I know that with DSP it's hard to really prove anything. He is someone who will hide behind the tiniest semantics in order to be 'technically not wrong' about something. The best recent example of this is his "I never said the foreclosure wasn't real I just said that people were full of shit" speech. Add that along with the entire 'Escort' fiasco (before my tenure, I accept no responsibility) and you're left with people who know that if they're wrong about any tiny detail it will be rubbed in their face for literally years to come.
However, in most court systems the proof required for something is proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This obviously leads to many, many discussions about what a 'reasonable' person is. However, people have had decades of their lives decided for them with less evidence than we have here. People have been convicted of murder without the police finding a weapon, people have been convicted of rape without any witnesses or evidence and people have been convicted of theft without the stolen goods ever being recovered (not sure about the last one but it sounded good in context).
I know that almost everybody here thinks it's some cringey faggot shit to talk about DSP stuff to people in their life, so maybe just keep this to a thought experiment. Imagine talking to someone whose judgement you trust and who has no experience with DSP at all. Tell them the following:
- The person accused of having this account has admitted to playing this game before
- The person accused of having this account has admitted 'being addicted to' mobile games before
- The person accused of having this account has admitted to spending hundreds of dollars on this game
- The person accused of having this account uses the same username as the account owner
- The person accused of having this account is notorious enough that believing that the account owner has been able to exist on the internet for years without once hearing about the person associated with their account would be akin to someone in the Pharmaceutical industry not having heard of 'Martin Shkreli"
- The person accused of having this account refuses to refute the claims of account ownership with the very simple action of showing what their actual account name is
- The person accused of having this account is occupied at the times when the account owner is not active
- The person accused of having this account has the time and opportunity to play the game when the account owner is active
- The person accused of having this account has notable amounts of disposable income when the account owner is spending notable amounts of money
- The person accused of having this account types in such a similar manner to the account owner that a speech analysis program listed the odds of them not being the same person as 1 in over 7 billion (and I still want to know what program you used
@That Hedonist Nerd )
- The person accused of having this account has been known to lie more often than they have been known to tell the truth
I know there are some points that I'm forgetting as well. One of the things that he does best is create doubt since often he is lying and, as such, cannot offer actual proof for his claims. Even if we were to be able to log into the account using his email address I am convinced that he would say something along the lines of "it must have been hacked and someone else was playing on it". However, I think the evidence compiled would be enough to convince a reasonable person.