My respond to the accusations

So the big takeaway here should be that Relic looked at the evidence and determined that "there is nothing definitive". That should have been the end of it IMO. Instead we got some random explanation about how Coh2 has 2 CMs now or some other nonsense.

Sure looks like a witch hunt to me. I feel bad for Seeking for having to go through this. Shameful shit.

The thing that needs to be understood here is that no one at Relic is actually capable of deciding if someone is map hacking or not. They don't have functioning tools to check for hacks and they also don't have any people working for them that are actually familiar with competitive C0H2. The way these cases have been handled in the past was that people contacted Sturmpanther with their suspicions and then Sturmpanther checked for hacks by watching replays (as well as asking other respected high-level community members for their opinion). It seems that in this case Sturmpanther and the community asked Relic to ban Seeking but they declined because Seeking is a "high-profile case". This might also have something to do with the new community manager we recently got. It would be very naive to think that Relic and their skeleton crew could actually watch a replay and decide if a person is map hacking. To spot hacks and judge a replay you need to be a good player with competitive experience (the likes of which were mentioned in the first google document).

I have my right to remain silent. My document was supposed to be the response to you. proceding because i didn't answer isn't justifying to ban me.

LOL

You could have said... Hang on I'm working on it.

You can go to court and refuse to say anything all the way through the trial, that doesn't mean people will wait for you.

The thing that needs to be understood here is that no one at Relic is actually capable of deciding if someone is map hacking or not. They don't have functioning tools to check for hacks and they also don't have any people working for them that are actually familiar with competitive C0H2. The way these cases have been handled in the past was that people contacted Sturmpanther with their suspicions and then Sturmpanther checked for hacks by watching replays (as well as asking other respected high-level community members for their opinion). It seems that in this case Sturmpanther and the community asked Relic to ban Seeking but they declined because Seeking is a "high-profile case". This might also have something to do with the new community manager we recently got. It would be very naive to think that Relic and their skeleton crew could actually watch a replay and decide if a person is map hacking. To spot hacks and judge a replay you need to be a good player with competitive experience (the likes of which were mentioned in the first google document).

Prob all of this drama wouldn't had happened if we would just wait to see seeking respond and than making a "trial".
my 2 cents

LOL

You could have said... Hang on I'm working on it.

You can go to court and refuse to say anything all the way through the trial, that doesn't mean people will wait for you.

for what i know he had 1 week for writing it?

LOL

You could have said... Hang on I'm working on it.

You can go to court and refuse to say anything all the way through the trial, that doesn't mean people will wait for you.

I am pretty sure everyone knew that i was working on my document. I even talked with mutliply people (players,refs) and they were all waiting for my document. I also streamed last time and people asked me if i am trying to appeal. AE even gave me the chance of one week of response to this case. You can also check AE's second video. When AE made the interview with me he also told me that he is waiting for my document to get realesed.

I think in the end of the day, the true winner is a Deadbolt. He is still rank 1 UKF

A_E and community showed how biased and dirty they can be, Seeking showed privite massages showing lack of morals.

Deadbolt got boosted, possibly cheated in CoH2, cheated in vCoH and never got banned or had any consequences

I think he is laughing his ass off, if he is watching all of this. Litterary everyone are covered in shit now, while deadbolt can continue his jorney.

I am pretty sure everyone knew that i was working on my document. I even talked with mutliply people (players,refs) and they were all waiting for my document. I also streamed last time and people asked me if i am trying to appeal. AE even gave me the chance of one week of response to this case. You can also check AE's second video.

You had a week though, the first accusation drop came out last Wednesday and the final decision was this Wednesday. If you needed more time you should have said something.

I am pretty sure everyone knew that i was working on my document. I even talked with mutliply people (players,refs) and they were all waiting for my document. I also streamed last time and people asked me if i am trying to appeal. AE even gave me the chance of one week of response to this case. You can also check AE's second video.

You chose to work on a document that you knew I was saying would no longer be relevant to the actions I thought we should take, you were given this first and knew about it before anyone, you chose to ignore it?

Hey guys,

can we please come back to the real issue and stop complaining about who said what to whom in private or public? This is not Kindergarden...

I have got 1 simple Question: Where is the problem?

From 20 top high level players 18 believe Seeking was hacking. Sander confesses, he has not enough skill to judge, but also believes in hacking.

Only 1, ed80hertz, gives benefit of doubt.

So what are we talking about? There is no 100% save way of proving Seeking was hacking. Relic admitted that.

From the beginning of this issue, everybody knew, this will be decided by opinions. And if 19 top players think, Seeking was cheating, then sorry about that, but it seems clear to me....there is not even a need for Seekings response.

The thing that needs to be understood here is that no one at Relic is actually capable of deciding if someone is map hacking or not. They don't have functioning tools to check for hacks and they also don't have any people working for them that are actually familiar with competitive C0H2. The way these cases have been handled in the past was that people contacted Sturmpanther with their suspicions and then Sturmpanther checked for hacks by watching replays (as well as asking other respected high-level community members for their opinion). It seems that in this case Sturmpanther and the community asked Relic to ban Seeking but they declined because Seeking is a "high-profile case". This might also have something to do with the new community manager we recently got. It would be very naive to think that Relic and their skeleton crew could actually watch a replay and decide if a person is map hacking. To spot hacks and judge a replay you need to be a good player with competitive experience (the likes of which were mentioned in the first google document).

this. Relic's verdict in this case can safely be ignored, people.

Their whole new anti-cheat policy has proven to be utterly useless when it comes to super-rare cases like this. If you have a name in a community, they want to be 100.0% sure with 0 possible doubt at all.. which makes perfect sense of course at first thought.

The problem that not even Relic will be able to answer however: How can you ever be 100.0% sure when you dont have any auto-detected anti-cheat system for most maphack programs implemented in your own game, and when nobody at Relic nowadays is even remotely familiar with CoH2. You might as well jump to the last page of 4v4 ladders and ask some rank 10,000 player if he thinks a sniper clip might be maphack. No popular player with a brain cell will zoom the camera into a sniper and then rifle-nade it, which is probably the type of video clips they would need.

Hey guys,

can we please come back to the real issue and stop complaining about who said what to whom in private or public? This is not Kindergarden...

I have got 1 simple Question: Where is the problem?

From 20 top high level players 18 believe Seeking was hacking. Sander confesses, he has not enough skill to judge, but also believes in hacking.

Only 1, ed80hertz, gives benefit of doubt.

So what are we talking about? There is no 100% save way of proving Seeking was hacking. Relic admitted that.

From the beginning of this issue, everybody knew, this will be decided by opinions. And if 19 top players think, Seeking was cheating, then sorry about that, but it seems clear to me....there is not even a need for Seekings response.

Problem is Luvnest, noggano and some other players asked if they knew his name is put next to (- believes its maphack), he did not know and never agreed to put his name which could mean, they were not confident enough to give their verdict.

Hey guys,

can we please come back to the real issue and stop complaining about who said what to whom in private or public? This is not Kindergarden...

I have got 1 simple Question: Where is the problem?

From 20 top high level players 18 believe Seeking was hacking. Sander confesses, he has not enough skill to judge, but also believes in hacking.

Only 1, ed80hertz, gives benefit of doubt.

So what are we talking about? There is no 100% save way of proving Seeking was hacking. Relic admitted that.

From the beginning of this issue, everybody knew, this will be decided by opinions. And if 19 top players think, Seeking was cheating, then sorry about that, but it seems clear to me....there is not even a need for Seekings response.

Thats a fair point. This was the reason why i tried to talk with the most of the people in the playerlist. The players who got asked had to answer some clips which got provided by them and they had to say what they think. They never said its 100% hack. They said yes some clips are looking sus in their opinion but thats it. They did not even got asked if AE/Sturmpanther are allowed to use their names in the public document. Some of them are really pissed about this. In my opinion the playerlist is not accurate.

this kindergarden thingies are annoying......
i dont want to defend neither seeking nor AE, but who cares what seeking or AE said in rage mode in a chat. we are all shit-talking from time to time.
1. the only important thing is, did he hack or not?
2. did he boost deadbolts account or not?

1.: i dont know, im too lazy to watch all that stuff (i have my personal opinion, but i think its better to say nothing, cause i didnt see it all).
but when a group of very experienced high skill players with impeccable reputation like luvnest, devm etc. come to the conclusion that they are not sure if he hacked, then dont ban him.
if they are sure that he did, ban him.
its as easy as that.

2.: he obviuosly did, so a time ban would be a reasonable thing, even though i have to admit that a whole year ban only for that seems a little bit harsh from my perspective. but anyway, there should be consequences.

IF sources like the TR inhouse cup are correct, Deadbolt (hacking or not) seems to be able to have a higher CPM than assumed previously. I dont know if Deadbolt or Seeking played those games with voice com to confirm they were the ones playing (cam seems very unliekely for a fun tournament)

The 1 year ban came from Seeking playing on Deadbolts account AFTER the warning. Its getting abit messy, did i miss the proof for this?

In all honesty, I also believe that you are cheating and your explanations don't help but make things worse.

As stated in Seeking's document, the player's opinions should be displayed to reflect true meaning of it, it's obvious that the case is not simple so the opinions are not going to be either. Opinions are on spectrum from 0%-100% it looked suspicious to me from day 1 that AE's document stated that all of the players gave their unanimous decisions, I could not believe that part.

You chose to work on a document that you knew I was saying would no longer be relevant to the actions I thought should take, you were given this first and knew about it before anyone, you chose to ignore it?

Why should i take any of your offer when u displace me in the public eye as a gulity person. You gave me the opportunity to defend myself and then coming out of nowhere to make a deal. In that case i wanted to be silent and concentrate on my document instead of giving you a reply. You also stated "who gives a fuck" about my document. You made this public and i have my right to show my side and people were waiting for it. But u justifiy ur proceeding because i didn't respond?