How can I prove my innocence?

[I Can Train _ Ban Dispute]

Reason for my ban: http://www.sythe.org/threads/i-can-train-70m-07-scammed/

I was banned on 3rd of June 2016 for scamming and lying to staff and this is the first time I have disputed that.

This assumption was made on the basis of this picture not being photo shopped:

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

I did not scam the 70m. I have no need to scam 70m and I would not risk my reputation over any amount of pixels, I have given away something worth a lot more, because I found out it was taken from someone else, which is on my vouch thread if you want to check (I'm not bragging I'm trying to prove my reputation, as I believe it has been falsely tarnished.)

I don't believe either sides can prove this screenshot is photo shopped or not (which I guess makes it awkward because you'd rather have be banned if you can't prove either way.) - The reason I was banned is on the basis that if it was photo shopped, it was a really good job, which I do not see fair - although I can see it as a safe way to keep someone that would be lying off the site. I'm seriously trying to open my mind up to this, as I am not the sort of person that would try to steal from someone else - but can see that you have to see every circumstance possible when looking at a report.

The reason I haven't disputed this is because I wanted some time to think about how I can prove my innocence, which I don't believe I 100% can.

I haven't once evadded, I still use the same Skype that I used when I first started on Sythe as my primary Skype account which is, "jake.barber2" so feel free to warn anyone about that if you believe me to be a scammer.

Thank you for your time, I hope you can understand my frustration, Jake.

 

[Superfluous]

@Matt i know you're not staff anymore, but wondering if you have thoughts on this

 

@Matt i know you're not staff anymore, but wondering if you have thoughts on this

No problem. I remember spending a lot of time on this report, counting the pixels in the screenshot, and looking for a small change in the texture (Gyazo - 306f05d2105b056e9d17a287208800cf.png). It had absolutely no sign of it being fake. However, I'll look at it again tonight or tomorrow; I might see something I did not see the first time.

I'll keep you updated.

 

Merge to : How can I prove my innocence?

@Matt i know you're not staff anymore, but wondering if you have thoughts on this

No problem. I remember spending a lot of time on this report, counting the pixels in the screenshot, and looking for a small change in the texture (Gyazo - 306f05d2105b056e9d17a287208800cf.png). It had absolutely no sign of it being fake. However, I'll look at it again tonight or tomorrow; I might see something I did not see the first time.

I'll keep you updated.

I compared a real screenshot to the one in the report again, and here's how I proceeded (for people that are interested) :

The pixels between the letters, and the border of the trade window.
Question : Is this the same height for both screenshots?

Answer : Yes. The height of the space between the letters, and the border of the trade window for both screenshots is the same, 4 pixels.

The pixels between the ":", and the border of the "accept" button.
Question : Is this the same width for both screenshots?

Answer : Yes. The width of the space between the ":", and the border of the "accept" button for both screenshots is the same.

Comparison of the pattern.
Question : Is the pattern the same in both screenshots?

Real - with more contrast

Report - with more contrast

Answer : The lighter brown on top of the "g" starts at the same place, and the shape looks the same. The rest of the pattern in the screenshots looks very similar also.

Accepted trade screenshot.
I remember checking that at the time, and the width/height/place were exact.


Conclusion : If the screenshot was photoshopped, everything was placed exactly where it should be. The height, the width, and the pattern stayed the same.
Don't get me wrong, it is possible to photoshop it. However, most people do not spend 2h counting pixels, and making sure it is perfect.

Also, like I said in the report at the time, I Can Train acted suspiciously

Hope I helped,
Matt

 

[malakadang]

@Superfluous

Merged Matt's replies and flagging I can train's other dispute here: [i can train] I did not scam 70m

 

[Superfluous]

@Superfluous

Merged Matt's replies and flagging I can train's other dispute here: [i can train] I did not scam 70m

thanks. do you have any thoughts on this situation? i personally dont think ICT scammed the 70m but happy to hear other opinions

 

[malakadang]

thanks. do you have any thoughts on this situation? i personally dont think ICT scammed the 70m but happy to hear other opinions

I posted some comments in the other thread linked above, and after hearing what Matt said I think here's my main concern:

If the the screenshot was photoshopped, we would expect to find misaligned pixels. The pixels were not misaligned. Therefore the screenshot was probably not photoshopped. That being the conclusion, that means ICT must be lieing, since he claims that he did not accept the trade (ie, the screenshot was photoshopped).

I would agree that there is a reasonable doubt that either Matt has made a mistake, or that a very good Photoshop has occurred. This doubt however is miniscule IMO. Ultimately this is a question of fact, and for ICT to be innocent, it would require not only that the person he was trading with was a photoshop expert, and not only that Matt made a mistake, but furthermore, that the person used their photoshop expertise to scam ICT and deceive Matt. That version of events compared to this one: ICT accepted the trade and is now lieing. I think the latter is to be preferred.

As to the question of whether the site should not ban someone, as a matter of policy, if this level of doubt exists, I'm not sure. What do you think?

 

[Superfluous]

I posted some comments in the other thread linked above, and after hearing what Matt said I think here's my main concern:

If the the screenshot was photoshopped, we would expect to find misaligned pixels. The pixels were not misaligned. Therefore the screenshot was probably not photoshopped. That being the conclusion, that means ICT must be lieing, since he claims that he did not accept the trade (ie, the screenshot was photoshopped).

I would agree that there is a reasonable doubt that either Matt has made a mistake, or that a very good Photoshop has occurred. This doubt however is miniscule IMO. Ultimately this is a question of fact, and for ICT to be innocent, it would require not only that the person he was trading with was a photoshop expert, and not only that Matt made a mistake, but furthermore, that the person used their photoshop expertise to scam ICT and deceive Matt. That version of events compared to this one: ICT accepted the trade and is now lieing. I think the latter is to be preferred.

As to the question of whether the site should not ban someone, as a matter of policy, if this level of doubt exists, I'm not sure. What do you think?

i also think we should consider that this is partially the word of ICT vs the word of some guy who's now banned for vading. i can't remember any other case that came down to this level of detail re: photoshop, and the fact that ICT is still trying to set things straight leads me to believe he didn't scam 70m in the first place (also, 70m is nothing - ICT could have gotten away with more if he was trying to scam)

i think we should unban ICT with no punishment. i'm not convinced by this photoshop business.

would like to leave this open to get at least a few other opinions though

 

[Azie]

I think because there is still a reasonable level of doubt it's probably not wise to ban anyone.

However, the images that were posted as evidence in the original thread show that at 10:32pm they were in trade with each other (correct RSN's and 70m amount present) followed by a photo at 10:33pm showing trade accepted. Also, if the trade was declined it would say declined trade which is something that was checked by @Matt.

This is similar to the Jefe drop trade situation where both users "proved" that they were scammed and due to the uncertainty in regards to which story was truthful in the incident the debt was shared and repaid. Something like that could be employed again.

 

[malakadang]

I have to dash out for dinner so I'll be brief; I do not think that allowing someone to merely say a screenshot is photoshopped, despite evidence to the contrary, should be a sufficient defence. This situation is not similar to Jefe's where the uncertainty was over what the game did; we know what the game does in a trade here. The uncertainty is whether a screenshot has been photoshopped. Odds are it wasn't. No evidence has been led to suggest that it was. Only an allegation was made. Only an allegation should not be enough.

 

Merge to : How can I prove my innocence?

In my last post, I've only covered proof that the screenshot was not photoshopped inside the trade window/chat. Here's what I have to say (for the people who were curious about the other ways):

Copy/paste the whole chat box

The brown semi-transparent line changes color depending on the background. If the whole chat box would be copy/pasted and it wasn't the exact same position, we would know. I checked the colors of the pixels, and it changes to yellow when it is on a yellow object, and changes back to the original color at the right places.

---

Copy/paste the whole box inside the borders of the chat
I'm trying to see both sides here. It is possible to photoshop like that. The inside box needs to be fully copied, and pasted in the right size, so that the bar is aligned with the 2 white pixels (in the texture of the border). I did not see anything suspicious with the inside box/shadow/texture, but it is still a possibility.

Copy/paste the whole box inside the borders of the trade window
Possible. The inside box however needs to be fully copied, again, and pasted in the right size so that the "u" of the "you" is 4 pixels below the border, etc.

These methods could be used to fake the image, if done properly. This could be good for ICT's situation. However, please note that I did not see a mistake telling us it's 100% fake yet (been experimenting for a bit).


My opinion :
While I want to believe ICT, I find it a bit weird that he only decided to make this dispute 6 months later. Also, not only the chat I posted above troubles me ("I'm sure a lying evader will ruin my rep ^^"), but I remember checking the accounts of the vader to see if he once posted something about graphics/photoshop/etc. and did not find anything (maybe someone could confirm that?).

I would agree with @malakadang that you need to have some proof in order to say that this was a setup. If not, everyone would just make a report stating that. However, I would unban him with a DNT for now.

Cheers,
Matt

 

[Superfluous]

unbanned with DNT until this gets sorted. i'll post in SL to try to get this done soon. sorry for the wait ICT

 

[Superfluous]

the final decision is that we'd like you to refund the 70m