treegp

[Moe_Gotti]

DATE: 3/22/17
Offender: @Treegp
Time: Apx 5:30 was on separate device when trying to collect my money I had to leave the house,
.

Spoiler

<Gyazo - 2cb80d0d19ffb7a9ef429c53c858411f.png>
<Gyazo - 29eece919d4462522735d6ef64e95590.png>
<Gyazo - b05adfbc1454c5bedf4b52c598a45fa3.png>
<Gyazo - 5ea01bf6179a563c5aa15f5f9998c646.png>
<Gyazo - 18176ed7189ef2584014a2189bf9c50a.png>
<Gyazo - f874a69752c31aa98f9fe3b1797ee9e1.png>
<Gyazo - 7f4d22bbf659afb266d2914a4f463d7e.png>
<Gyazo - 2189067a63917c89506aa0c36ce4b7ae.png>
<Gyazo - b20c533f43963b7cd565e76596de546c.png>
<Gyazo - abcab10ec97115cbb627e35f9e66c4d1.png>
<Gyazo - 31235be4dc057280d1167f73dc92cbd5.png>

Full Story





"So while in the midst of a sale treegp gets banned and I am the one to lose out. I first traded 500m, got paid for it, put up the final 1b and then trouble happens. Do not trust these people, they owe me $1,000. He has showed me that without proof of sale he will try to eat you for your gold. He got his account banned, he is obviously flagged, i lost no accounts, no mistake on my end, but he tries to say he didn't see me accept due to lag(contradicted himself i have chat logs but they have the complete ones). and he said he spam clicked away from the stake once he saw that he lagged but hes lying because he hit me at the first hit. He also tries to say he did not know if he had auto retaliate on.(he 99% checked auto retal first he put up 700m for 1b) This is false as he hit me first it was his pid, he killed me in like 5 hits he has a 102 account mine was only a level 89. stats were 77/92/77/92 hp vs 75 /80/43/80 hp for the record i will not win95% of the time anyway. He goes on to defend himself because i really took no pictures. I have chat logs of me trying to get my money after i gave him my 1b. This goes to show you you must take pictures of every transaction as he told me himself that I have no proof and he put me out to be the bad guy just because he "DOESN'T KNOW" what happened. We both do know and acknowledge the fact that i accepted first. He said he accepted then clicked away which makes no sense. I need my money or something really my personal life isnt the greatest already and I would be the one to go through something like this. They are abusing the fact that i took no picture. After i got paid for my first 500m, he told me to put it all up i didnt even want to put it all up i put 500m then he said put the rest..."

 

[Elite Dust]

Just going to put it out there, moderators are going to ask for proof of your claims.

Do you have any evidence? I understand you said you took no screenshots. I'm also going to assume we aren't dealing with an imposter because you successfully sold 500m.

In a scenario of one player disconnecting in a stake due to connection loss, the other player keeps their wager but doesn't win the other players wager. This is the case only if neither party has yet to engage in combat. You mentioned he had auto-retaliate on and that the stake had already started, in that case I would assume Tree won as you stated the odds were Treegp's 77/92/77/92 hp vs your 75/80/43/80 hp.

If Tree acknowledges the fact that @Moe_Gotti put up 1b and they were on the last confirmation screen before the stake, understand that OP had intentions of selling the gold (although it's possible that Tree disconnected before combat and OP kept his wager and is attempting to capitalize on this situation). Nevertheless, there is no way OP would of known Treegp would get banned/disconnected mid stake and that in reality OP had no chance of winning if combat had begun.

@Moe_Gotti I got to ask though, you just proved you had Gyazo, it didn't come across your mind to take any screenshots?

 

[Moe_Gotti]

Just going to put it out there, moderators are going to ask for proof of your claims.

Do you have any evidence? I understand you said you took no screenshots. I'm also going to assume we aren't dealing with an imposter because you successfully sold 500m.

In a scenario of one player disconnecting in a stake due to connection loss, the other player keeps their wager but doesn't win the other players wager. This is the case only if neither party has yet to engage in combat. You mentioned he had auto-retaliate on and that the stake had already started, in that case I would assume Tree won as you stated the odds were Treegp's 77/92/77/92 hp vs your 75/80/43/80 hp.

If Tree acknowledges the fact that @Moe_Gotti put up 1b and they were on the last confirmation screen before the stake, understand that OP had intentions of selling the gold (although it's possible that Tree disconnected before combat and OP kept his wager and is attempting to capitalize on this situation). Nevertheless, there is no way OP would of known Treegp would get banned/disconnected mid stake and that in reality OP had no chance of winning if combat had begun.

@Moe_Gotti I got to ask though, you just proved you had Gyazo, it didn't come across your mind to take any screenshots?

yes i was lagging the whole time worlds were being ddosed or something so we hopped from world 2 to world 318. i got connection lost and was instantly back in game when i re connected there were no chat messages and when i checked scoreboards we were in 318 so it had other challenges of people getting spec back already, plus scoreboards are messed up they show player 1 has beat player 2 and player 2 beat player 1 as well even if only one stake was done. (check out scoreboards)

 

[Moe_Gotti]

yes i was lagging the whole time worlds were being ddosed or something so we hopped from world 2 to world 318. i got connection lost and was instantly back in game when i re connected there were no chat messages and when i checked scoreboards we were in 318 so it had other challenges of people getting spec back already, plus scoreboards are messed up they show player 1 has beat player 2 and player 2 beat player 1 as well even if only one stake was done. (check out scoreboards)

I didn't think I needed to screen shot after successfully selling and being paid for 500m

 

[Elite Dust]

@malakadang Curious on your insight in regards to this situation

 

[malakadang]

Let me see if I've got this. You guys are transferring Gold via the duel arena. You transferred the first 500m successfully. Then the next duel, you put 1b up, and both accepted. During the duel, Treegp dc'd, got banned, and won the duel. You claim that since he, allegedly, received the 1b, you argue that therefore he has to pay you for the 1b, even if his account got banned? Treegp is saying that he never would have received the gold.

Is that about right?

 

[Elite Dust]

Let me see if I've got this. You guys are transferring Gold via the duel arena. You transferred the first 500m successfully. Then the next duel, you put 1b up, and both accepted. During the duel, Treegp dc'd, got banned, and won the duel. You claim that since he, allegedly, received the 1b, you argue that therefore he has to pay you for the 1b, even if his account got banned? Treegp is saying that he never would have received the gold.

Is that about right?

Yes that is about right although Treegp got banned during the stake and claims that he didn't receive the gold as a result of the ban (He didn't see who won the stake because was banned midst it). Although that if they were engaged in combat, I believe Tree would have won the stake and there is no way OP would of won since stated odds were Treegp's 77/92/77/92 hp vs OPS 75/80/43/80 hp. OP states that he had lost the stake. OP didn't take screenshots of losing the stake.

 

[Fingy]

Yes that is about right although Treegp got banned during the stake and claims that he didn't receive the gold as a result of the ban (He didn't see who won the stake because was banned midst it). Although that if they were engaged in combat, I believe Tree would have won the stake and there is no way OP would of won since stated odds were Treegp's 77/92/77/92 hp vs OPS 75/80/43/80 hp. OP states that he had lost the stake. OP didn't take screenshots of losing the stake.

Please don't infract me!

Only way I could see OP winning the stake is if TreeGP didn't have auto retaliate on as it can be a common thing to have it off, so when the stake started OP just attacked Tree to victory as he wouldn't be attacking back and when Tree said he got banned OP might have looked at it as a chance to cash out. (All allegations ofcourse).

 

[malakadang]

The appropriate test is the balance of probabilities: what is more likely to have happened?

We need to know the probabilities for two things:

1. The probability that auto-retaliate was on; and
2. Given the probability that auto-retaliate was on, the probability of winning.

There are four permutations, and we can use the total probability rule to find the expected value:

• P(Auto-retaliate On) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Win | On) = 0.95 * 1000)) = 1000m @ P(0.475)
• P(Auto-retaliate On) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Lose | On) = 0.05 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.025)
  
• P(Auto-retaliate Off) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Lose | Off) = 1.00 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.5)
  
• P(Auto-retaliate Off) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Win | Off) = 0.00 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.00)

Summing them gives you an EV of 475m, or in other words, there is only a 47.5% probability of TreeGP actually winning the duel, assuming a 95% chance of TreeGp winning given that auto-retaliate is on (note that he can't win if it is off), and a 50% chance of auto-retaliate being on (or off).

You can tinker with those numbers and probabilities as much as you want, but at the end of the day, ultimately, we have no evidence to go by. It would just be he-said she-said, and we can't favour one person over the other. Unless you can demonstrate that Treegp usually has auto-retaliate on, then there is nothing I can do, since the neutral analysis is that it is more probable than not that Treegp lost the duel.

 

[HairyNips]

The appropriate test is the balance of probabilities: what is more likely to have happened?

We need to know the probabilities for two things:

1. The probability that auto-retaliate was on; and
2. Given the probability that auto-retaliate was on, the probability of winning.

There are four permutations, and we can use the total probability rule to find the expected value:

• P(Auto-retaliate On) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Win | On) = 0.95 * 1000)) = 1000m @ P(0.475)
• P(Auto-retaliate On) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Lose | On) = 0.05 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.025)
  
• P(Auto-retaliate Off) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Lose | Off) = 1.00 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.5)
  
• P(Auto-retaliate Off) = 0.5 * 0) + P(Win | Off) = 0.00 * 0)) = 0m @ P(0.00)

Summing them gives you an EV of 475m, or in other words, there is only a 47.5% probability of TreeGP actually winning the duel, assuming a 95% chance of TreeGp winning given that auto-retaliate is on (note that he can't win if it is off), and a 50% chance of auto-retaliate being on (or off).

You can tinker with those numbers and probabilities as much as you want, but at the end of the day, ultimately, we have no evidence to go by. It would just be he-said she-said, and we can't favour one person over the other. Unless you can demonstrate that Treegp usually has auto-retaliate on, then there is nothing I can do, since the neutral analysis is that it is more probable than not that Treegp lost the duel.

If they go to the world and look at the wins/loses board depending if it was a unpopulated world theres a chance the winner/loser would still be on it as not many stakes happen outside of w2

 

[malakadang]

If they go to the world and look at the wins/loses board depending if it was a unpopulated world theres a chance the winner/loser would still be on it as not many stakes happen outside of w2

If that can be done, and if that is an accurate way to get the result, then the OP should definitely take a look at the board and screenshot it.

 

[HairyNips]

If that can be done, and if that is an accurate way to get the result, then the OP should definitely take a look at the board and screenshot it.

Only noticed this happened a few days ago, slim chance it's still there but still worth looking

 

[Fingy]

If that can be done, and if that is an accurate way to get the result, then the OP should definitely take a look at the board and screenshot it.

I tried getting you the screenshot but it is impossible as the world they choose as stated by Moe_Gotti was World 318, which is a Bounty-Hunter world, which is a very common spot used by pkers after their spec is down is to teleport to the duel arena to get their spec back up to 100%, by starting a duel and forfeiting right away. I have nothing else to add and won't reply anymore!

 

[Moe_Gotti]

Let me see if I've got this. You guys are transferring Gold via the duel arena. You transferred the first 500m successfully. Then the next duel, you put 1b up, and both accepted. During the duel, Treegp dc'd, got banned, and won the duel. You claim that since he, allegedly, received the 1b, you argue that therefore he has to pay you for the 1b, even if his account got banned? Treegp is saying that he never would have received the gold.

Is that about right?

Correct!

 

[Moe_Gotti]

Correct!

He would have received the gold if he was not banned in the middle of the duel.

 

[Moe_Gotti]

If they go to the world and look at the wins/loses board depending if it was a unpopulated world theres a chance the winner/loser would still be on it as not many stakes happen outside of w2

The chances of his greedy ass having auto retaliate on are more like 99.999%

 

[tMoon]

Gotti, if you can prove you lost the duel and/or the money was indeed delivered, Tree GP is liable for the gold. If you cannot prove the transaction occurred, then there's nothing we can do.

 

[Moe_Gotti]

Gotti, if you can prove you lost the duel and/or the money was indeed delivered, Tree GP is liable for the gold. If you cannot prove the transaction occurred, then there's nothing we can do.

The only proof I have is in the chat logs @Tmoe I was waiting for payment before I knew he got banned if I won the stake and didn't lose my 1 bil I would not stand around after the fact waiting for my money that is my proof

 

[Elite Dust]

@Treegp Release the chatlogs

 

[Tree]

the seller came to livechat, sold me 500m, was dcing every 30 seconds and most likely on a public vpn. I specifically asked him if we could just trade because staking is dangerous with dc's. He says staking is fine. I paid him for the 500m, and 3 minutes after he wanted to sell another 1b. We go into stake screen, 3rd screen (final screen) he accepts, i accept, nothing happens. I was wagering 500m to his 1b and instantly spam clicked decline option 100+ times and after 10-20 seconds my account dc'd.

My account got banned then, before i even saw the duel begin. With this being said, like i told moe_gotti theres 4 options.

1. I killed him without seeing myself kill him.
2. I dc'd before the stake started and xlogged resulting in him keeping his 1b, and my 500m being removed from the game.
3. The duel never started from me spamming decline before the duel started.
4. He killed me during the duel.

Now, with that being said, as soon as i dc'd there were clearly problems, and for whatever reason he didnt record anything going on. This alone made me extremely lean towards the fact that he saw me dc, and knew that there's a high chance it was result of a ban, and is trying to capitalize on it saying i received his 1b.

The fact of the matter is, i didn't see myself receive the gold, and i have nothing to show that i killed him from his end, and because of the large probability of him attempting to scam me, and the fact that he didn't record anything even directly after problems were present, makes me not want to , or need to pay him.

I actually planned on paying him too, until he was calling me racial slurs and telling me he was going to find me and put a blade 2 inches into my throat, that's when i decided i'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Any mods that want to read the convo ill call on skype and screenshare