I'm really, really tired of alt accounts

General Discussion
259

People did. Nothing came of it.

Probably because their isn’t any way to prove their claim that smurfing even happened in their games, let alone it being common.

I think you have brain farted yourself into a tizzy… no one has said smurf don’t exist, they most certainly do, and should be dealt with quickly.

It just isn’t that prevalent. As Dota found when they made a big PR fuss about making it bannable.

The only difference in the view is a matter of scale.

1 side, tilted player irrationally making rage claims
-vs-
1 player looking at it in the cold light of day with logic.

260

No. The OP complaints fall under the guise of a more broader claim of “alts disrupting ladder integrity”.

Here you’re excluding the middle, denying the premises, and failing the null-hypothesis tests by saying:

This is fallacious. Is that really your evidence? Like one counter-example about alts ruining matches and you short-circuit to wrong and can leave the discussion. Why would you conclude the negative of the OP statements without any evidence to conclude so? Why not be open to the possibility?

Please explain how you concluded they were outright wrong instead just unvalidated.

You also seem to be hinging on:

Could you please show some math that backs up this claim?
All smurfs are alts. And every alt ruins the mapping of %players to SR.
And it is possible to quantify by exactly how much.

261

If you don’t know the difference between alt accounts and smurf accounts… then you really shouldn’t be trying to make any claim.

262

Can you prove that claim

263

The question that needs to be asked is why so many high ranked players feel the need to buy alts in the first place.

And no, it’s not because they can’t play at their own rank. They can, but don’t want to. If the issues causing the game to be outright unfun and beyond frustrating at the top are finally addressed than most alts disappear. There’s a reason why the alt problem has gotten much worse over the last year.

264

Wrong. By definition every smurf is an alt, otherwise they aren’t technically smurfing.

So I guess you failing that basic logic check = bye bye for you.

Yes I can, here is is (within seconds btw):

There are some proofs and maths in that thread but it’s explained really well.

Now it’s your turn my dear Clarice, tit-for-tat.

prove it. within seconds as i have done.
cheers.

265

Technically wrong. You can smurf with a single account.

Also, whilst most smurfs are alts, most alts are normal players.

Look at my 2 accounts. What issue am I causing.

Requoting another theory from a forum is “proving” anything. You are just living in an echo chamber at that point.

266

No. Playing poorly or below some peak achieved rank on your main just takes you to a different rank. You’re technically not out of rank because there isn’t another live rank to contrast you with. And you’re technically not on a duplicate account. These criteria make for a HUGE difference.

That’s why for computational logic purposes every smurf is an alt. And if you read the thread that quantifies the disruption, the highest ranked alt is treated as the main for calculation purposes.

Because when the bigbois do things they state their assumptions, and go about quantifying their definitions and bounding their parameters.

They don’t make false claims like:

And go on entire tangents trying to defend a lost position with literally zero anything to back it up.

Still waiting for your proof btw. The burden is on you to show how alts have never been an issue.

267

Alt accounts have never been an issue.

Smurfs have been, but a very small one.

Simple.

Still waiting for your proof that there is an issue in the first place.

268

Statement made. Show proof.

269

Prove there is no issue? Below is my proof there is no issue.

270

Yes you need to provide proof there is no issue.
You are welcome to question the OPs claim and be open to the possibility that it is false, but short-circuiting to it being falsified requires proof.

It took me seconds to show you a reasoned out discussion using math that explains how much each alt impacts the ladder. You are welcome to provide mathematical refutation or substitute your own derivations.

Until then you have nothing and your claim can be dismissed.

Thanks for playing.

271

I proved that there was no issue though.

I provided you with nothing to prove that nothing is there.

Now you need to prove that there is something there.

272

Exactly as I thought. Thanks for playing.

273

Still waiting for your proof that something is an issue.

274

It was already provided here:

Did you miss it? What part(s) of that thread do you disagree with and on what mathematical grounds.

275

That isn’t proof. That is just one persons theory that also wasn’t verified with any proof.

(unless that was just you on another account).

276

So which part of the “theory” do you disagree with and on what grounds?

Like I said:

Cheers.

277

Replying in a condescending manner doesn’t help your case. Just makes you look a bit weird btw.

As for which part of the theory. All of it, and my ground are as such.

It had no proof.

So, if you want to log into your alt account and add proof to that theory, go ahead.

No. People agreeing isn’t verifying. That is called an echo chamber. Just because someone agrees, doesn’t mean you are right.

2 Likes
278

It literally was a proof. The OP statements were proof by definition.
If you read through you’ll see that it was verified by construction and induction.

If you’re qualified to determine it isn’t proof, you’re qualified to explain why.
The minimum bid is some degree of math or refutations that reason out where the math went wrong.

Also you still need to show how you can make this claim:

Please back that statement up with some math.
Until then you still have nothing.