I have found your interjection into these debates to be deeply hypocritical.
You were involved in a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, you found evidence he (or an account linked to him) was involved on hacking forums, which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip based evidence that had been collected.
Here we had a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, we found evidence (he played on the pc and account of a player who everyone agrees hacked in replays), which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip/replay based evidence that had been collected.
All of your raz clips/replays could have been explained with "game sense bro" in just the same way as ours.
Do me a favour, go and watch one of the last 1v1 games Seeking played before the accusations went live. He manhandles a player that goes life and death with everyone. Don't look at my time stamps, and look at the times you go "hmm", then watch any other 1v1 game replay on the ladder and do an equal exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2gxRMwuW8
Now I'm willing to accept either of the following two scenarios:
1) Seeking has an innovative gameplay style and game sense that would always have led to suspicion at some point - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.
2) Seeking was hacking either via Fog of War or the minimap (both currently possible) - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play, and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.
Which is it?
You're always so polite to me aren't you? Careful, your bias might be showing.
Unfortunately your premise is flawed. Raz WAS
detected by Relic. Dbmb WAS
detected by Relic. And in both cases, permabanned for map hacking.
My entire "interjection" into this debate was to voice the opinion that the way that this was handled was not optimal/deeply flawed (which you yourself admit) and that it could potentially jeopardize other players in the future.
In the case that I brought up regarding Raz/Dbmb everything was handled privately
until the tournament organizer decided to message Raz/Dbmb privately
to tell him that he had been disqualified. As I stated from the outset, in my opinion the tournament organizer has the sole discretion to allow/prevent anyone from playing in their tournament for any or even no reason at all. It wouldn't make for the best tournament possible if a TO was disallowing participation on a whim, but at the end of the day, it's the TO's tournament. It's the TO's blood, sweat, tears, and hard work that make the tournament possible (shoutout to the refs that help with everything as well.) Therefore, it is the TOs decision.
Instead, you privately went to Relic (this part was the right call), but when they didn't handle the situation in a manner that you saw fitting, you decided to make a video declaring Seeking to be a map hacker. Surely you can see how this might have some negative consequences for Seeking should he be not guilty at the end of the day? Why not just PM Seeking, explain the situation, and tell him that you and others involved in running the tournament were uncomfortable with his participation? Then, if he chooses to make it public, you can present your evidence to the public. It couldn't be because you were biased against him from the start, and unhappy with the way Relic handled everything, could it?