Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy - Images

Sorted By:

HOLY FUCK

9 Conclus HOLY F--- If you are asking then the ender eams in question, implement the bining these two ving) for 100,000 stopping criterion probabilities usin possible sets of 11 streams to investigate in 1,000 different ways gives a investigation gives 10-8 or a l in 100 million chance. That is, there is a 1 in 100 million chance that a livestream in the Minecraft speedrunning community got as lucky this year on two separate random modes as Dream did in these six streams. That is extraordinarily low, though not nearly as low (by a factor of 75000) as concluded by the MST Report (1 in 7.5 trillion). The main things that increased the probability are: 1) using a Barter Stopping criterion (factor of about 100) and 2) using 100 times as many livestreams and 10 times as high a p-hacking correction, for which I have provided specific justification. If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for all eleven streams, the probabilities are much higher because the other five streams had more typical results. The ender pearl probability goes up to 3 x 10-4 and the blaze rod probability goes up to 10-. Combining these gives 7x 10-9 and adding the 10 boost gives 0.7 or 1 in 2. Note that my corrections are designed for low p- values, so this may not be fully accurate, but this inaccuracy would not affect the conclusion that this case is completely consistent with expectations. That is, an investigation of all the similar Minecraft livestreams that picked a runner who had unusual luck in two different ways would produce results as unusual as Dream's in these 11 streams. Note that for speedrunners to reach high positions on the leaderboard requires excellent skill and luck. These answers are extremely different, which is unsurprising because the ender pearl and blaze rod success rate is very different between the first five and last six streams. How should you decide between the case with eleven streams and the case with six streams? It depends on what you think the probability is that Dream would make a modification at that point (as compared to any other point) without being influenced by the actual probabilities. It was a natural breaking point in the timeline of streams independent of the fact that it was probabilistically extremely different, which argues for the six-stream hypothesis. If you allow the streak of streams/runs to be any length up to N (instead of choosing 6 or 11 in advance), then another correction of N° should be included. Using N - 10 gives a corrected probability of 1 in 10 million. This does not account for the fact that "lucky streaks" should be treated somewhat differently which would increase the odds, potentially up to 1 in a million. So if you think "if Dream would have chosen to modify his numbers then this is the only place within the eleven stream set that Dream would have modified them", then you should lean toward the 1 in 100 million case. If you think Dream could have chosen to modify his numbers in between any stream, then these odds should come down substantially to 1 in a 10 million. If you think that if Dream modifying things, he would only have done it at the beginning of all eleven streams in question, then the data show no statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities, given that he was investigated after it was noticed that he was lucky. Since the eleven-stream probability is so much higher, even if you think that (independent of the prob- abilities calculated after seeing the streams) there is a 100-to-1 chance Dream modified before the final six streams instead of before all eleven streams, the six stream case provides a negligible correction and the prob- ability becomes just 1/100. That is, external evidence that the probabilities were modified at this specific point would be needed to produce a significant probability of cheating. Even in the worst case, the probabilities are not so extreme as to completely rule out any chance that Dream used the unmodified probabilities. If you have independent high-probability reasoning to suppose that the game was modified by Dream before his final six runs, then the low probability of that hypothesis even after correcting for other biases suggests an alternative explanation. There are reasonable explanations for Dream's ender pearl and blaze rod probability, potentially including extreme "luck", but the validity and probability of those explanations depend on explanations beyond the scope of this document. One alternative explanation is that Dream (intentionally or unintentionally) cheated, though I disagree that the situation suggests that this is an unavoidable conclusion. In any case, the conclusion of the MST Report that there is, that have be GO QUTSIDE Itiple reasons trilli do "The MST 11*(11+1)/2 dependent on t choosen any of pretty strongly rsal). I instead cho ts of co iengflip.ena times the number of plausible lengths
9 Conclus HOLY F--- If you are asking then the ender eams in question, implement the bining these two ving) for 100,000 stopping criterion probabilities usin possible sets of 11 streams to investigate in 1,000 different ways gives a investigation gives 10-8 or a l in 100 million chance. That is, there is a 1 in 100 million chance that a livestream in the Minecraft speedrunning community got as lucky this year on two separate random modes as Dream did in these six streams. That is extraordinarily low, though not nearly as low (by a factor of 75000) as concluded by the MST Report (1 in 7.5 trillion). The main things that increased the probability are: 1) using a Barter Stopping criterion (factor of about 100) and 2) using 100 times as many livestreams and 10 times as high a p-hacking correction, for which I have provided specific justification. If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for all eleven streams, the probabilities are much higher because the other five streams had more typical results. The ender pearl probability goes up to 3 x 10-4 and the blaze rod probability goes up to 10-. Combining these gives 7x 10-9 and adding the 10 boost gives 0.7 or 1 in 2. Note that my corrections are designed for low p- values, so this may not be fully accurate, but this inaccuracy would not affect the conclusion that this case is completely consistent with expectations. That is, an investigation of all the similar Minecraft livestreams that picked a runner who had unusual luck in two different ways would produce results as unusual as Dream's in these 11 streams. Note that for speedrunners to reach high positions on the leaderboard requires excellent skill and luck. These answers are extremely different, which is unsurprising because the ender pearl and blaze rod success rate is very different between the first five and last six streams. How should you decide between the case with eleven streams and the case with six streams? It depends on what you think the probability is that Dream would make a modification at that point (as compared to any other point) without being influenced by the actual probabilities. It was a natural breaking point in the timeline of streams independent of the fact that it was probabilistically extremely different, which argues for the six-stream hypothesis. If you allow the streak of streams/runs to be any length up to N (instead of choosing 6 or 11 in advance), then another correction of N° should be included. Using N - 10 gives a corrected probability of 1 in 10 million. This does not account for the fact that "lucky streaks" should be treated somewhat differently which would increase the odds, potentially up to 1 in a million. So if you think "if Dream would have chosen to modify his numbers then this is the only place within the eleven stream set that Dream would have modified them", then you should lean toward the 1 in 100 million case. If you think Dream could have chosen to modify his numbers in between any stream, then these odds should come down substantially to 1 in a 10 million. If you think that if Dream modifying things, he would only have done it at the beginning of all eleven streams in question, then the data show no statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities, given that he was investigated after it was noticed that he was lucky. Since the eleven-stream probability is so much higher, even if you think that (independent of the prob- abilities calculated after seeing the streams) there is a 100-to-1 chance Dream modified before the final six streams instead of before all eleven streams, the six stream case provides a negligible correction and the prob- ability becomes just 1/100. That is, external evidence that the probabilities were modified at this specific point would be needed to produce a significant probability of cheating. Even in the worst case, the probabilities are not so extreme as to completely rule out any chance that Dream used the unmodified probabilities. If you have independent high-probability reasoning to suppose that the game was modified by Dream before his final six runs, then the low probability of that hypothesis even after correcting for other biases suggests an alternative explanation. There are reasonable explanations for Dream's ender pearl and blaze rod probability, potentially including extreme "luck", but the validity and probability of those explanations depend on explanations beyond the scope of this document. One alternative explanation is that Dream (intentionally or unintentionally) cheated, though I disagree that the situation suggests that this is an unavoidable conclusion. In any case, the conclusion of the MST Report that there is, that have be GO QUTSIDE Itiple reasons trilli do "The MST 11*(11+1)/2 dependent on t choosen any of pretty strongly rsal). I instead cho ts of co iengflip.ena times the number of plausible lengths

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream statistics text wall of text

Critique of Dream Investigation Results - Conclusion

9 Conclusions If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for the six streams in question, then the ender pearl barter probability was 3 x 10-10 to 3 × 10-9 depending on how you implement the stopping criterion; let's choose 10-10. The blaze rod probability was 3 x 10-8. Combining these two probabilities using Equation 2 gives 1.2 × 10-16, Adding in the correction (by multiplying) for 100,000 possible sets of 11 streams to investigate in 1,000 different ways gives a investigation gives 10-8 or a 1 in 100 million chance. That is, there is a 1 in 100 million chance that a livestream in the Minecraft speedrunning community got as lucky this year on two separate random modes as Dream did in these six streams. That is extraordinarily low, though not nearly as low (by a factor of 75000) as concluded by the MST Report (1 in 7.5 trillion). The main things that increased the probability are: 1) using a Barter Stopping criterion (factor of about 100) and 2) using 100 times as many livestreams and 10 times as high a p-hacking correction, for which I have provided specific justification. If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for all eleven streams, the probabilities are much higher because the other five streams had more typical results. The ender pearl probability goes up to 3 x 10-4 and the blaze rod probability goes up to 10-6. Combining these gives 7 x 10-9 and adding the 10$ boost gives 0.7 or 1 in 2. Note that my corrections are designed for low p- values, so this may not be fully accurate, but this inaccuracy would not affect the conclusion that this case is completely consistent with expectations. That is, an investigation of all the similar Minecraft livestreams that picked a runner who had unusual luck in two different ways would produce results as unusual as Dream's in these 11 streams. Note that for speedrunners to reach high positions on the leaderboard requires excellent skill and luck. These answers are extremely different, which is unsurprising because the ender pearl and blaze rod success rate is very different between the first five and last six streams. How should you decide between the case with eleven streams and the case with six streams? It depends on what you think the probability is that Dream would make a modification at that point (as compared to any other point) without being influenced by the actual probabilities. It was a natural breaking point in the timeline of streams independent of the fact that it was probabilistically extremely different, which argues for the six-stream hypothesis. If you allow the streak of streams/runs to be any length up to N (instead of choosing 6 or 11 in advance), then another correction of N° should be included. Using N ~ 10 gives a corrected probability of 1 in 10 million . This does not account for the fact that "lucky streaks" should be treated somewhat differently which would increase the odds, potentially up to 1 in a million. So if you think "if Dream would have chosen to modify his numbers then this is the only place within the eleven stream set that Dream would have modified them", then you should lean toward the 1 in 100 million case. If you think Dream could have chosen to modify his numbers in between any stream, then these odds should come down substantially to 1 in a 10 million. If you think that if Dream modifying things, he would only have done it at the beginning of all eleven streams in question, then the data show no statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities, given that he was investigated after it was noticed that he was lucky. Since the eleven-stream probability is so much higher, even if you think that (independent of the prob- abilities calculated after seeing the streams) there is a 100-to-1 chance Dream modified before the final six streams instead of before all eleven streams, the six stream case provides a negligible correction and the prob- ability becomes just 1/100. That is, external evidence that the probabilities were modified at this specific point would be needed to produce a significant probability of cheating. Even in the worst case, the probabilities are not so extreme as to completely rule out any chance that Dream used the unmodified probabilities. If you have independent high-probability reasoning to suppose that the game was modified by Dream before his final six runs, then the low probability of that hypothesis even after correcting for other biases suggests an alternative explanation. There are reasonable explanations for Dream's ender pearl and blaze rod probability, potentially including extreme "luck", but the validity and probability of those explanations depend on explanations beyond the scope of this document. One alternative explanation is that Dream (intentionally or unintentionally) cheated, though I disagree that the situation suggests that this is an unavoidable conclusion. In any case, the conclusion of the MST Report that there is, at best, a 1 in 7.5 trillion chance that Dream did not cheat is to0 extreme for multiple reasons that have been discussed in this document. 9The MST Report computes this in a different way: choosing the number of 11-stream livestreamers and then choosen any of 11*(11+1)/2 subsets from these streams. In addition to the possible issues mentioned above, this correction is pretty strongly dependent on the somewhat arbitrary choice of 11 (which is potentially relevant to Dream, but may not be universal). I instead propose that you take consider all sets of consecutive livestreams of a certain length, which leads to a correction of the number of livestreams times the number of plausible lengths
9 Conclusions If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for the six streams in question, then the ender pearl barter probability was 3 x 10-10 to 3 × 10-9 depending on how you implement the stopping criterion; let's choose 10-10. The blaze rod probability was 3 x 10-8. Combining these two probabilities using Equation 2 gives 1.2 × 10-16, Adding in the correction (by multiplying) for 100,000 possible sets of 11 streams to investigate in 1,000 different ways gives a investigation gives 10-8 or a 1 in 100 million chance. That is, there is a 1 in 100 million chance that a livestream in the Minecraft speedrunning community got as lucky this year on two separate random modes as Dream did in these six streams. That is extraordinarily low, though not nearly as low (by a factor of 75000) as concluded by the MST Report (1 in 7.5 trillion). The main things that increased the probability are: 1) using a Barter Stopping criterion (factor of about 100) and 2) using 100 times as many livestreams and 10 times as high a p-hacking correction, for which I have provided specific justification. If you are asking about the hypothesis that Dream was using modifications for all eleven streams, the probabilities are much higher because the other five streams had more typical results. The ender pearl probability goes up to 3 x 10-4 and the blaze rod probability goes up to 10-6. Combining these gives 7 x 10-9 and adding the 10$ boost gives 0.7 or 1 in 2. Note that my corrections are designed for low p- values, so this may not be fully accurate, but this inaccuracy would not affect the conclusion that this case is completely consistent with expectations. That is, an investigation of all the similar Minecraft livestreams that picked a runner who had unusual luck in two different ways would produce results as unusual as Dream's in these 11 streams. Note that for speedrunners to reach high positions on the leaderboard requires excellent skill and luck. These answers are extremely different, which is unsurprising because the ender pearl and blaze rod success rate is very different between the first five and last six streams. How should you decide between the case with eleven streams and the case with six streams? It depends on what you think the probability is that Dream would make a modification at that point (as compared to any other point) without being influenced by the actual probabilities. It was a natural breaking point in the timeline of streams independent of the fact that it was probabilistically extremely different, which argues for the six-stream hypothesis. If you allow the streak of streams/runs to be any length up to N (instead of choosing 6 or 11 in advance), then another correction of N° should be included. Using N ~ 10 gives a corrected probability of 1 in 10 million . This does not account for the fact that "lucky streaks" should be treated somewhat differently which would increase the odds, potentially up to 1 in a million. So if you think "if Dream would have chosen to modify his numbers then this is the only place within the eleven stream set that Dream would have modified them", then you should lean toward the 1 in 100 million case. If you think Dream could have chosen to modify his numbers in between any stream, then these odds should come down substantially to 1 in a 10 million. If you think that if Dream modifying things, he would only have done it at the beginning of all eleven streams in question, then the data show no statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities, given that he was investigated after it was noticed that he was lucky. Since the eleven-stream probability is so much higher, even if you think that (independent of the prob- abilities calculated after seeing the streams) there is a 100-to-1 chance Dream modified before the final six streams instead of before all eleven streams, the six stream case provides a negligible correction and the prob- ability becomes just 1/100. That is, external evidence that the probabilities were modified at this specific point would be needed to produce a significant probability of cheating. Even in the worst case, the probabilities are not so extreme as to completely rule out any chance that Dream used the unmodified probabilities. If you have independent high-probability reasoning to suppose that the game was modified by Dream before his final six runs, then the low probability of that hypothesis even after correcting for other biases suggests an alternative explanation. There are reasonable explanations for Dream's ender pearl and blaze rod probability, potentially including extreme "luck", but the validity and probability of those explanations depend on explanations beyond the scope of this document. One alternative explanation is that Dream (intentionally or unintentionally) cheated, though I disagree that the situation suggests that this is an unavoidable conclusion. In any case, the conclusion of the MST Report that there is, at best, a 1 in 7.5 trillion chance that Dream did not cheat is to0 extreme for multiple reasons that have been discussed in this document. 9The MST Report computes this in a different way: choosing the number of 11-stream livestreamers and then choosen any of 11*(11+1)/2 subsets from these streams. In addition to the possible issues mentioned above, this correction is pretty strongly dependent on the somewhat arbitrary choice of 11 (which is potentially relevant to Dream, but may not be universal). I instead propose that you take consider all sets of consecutive livestreams of a certain length, which leads to a correction of the number of livestreams times the number of plausible lengths

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream speedrun speedrunning probability analysis conclusion document

Yes, I think Dream cheated. No, I don’t care. Yes, the people who wrote the paper were nerds. But also the memes are kinda good though

PIGLIN ON HIS WAY TO TO GIVE DREAM HIS ENDER PEARL COLLECTION
PIGLIN ON HIS WAY TO TO GIVE DREAM HIS ENDER PEARL COLLECTION

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft dream speedrun dream cheating dream speedrun cheating dream cheats

Looks like rigging the Minecraft mob vote certainly paid off. didn't it?

When you rig a Minecraft mob vote by getting your impressionable fans to vote for the most useless and most easily forgettable mob so that your speedruns won't get affected by a newly added mob but later on you get exposed for cheating on your speedruns with solid proof so your efforts in rigging a Minecraft mob vote was all for nothing now that you are looked at as a lying cheater in the speedrunning community
When you rig a Minecraft mob vote by getting your impressionable fans to vote for the most useless and most easily forgettable mob so that your speedruns won't get affected by a newly added mob but later on you get exposed for cheating on your speedruns with solid proof so your efforts in rigging a Minecraft mob vote was all for nothing now that you are looked at as a lying cheater in the speedrunning community

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrun speedrunning cheater cheating dream minecraft dream and george minecraft speedrun

I can't believe Dream rigged the lottery too

Dream entering the lottery
Dream entering the lottery

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream dream speedrun dream speedrun cheating allegations vince mcmahon wwe minecraft speedrun cheating

All of the day bro

My speedrun statistics and evidence are better than yours NO RUN HAIHA'HA! HEY MINECRAFI SAN Speatunning lam PEARL DATATABLE What about BLAZE DATATABLE WAH-HA! НА! НА!НА! Far ut All f he World Other... Data... Entity HA HA НА dream RM PAVRS 23 RM DAVSS24 ww ld Distriwted by eivenat Ps Sydita
My speedrun statistics and evidence are better than yours NO RUN HAIHA'HA! HEY MINECRAFI SAN Speatunning lam PEARL DATATABLE What about BLAZE DATATABLE WAH-HA! НА! НА!НА! Far ut All f he World Other... Data... Entity HA HA НА dream RM PAVRS 23 RM DAVSS24 ww ld Distriwted by eivenat Ps Sydita

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream speedrun cheating allegations dream speedrun my favorite video games are better than yours all of the day bro wii game andrew dobson

Dream Cheating Allegations: Dream's Reddit Post

Posted by u/dreamistaken Dream 2 days ago 25 S 29 30 26 31 5.7k Speedrun Removal - Dream There's a lot of posts here about my 1.16 speedrun time removal, and some people upset with my response on Twitter. Obviously, I didn't cheat in any way and I plan on making a video to address these things. However, it will take time for me to thoroughly and completely address it, as the accusations took two months for the mods to work on. It's not something I can throw together in a day, and is going to require a lot of my attention. To clear up misinformation though, my 1.15 record remains up and verified, and I was not banned from submitting runs. My 1.16 (16th place, but 5th place when I got it) run was unverified due to the seemingly incredible statistical odds that I could have had the luck that I did over a few day period. As I didn't cheat, I know that there's going to be a way to disprove the statistics, but again, I'm not a mathematician and I don't know how. I'm going to be most likely hiring multiple well renowned statisticians to look at the numbers, and most likely have a roll in my response. On top of that, most likely talking with Minecraft developers, as well as other prominent figures regarding it. I understand that the numbers presented look suspicious, because they are not numbers you would ever expect to see during a non-glitched series of speedruns. I don't disagree with that, but I do have doubts that these numbers are entirely accurate, and I have doubts about the mods intent to fairly investigate my side. As for addressing the physical side of "how" I may have cheated, I can completely and fully beyond a reasonable doubt prove that I did not use a mod or datapack during my speedruns, and how I can prove that will obviously be talked about in the video. It's not related to the statistics, but it does show that it is much much more likely that the statistics are off (or that there is some other contributing factor). As for the video made by Geosquare, there was certain bits of misleading information, like the lie that I said that I "delete my mod contents regularly" (something that was never said). It made it seem like I was not cooperating with the investigation. I fully cooperated and provided every file that was ever requested from me, and I will be making those files public at some point in the future. On top of that, it was stated that I am a mod developer, when I have never developed a mod in my life, and do not know how to develop a mod. I can also reasonably prove this, and I offered the mod team at multiple points all of my development related files so they can tell that I did not code anything related to Minecraft RNG. It was also stated that it made it suspicious that I had "Fabric API" loaded, without mentioning why I had it loaded. I had provided the information of why I had Fabric API downloaded well before any suspicion involving Fabric API was brought forward. I volunteered the information that I did in fact have Fabric API downloaded, as I had nothing to hide. The log files that they showed in the video were again, volunteered by myself, as I had nothing to hide.
Posted by u/dreamistaken Dream 2 days ago 25 S 29 30 26 31 5.7k Speedrun Removal - Dream There's a lot of posts here about my 1.16 speedrun time removal, and some people upset with my response on Twitter. Obviously, I didn't cheat in any way and I plan on making a video to address these things. However, it will take time for me to thoroughly and completely address it, as the accusations took two months for the mods to work on. It's not something I can throw together in a day, and is going to require a lot of my attention. To clear up misinformation though, my 1.15 record remains up and verified, and I was not banned from submitting runs. My 1.16 (16th place, but 5th place when I got it) run was unverified due to the seemingly incredible statistical odds that I could have had the luck that I did over a few day period. As I didn't cheat, I know that there's going to be a way to disprove the statistics, but again, I'm not a mathematician and I don't know how. I'm going to be most likely hiring multiple well renowned statisticians to look at the numbers, and most likely have a roll in my response. On top of that, most likely talking with Minecraft developers, as well as other prominent figures regarding it. I understand that the numbers presented look suspicious, because they are not numbers you would ever expect to see during a non-glitched series of speedruns. I don't disagree with that, but I do have doubts that these numbers are entirely accurate, and I have doubts about the mods intent to fairly investigate my side. As for addressing the physical side of "how" I may have cheated, I can completely and fully beyond a reasonable doubt prove that I did not use a mod or datapack during my speedruns, and how I can prove that will obviously be talked about in the video. It's not related to the statistics, but it does show that it is much much more likely that the statistics are off (or that there is some other contributing factor). As for the video made by Geosquare, there was certain bits of misleading information, like the lie that I said that I "delete my mod contents regularly" (something that was never said). It made it seem like I was not cooperating with the investigation. I fully cooperated and provided every file that was ever requested from me, and I will be making those files public at some point in the future. On top of that, it was stated that I am a mod developer, when I have never developed a mod in my life, and do not know how to develop a mod. I can also reasonably prove this, and I offered the mod team at multiple points all of my development related files so they can tell that I did not code anything related to Minecraft RNG. It was also stated that it made it suspicious that I had "Fabric API" loaded, without mentioning why I had it loaded. I had provided the information of why I had Fabric API downloaded well before any suspicion involving Fabric API was brought forward. I volunteered the information that I did in fact have Fabric API downloaded, as I had nothing to hide. The log files that they showed in the video were again, volunteered by myself, as I had nothing to hide.

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Dream Investigation Results: Conclusion

11 Conclusion In our analysis, we were able to conclude the following statements: • The events that were observed on Dream's stream cannot be modeled by any sensible, conventional probability distribution. • After accounting for any contributors of bias, the likelihood of this occurring is still unfathomably small. • There are no circumstances in a natural setting in which bartering and blaze drops could be dependent or biased to any notable degree, much less a degree strong enough to produce this result. • There is no way to accidentally manipulate these values in real time during an RSG speedrun, nor any conceivable way to do it intentionally using only conventional methods. The only sensible conclusion that can be drawn after this analysis is that Dream's game was modified in order to manipulate the pearl barter and rod drop rates.
11 Conclusion In our analysis, we were able to conclude the following statements: • The events that were observed on Dream's stream cannot be modeled by any sensible, conventional probability distribution. • After accounting for any contributors of bias, the likelihood of this occurring is still unfathomably small. • There are no circumstances in a natural setting in which bartering and blaze drops could be dependent or biased to any notable degree, much less a degree strong enough to produce this result. • There is no way to accidentally manipulate these values in real time during an RSG speedrun, nor any conceivable way to do it intentionally using only conventional methods. The only sensible conclusion that can be drawn after this analysis is that Dream's game was modified in order to manipulate the pearl barter and rod drop rates.

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Blaze Rod Drops: Dream vs. Other Speedrunners Graph

Blaze Rod Drops Blaze Luck Dream Illumina Expected 99.9%ile 250 200 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cumulative Blaze Kills Figure 2: The same for blaze rod drops. Cumulative Rod Drops
Blaze Rod Drops Blaze Luck Dream Illumina Expected 99.9%ile 250 200 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 Cumulative Blaze Kills Figure 2: The same for blaze rod drops. Cumulative Rod Drops

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Piglin Bartering: Dream vs. Other Speedrunners Graph

Part II Data The raw data (and its sources) from which the following graphs were derived can be found in Appendix A. 4 Piglin Bartering Bartering Luck Dream - Illumina Expected 99.9%ile 50 40 30 20 10 100 200 300 Cumulative Gold Ingots Figure 1: Dream's pearl barters, charted alongside various comparisons. The 99.9th percentile line represents one-in-a-thousand luck, which is already quite unlikely-if not necessarily proof of anything. Cumulative Pearl Trades
Part II Data The raw data (and its sources) from which the following graphs were derived can be found in Appendix A. 4 Piglin Bartering Bartering Luck Dream - Illumina Expected 99.9%ile 50 40 30 20 10 100 200 300 Cumulative Gold Ingots Figure 1: Dream's pearl barters, charted alongside various comparisons. The 99.9th percentile line represents one-in-a-thousand luck, which is already quite unlikely-if not necessarily proof of anything. Cumulative Pearl Trades

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Just to clear up some misinformation regarding the speedrunning thing.

dream @dreamwastaken2 · 16h 000 Just to clear up some misinformation regarding the speedrunning thing. In geosquare's video he says that I didn't provide them with my mod folder because I said I "delete it frequently". This obviously, makes me look suspicious, and a lot of people are bringing it up. 27 1.5K 1.4K 83.7K dream @dreamwastaken2 · 16h I provided everything the mods ever asked for to them, so this is false. I also never said that I "delete them frequently", and Geosquare has admitted this and apologized. The only time I was ever asked anything regarding my mods folder, was 10 days after my speedrun. 000 34 27 212 49.5K dream 00 @dreamwastaken2 Replying to @dreamwastaken2 I was asked if I had modified it, because they wanted to check modification dates. I obviously said that I had, because it had been 10 days, and I change what mods I'm using depending on the version l'm on. (dream SMP is 1.16.3, speedrunning is 1.16.1, servers 1.8, etc) | 8:53 PM · Dec 13, 2020 · Twitter Web App
dream @dreamwastaken2 · 16h 000 Just to clear up some misinformation regarding the speedrunning thing. In geosquare's video he says that I didn't provide them with my mod folder because I said I "delete it frequently". This obviously, makes me look suspicious, and a lot of people are bringing it up. 27 1.5K 1.4K 83.7K dream @dreamwastaken2 · 16h I provided everything the mods ever asked for to them, so this is false. I also never said that I "delete them frequently", and Geosquare has admitted this and apologized. The only time I was ever asked anything regarding my mods folder, was 10 days after my speedrun. 000 34 27 212 49.5K dream 00 @dreamwastaken2 Replying to @dreamwastaken2 I was asked if I had modified it, because they wanted to check modification dates. I obviously said that I had, because it had been 10 days, and I change what mods I'm using depending on the version l'm on. (dream SMP is 1.16.3, speedrunning is 1.16.1, servers 1.8, etc) | 8:53 PM · Dec 13, 2020 · Twitter Web App

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Thank you for the totally unbiased, 2 month, 29 page "investigation"

dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 00 Just to clarify, my 1.15 (previous world record), 5th place time was not removed and is still verified. Just the 16th place 1.16 run was "not able to be verified". I'll make a video at some point regarding it, but for now MCC tomorrow :D 2.7K 27 1.2K 111K dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 Thank you for the totally unbiased, 2 month, 29 page "investigation" into whether a 16th place run had "too good luck", that was then made into a clickbait Youtube video by a head moderator (what a shocker) 3.9K E7 2.6K 137.5K
dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 00 Just to clarify, my 1.15 (previous world record), 5th place time was not removed and is still verified. Just the 16th place 1.16 run was "not able to be verified". I'll make a video at some point regarding it, but for now MCC tomorrow :D 2.7K 27 1.2K 111K dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 Thank you for the totally unbiased, 2 month, 29 page "investigation" into whether a 16th place run had "too good luck", that was then made into a clickbait Youtube video by a head moderator (what a shocker) 3.9K E7 2.6K 137.5K

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

My 1.16 run was just rejected after research due to it being "too unlikely to verify".

dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 000 My 1.16 run was just rejected after research due to it being "too unlikely to verify". A video was made by a head mod and Youtuber Geosquare, using my name and clickbaiting "Cheating Speedrunning" in order to get easy views. Definitely a response soon. Total BS! 6.7K 27 4.3K 155.2K dream 000 @dreamwastaken2 Replying to @dreamwastaken2 Currently have multiple moderators messaging me that they believe that the verdict was bias, and that they might quit the mod team. What kind of "investigation" was this? 5:25 PM · Dec 11, 2020 · Twitter Web App
dream @dreamwastaken2 · Dec 11 000 My 1.16 run was just rejected after research due to it being "too unlikely to verify". A video was made by a head mod and Youtuber Geosquare, using my name and clickbaiting "Cheating Speedrunning" in order to get easy views. Definitely a response soon. Total BS! 6.7K 27 4.3K 155.2K dream 000 @dreamwastaken2 Replying to @dreamwastaken2 Currently have multiple moderators messaging me that they believe that the verdict was bias, and that they might quit the mod team. What kind of "investigation" was this? 5:25 PM · Dec 11, 2020 · Twitter Web App

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream minecraft speedrunning cheating

Dream Adresses Cheating Allegations pt. 2

Dream v 17 tuntia sitten The whole situation is very intriguing, although something you fail to mention is that it's under investigation. The math is under investigation, as is the rest of what you said. There's a lot of things to factor in other than the straight trades, as there is influencing factors that can influence the data itself. Like the fact that the data set ended on 2 pearl trades and probably always would because that is the goal, which is a bias sample set. The fact that this only includes 6 of my (11 or so?) 1.16 streams is also cherry picking, as these streams included my personal best times. On top of that, the 40 or so "unknown items" would be "known" if they were pearls, making it unfair to not count those into the overall data (you don't). Just factor in those things alone and the odds rise substantially and the percentage drops from 15% to around 11% or less, with a slightly larger sample size. Now, that's still a high number, but in around the same sample size, Illumina had about 6.5% (as compared to 10-11%), rather than the proposed 4.73% that it should be. Again, the odds are still low, but the odds that someone is cheating are not equivalent to the odds that something happened. Meaning, if something with a 0.1% chance of happening happens, this doesn't mean there's a 99.9% chance that they cheated to make it happen. Obviously there's billions and billions of 0.1% chance things happening every day, just not to you. Obviously even 1 in a million is a much bigger number than 0.1%, but the point still stands. There's probably a lot more things to factor into the probability, which is what I'm sure the mods and people who are actually there to get it right are trying to do. I chose to speedrun 1.16 live even though I didn't have to, and like you mentioned in your pinned comment, there was no rule that said that I had to. I made a choice to. I also streamed 1.15 (unmodded) and almost got world record there the next day. Although that doesn't necessarily prove anything, that should make you scratch your head. Either way, most people watching this video aren't here for the truth, they're here to bash on me or just assume 1/40 billion KEKLEL, so I don't care much. Will end up making an actual response after the speedrun mods do their job and get all the details right (unlike this video). Also, yes I deleted my old comment. It didn't explain anything.
Dream v 17 tuntia sitten The whole situation is very intriguing, although something you fail to mention is that it's under investigation. The math is under investigation, as is the rest of what you said. There's a lot of things to factor in other than the straight trades, as there is influencing factors that can influence the data itself. Like the fact that the data set ended on 2 pearl trades and probably always would because that is the goal, which is a bias sample set. The fact that this only includes 6 of my (11 or so?) 1.16 streams is also cherry picking, as these streams included my personal best times. On top of that, the 40 or so "unknown items" would be "known" if they were pearls, making it unfair to not count those into the overall data (you don't). Just factor in those things alone and the odds rise substantially and the percentage drops from 15% to around 11% or less, with a slightly larger sample size. Now, that's still a high number, but in around the same sample size, Illumina had about 6.5% (as compared to 10-11%), rather than the proposed 4.73% that it should be. Again, the odds are still low, but the odds that someone is cheating are not equivalent to the odds that something happened. Meaning, if something with a 0.1% chance of happening happens, this doesn't mean there's a 99.9% chance that they cheated to make it happen. Obviously there's billions and billions of 0.1% chance things happening every day, just not to you. Obviously even 1 in a million is a much bigger number than 0.1%, but the point still stands. There's probably a lot more things to factor into the probability, which is what I'm sure the mods and people who are actually there to get it right are trying to do. I chose to speedrun 1.16 live even though I didn't have to, and like you mentioned in your pinned comment, there was no rule that said that I had to. I made a choice to. I also streamed 1.15 (unmodded) and almost got world record there the next day. Although that doesn't necessarily prove anything, that should make you scratch your head. Either way, most people watching this video aren't here for the truth, they're here to bash on me or just assume 1/40 billion KEKLEL, so I don't care much. Will end up making an actual response after the speedrun mods do their job and get all the details right (unlike this video). Also, yes I deleted my old comment. It didn't explain anything.

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream cheating cheat speedrun

Dream Addresses Cheating Allegations Comment

Dream v 22 hours ago (edited) Dumb clickbait. The math is off, and Minecraft has plenty of RNG mishaps and random isn't "truly random" in Java/Minecraft. There's issues that happen all the time. Very misleading, and much more likely to be a glitch or something else (not close to 1 in 40 billion). I ran 1.15 a couple days after that and nearly got world record (at stronghold in 14 minutes), would love to see the RNG on that. No reason to try and bring others reputations down through clickbait and misleading information while not factoring in all possibilities. Other things wrong with this video: - Streaming rule did not apply to runners that are trusted or already had top 5 runs, and I was told that it didn't apply to me by Willz one of the mods at speedrun.com. So implying that I started streaming because of that rule is completely false. The rule was also removed. Even adding another 1000 gold trades (not that many, on average 25 good runs, if you consider a good run a run where you get pearls), the stats drop significantly to a much much more probably number. That's only with 25 good runs. There's a ton of other problems I'm sure with this, but these are the most simple. Show less It 100 REPLY - Hide 54 replies SLTRR 22 hours ago It 38 41 REPLY WFRstopmotion 22 hours ago liar explain this then https://i.imgur.com/RxbVYe7.jpg It 53 REPLY
Dream v 22 hours ago (edited) Dumb clickbait. The math is off, and Minecraft has plenty of RNG mishaps and random isn't "truly random" in Java/Minecraft. There's issues that happen all the time. Very misleading, and much more likely to be a glitch or something else (not close to 1 in 40 billion). I ran 1.15 a couple days after that and nearly got world record (at stronghold in 14 minutes), would love to see the RNG on that. No reason to try and bring others reputations down through clickbait and misleading information while not factoring in all possibilities. Other things wrong with this video: - Streaming rule did not apply to runners that are trusted or already had top 5 runs, and I was told that it didn't apply to me by Willz one of the mods at speedrun.com. So implying that I started streaming because of that rule is completely false. The rule was also removed. Even adding another 1000 gold trades (not that many, on average 25 good runs, if you consider a good run a run where you get pearls), the stats drop significantly to a much much more probably number. That's only with 25 good runs. There's a ton of other problems I'm sure with this, but these are the most simple. Show less It 100 REPLY - Hide 54 replies SLTRR 22 hours ago It 38 41 REPLY WFRstopmotion 22 hours ago liar explain this then https://i.imgur.com/RxbVYe7.jpg It 53 REPLY

Dream Speedrun Cheating Controversy
dream cheating cheat speedrun