Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

[qqwref]

For now, we should just trust delegates. If something like this happens, oh well - we know we can never trust that person again.

It will only be feasable to have delegates who don't compete when cubing is a lot bigger and we can pay them. Until then, there's no reason for an active cuber to fly across a country to delegate a competition - if they can't compete, and aren't getting paid, why bother going to the competition at all?

 

[blah]

if they can't compete, and aren't getting paid, why bother going to the competition at all?

Ask Jim.

 

[Bapao]

If cubing were a pro-sport with money involved, I could better understand the desire/ motivation to cheat. What with cash and other benefits involved. But lets face it; what does a "cubing cheater" have to gain here other than recognition as things stand right now? Kinda sad...I just don't understand the drive behind the whole thing

If the person participating in the chat that Kir was part of, really is the perpetrator in question, then he seriously is quite the sneaky b*tch. To put it mildly. Lifetime ban based on that material, no less IMO. But was it him?

Why did the IAC post the last statement that they did without proof that it was actually Pino posting said stuff on that forum though? I mean, a one to one Skype video call would have been more reliable and legit as "evidence". And probably not hard to organize, even in Chile.

 

[Stefan]

Why did the IAC post the last statement that they did without proof that it was actually Pino posting said stuff on that forum though?

Do you mean this?
http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085

What do you mean with "without proof"? That IAC didn't have proof, or that IAC's post didn't contain proof? And why is it needed? Does anybody doubt that Sebastian wrote that? Does it contain something crucial for or against him? Did the verdict or penalty change because of it?

 

[cookieyo145]

i don't think the TTW sebastion was the real one, there was this guy called ****rubik talking about spitting the cum and stuff like that to danthecuber

 

[Daniel Wu]

Too much vosotros form used in that chat log. Definitely a Spaniard not a Chilean.

 

[Dene]

But again: what is more likely?

1) You're a cheater.
2) You're a cheater and you have a friend willing to cheat with you and you know it.

Unless those two additional conditions have 100% probability, scenario 1) is more likely.

Besides, this is about delegates, so your cheat-buddy even needs to be a delegate.

To be honest I haven't read what's gone on in this thread for about the past 100 posts, but I'm inclined to think that, whatever you are arguing about, you have given a false representation of the options. Maybe I'm way off, but should they not be like this:

What is more likely?
1) You are cheating by yourself and nobody else knows
2) You are cheating and you have a friend willing to cheat and you know it.

Once put like this you're additive style reasoning no longer applies and we must address each hypothesis individually.

Like I say, I don't know exactly what you are arguing about. However I would say this: if the situation allowed, it is quite probably that the second option would be more likely, if it would aid the person in cheating (i.e. increase the probability that they could cheat and get away with it).