Dejobro | 5-23-12 | 7:15 EST | STEAM_0:1:18853194

[Steamer]

I highly suggest you watch it again and slow it down. It isn't obvious per-say, but its there and widespread, in both demo's, there is no need to provide ticks...

I have watched it 3 times now, seeing the lead-ins, the nice straight sped up aims a here and there, and the all around bs. This one takes a decent eye at observing....

[brett friggin favre]

eesh. i think we all hate these. as far as walls go...this is a relatively new map yes? i'm guessing so as there arent many gg maps i havent seen and this is one. anywho, that can add to the feeling of walls, but i notice throughout the demo that damn near anywhere you look, there's an enemy. yes, there are some parts where he's looking right at an enemy through a wall. however lots of the time he either saw them go behind a peg or the guy is on radar, or they're just where people always are. he'll also hold on the outside of a wall, but the timing of his shits do not indicate walls to me. for every tick i find myself saying BS...there's 2 ticks for which i say it's clearly not bs. as far as i care, if he's walling but reacts slower than anyone else on 2/3 ticks...it's not enough of a bother to attempt a ban. especially on a map like trouble...now i didn't watch the second demo yet, i'll get to that. but from the first demo, i'd say no on walls.

as for aimbot, i'd like everyone to take a look at ticks 17k and 23.5k particularly close. they simply don't look natural. i see a few other jerky movements but i don't notice most of them actually landing on or near to anyone else, and they seem consistent with picking up and putting down a mouse. those two ticks though...got me wondering. toggler in my opinion, i'll have to watch this demo a bit more closely and also get into the second to be sure.

as for his steam account...had it since 08, almost NO play time at all on it except 43 hours of source. what i'm seeing from him is more consistent with hundreds upon hundreds. also couldnt find anything on his ip. if the GODDAMN GG STATS WERE WORKING we could check for other ip's.

ONE FINAL THING - IMPORTANT
i did find this. http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004356628
that's a different steam account. same person. not vac banned. same amount of css hours. that's all i can dig up, but can't find out why he'd have 2 steam profiles. it has played on our pub http://www.ibisgaming.com/pub1_stats...r.php?id=26235 (steamid is listed there), and damn near nothing. i'm baffled. my gut says hax, my head says fuck you i'm going to sleep.

[Steamer]

I like his second accounts names, Snapples, with a HS kill only. Lol.

Just watch for the aims more so, the walls I mentioned are w/e, and very inconclusive on such a small map but somewhat sketchy to me.

As for open interpretation, I don't see were that matters here, as nothing needs to be interpreted. The proof is in the demos, it is or it isn't, I have no other proof of anything else. Your post sounds like your saying you strongly believe he doesn't hack, yet you vote inconclusive (this is not NO, pretty much means you didn't make a decision or torn if he does but lacking evidence).... that doesn't speed up the process at all. We truly are not in a position to be not voting, we are here to vote yay or nay and leave no sides. It happens at times, but for good reason, this ban however is no good reason to not be voting just a yes or no, it's just something I will add to all bans now, no matter the obviousness.

Four times now I have watched, and every time I see some speed up in movement close to the person and a straight line gone off how the guy "normally" shoots.

[XX0wnsXY]

I like his second accounts names, Snapples, with a HS kill only. Lol.

Just watch for the aims more so, the walls I mentioned are w/e, and very inconclusive on such a small map but somewhat sketchy to me.

As for open interpretation, I don't see were that matters here, as nothing needs to be interpreted. The proof is in the demos, it is or it isn't, I have no other proof of anything else. Your post sounds like your saying you strongly believe he doesn't hack, yet you vote inconclusive (this is not NO, pretty much means you didn't make a decision or torn if he does but lacking evidence).... that doesn't speed up the process at all. We truly are not in a position to be not voting, we are here to vote yay or nay and leave no sides. It happens at times, but for good reason, this ban however is no good reason to not be voting just a yes or no, it's just something I will add to all bans now, no matter the obviousness.

Four times now I have watched, and every time I see some speed up in movement close to the person and a straight line gone off how the guy "normally" shoots.

You put an option as inconclusive. I don't see anything conclusive so I voted inconclusive. You made the poll, note me. Anyway, my vote is made.

[brett friggin favre]

in the second demo, watch tick 12.5k. that's the best there.

i see ticks in both demos which seem unnatural, but nothing consistent enough or blatant enough to warrant a perma. that, combined with no solid evidence of past hacking...if i had a vote i don't think i could vote yes. i'd say definitely keep an eye on him. but one thing i'm not seeing is a shimmy. aimbot almost always comes with a shimmy and i'm not seeing that. and a lot of the time, those quick mouse movements don't result in much. btw rellik is really fucking annoying...anyway, my vote would be no, but i wouldn't fully write him off as legit. especially with the 2 steam accounts and very little play time...but based on this demo and concrete past evidence, i just don't think there's enough.

[Steamer]

If you didn't think he hacks, as you said yourself, then you should vote no, not that your "unsure" or couldn't make a decision. Your vote makes no sense to what the words you typed state.

You say strongly no, yet you vote non-decisive, undetermined, no definite decision or result, ect, ect, ect... It just baffles me.

[brett friggin favre]

If you didn't think he hacks, as you said yourself, then you should vote no, not that your "unsure" or couldn't make a decision. Your vote makes no sense to what the words you typed state.

You say strongly no, yet you vote not decisive, undetermined, no definite decision or result, ect, ect, ect... It just baffles me.

sorry if i'm being unclear. i'm providing the ticks i see closest to hacking, and saying that they don't look normal. but at the same time, i don't see them as being artifically aided. the fact that he does have those fishy ticks and the more than fishy background is enough to pique my interest, but the lack of concrete evidence means i have to vote no. i'm staying away from the inconclusive option because inconclusive = no. the reason my vote is "strongly" no is because it is not decisively yes, and i don't like leaving myself on the fence. if i'm gonna say no, i'll do it with conviction, if i'm gonna say yes, i'll do it with conviction.

fishy as fuck? yes.
would i vote to perma ban? not based on what i can see.

EDIT: i feel like this wasn't directed at me. i'm tired and slow. anyways i'll leave it up there as insight into my process. lolz