Quote from: Ashmasser on February 10, 2014, 04:37:52 AM

Quote from: quarkfx on February 10, 2014, 02:49:13 AM

I only pointed out that it is not necessary to look for "admitted cheaters" when it is obvious that the contest was flawed long before martijnp registered his own fake voters. But maybe you are questioning that, and believe that the massive increase of registrations (partwise with identical names) was pure coincidence.

this is where you're making the mistake I was trying to point out - you are assuming any "massive increase of registrations" MUST be cheaters or fake accounts intended to rig this vote - you cannot make that leap without something called EVIDENCE - it is unwise, unfair, and unjust to use such a conclusion to form any new rules or make any decisions, in the absence of evidence - again, it's GUESSING

i'm sorry, but the standard of proof needs to be a fair bit higher than "it's obvious"

we don't need evidence in martijnp's case because he admitted cheating

*irony on* Where is your evidence that martijnp cheated? You dont have any protocols to present and he could be lying. *irony off*

That's the point, Ashmasser, 1. you don't have to proof the obvious and 2. this is no court, this is a forum. If you really want to argue that there was no fakery going on before, please go ahead. But looking back in the thread, you'll find out that you need to claim gullibility for a lot of members who raised concerns that cheating was going on before martijnp started his arguable attack on the contest.

I also don't see the "fun" part, because martijnp never planned to keep the prize.

Btw. Your date of registration makes me curious. You seem to be quite aware of the whole crypto scene. I guess you are active on other forums, would you mind posting a link to other profiles?