, the 17.11 I write him that those are the rules and it is not possible to do in other way (had my reasons to not believe that). 6 days after Boels is born. This in my opinion makes everything even less clear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, let's do something productive from this event. I would like to make the FPK more standard, the strafenkatalog was an idea, FPK reform of FL I think isn't anymore appliable also because we are much less than in the past.
Probably we would need to make more standard procedures so that the space for personal interpretation is less. As well probably some rules are needed on the fpk members to handle cases / open.

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Pokemon Club » Thu May 16, 2019 12:41 am

what is strafenkatalog ?

High Flyer
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by High Flyer » Thu May 16, 2019 1:32 am

Pokemon Club wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 12:41 am
what is strafenkatalog ?

Penalty Catalogue. I'm not sure where but there was something like that whichwas posted at some point which was an Excel file which had a list of penalties and possible punishments for it.
Image
Image

luques
Posts: 2086
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by luques » Thu May 16, 2019 9:25 am

High Flyer wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 1:32 am
Pokemon Club wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 12:41 am
what is strafenkatalog ?

Penalty Catalogue. I'm not sure where but there was something like that whichwas posted at some point which was an Excel file which had a list of penalties and possible punishments for it.
You are right, thanks to FL.

One last thing, as some people were saying Leso was protecting Auxi, I would like to recall that he approved two fines for about 450k against Auxi in the same period.

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Pokemon Club » Thu May 16, 2019 10:53 am

luques wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 9:25 am
High Flyer wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 1:32 am
Pokemon Club wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 12:41 am
what is strafenkatalog ?

Penalty Catalogue. I'm not sure where but there was something like that whichwas posted at some point which was an Excel file which had a list of penalties and possible punishments for it.
You are right, thanks to FL.

One last thing, as some people were saying Leso was protecting Auxi, I would like to recall that he approved two fines for about 450k against Auxi in the same period.
Ah thanks. Well you should do a RSF google drive, easier to find again something than an Excel or a pdf :)

Gipfelstuermer
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:43 am
Location: Sauerland
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Gipfelstuermer » Fri May 17, 2019 12:36 am

In dubio pro reo.... that is all, Luques?

Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius. Provide the facts and I will provide justice. This is a higher priority rule in law.

That is, because "in dubio pro reo" is only a decision rule! It does not apply to the consideration of evidence! The court (i.e. the FPC) can only apply "in dubio pro reo" after consideration of evidence. First, and as a higher priority rule, the court (i.e. the FPC) has to acknowledge the evidence. Because of "Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius.". This was done and the FPC provided the justice (4 vs. 1). No dubio. No pro reo. Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius.

Generally, in law, indications are facts that allow a conclusion to another, immediately significant fact. The circumstantial evidence assumes that there is an unproven fact, because this conclusion is imposed by proven facts and life experience. The circumstantial proof is equivalent to the direct proof. However, since an indication always points to probabilities or the act only with a certain probability, it leaves, openly, the possibility of being different, thus also containing the doubt. However, it is permissible to infer from the totality of the various indications, which in themselves only with a certain probability indicate a certain fact or perpetration, leaving doubts open, the full and sufficient proof of fact or perpetrator.

First semester of law school.

And worst thing, as you only allow direct proof, multi-users will never be proven again without a confession. Because without a confession, and with our limited technology, there will always be doubt on small pieces of the evidence. Because you use "in dubio pro reo" on the evidence, instead of the decision, you break the Latin law "Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius" and create a new RSF law: In dubio pro multi.

luques
Posts: 2086
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by luques » Fri May 17, 2019 4:02 pm

Don't need to explain I know your point.

I am just not that close minded to not see that some other people think that what you call evidence isn't an evidence at all. And those people surely are not biased in favour of Auxi (I would say actually the opposite).
3. The case is not clear at all, as in my view, the "evidence" does not show the accused guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Besides that, I also think that Aux is doing shady stuff in this game. But believing and thinking and feeling is not enough.
I don't know the whole backstory of Aux and the "shady" stuff he did. After reading this whole thread more than once, I understand both sides. Is it in my eyes a 100% fact that Boels was a multi of Aux? No. Def not. Some calculations, assumptions and his backstory aren't enough to call it a fact. 99,9% isn't a fact. It's the most logical conclusion, but still not a fact. That's why I can understand if some people think he deserves a fine/punishment.
It's evident that..... In some cases where Gipfelstürmer uses that it's really not evident. It should read: It's likely, it's seems very likely, something like that. Not evident.
And I told you, I think your is a logical conclusion, I can even agree with that, but I have enough respect of others ideas to understand that even Leso choice was understandable and clearly not a scandal.

User avatar
Idéfix
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:26 am
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Idéfix » Fri May 17, 2019 7:25 pm

The end decision may not be a scandal, even if i disagree I can understand it.

But the way of making that decision is clearly a scandal.

Reveals FPK is useless in real justice, and is there only for giving a democratic image while it does not have the "judiciary" power.
Fact is that FPK has none of the 3 powers (making rules, stating judgements, apply/execute decisions). All those 3 are in Leso or away, but not in FPK. Here is the point. Important to know that the comitee in charge of "justice" (fairness) has not the judiciary power.
214 victoires

Classiques :
2 Ronde Van Vlaanderen (2016-2018)
1 Paris-Roubaix (2019)
1 GP de Plouay
1 GP de Montréal
1 Het Nieuwsblad
1 Paris-Tours


Tours :
1 Tour de Romandie
2 Tour de Catalogne
1 Campeonato de los Andes

luques
Posts: 2086
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by luques » Fri May 17, 2019 9:04 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:25 pm
The end decision may not be a scandal, even if i disagree I can understand it.

But the way of making that decision is clearly a scandal.

Reveals FPK is useless in real justice, and is there only for giving a democratic image while it does not have the "judiciary" power.
Fact is that FPK has none of the 3 powers (making rules, stating judgements, apply/execute decisions). All those 3 are in Leso or away, but not in FPK. Here is the point. Important to know that the comitee in charge of "justice" (fairness) has not the judiciary power.
I don't see that big scandal either on the way of making a decision.

I think I said hundreds of times (and not only me) that FPK takes the proofs, manages the cases and suggests through the votes a penalty that then Leso or Buh or whoever will be, approves or not.
Scandal, in my opinion, would have been if all the jury would have said fine 100k and Leso would have banned (or the other way round).

The system is much similar to what happens between parliament and president in various countries, parliament approves / suggests a law and then the president can sign it or not. And to be honest how often really Leso opposed to a decision of the FPK? Almost never.

I understand that in this case Auxi is involved and so many guys are a bit more excited about it.

Now we can say we don't like anymore this system and we think it can be better, everything can be improved.
But we can't blame Leso, telling him that he is protecting Auxi and that he is a dictator, just because he applied the same system that is working since the beginning of the game.

Maybe I didn't make this enough clear for FPK members and for all the players, although I am pretty sure that I (and not only me I would say) repeated it lot of times in race chat, main chat and so on.

However, I don't think that in many games you can have such a chat and the founder of the game would not send you in the black list directly ;)

What I suggest is, as it seems some ideas are coming out, let's build up a new system but don't blame the others for the system that with his problems worked until now.

In any case, in a eventual new system where members of the fpk have more power, I would like to have, as Leso said, more guarantees over big fines or bans, don't say the totality of the members should agree but on a 75% I would agree.

Laurens88
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 7:55 am
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: FPC Case #362

Post by Laurens88 » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:35 pm

Can anybody do a VPN check on the new team Olympia (and perhaps Tetra too)? Both teams subscribe for the same race on 18 June but stay offline there. Today they joined a race together again (20 June, Chalabre - Toulouse, 20h), but this time with Aux. Tetra stays off, but Olympia is online and helps Aux a lot in a flat race.

Race summary:
Group escapes, Aux controls without worries. Olympia is doing nothing and saying nothing. Then Spree makes it a big attack that makes 4 of his riders in the escape group, which could be a threat to Aux. Suddenly Olympia comes in with 4 riders in red and catches the group. In the race chat he claims it's his first race after FL approaches him. When the group is caught, the rest of the race he controls mostly by riding alone, which means that Aux has not much to do any more and can save his high-flat riders to block the end without problems (which he could have done with normal help as well, but still). And when the job of controlling is done 50 km before the end, Olympia goes off. He appears again in the last 5km (not something a newbie would normally do) and find enough time to make sprint settings.

Could be newbie behaviour indeed, but with Aux's history I'd rather be 100% sure that this is not a multi. Just for my peace of mind that no cheating can go unpunished. And if this is a VPN again, please take proper action this time!

Thanks!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest