The Quizbowl Resource Center

Steven Hines wrote: Seventh - Many of you would like for me to do a skype oral exam on a lederberg topic of your choosing. I will do this - on several agreements. The quizbowl community as a whole works together to stop the verbal abuse (or for matt's sake, potential verbal abuse) of my former teammates, friends, etc. No more than five people can attend (excluding anyone from Brown/DVQB that wants to attend) - and out of those five, one of them MUST be Jerry. I am given the topic a day beforehand (one day is not enough to learn it well enough to be sufficiently prepared but enough that I can actually prepare a decent lecture). You can put together a list of topics that you feel I should be accountable for - I am allowed to veto topics in which: I didn't buzz, I buzzed incorrectly, I buzzed off of feel, or are too dense to be covered in an hour (I am not half assing physics). And lastly, I give the oral presentation over summer (I am not detracting time from final studying for this).

I don't understand at all how you're in a position to make these demands, especially of Jerry. Also, I feel like a day's preparation in summer would be more than enough time to prepare a small talk on some kind of science topic, especially since according to Abid

abnormal abdomen wrote: Steven is taking a full schedule of all advanced/grad level physics and math courses

and given your assumed veto power. This whole idea comes across as little more than ludicrous.

The idea that we were easy on cheaters before Andy Watkins is complete bullshit. Look up "Belisarias" on QBWiki one night, he's somebody who obviously cheated and was caught on the basis of his absurd statline alone. Very analogous, IMO. Much more of an analogue than Andy Watkins, who at least (before 2011) cheated in a more subtle way where his numbers at least were plausibly in the range of an above-average player having a career day.

Skepticism and Animal Feed wrote:Look up "Belisarias" on QBWiki one night

Well, don't do that, but do look up Basileus.

Wow, this is really getting absurd.

OK, first off, no one is attacking your former high school. Why would anyone do such a thing? That sounds like a completely made up thing to me, and doesn't augur well for the rest of your points.

Second, no one is interested in denying that you're precocious and taking advanced classes and whatnot. I've known plenty of people who have and do that. What I haven't seen was someone whose entire recent schooling just happened to coincide with the content of a publicly available science tournament. And furthermore, this person scored very modestly at a previous tournament when the level of knowledge suggests he should have done much, much better. That's what strains credulity. And of course anyone can come up with post hoc explanations for why they got this or that buzz; I buzzed early on Emil Post because I edited a question on him for Nationals. But I didn't have a series of ridiculously unlikely buzzes on CS and math as a whole.

Let me speak momentarily from experience; I no longer take classes, but there was certainly a time when I was taking four or five technical electives per semester. I wish I had retained, then, for quizbowl purposes half of what I had been learning at the time. Again, it's just simply incredible that you would have such a perfect memory that you'd recall every one of these very hard clues at such an early point. We're talking about topics here that are not even routinely covered in graduate classes; I know because I took many of those graduate classes. I also, at one point, wrote and edited several science-only tournaments, and yet my conversion of science questions did not skyrocket by two orders of magnitude in subsequent tournaments (though to be sure it did improve).

I have no interest in quizzing anyone over Skype. That's ridiculous and stupid and I'm not going to waste my time with that. I don't see what it would prove and I'm not in the business of running practice comps. I do take umbrage at the suggestion that I'm somehow an irresponsible member of the quizbowl community; if you have any room to talk of anything here, it's certainly not that. One thing I don't need is someone who has contributed nothing to it except bad feeling lecturing me on the putative consequences of my actions. If anyone here needs to understand that actions have consequences, it sure as shit isn't me.

I think I hear rumblings from Mt. Vinokurov.

Nobody is ever going to believe you are the best science player in the game because you aren't, so please just stop lying.

On Friday, April 25, at 2:40 pm EDT, an account identified as belonging to Steven Hines made this post from the IP address 138.16.35.70, which originates from Brown University. The post was made using Chrome on 64-bit Windows 8.

On Wednesday, April 23, server logs show that, beginning at around 4:37 pm EDT, a user from that same IP address (138.16.35.70) downloaded the Lederberg zip file and two docx packets from http://collegiate.quizbowlpackets.com/633/ prior to the Skype mirror of Lederberg, which was scheduled to begin around 8 pm EDT. All of the downloads were made using Chrome on 64-bit Windows 8.

The specific times and dates of the access are listed below, as are the specific files accessed. The datestamps are in UTC; subtract four hours for EDT.
The information pertaining to the post made from the Steven Hines account are below. Timestamps again in UTC.

And there we have it.

Barbecue at my house, guys.

Tell me again about actions and consequences.

grapesmoker wrote:I have no interest in quizzing anyone over Skype. That's ridiculous and stupid and I'm not going to waste my time with that.

Of course, it was just a personal suggestion as to how we could torture him for cheating. It's a completely absurd suggestion and was meant to be such.

Also, congratulations on your Lederberg mirror scoring title!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:

grapesmoker wrote:I have no interest in quizzing anyone over Skype. That's ridiculous and stupid and I'm not going to waste my time with that.

Of course, it was just a personal suggestion as to how we could torture him for cheating. It's a completely absurd suggestion and was meant to be such.

Right, I figured you were making a joke; I certainly didn't expect anyone to take that seriously.

Also, congratulations on your Lederberg mirror scoring title!

GOTTA GET THEM STATS

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

What happened to peace and love?

Abid/Lloyd posted two random responses from the list I sent them, here is the full list / I know you won't believe these either but at least you have the full selection.

If you truly knew science as well as your statline claims, you would know that these statements are falsifiable and not about belief. So produce the lecture notes posted online on said topic for phantom references from class.

Sixth - Many of you want an apology, so I'm going to give you one here and now. I'm sorry that Andy Watkins has destroyed your patience with people / I think you and I can agree on one thing at least - if the Watkins scandal hadn't occurred, there would have been allegations made against me BUT this whole guilty till proven innocent demeanor wouldn't exist. I apologies to you all for quizbowl not being a healthy family - as it once was (has been for me up until now). This is - the only apology I will give to you. I did not cheat.

Well gee, if you had any real knowledge about Andy Watkins and the scandal you would know that allegations were made many times about his performance, and he had a less suspicious statline than you. We as a whole are not dumbasses, in your case it was just too easy to prove and too obvious.

Eighth - I would like to remind all of you that you are prominent people in the quizbowl community. People look up to you. This is a gift, as well as, a responsibility. You should act appropriately because whatever actions you take, they are seen to reflect on the quizbowl community as a whole. This does not apply only to this situation - this is general advice that should be adhered to throughout life.

I would like to remind you that you are a nothingburger, and that we don't have to take any nonsense from you. Literally everything you say or do doesn't matter because you don't matter to the community. You don't have our respect, and you don't deserve a rematch with Jerry to prove anything. And dude get real, we as a community ripped Andy Watkins to shreds, and do you know what happened to "our quizbowl iamge?" Nothing, because quizbowl isn't about money or nonsense, it's knowledge for knowledge's sake and the respect of our peers, but you really don't get it. In fact, if anything, we have been accommodating - when Andy Watkins was accused of cheating no one asked for an apology from him for cheating. Some of us here have suggested that you do so.

Edit: grammar word

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

So, basically, a MYSTERY PERSON from Brown magically decided to download the packets for this tournament at the very same time you were playing the tournament and outplaying any mathematically likely projection of your previous quiz bowl performances?

Also, is your last line really trying to put out the argument, "I couldn't have cheated at this, because you're accusing me of being really horrible at cheating!"?

NickConderWKU wrote:

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

What happened to peace and love?

And as a bonus, for my 666th post, I'll suggest that he won't admit to cheating, but he'll definitely amit to it.

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:Also, is your last line really trying to put out the argument, "I couldn't have cheated at this, because you're accusing me of being really horrible at cheating!"?

"I didn't cheat! I just tried really hard to make it look like I did. But if I actually cheated, I would've done it better."

Remember O.J. Simpson's book If I Did It?

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

Brown owns a /16. I like the ad-hoc "I WOULD CHEAT SMART", but the IP logs (and just as damning: timestamps) only confirm what we already know: that you cheated. Even without them, we would know you cheated. You can't argue your way out of this, you can only own up to what you did.

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

Ironic that you would attempt to defend yourself by hastily looking up something you have unverifiable knowledge of on the internet. Depressing that your second line of defense is "I couldn't possibly have cheated! Only a fucking moron would've left this many incredibly obvious tracks!"

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating

Understand quizbowl before you act like mindless shit

Cody wrote:

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

Brown owns a /16. I like the ad-hoc "I WOULD CHEAT SMART", but the IP logs (and just as damning: timestamps) only confirm what we already know: that you cheated. Even without them, we would know you cheated. You can't argue your way out of this, you can only own up to what you did.

My information has been corrected: Brown owns TWO /16's! That's basically 131,000 IP addresses! I doubt they even use mass-NAT!

Ashvin, I'm not sure what you're saying with your posts but it is pretty ridiculous for a professor to cover that kind of material in an OS class. It would have been much more believable if he had claimed he read it in an article or something, but even then, not much more in his case. Also I want to address:

Ashwin wrote: "-The entire point of clues like "a description of Kruskal's algorithm" is to buzz on them and say "trees". I believe that either Sriram or I did exactly that."

Saajid wrote:Given a well-quasi-ordered preorder on sigma, the preorder on these structures of a homeomorphic embedding of sigma is well-quasi-ordered according to Kruskal’s theorem about these structures. A data structure of this type uses an associative array on integer keys to point to substructures with square root of n elements, which helps that type of these structures achieve log log n running times for search and deletion; that type of these structures is named for (*) van Emde Boas. Rotations are used to maintain the invariants of a data structure of this type that is usually implemented as “left-leaning” and colors nodes. A recursive definition usually consists of either a value or more of these structures. A connected graph with no cycles is one of these structures. For 10 points, name these structures that come in B and red-black types, groups of which are called forests.
ANSWER: trees [prompt on “graphs”]

What are you talking about? At no point does it cover Kruskal's algorithm. It covers Kruskal's theorem, which is something completely different! Also, if it really did describe Kruskal's algorithm like you claimed, why didn't you buzz in and say "minimum spanning tree" because who the fuck writes a tossup on "trees" and lead-ins with the minimum spanning type at this level?

Powering trees on the description of Kruskal's algorithm

I was thinking graph - they said a lot of familiar language to graph theory but then I believe they said graph in the question and thats when I buzzed in with tree - I could be mistaken there were a lot of questions yesterday.

Well yeah you are mistaken, neither the phrases pre-order, homoemorphism, sigma, or well-quasi-ordered applies to graph theory specifically - they apply to more general concepts. In fact the first word that refers to graph theory specifically is either rotations or nodes, but those clues come after the power mark. Of course, I'm only posting this because at this point I want you to blame the moderator next for giving you fifteen points when you only deserved 10.

I mean look at some of the things you say:

"furthermore in order to map a structure this massive what else could it have been? Really think about that. It had to be mapped using light and a lot of it."

Also a professor once told me if it has h-bar in it it is quantum mechanical in nature, if it has c in it it is relativistic

My professors would have never told me "if it has h-bar in it, it is quantum mechanical in nature" you know why? Because they don't assume their students are that dim-witted dipshits. This is the equivalent of saying "if it involves economics it must deal with money - " what professor is ever going to tell you that?

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

You see the quizbowl community is being nice to you today! Normally, this would entail a ban or a warning for telling people how to post, but we are using our gifts of kindness!

How about he show up with the Brown team to MUT tomorrow and show us all what he's got?

I mean, basically the point I'm trying to make here is that there isn't really any value in making claims like "he couldn't possibly have buzzed there; that's too difficult!". We know that he engaged in unethical behavior not because he buzzed early in some questions where you would not expect him to buzz, but because we know that there's no way that he improved that much since SCT, or since the previous year's HSNCT, since we know from history that players cannot and do not improve at such astounding rates. (Also, we now have server logs, but we didn't at the time I posted.)

What are you talking about? At no point does it cover Kruskal's algorithm. It covers Kruskal's theorem, which is something completely different! Also, if it really did describe Kruskal's algorithm like you claimed, why didn't you buzz in and say "minimum spanning tree" because who the fuck writes a tossup on "trees" and lead-ins with the minimum spanning type at this level?

Well, then, I clearly did not remember the question correctly - that must have been Sriram that buzzed.

EDIT: and another thing:

My professors would have never told me "if it has h-bar in it, it is quantum mechanical in nature" you know why? Because they don't assume their students are that dim-witted dipshits. This is the equivalent of saying "if it involves economics it must deal with money - " what professor is ever going to tell you that?

Again, we don't need to go out of our way to shit all over every aspect of his argument, because we already have other forms of incontrovertible evidence that he cheated. In this particular case, what you are saying here is kind of unreasonable. I have, in fact, had a professor explicitly tell me that an important heuristic for determining whether a quantum-mechanical derivation you have done is correct is to check that it contains h-bar in the general case, and that h-bar then vanishes in the classical/thermodynamic limit, because quantum physics must know about some fundamental quantum, and classical physics cannot know about quanta.

Ashvin, of course, the server logs + the impossible levels of improvement in stats are completely damning. The only reason people (Ike) are bringing up his defense of how he knew X Y and Z is not to argue that he must be guilty, but to openly mock him, because mocking deranged cheaters is fun. The fact that he buzzed on the power distribution of Hawking radiation but cannot say anything even close to correct or believable about why the formula is important/useful/memorable is hilarious. Anyone that knows ANYTHING about physics would be able to identify that the speed of light appearing in the formula is even remotely memorable or useful compared to the other parts of the formula, and as Ike pointed out, the story "my professor told me h-bar = quantum hurr durr" is a pretty hilarious defense as well. Let us all point and laugh at Steven Hines for being so bad at science and so dumb that he does not realize that he cannot defend himself here, because his actions are obvious and indefensible.

Excelsior (smack) wrote:

Ike wrote:What are you talking about? At no point does it cover Kruskal's algorithm. It covers Kruskal's theorem, which is something completely different! Also, if it really did describe Kruskal's algorithm like you claimed, why didn't you buzz in and say "minimum spanning tree" because who the fuck writes a tossup on "trees" and lead-ins with the minimum spanning type at this level?

Well, then, I clearly did not remember the question correctly - that must have been Sriram that buzzed.

I think this may have been my fault. I wrote in my earlier post on the second page that he buzzed on Kruskal's algorithm, not Kruskal's theorem, which was the clue actually mentioned in the question.

touchpack wrote:Ashvin, of course, the server logs + the impossible levels of improvement in stats are completely damning. The only reason people (Ike) are bringing up his defense of how he knew X Y and Z is not to argue that he must be guilty, but to openly mock him, because mocking deranged cheaters is fun. The fact that he buzzed on the power distribution of Hawking radiation but cannot say anything even close to correct or believable about why the formula is important/useful/memorable is hilarious. Anyone that knows ANYTHING about physics would be able to identify that the speed of light appearing in the formula is even remotely memorable or useful compared to the other parts of the formula, and as Ike pointed out, the story "my professor told me h-bar = quantum hurr durr" is a pretty hilarious defense as well. Let us all point and laugh at Steven Hines for being so bad at science and so dumb that he does not realize that he cannot defend himself here, because his actions are obvious and indefensible.

Oh, okay, sure, I can get behind mockery.

Steven Hines wrote:Anyways, the tournament goes well up until we play against Loyola in playoffs and lose - we got demolished on every category except science and trash.

I apologize on behalf of Loyola for any and all negative externalities we exacted on the greater qb community by winning our first playoff game

Anyone that knows ANYTHING about physics would be able to identify that the speed of light appearing in the formula is even remotely memorable or useful compared to the other parts of the formula, and as Ike pointed out, the story "my professor told me h-bar = quantum hurr durr" is a pretty hilarious defense as well.

Yes. It is also my birthday tomorrow, so I totally deserved this thread.

For those who don't understand quantum mechanics and h bar, here's my analogy to the humanities. This is like getting a tossup on W.H. Auden after hearing "He described a "huge imago" in a work about World War 2" Then saying immediately to a teammate "I know W.H. Auden liked writing about WW2, so that's how I got those points." Admittedly a low-level, professor may theoretically remind their class "Remember, W.H. Auden wrote poems about WW2" but that's just a dumb thing to say in pretty much every case, and it would be even more asinine if I said that to defend a power on a tossup on W.H. Auden.

Edit: Too rushed not thinking, WW2, not WW1

Hi guys,

I was asked to make a post regarding the allegations that Desert Vista students were being harassed at our National History Bee and Bowl championships this weekend. I take negative behavior very seriously not only as a staff member of NHBB but as the Executive Director of the Arizona Quizbowl Association. I have spoken with the students and chaperones of Desert Vista and all have denied that any bullying or harassment has occurred at this time.

So in response to:

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) wrote:

EDIT: One more thing. Steven mentioned to me in an email that, while he understands why people are speaking negatively of him, he thinks it's inappropriate that apparently some Desert Vista High School players at NHBB are being harassed/"attacked verbally" by people at the tournament. This probably shouldn't happen, given that DV players have nothing to do with what Steven did.

Is this REALLY happening?

No, it is not really happening. Desert Vista students are having a positive experience. They are aware of the situation and have been instructed to let me know if anything occurs, but as of now it has not (and hopefully it will not).

Just to reiterate a point upthread, you can always come up with plausible post hoc explanations for any particular buzz. I would say that to me, many of these explanations seemed entirely dubious. They're all within the realm of plausibility, but you have to have an awfully large number of things line up just so for all those little nuggets to just make an appearance in a single tournament. I guess it's all moot anyway since we have definitive proof.

The only question to which I really would like to know the answer (but am probably not going to get it) is why. Why do this and bring all kinds of opprobrium on yourself? You either have to think that you wouldn't get caught or not care. And for what purpose? To "win" a meaningless online mirror of a fringe tournament? Just to troll people? I just don't get what possible motivation there might be to pull a stunt like this. If there's an explanation for this, I'd really very much like to hear it.

AZQuizbowl wrote:Hi guys,

I was asked to make a post regarding the allegations that Desert Vista students were being harassed at our National History Bee and Bowl championships this weekend. I take negative behavior very seriously not only as a staff member of NHBB but as the Executive Director of the Arizona Quizbowl Association. I have spoken with the students and chaperones of Desert Vista and all have denied that any bullying or harassment has occurred at this time.

So in response to:

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) wrote:

EDIT: One more thing. Steven mentioned to me in an email that, while he understands why people are speaking negatively of him, he thinks it's inappropriate that apparently some Desert Vista High School players at NHBB are being harassed/"attacked verbally" by people at the tournament. This probably shouldn't happen, given that DV players have nothing to do with what Steven did.

Is this REALLY happening?

No, it is not really happening. Desert Vista students are having a positive experience. They are aware of the situation and have been instructed to let me know if anything occurs, but as of now it has not (and hopefully it will not).

Okay, now I'm actually pissed off. You cheat, that's one thing. You cheat and refuse to apology, that's pretty sad but also expected. But you make up claims about uninvolved people being harassed in a desperate attempt to throw people off your trail? You're pathetic, Steven Hines.

Greetings, Steven Hines, you colossal pile of hippopotamus shit,

I don't really care that you cheated at this fake online skype tournament.* Yeah, I know, cheating is abhorrent, you're moral bankruptcy approaches Hannah Kirsch levels, etc. etc. I mean, sure, you did take the most beautiful part of science - beating Jerry to physics tossups - and corrupt it to something twisted. But really, whatever.
*Though, like, YOU might want to spend some time thinking about it... Yikes!

What I will point out though is that right now, the good people at NHBB are in the midst of juggling eleventy billion moving parts together for this weekend, dealing with what I'm sure are the multiple legitimate shitstorms endemic to a tournament of that size, all for the benefit of our nation's wayward youth. You have forced them to take time away from this noble endeavor to address RIDICULOUS charges that people are "harassing" your former teammates. You've also forced said teammates to share in what I can only assume is the deep shame and embarrassment you feel at this moment, by having to publicly acknowledge their cursory ties with a human stain like yourself.

This is abhorrent. I know, you don't care. Obviously. You can't think of anything right now but trying to defend yourself; maybe you've even convinced yourself, as liars so often do, that you really believe the garbage you're spewing. But I'm here to let you in on a secret: I know the truth. So do you. And actually, in this case so does like literally everyone, because you're exactly as stupid at cheating as we all expected you would be.

I hope you'll realize that it's best to just come clean and apologize. Not because people here want you to, or because it will get you out of trouble (I mean, you won't get in trouble for this; even your school's honor council would think cheating at a fake skype tournament is pathetic and pointless).

Rather, you should do this because it's your first step toward actually addressing the no doubt serious and multilayered personal failings that have brought you to this absurd position. I actually edited this post down because I still hope you might do this (this is the nice version. By like, a LOT). But, let's be real, that shit ain't happening. So go now on your merry way, confident in the knowledge that before too long, the wrong person will discover that you're actually a dismorphic piece of pond scum, and by then it will be too late to fix it.

In conclusion please castrate yourself with a spork.
Smiley face! Take care.

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:Here's a fun experiment (I hope Corin doesn't mind me using his stats as a control):

Corin Wagen's statline at HSNCT 2013: 19-19-5
Steven Hines' statline at HSNCT 2013: 13-22-9

Corin Wagen's statline at this tournament: 4-26-6
Steven Hines' statline at this tournament: 41-39-13

Some people drop off on harder questions and others improve.

In all seriousness, I think the proposed Skype interrogation/vituperation session is an entertaining idea but should stay an idea; similarly, a refund is probably not necessary. In terms of tournaments to cheat at, this is one of the better ones. It's not like any of us missed a full day of quiz bowl (or even had to leave our desks), and most of us still got six excellent games. He was even kind enough to let me go 1/4/0 against him one game. The people I think do deserve a giant apology here are his teammates Sam and Harrison, who presumably lost out on a meaningful experience. That really sucks.

gustavadolf wrote:In all seriousness, I think the proposed Skype interrogation/vituperation session is an entertaining idea but should stay an idea.

We need some sort of method of trial to determine precisely which fools are worthy of entering my realm for eternity. These "interrogation/vituperation sessions" seem like the perfect thing! (I'm not suggesting that we perform trials, but they would make for a fine piece of quizbowl meta-mythology and would make outstanding plays if someone wishes to write such things...) For our trials, I suppose we are required to have five judges, one of whom MUST be Jerry...and I suppose another should be myself, since it is my job to tend to the perpetrators after they enter my realm. We have plenty of fine candidates to fill the other three positions.

Since we seem to want to skip the trial this time...to the underworld with you, Steven Hines!

Seriously guys, the gates to the underworld seem to be opening up just a little too much these days. Quit the damn cheating, 'k?

[To lighten the thread up a bit / bring a little bit of sanity to this wacky post: you did a fine job at the Lederberg mirror, Corin. Keep up the good work!]

Ike wrote:

Abid/Lloyd posted two random responses from the list I sent them, here is the full list / I know you won't believe these either but at least you have the full selection.

If you truly knew science as well as your statline claims, you would know that these statements are falsifiable and not about belief.

Philosophy at its finest, folks.

Thanks for the entertainment, Steven. Too bad it involved fucking over too many people to be worth the laughs.

During the Josh Alman issue, I vaguely remember someone calculating a probability that such a statline could be posted by a player of similar calibre. Truthfully I don't remember the exact methodology, but it was something like "Josh Alman was 13 standard deviations outside of normal improvement ratios", while the next highest were like 2, 2, 1, 1, 1.

Is it possible to calculate this here? Or does the specific category nature of Lederberg make that impossible? At the time, I remember seeing those values, in black-and-white, as the most damning factor.

If you've been around the game a long time, you know how much of a lie this is, but if you're an average coach or someone unfamiliar with the predictability of quizbowl, you may not fully appreciate the outrageousness of this claim without being shown it in cold, hard, standard deviations.

Also, I'm just going to say - I think Skype-based tournament where the questions are already available are a bad idea, for this reason. Yeah, obviously people shouldn't cheat, but... I suspect we're going to end up having threads like these more often if these tournaments become commonplace.

I agree with Chris Greenwood. We can release a tournament publicly, or we can hold onto it for a while and play mirrors (even online) of it, but doing both is problematic. At the very least, if a tournament is released publicly, you can play online in a much more informal and guarded way.

Cheynem wrote:I agree with Chris Greenwood. We can release a tournament publicly, or we can hold onto it for a while and play mirrors (even online) of it, but doing both is problematic. At the very least, if a tournament is released publicly, you can play online in a much more informal and guarded way.

You know, I understand the need for question security in tournaments that "matter," but I sort of disagree with this. This was a weeknight fun thing for some folks who didn't get to hear the questions the first time around. It isn't much different from reading a packet in IRC, really. Everyone who was part of this did the right thing and refrained from looking at the questions except this one asshole. If we can't trust people to not ruin what's essentially a glorified mid-week practice, I feel like that bodes really ill for our community as a whole.

Was it free? I was confused by Jake's comment about "refunding everyone's money."

It cost $5 per person.

Yeah, so if money was changing hands, this is a pretty big deal I think.

Steven Hines wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ad ... ranslation

Understand networking before you post mindless shit, that will be believed by anybody without real networking knowledge.

PLUS If i were to cheat, I would have used a fucking VPN or torr, or any variety of anonymity.

Do you really think we're that stupid? Go fuck yourself.

Steven Hines wrote:I told myself not to respond, that it would just add fuel to the flame; however, a great many people have advised me to respond - so I am doing just that:

THIS IS NOT OKAY - THESE PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT OF ANYTHING BUT ASSOCIATION WITH ME // QUIZBOWL PLAYERS SHOULDN'T PERPETUATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO KNOW SOMEBODY... And don't laugh it off and claim that this is some bullshit tactic; because that is perhaps even more harmful than attacking the innocent, due to you perpetuating that it is okay to do these things.

blah blah blah story of his life

Sixth - Many of you want an apology, so I'm going to give you one here and now. I'm sorry that Andy Watkins has destroyed your patience with people / I think you and I can agree on one thing at least - if the Watkins scandal hadn't occurred, there would have been allegations made against me BUT this whole guilty till proven innocent demeanor wouldn't exist. I apologies to you all for quizbowl not being a healthy family - as it once was (has been for me up until now). This is - the only apology I will give to you. I did not cheat.

Eighth - I would like to remind all of you that you are prominent people in the quizbowl community. People look up to you. This is a gift, as well as, a responsibility. You should act appropriately because whatever actions you take, they are seen to reflect on the quizbowl community as a whole. This does not apply only to this situation - this is general advice that should be adhered to throughout life.

Peace and Love,
Steven

Most of the above is actually very well-put, at least 5% true, and kind of moving. Too bad it's been repeatedly proven that the author makes shit up.

Consequences of cheating, case in point. Probably wasn't worth winning the $5 online tournament.

So, uh, what are the odds that Hines pays this 5$?

HMS Audacious wrote:So, uh, what are the odds that Hines pays this 5$?

I'm laying 15359:1

bag-of-worms wrote:

HMS Audacious wrote:So, uh, what are the odds that Hines pays this 5$?

I'm laying 15359:1

If nothing else, I hope this debacle teaches people something about Hawking radiation.

In all seriousness, if Steven wants to come forward and pay up, I'll take his money, but I'm not holding my breath, nor am I really interested in interacting with him further.

ALGOL 68 wrote:

Steven Hines wrote:I told myself not to respond, that it would just add fuel to the flame; however, a great many people have advised me to respond - so I am doing just that:

THIS IS NOT OKAY - THESE PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT OF ANYTHING BUT ASSOCIATION WITH ME // QUIZBOWL PLAYERS SHOULDN'T PERPETUATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO KNOW SOMEBODY... And don't laugh it off and claim that this is some bullshit tactic; because that is perhaps even more harmful than attacking the innocent, due to you perpetuating that it is okay to do these things.

blah blah blah story of his life

Sixth - Many of you want an apology, so I'm going to give you one here and now. I'm sorry that Andy Watkins has destroyed your patience with people / I think you and I can agree on one thing at least - if the Watkins scandal hadn't occurred, there would have been allegations made against me BUT this whole guilty till proven innocent demeanor wouldn't exist. I apologies to you all for quizbowl not being a healthy family - as it once was (has been for me up until now). This is - the only apology I will give to you. I did not cheat.

Eighth - I would like to remind all of you that you are prominent people in the quizbowl community. People look up to you. This is a gift, as well as, a responsibility. You should act appropriately because whatever actions you take, they are seen to reflect on the quizbowl community as a whole. This does not apply only to this situation - this is general advice that should be adhered to throughout life.

Peace and Love,
Steven

Most of the above is actually very well-put, at least 5% true, and kind of moving. Too bad it's been repeatedly proven that the author makes shit up.

Consequences of cheating, case in point. Probably wasn't worth winning the $5 online tournament.

I mean, his former high school coach denied any of that happening, so.