FPC Case #362

[Gipfelstuermer]

Ok, fl, I value your opinion, so I have to examine your calculation.

Facts are:
- Boels team rides races after 21:00,
- Auxilium Torino rides races after 21:00

Correct. We agree:

Assume that Boels Team joins C4F. He can only ride late evening (21h-24h).

-> 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:

Auxilium Torino rode 53 of 115 races during the active time of Boel's Team

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.

So the probability is 53/115 = 46.1%.

Even if you don't ride very often.

Incorrect conclusion. I calculated that.

But what is the probability, that he meets Auxilium Torino 15-times in a row? It is approximately (53/115)^15 = 0.00089%.

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:

So clearly not a random thing.

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]

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.

[scorpsche]

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 ) would rule pro crime here.
Of course this doesn't hinder FL and the donkey to continue to flood this thread with wrong arguments.

[Z&B]

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]

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?

[scorpsche]

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.

[Robyklebt]

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.

[scorpsche]

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 (406.01 KiB) Viewed 8435 times

Come back please once you have something to say about the arguments given here.

[luques]

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.

[Pokemon Club]

what is strafenkatalog ?

[High Flyer]

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.

[luques]

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.

[Pokemon Club]

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]

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]

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.

[luques]

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]

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!

[Gipfelstuermer]

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!

Thanks for your report.

I checked and found a relatively high fraud score, but not at 100%. So little chance for action based only on that.

Since 5 strong pieces of evidence (15 consecutive races, VPN, Race support of Aux, No reply, Countercharges by Aux) were not enough for some people... How can any one VPN check ever be enough for anything? Those who don't want justice to prevail, will always deliver their in dubio pro multi speech as a perversion of legal principles.

[team fl]

Sorry but this is a very far fetch. Olympia is clearly french and a newbie... according to his reactions in the chat, in the race and his race behaviour.

[team fl]

Copy of the race chat for the protocol

Team FL: Anyway, bye everybody. Have fun, look cool.
Rsc Spree: gw Liberte
Team FL: Although he will have to deal with Eduardo again
Team FL: Go for it.
Team FL: MSR, Spree!
Rsc Spree: if he grows up i hope he will win some classic races
Team FL: Intersting race, interesting sprint. Nice race! Have a good night everybody!
Team FL: GW Yegor!
Liberty Sarténe: thanks
Team FL: What a hero
Team FL: Blocked by Eduardo himself.
Rsc Spree: shure he do his job
Team FL: Horacio at 100m...
Rapid Vitesse: gw
Team FL: And Hans happy too I guess, Rsc Spree
Auxilium Torino: gw
Team FL: Risky but the right move today
Team FL: Well done!
Team FL: GW Yegor I guess.
RC Cost: easy gw liberty
Team FL: Hi tactic works exactly because there is nobody else than Hans in his wheel.
Team FL: No, because if somebody is in his wheel, the whole strength of the situation right now would be completely off.
Auxilium Torino: 82 90 is a good wheel
Team FL: I didn't think he would do that. And without you in my wheel, I could try to go earlier with Banzer... But with Horacio there...
Team FL: Why?
Auxilium Torino: this is surprising
Auxilium Torino: nobody follow liberty
Team FL: Liberty with a good move
Team FL: Anyway, like this it will be hard for both of us to in it...
Team FL: Yeah, you have the 94 sprinter... so either they are in your or in my wheel
RC Cost: I think nobody was in your wheel
Auxilium Torino: and the rest is all in my wheel
Auxilium Torino: i was not sure when and i let get random a wheel
Team FL: So no help next time, eh
Auxilium Torino: sorry, i got random
Team FL: Bah, on my wheel, Aux. pfff...
Auxilium Torino: yes, i was sure
Team FL:
Team FL: You sure?
Rsc Spree: hehe
Auxilium Torino: no prob, we catch him now
Team FL: mass would have blocked the attack easily
Rsc Spree: s o he ll get a chance now
Team FL: Only three riders in tempo three km before the finish line a bit less... Why not two riders for the other sprint teams too?
Auxilium Torino: better
Auxilium Torino: fabian last km
Rsc Spree: i want sell him after season today he train
Rsc Spree: gustav havel
Rsc Spree: g. didn t train mountain 2 and halv season
Team FL: But of course, when it happens in training, it's pretty annoying.
Team FL: And sometimes, it's even more fun to have some riders with flaws to create a story around them.
Katschberger RC: ist ja gleich alt wie Gerhard. Das macht er ihm schon nach
Team FL: Young riders may make mistakes in training
Team FL: Had some too. But it's good to trust in your riders!
Team FL: Late Bloomers.
RC Cost: na also, Ich muss bei Bruno auch hoffen der will auch nicht so richtig aber kann ja noch kommen
Katschberger RC: Cost, erinnerst du dich noch an den Tag, an dem ich schrieb, ich wolle Gerhard kicken, weil er 3 x 90 % Training ausliess und du mir rietest ihn trotzdem zu behalten ? Nun, ich behielt ihn und siehe da : Nun hat der Kerl 3 hinterinander ca 25% Berg genommen und hat nun 72 Berg, was mir grosse Freude macht. Dank dir für den guten Tipp
Auxilium Torino: killed two politicians tonight here
Team FL: If you have questions about the final sprint, feel free to ask them here.
Team FL: No problem.
Olympia: Sorry, the chat bug
Olympia: A little. I have ride a short race
Team FL: Do you know how the final sprint works, Olympia?
Team FL: Seriously.
Team FL: Just copy what Auxilium Torino does, Olympia.
Olympia: What do I have to make then?
Team FL: Btw. visitied Bologna in May, such a lovely city.
Rsc Spree: olympia 80 km to go 1 min gap if peloton works hard they will catch me in 10 km
Team FL: Hehe. I think that's true for every country to learn their own language(s)
Auxilium Torino: but yes, we can choise, english, french in 99% of the schools
Auxilium Torino: will be good when italians learn italian in the school...
Team FL: Meet some that were better in french than english.
Team FL: Do Italians learn french in school, Aux?
Team FL: A riders energy is very important, so you should save as much or spend as little as possible, as much as needed.
Olympia: No
Team FL: Tempo green for Omar Tchit is enough at the moment, by the way.
Team FL: Olympia, by any chance, you speak Italian?
Team FL: I can try, Aux, unfortunately, I am a bit busy at the moment.
Olympia: Ok. Good, Thanks
Rsc Spree: also völlig egal ob ich morgen n haufen leichen im keller hab
Auxilium Torino: FL, spiegagli tu bene come si mettono gli aiuti in inglese
Auxilium Torino: yes, helper
Auxilium Torino: spare energie
Auxilium Torino: this help
Auxilium Torino: make togheter in tactic
Auxilium Torino: green is ok, olympia
Olympia: Help for sprinter ?
Rsc Spree: und ich fahr frühestens sonntag wieder morgen gehts los und samstag kommen wir an
Team FL: Hehe, good fighting spirit.
Rsc Spree: jaa sonst wirds ja so langweilig
Team FL: Well, it's not Spree's fault if somebody calls the race boring
Auxilium Torino: Oluympia, you have help for sprinter?
Rsc Spree: yeah but don t have a real sprinter
Team FL: The thing with Wolf hurt a lot just seeing it... Very unfortunate.
Auxilium Torino: i like denmark
Katschberger RC: unermüdlicher Spree
Katschberger RC: Are also stronger Aux ... also our best player has broken his ankle against Serbia ... but: Our boys are good and therefore they can stand against the Germans
Olympia: RSC rider are better than mine
Auxilium Torino: or so
Auxilium Torino: Olympia get relaxed, green tempo to be sure is enough
Team FL: First races, better to watch and ask a lot. Gain experience.
Team FL: Just watch what Auxilium Torino does. He has the best sprinter and is very experienced in such things.
Team FL: Great Game, Katschberger! According to Stermann and Grisseman, Germany will win!
Olympia: With more rider, we are going faster no ?
Katschberger RC: serbia - Austria 0: 2 and now 1: 3 against Denmark: - (((((((((((.... now we have to beat Germany on Sunday ..... horror ....
Team FL: Olympia, now you can go out of tempo with Omar. If a new escape emerges, just do what Auxilium Torino does (
Team FL: Ok, Rsc Spree not riding the TdF unfortunately. But holidays are nice too!
Team FL: And as said, keep your sprinters fit. Best if both of them have two helpers at any given time.
Team FL: As written, one rider in tempo should be enough. I am sure Aux will help you a bit with that.
Team FL: That's great, Olympia.
Team FL: Now better help him than demant things from him...
Olympia: Yes
Team FL: Ah, see...
Team FL: Olympia, tu sais parler anglais?
Auxilium Torino: austria 1 danmark 3 finish
Olympia: Hello. It's my first race
Auxilium Torino: try french
Team FL: (let's ask him. What an exciting thing to do!)
Team FL: Well, what you think and what is true might not be the same thing. Anyway, Olympia, have you played this game before?
Team FL: And welcome to the game
Team FL: Olympia, one rider in tempo is enough. Keep your sprinters fit. If you have question about the game, feel free to use the chat.,
Rsc Spree: and wont block me a fix time then
Auxilium Torino: don´t think is the first race, but i say that is better he ride now, ansdd i save mine for later
Rapid Vitesse: Anybody for a VPN check on Olympia? ^^
Rsc Spree: think not im in holydays there and
Katschberger RC: Olympia = 1 driver is enough. Save the others for later
Team FL: Olympia has one race, he's a total newcomer in this game. Aren't you better than that, Aux?
Team FL: Oh, will be afk for some minutes.
Team FL: Won't ride alone.
Auxilium Torino: you have no blocker, ride now, thanks
Team FL: Anyway, TdF, anybody?
Auxilium Torino: olympia, you can ride a lot, your good train call your tempo
Auxilium Torino: yes
Team FL: Watching the U21s, Aux?
Team FL: See, so we have to catch it and prevent it from doing so!
Rsc Spree: the grat beasty spree monster escaped and wanna eat sprinters as dessert
Team FL: No, but four riders in the front group? Don't like it. Looks too much like a TTT
Auxilium Torino: great denish
Auxilium Torino: goaaaaal
Rsc Spree: yeah it s so scared
Team FL: Ha, you woke up the peloton
Team FL: Most likely with a sprint line up and Rossard as GC leader!
Team FL: Sooo... who is riding the TdF and when? Team FL will be at the start in the afternoon of course.
Team FL: Anyway, let's really have some fun this evening and all be happy and content
Auxilium Torino: go red if you want
Team FL: Ah, isn't it predictable how the group is complaining about the tempo in the peloton. life needs certainties
Team FL: You listen too much to Rebecca Black, RC Cost
Auxilium Torino: i have to work, and i want to be relaxed
Team FL: And what has that to do with the development of this race so far?
RC Cost: fun fun fun
Rsc Spree: i supose boring
Rapid Vitesse: only cares about his own fun
Team FL: Like what?
Rapid Vitesse: yes, aux is always like that
Team FL: Some fun in the beginning, why not
Rsc Spree: so make your boring race aux
Rapid Vitesse: great job spree, applause
Auxilium Torino: thanks, one to help will be good
Team FL: Just for your information
Team FL: I am interested in a bunch sprint too, so far.
Auxilium Torino: short race
Auxilium Torino: ok, let 1 minutes more, no much
Liberty Sarténe: yes, i will be some help later
Auxilium Torino: liberty, you help?
Auxilium Torino: haloa
Team FL: Ha! Here in time
Rsc Spree: heho
Team FL: hi everybody. will miss the start probably.

[team fl]

Btw. I have rather the feeling that Olympia and Tetra link together… Anyway, although i don't think they are connected to Aux, still the possibility to ask them about the VPN stuff and their link?

[luques]

Btw. I have rather the feeling that Olympia and Tetra link together… Anyway, although i don't think they are connected to Aux, still the possibility to ask them about the VPN stuff and their link?

This FL