This document is a collection of lies, false statements and assumed manipulative behaviors that I, an anonymous writer, noticed that Dream performs in the interview with DarkViperAU. Among this collection of transcribed statements, the lies and false statements are not what I think opinion-based. I believe they are either objectively wrong or contradictory to what he previously said. The assumed manipulative behaviors are based on my subjective viewpoint and are just my opinion, definitely not a definitive fact. Therefore, they do not carry the same weight as the previous two criteria.
However, this is all from an anonymous writer who is most definitely biased against Dream, since they bothered to go through the pain of watching the interview multiple times and verify each statement. Since there is a possibility I am overthinking everything with my malicious intent, I will give out the obligatory statement this is just a rando with nothing but words, it’s my opinion, don’t get mad bro.
The main problems treated in this document will focus on the actual statistical accusation of Dream’s abnormal luck and his response video. Claims related to the anonymous statistician will not be deeply treated, as nothing is verifiable, rebuttable or holds any significant meaning to the actual accusation. There are also additional statements and information that are not against Dream, but things that I find worthy to be remarked and further explained. Since this is ridiculously long, if you want the short version, I suggest reading this document.
The question numbers are based on the paperwork DarkViperAU prepared for his interview. I included the text from DarkViperAU’s document so you don’t have to go find what he said. This document does not include all questions nor does it ask it in order, as they are not asked in order or asked at all in the interview. Additional questions were also made, which will be described as what they are called in the video. Timestamps will be provided for the interview video for the readers to pinpoint exactly where in the video they have made the scripted statement. Most of the scripted statements were spoken by Dream, and the ones spoken by DarkViperOU will be specified so.
Table Of Content
Question 12 – Insignificant Question
Question 32 – Insignificant Question
Dream’s Question to DarkViperAU
Q. There are currently publically three statistical analyses proffered in regards to your runs. One by the original mod team, one you commissioned, one from /r/statistics supported by the mods there, and one private that was emailed to me by a Swiss mathematician that I will release along with this video.
The person you commissioned admits they had effectively no knowledge of Minecraft and makes no claims to any knowledge Speedrunning. The authors of all three other reports claim your anonymous author made numerous errors, both in terms of their calculations and due to their lack of understanding of the topic at hand, that lead to false results.
You wrote on reedit that you would be hiring ‘multiple well renouned statisticians’ to contest the original results. Why did we only get one anonymous person who is technically just trained in statistics from a website that is less than a year old that looks like it was thrown together by a 9th grader 2 minutes before their project was due? What assurance can you give that you did not simply do as you originally suggested you would do, hire multiple statisticians, but instead of releasing all the results, simply release those that gave you conclusions you desired to present to your audience?
4:32 “The reason why I did it(hire only 1 statistician) because the video(Geosquare’s report video) took off way more than I thought that it would. It got way more views that I thought it would. And with how YouTube works, the quicker you get out a response, the better it is. If you can reply during the peak of a drama, then it gets way more attention than if you wait until it dies down. So my main goal was let’s get it as quick as possible, and then if there’s problems with my response, if there was problems with the stats or whatever, we can discuss it later and we can come up with another response that I actually put way more effort into and put more time into, if I need to. Because, I care more about- Hey, I need a response to this, otherwise, this is just going to spread and ruin our reputation.”
Though Dream’s reaction is justifiable since he is a YouTuber with 14M subs and his reputation is at risk, the fact that he have rushed a stats report full of flaws and therefore has no value as an evidence at all. This is not me, an anonymous writer claiming nonsense. Close to what DarkViperAU has stated, “The authors of all three other reports verified that your anonymous author made numerous errors, both in terms of their calculations and due to their lack of understanding of the topic at hand, that lead to false results”. This is not a “It’s just an opinion.”, or “According to the majority rule” or such. It is an objective fact.
If you are willing to learn basic statistics, you can verify a decent number of flaws in the response paper. And because of that, it is recommended that you actually take your time to learn basic statistics, because the math in both the MST and Dream’s report are not some crazy rocket science.
If you want to properly judge Dream’s case, yet you do not want to bother learning statistics, you have to first admit that Dream’s response paper has no value as evidence. Do not run away with “I don’t have the ability to tell what is right and wrong, so I’ll treat it equally”, “I mean, he has a PhD. We have to respect that.” That paper is objectively garbage, and by giving it the benefit of doubt, you are being biased toward Dream.
With that out of the way, since Dream does not have any evidence to refute the abnormal luck he has been associated with, he’s merely making it seem like he does, just so he saves his reputation. He has not planned to make a proper rebuttal and prove his innocence, and therefore the only thing he focuses on in his response video is saving his public image.
The MST took nearly two months to get their calculations right, as they were not trying to ruin Dream’s image, but verify his runs in the most irrefutable way possible. If they worked on the same logic of Dream’s, they could have rushed a sloppy report at the end of October, when that first attention hit peak. They chose not to, as they are not willing to get things correct. That is the way Dream should have handled his statistical report, but he chose not to.
5:15 “As for the credentials, I said on Twitter before very recently that I’m fine with independently having people verify. And one thing I will say to you is that as long as you will be willing to completely say that you would never release his information and tell anybody, I would be perfectly fine with having you, yourself confirmed his credentials-”
This credential and anonymity problem will be further discussed on question 26.
Q. Why was no attempt made to have the original mod team, or paper’s authors, be involved in your choice of 2nd opinion? Given that there was no consultation, you have enabled the counter argument that foul play was committed as there was literally no one but yourself involved in the process. What is to stop anyone claiming that this author was directly paid off by you or that you picked someone for reasons unknown to us would be favourable to you. Worse than this, people can claim the statistian was real and honest, but you either, intentionally or unintentionally, gave them incorrect information or merely information that they didn’t correctly understand. Spoilers, for when we get to question 17, I think this is the case.
7:35 “When you’re trying to come to what the most favorable thing is, right? Cause that’s what the mods were trying to do. What is the most favorable thing? You know, one statistician might have a certain opinion, “Hey, this is more favorable than this.” One person might say “Hey, this is favorable.” And the mod team came to what they think is more favorable.”
This is a fair opinion, only with the assumption that the statistics are correctly applied. Dream’s statistician did a terrible job in drafting the response paper, and due to the number of flaws and errors it makes, it has basically lost its qualification as an evidence.
Dream is purposely not addressing how his response paper is inaccurate, because without something that resembles a large number, he has no way to make it look like he is innocent. However, everything that Dream claims about the MST’s statistics cannot be accepted as valid, since it is based on his flawed response paper that is not credible.
8:17 (DarkViperAU) “Casual misunderstanding is far higher, because there is no one checking the process. And as I mentioned before, there is some misunderstanding that took place.”
This is a foreshadowing of how Dream makes an inaccurate statement with his statistics.
9:12 “The numbers that were used and things represented were as fair as possible. But then again, like I said, I was under a time crunch and my main goal was “Hey, I need to get my response out.” And most of my video was related to things other than the statistics.”
Dream’s response paper only leads to false results, therefore, his claim that everything was as fair as possible is inaccurate. Just because Dream believes it’s right does not change the objective quality of a statistical report, which is why he shouldn’t have rushed this topic if he wanted to prove that his luck wasn’t that extraordinary.
And since Dream’s accusation is based on mostly statistics, the fact that his video was related to things that aren’t statistics means he doesn’t try to prove his innocence, but rather save his public image. This is an understandable choice on a YouTuber’s perspective, as reputation is their bread and butter. But from a perspective to prove one’s innocence, it is nothing but appeal to emotion.
Question Not On The Document 10:00
Q. (DarkViperAU) “On the surface, who was most likely to be able to know what statistical techniques should be used? A person who knows about speedrunning, knows about Minecraft, and who knows about statistics? Or a person who knows effectively nothing about Minecraft, effectively nothing about speedrunning, and knows about statistics?”
What DarkViperAU is saying is, “Do you think the statistician in the MST is better, or your statistician is better when it comes to calculating your luck in the accused runs?”
Dream answered that it depends on situations, and that on his papers, there are certain numbers that are potentially more accurate when seen upon by speedrunners. This references the 37 RNG variables used for his calculations and refute the 10 suggested by the MST, which will further be speculated. And as I say again, it is an objective fact that Dream’s report leads to false results. Nothing from that report should be trusted, as it has no value as an evidence.
The rest of the question goes on with how Dream would have loved to get a statistician with knowledge in speedrunning, and also how he thought his statistician is reliable. This is a reasonable answer, yet unrelated to proving his innocence.
12:10 “The main thing that I wanted to present in the video that I didn’t, like I said, I didn’t do a good job as I could have, is that- I think that with something like this, like the base number regardless, it’s really high. If you just look at the base number, what’s the possibility of getting this number of trades in a row in this fixed period, it’s really really high. And it’s when you’re considering bias when the number starts getting lower and lower and lower and lower. And so, considering all these different biases is really complicated, and it is sort of opinionated with certain things.
So, what I wanted to get across in the video is “Hey, you know, I have no idea how accurate this number is. There could be another statistician that completely disagrees. Another one who thinks it’s way lower. And another one who thinks is insanely higher, you know, one in a googol- whatever. I think there’s always at least a little bit of opinion when you’re talking about what biases to consider, how much you should to consider it for them, how much you should correct, what numbers you should consider.
I didn’t get that across enough, but my stance was just “Hey, I’m sure these numbers will be debated. I’m sure there’s certain things that will be debated, certain things that the mod team disagrees with. Of course. They felt that their document was the most accurate. So, I think that there’s room for health to debate. I think that he says that in his document as well.”
Dream is poisoning the well.
What he is insisting is that every statistics are bound to come out different, depending on how it is calculated, and therefore you can’t trust the MST’s report is the most accurate one. He is also trying to keep his petty excuse of a response paper as legitimate by blocking off any opposition against it as “That’s your opinion. It’s debatable.”
However, Dream’s paper is not wrong because of its preference of biases or how opinionated it gets. It is wrong because it contains objectively wrong flaws and errors. Dream is not debating how biases should be considered or what value should be preferred. He is insisting that statistics are bound to come out differently, so that we can’t trust the MST’s report to be the most accurate one without getting any evidence to show how it could be considered inaccurate.
And even if Dream’s papers were flawless, there are 2 counterarguments against this claim.
- The MST’s report is actually biased toward Dream’s favor. It does not claim to be the most accurate one, as it is not trying to accurately depict Dream’s abysmal luck. It is trying to be as biased as possible towards Dream, so that with the most benefit of doubt, it is still improbable to call Dream’s run legitimate.
- Dream is excluding the possibility that every statistician can come up with an agreement on what the most accurate way to account for biases is. Debating is not an endless battle of win or lose. It is a process that you eventually come up with an agreement that everybody can accept. By depicting it as something that is destined to never come to an agreement, Dream is effectively discrediting statistics.
Q. Two weeks before the release of the first statistical analysis and the moderators investigation coming to a close you went on a rant to your million twitter followers saying, on summary,
- Why am I getting investigated not others.
- You claimed an investigation just because I was lucky is stupid.
- The math has been debunked already.
- If I wanted to cheat I could cheat offline with greater ease.
- The speedrun verifies and mods are unprofessional and have trash talked me, they are all spreading bullshit figures, the level of disrespect I have been shown is ridiculous.
- The mod team is biased, unresponsive and unprofessional.
You conclude with “I am sick of it, they really need to overhaul their rules so top runners don’t feel totally cheated and disrespected”.
In your video you released in response to the investigation, you either made no mention or directly contradicted everything here. You however gave no justification for your change of heart, which leads anyone observant to conclude you were speaking honestly in the first place and merely changed your tune because it made you look bad. As you say in your video, you really care about how you look. Can you both give a justification for this outburst, prior to even the public release of the investigation’s findings, and what lead you to have a change of heart to the degree shown in your response video?
15:45 (DarkViperAU) “If you want to find a cheater, you can find a cheater, or you can find a justification for it.”
This is a solid advice for anyone who is against Dream. The way Dream reacted or behaved does not suggest or prove that he is not innocent, as it is an emotional behavior that is entirely subjective upon interpretation. If someone believes Dream is innocent, they can interpret Dream’s emotional behavior as malicious as they can.
However, one advice that also goes the other way is that it doesn’t prove that he is innocent as well. Just like someone who hates Dream will view his behaviors as malicious and unreasonable, someone who supports Dream will view his behaviors as innocent and justifiable. This is a mistake that DarkViperAU continuously makes throughout the video, as he takes Dream’s justification at face value and let it affect his overall view on Dream’s personality.
Emotional behaviors are subjective matter, so they must be excluded entirely when assessing the accusation. Just because you think he’s guilty doesn’t mean he’s guilty. And just because you think he’s innocent doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
Further on, Dream continues to justify why he reacted such way. Though it is a fair and reasonable explanation, it is a subjective explanation, and therefore should not be accounted for when judging Dream’s accusation.
16:42 “If I say I was just lucky, I sound stupid. Because with the numbers they are presenting, that’s not a fair defense.”
This is a hindsight, but as Dream’s response paper is flawed and he failed to disprove the MST’s suggested probability, his response video is just him basically saying “I was just lucky.” without any evidence.
17:22 (DarkViperAU) “So what you’re saying is, all your first statements are false? You didn’t sincerely believe those things? You were just angry and said things you didn’t believe?”
What DarkViperAU is saying is, “So you lied out of anger, didn’t you?”
17:33 “I think that I was angry, and I said things that I didn’t believe. You know, there’s some truth mixed in there.”
Dream is Double-talking. He knows that admitting that he lied will harm his public image, so he is describing the same thing with positive words, so that it doesn’t seem as bad as it actually is. He is also trying to make it seem less bad by stating it was due to him being angry, and that there was some truth mixed in there. What actually matters is that Dream is admitting he lied, and he’s doing his best not to sound like that.
17:53 “There was definitely an exaggeration, and it was me being angry and me being like, “Oh my gosh, what’s going on?””
Being angry doesn’t mean you are allowed to lie. Dream continues to double-talk out of this question, because he does not want to directly say he lied.
18:57 “Hey, there was a huge chance that the mods come to a biased conclusion. I did express that. And afterwards, I don’t feel like they did. I don’t think they did. So that’s another reason that my heart changed, I guess., my attitude changed.”
It is reasonable to assume that he might have had negative feelings toward the MST that lead to defaming their report back then. What I do not like is that Dream never apologizes directly of this misbehavior.
However, let’s we check what he said in his response video, 3:28. “First of all, the math was off by at least 7.49999 trillion. And the original number was 7.5 trillion. And like I mentioned earlier, this is a huge number. And also, it’s a huge number to be off by.”
Dream has directly stated that the MST’s number is off. This implies that their number is inaccurate, and that his number is the correct one. He is discrediting the MST’s statistical report, despite saying in the interview that he believes it is not biased and is a fair assessment. This is a minor contradiction in behavior, but it is explainable. It could be possible that he feels that the numbers are not a biased nor off, but differently calculated, but that is not how he presented it in his video nor does he says he was giving an objective statement.
20:35 “So that’s why my attitude changed, because I went from having the opinion that- I’m panicking about that this could come out as completely biased and I don’t even know what I’m going to do. I don’t want to make a video on it, I don’t want to hurt the speedrunning community. All this drama would do was bring bad things to the speedrunning community. That was kinda my mindset.”
Dream is depicting himself as someone who cares for the speedrunning community, and that he does not want to bring bad things to the speedrunning community. The same man has also tweeted the following sentences when he was first accused of modifying ender pearl barter rates and the Mods were verifying his runs.
- Why am I getting investigated not others.
- You claimed an investigation just because I was lucky is stupid.
- The math has been debunked already.
- If I wanted to cheat I could cheat offline with greater ease.
I believe you wouldn’t say those things if you’re someone who doesn’t want to bring dramas. This is another contradiction, yet it is also based on emotions and Dream already justified this misbehavior as being hotheaded. It is reasonable to see this misbehavior as an impulsive manner and not his intent.
Also, during Question 5, Dream actually shows a behavior that can be interpreted to keep things private and not cause any drama. Therefore, it is plausible that Dream might be giving a genuine answer, despite the results ending up causing drama anyway.
Q. You note the “statistics had already been debunked”, what was this in reference to and who debunked them?
For this question, Dream says that he was referencing to the first accusation by MinecrAvenver, which started the MST’s verification on his runs. When he stated “The statistics are had already been debunked”, this was in reference to the MST announcing MinecrAvenger’s numbers were wrong. This is a clean, truthful answer, and does not bring any arguments except the part I’m going to nitpick below.
21:49 “The mod team had come out and said the original run that time in the Discord that all of the numbers were off and wrong.”
What Dream is saying here is that since someone with the authority has claimed that the numbers were off and wrong, it is debunked and thus should not be held as proper evidence.
If we apply the same logic to Dream’s response paper, since multiple verified statisticians have claimed that the numbers were off and wrong, Dream’s response paper is debunked and thus should not be held as proper evidence.
Now, since that tweet was posted in Dream’s state of anger and is not what he actually meant, there is possibility that he might actually mean it is not debunked. This is a fair counterargument, and it is acceptable minus the fact that it means we should also bring the original accusation done before the mod’s research and hold it to the same account. So we can say Dream needs to zip up, the statistics had already been debunked.
22:30 “My opinion was that they thought “Oh, I can capitalize on this and make a video.”
This is another subjective explanation given from Dream, and it holds no weight against actually proving or disproving Dream’s statistical accusation. You will notice a common theme going on, is that when Dream explains about his emotions, he gives all of the positive aspects he can, and about other’s emotions, he exploits all of the negative aspects. But that is just my opinionated suggestion and I’m not saying he’s doing it on purpose or whatever, just my opinion.
Q. You wrote in a tweet after the release of the video, two weeks later, that “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!”
Thank you for the totally unbiased, 2 month, 29 page “investigation” in quotes) 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)
This insinuates that the investigation came about for clout and views and that removing massively improbable runs is foolish. The opposite is expressed in your response video. What brought about this change of heart?
Dream explains that there are actually 2 eras of tweeting furious messages. The first period is a couple weeks after the original accuser posted their video(discussed in question 3) and the moderators were during investigation, and the second period is right after the moderators uploaded their report video.
24:15 (Referencing the tweets in the first era) “Again, I don’t agree with everything that I said.”
Dream later claims to have privately apologized for making this tweet to the mods, but he has never made a public apology of it. He has stayed silent of his mistake, and that is not a nice behavior.
The reason why you can’t stay silent about your blunders is that you’re not owning up to it, and you are passively trying to avoid taking the repercussions from them. You are trying to make people forget it ever happened, and you’re giving the impression that you did not lie or said a bad thing. Unfortunately, it seems like Dream does not know this part of taking responsibility, yet he wants to be seen as one who does as he’s admitting it was stupid and he regret it.
One bright note is that at least Dream learns from this lesson, and he deals a similar situation with the MST in a slightly better, yet still manipulative way.
24:34 (Referencing the tweets in the second era) “I was very angry, and I don’t agree with anything that I said on those tweets. That was completely made out of anger, right after I saw the video.”
What do I mean by it is still manipulative? Because just saying “Sorry” and “Sorry for doing this one particular mistake” has a completely different meaning. This shall be further explained as the conversation continues.
24:40 (DarkViperAU) “The reason why these ones were the most problematic is that it implied that the investigation as a whole existed just for clout, as opposed to the video, which are very different claims entirely.”
(Dream) “Those tweets were really, really stupid, and I very much regret those. The only reason I haven’t deleted is just because people will be like “Alright, he’s deleting evidence” or whatever, because anytime I ever I delete anything, people say that. (Well, absolutely. I wouldn’t delete them either, that’s a fair response.)
The part I want to focus on is that Dream is being constantly accused for removing evidence, and for that, Dream has given a fair reply. As said earlier, if you are unreasonably confident that someone is a criminal, everything they does look suspicious. That is a terrible mindset, and accusing Dream over every trivial matter out of spite is a very toxic behavior.
Dream continues to explain why he got to post said tweets, which is a subjective explanation on his emotions and thus does not have any value as an evidence for this matter.
25:27 “I really hope that we won’t have to make things public. And at the time, I already know I have tweeted three weeks before that thread. But I had already apologized to them for that at the time. And I said “I regret this. I regret even making it public. I’d rather handle this in private and try to get things done.”
This is the part in Question 3 that I said Dream might have the intention of keeping things private. Since it is consistent from the previous question, it gives us a possibility that Dream might be making poor decisions when he gets mad and he regrets it later. Therefore, the contradiction in Dream’s behavior of making things public and attracting Drama and later regretting it might be explained this way. Under the assumption that they have made a public apology, I chose not to verify if this private apology actually occurred, since it is, duh, private.
Oh, this is also the part I said earlier that saying “Sorry” and “Sorry for doing this one particular mistake.”
https://twitter.com/dreamwastaken/status/1338669526536347649
This is the public apology Dream has made. The fact that he even made a public apology is already one step forward, considering that he didn’t make one for his previous rant in November. Dream also mentions this apology in his response video,
14:42. “I already apologized on Twitter because I had said some rude things to the mods after the video(The MST’s report) was released. And I really don’t want to send hate to anybody. I responded incredibly immaturely first because I was angry, and I really do regret my response.”
This is a very nice move of Dream, as he is communicating with his main audience that he has made an apology, and that he admits to having committed things that deserves to be apologized.
However, the problem with this apology is that Dream is being vague with his words and he is not showing exactly what he is apologizing for.
https://twitter.com/dreamwastaken/status/1337523741757239299
Is he apologizing for this tweet, the one he defames Geosquare, claiming that he’s using his name to clickbate views, despite the fact that he unmonitized his whole channel?
https://twitter.com/dreamwastaken/status/1337531631972855815
Is he apologizing for this tweet, the one he again discredits Geosquare by saying he made a clickbait YouTube video, and also spreading incorrect information of his deleted run? That run was 5th place when it was submitted, and it was on World Record pace, so calling it 16th place is trying to make it seem trivial, therefore making the MST seem like malicious nitpicking figures.
(Original Message Deleted, we’ll get to that later)
Or Is he apologizing for these messages he said on the Minecraft Java Edition Speedrunning Discord server? I know it’s only Question 5 and these Discord messages will be discussed in Question 7, but it’s still a harsh thing he said to the mod team after their report video came out, so is he apologizing for insulting Geosquare as a clown and defaming his video by calling it clout chasing?
The only thing we can tell from Dream’s apology is that he said some harsh things that he regrets. The problem is, this apology does not address what he is apologizing for, and because of that, the public does not know what Dream did wrong. What is left in people’s head is that Dream apologized, but not what Dream has committed to make him apologize to begin with. This is a manipulative technique if done intentionally, as it gives Dream the benefit of building a positive image as a man who accepts his flaws, and it lets him dodge the negative image he deserves for insulting and defaming others and spreading misinformation to benefit his public stance.
One more thing to note is that Dream chose to use the word, ‘some’. This is another malicious way to use words, as it implies that there are ‘other’ words that are fair and not harsh, and it also allows Dream to include and/or exclude any past stat anytime he wants. This way, whenever any new malicious comment Dream has made surfaces, he can just say, “Oh, I apologized for that already. When I said ‘some’, I also meant that.” This is a terrible tactic that allows Dream be dishonest at his will, as he already futureproofed his apology for any accusations that occurred during the entirety of that specific timeframe.
Dream continues to explain how things went and what he felt around the time the MST’s video was posted, and does not have any significance since it is from his perspective and is subjective matter.
27:37 “Let’s say they have sent me that video before and I could have critiqued certain things I don’t like about; That I thought were more opinionated. “Hey, that statement is inaccurate.” “I don’t like the phrasing of that. That makes me seem more guiltier than I am.” Things like this that I could have potentially have given opinions on. And I don’t think that they are obligated in any way to have given me that opportunity. But I thought that that could have potentially avoided some of my major anger that I had the day I saw the video was released.”
Minus the major anger part, Dream has made a very fair argument. Though the MST’s video tried to be objective, there were some errors that were biased against Dream, most notably Geosquare’s inaccurate statement that Dream regularly deletes his mod folder and the implication of Fabric api being involved. If the MST asked for Dream’s criticism before uploading the video, these blunders could have been prevented and they would not have accused Dream with inaccurate/insignificant reasons which have in the end damaged their video’s credibility.
Some may argue that disclosing the very points of what Dream is accused for is unreasonable, and that it only gives Dream the upper hand to further manipulate/distort the situation and evidence in his favor. That may be possible, however, the benefits from taking Dream’s criticism and making their claim even more objective weighs over the potential harm. Think it this way; Not even Dream can refute what the MST says, since he already agreed upon it beforehand. And if the MST feels like Dream is trying to mess things up, they can just ignore his criticism and address the situation in their video.
Now, I want you to remember this point Dream has made. Because he later makes a complete 180 when this applies to his own response paper. That’s the fun part.
Dream continues to talk about some tournament he was holding by the time and the YouTube streamy awards, which is again talking about his subjective emotion, yadda yadda yadda, you get the drill.
Q. In another tweet you say “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 that?
In your response video, you show one moderator who made these statements and indeed one moderator did leave the team. This implies you lied that multiple moderators made these statements. Was this a lie? If not, where are the other moderators? If you did lie, why did you instantly believe, and find it so impressive to put in your video, the anomoyous testimony of one singular individual who was proporting a narrative not supported by anyone else? Did they have sufficient statistical knowledge to assess that the foundation for the ruling was fraudulent?
This is another case of going through subjective emotions and opinionated stories, though it may contain additional information to clear up one of the vague statements Dream has made.
32:52 “The one that I put quotes in the video were from one moderator. And, like I said, multiple moderators have messaged me, 2, cause I want to just clarify, 2, not like 3, 4, 5, 6, saying things that would lead me to believe that there was bias.”
This is the summarize of Dream’s answer to the whole ‘multiple moderator’ problem. This is valuable information, as it clears up the number of mods allegedly supports Dream, according to Dream. There was 1 prominent moderator who Dream talked throughout the whole 2 months of investigation, and 2 other moderators who also sent him messages, when, we do not actually know.
One thing to note is that the moderator whose quote was used in Dream’s video is anonymous, and is not Willz, the other moderator featured in this video, as he has not hidden his identity.
https://twitter.com/dreamwastaken/status/1337523885231792131
The problem I have with this answer is that it does not clear up Dream’s tweet. Here, Dream says that multiple moderators believe the verdict(The MST’s report) was biased, and that they might quit the mod team. The total number of moderators that contacted Dream is 3, but we do not know exactly how many of them messaged him that the verdict was biased, and how many of them might quit the mod team.
This is after the MST’s report has come out, but the only timeframe Dream explains is from this one prominent moderator who he kept sending and receiving messages for the entire investigation, which is completely useless given this situation.
Dream’s tweet can be interpreted as multiple moderators believe that the verdict was biased, but there could actually be just 1 moderator who said that, maybe 2, maybe all 3, we don’t know. The same goes with how many wants to quit, and would you look at that, there actually was only one moderator who quitted. Why, he even did this kind of thing in his in his response video, didn’t he!
In this interview, Dream has stated that all of the quotes in his response video was from a single moderator. The problem with his presentation is that it made it seem like these quotes were from multiple moderators, which has brought misinformation and further confusion in understanding the actual situation. What Dream should have said was the answer he just made in this interview, “I have 1 moderator who sent me these quotes, and 2 more that also sent me similar messages.”
This type of ambiguous phrasing gives Dream the illusion of having more support from the mods than he actually does, which can be considered spreading misinformation in order to benefit his public image.
33:07 “I have no idea if these things are true. I don’t have reason to doubt the fact that the things that this moderator said were true. So I have no inclination whether or not they were or they were not. And I did say it in the video, not as well as I should have, but I did say that “Maybe this would help explain where my mindset was the way it was.” And that was the main point that I was trying to get across.
Dream does not have to say this, but he did. The reason why I’m bringing it up is because claiming you don’t know for sure and you’re just reiterating what this other person said is a common tactic to shift the blame you get. If it turns out that the mods were not biased, Dream can say “But these mods said it was biased! They tricked me!” However, again, I am not claiming that Dream is actually practicing this malicious technique, it’s just my wild guess. It is unreasonable to assume that in this given statement, unless there are backing evidence.
34:08 Question 7. (Yay, the circus!)
Q. On December 15th, now after 3 weeks of making public comments on discord, twitter and YouTube that could be summarized with your words “Not very happy with the unfair treatment and bias” and “Geosquare go back to the circus” you write on twitter “I want to apologize to the mod team for some harsh things I’ve said since the video came out”. What lead to this change from the weeks long trend because from the sidelines it looked like the very moment people started to criticize you for your comments you apologized to protected yourself from criticism, seemingly because, as you say yourself, you care a great deal about your image.
35:13 “So the stats(from the individual accuser) were released, and then 3 weeks went by. I was talking to the mods in private, things like that.”
Dream has been talking about this issue with the mods in private. This can be considered an evidence that further supports the previous statement he has made that he wishes to keep this accusation private and do not cause any drama.
Dream continues to explain his subjective emotions, no value blah blah. He’s basically saying he was super angry at the moment.
36:49 “I said a really dumb thing in the Discord comment. I said like, go back to the circus. That is one of the dumbest things that I probably ever said in my life.”
Dream admits that he made a bad statement. But he did not publicly acknowledge this until asked by DarkViperAU in this interview. The only public apology he has made is the one posted on his Twitter account that we saw earlier, and that does not directly reference this case. Because of that, as I also said earlier, he’s making himself seem so nice since he’s so apologetic and acceptive and generous, and completely severing off the the actual word he called Geosquare, “Go back to the circus”, so the public cannot see how bad of a person he was.
37:22 (DarkViperAU) “When you just take a person’s negative response away from the context of negativity, or other people’s negative responses, it looks so much worse. You’re giving clarification of what was going on. It doesn’t make your statements seem any better, it does make them seem more understandable.”
This is a great statement, omitting the context and cherry-picking only the negative response is a commonly seen malicious technique. Hope that’s not going to haunt us in the future.
If I would add one more thing to this, it is that like I said multiple times, just because you understand why someone is acting bad does not give him a free pass for doing said bad act.
Dream continues with how he calmed down and did the right thing, subjective emotion, not valuable evidence.
Q. In your reddit post you say that Geosquare lied that you deleted your mods folder regularly. In your video you downplay that claim and say Geosquare said something false. This is humorous when in the same video you criticize others for not choosing their words carefully. In the video you made no mention of what you actually said that lead to Geosquare’s misunderstanding.
39:40 (DarkViperAU) “I can understand why Geosquare may have made that interpretation that he did. Wouldn’t it have been fair to have shown those messages? From the video, the takeaway is that Geosquare is an idiot. Like, “How could he have come to this conclusion? Like, what the hell?”
https://twitter.com/Geosquare_/status/1341873579764424704
This is the link that provides the messages that DarkViperAU is mentioning.
As discussed in the previous question, omitting the context is a malicious technique. DarkViperAU is asking why Dream has decided to omit the context by not including the Discord messages, which might imply he is being malicious.
40:04 “I think on the video, I did put up on the screen. Like, I didn’t read it out-loud but I did put it on the screen while I was talking about that. Not the screenshots, but an explanation of exactly what I did.”
Let’s see what Dream included in his response video, which is shown on 13:02.
What we can see is that Dream included the part about the ‘deleting mod folders regularly’. That was the MST’s mistake, and it is nicely presented. But this sentence seems to be keep going on. It’s like there’s something more to it.
Let’s see what Geosquare actually said in the MST report video.
We can see that Dream has conveniently cropped off the part where is says ‘he deleted his specific 1.16 speedrun profile because was frustrated with the investigation.’ So, let’s get back to that whole part about omitting context out of a negative statement to make someone seem way worse. Ooh, that doesn’t look to good for Dream, since not only did he crop off Geosquare’s correction to make it seem more worse, but he also made a false statement, since he just said “he put up a screenshot of exactly what he did.” He omitted the part saying he was frustrated, thus, he did not show exactly what he did.
By cropping off his negative aspects, Dream has removed his audience to see what misbehavior he has committed and made himself to be seen as innocent. He is again building up himself as a flawless victim, such a malicious move. Also, by showing only Geosquare’s statement and not the actual Discord messages, he is effectively exaggerating Geosquare’s negative aspects, which is again, omitting the context, malicious move.
This is a cropped image from the actual Discord conversation Dream had with the mods, which I already provided a link so you can go check it. Just scroll like 2 pages up.
We can see that a mod requested a copy of Dream’s mods folder, and Dream didn’t provide it since he got salty and deleted his entire 1.16 version. I don’t know if he deleted his folders, by ‘change it all the time’ did he mean ‘regularly delete the contents and then replace it’, or does he has multiple mod profiles and that is what he meant by ‘change’, it’s not sure. As DarkViperAU said, It is reasonable to interpret both sides.
But one thing that I can say is that Dream purposely omitted the reason why he deleted his ‘entire 1.16 version’. From the Discord message, it says “Because I was salty.” Let’s go back to Dream’s response video, 12:46.
“I did mention at another time that I had deleted specifically my “1.16 runs” mod config folder, because I didn’t plan on speedrunning 1.16 anymore.”
In his video, he provides subtitles that convey the same message, but using different words.
“I had deleted my “1.16 runs” sub-mod folder (Which was empty and unused) because I stopped running.”
In both iterations, Dream is claiming that he deleted it since he stopped and/or did not plan on speedrunning. This is not what Dream said in the Discord message “Because I was salty” Dream later on addresses this contradiction a while later.
41:42 “Basically, I stopped speedrunning because I was mad with the investigation. But the way that Geosquare phrased it was, in my opinion, completely inaccurate. Because he said “Uh, he deleted his mod for frustration with the investigation.” When the reality was “he stopped speedrunning for the time being because he knew that there was so much going on. And therefore, he didn’t have the list of the exact mods he was using at the time.” “
So, by ‘salty’, Dream meant that he was ‘too pressured to speedrun’, so it’s technically both things. This is a reasonable explanation, and in this case Geosquare might have made another mistake in his correction. If we assume that Dream actually gave Geosquare that whole explanation, then it is Geosquare who purposely chose negative words to attack Dream’s public image, and that is a malicious move.
However, if that’s the case, Dream would have definitely brought it up in his response video and accuse Geosquare for being malicious since he ignored Dream’s explanation completely and depicted him as a shady figure, but he didn’t. So, I would like to assume that what actually happened was Dream simply said “I meant I have multiple mod profiles, not delete my mod folder regularly” and didn’t give the full story. That way, Geosquare knows that he misunderstood the ‘delete mod folders regularly’ part, but he wasn’t corrected about the ‘salty’ part. That is the most plausible way I can picture how it went, but it is just my guess and I’m not suggesting that’s how things actually went.
But whatever the case is, that does not change the fact that Dream also purposely omitted negative information to paint himself as a better man than what he actually was, and indirectly defaming others who have come with misunderstandings because of that very negative word. He should have included the information of him saying the word ‘salty’ or Geosquare stating that he got frustrated, but he didn’t. Heck, he should have included the Discord messages to show how Geosquare misunderstood the ‘regularly delete mod folder’ part, and this is what DarkViperAU points out right away.
40:17 (Dream explains he put Geosquare’s correction about ‘regularly delete mod folder’)
(DarkViperAU) “But not what you exactly said.”
(Dream) “Yeah.”
(DarkViperAU) “So Geosquare just comes across as a complete idiot for coming to this conclusion. Like, how could he have come to this conclusion?”
(Dream) “Yeah, so, yeah. That’s definitely- yeah. I think that the way I phrased that, I probably could have phrased that better. But I do think that it’s one of those things where the way that he phrased things, again, painted me as really guilty. And then, I guess with the response- I should have phrased it better.”
One thing to note is that DarkViperAU is talking about the ‘regularly delete mod folder’ part, not the ‘salty’ part. This later comes to a hilarious moment, so keep it in mind.
Anyway, Dream admits that he should have phrased things better. So, just like Geosquare made an update in his video, it would be fair to assume Dream also did a corrective action and make an update in his video as well, don’t you think? Or maybe he could have apologized it publicly on Twitter again, since he admits he made the same mistake as Geosquare. I mean, surely, it’s literally the same Discord messages they are talking about, he just had to do the right thing and add a correction or something, anything, right?
He didn’t.
Dream continues to explain the whole misunderstanding about deleting mod folders again, which is already explained numerous times so I will not bother transcribing again. The only noteworthy part was his explanation of the word ‘salty’, and I already covered that.
42:11 (DarkViperAU) “My issues were only with how much culpability was on Geosquare there, and how likely that he was malicious in his interpretations as opposed to simply “it was just a misunderstanding.”
This is the part where I said earlier about Geosquare purposely twisting the word ‘salty’ to maliciously harm Dream’s public image. DarkViperAU is stating that in a more general scale.
42:26 “I think it was totally a misunderstanding. But I mentioned in the video, I think it’s a big misunderstanding.”
This comes right after Dream gave the explanation about how he used the word ‘salty’ in mind. Therefore, it is safe to assume he is still talking about it, and not randomly jumping back to the ‘delete mod folder regularly’ issue. He states that he thinks it’s a misunderstanding, which suggests that Dream did not explain what he meant by ‘salty’ to Geosquare, which is what I assumed earlier.
42:38 (DarkviperAU)“I believe I watched someone else’s response and like, “Oh, he deletes his mod folder all the time? That’s weird.” “
Prior to this exact moment, Dream has spent minutes explaining how ‘salty’ meant ‘stop speedrunning by the time since he knew too many things were going around’ and such. However, DarkViperAU is sticking to the ‘delete mod folder regularly’ part, which was completely explained and rebutted in Dream’s video. That part was completely on the MST’s account, and Dream properly accused and addressed it in his video.
What was going on was is, while Dream was talking about ‘salty’, DarkViperAU was only focused on ‘regularly delete mod folders’ for this whole discussion. Since both figures did not explicitly mention exactly what word or statement they were talking about, they ended up talking about two completely different subjects. If there is any hilarious moment in this video, I believe this is it.
Q. A premise of your video is that the original statistics are wrong. As you do not have the relevant knowledge to make that assessment yourself, what gives you such confidence to make that claim? I ask this in part because, from my reading of the paper, you either didn’t understand it or dishonestly represented it. From an outside perspective, you presented it as certainly true just because it had the conclusions you preferred.
Dream starts it off with another subjective explanation about how in his perspective, he would act that way. This has no value in discussing the statistical accusation, appeal to emotion, you get the point.
46:11 (DarkViperAU) “But for a person who isn’t convinced, most of what you said there is dependent upon already believing in your innocence.”
That is exactly the point about how this ‘explaining motives is subjective and therefore has no value as an evidence’, which I’ve painstakingly mention multiple times. Dream’s justifications of his motives do not add or subtract any doubt or innocence to his statistical allegation, and therefore should be ignored entirely, as it serves no purpose in clearing his accusation.
46:16 (DarkViperAU) “From an outside observer, we don’t have much reason to believe one statistical paper over the other.”
This is partially true, only with the precondition that every statistical paper has not made any objective flaws. Dream’s response paper has made countless amounts of objective flaws, and therefore is not allowed to be considered as a statistical paper at all. However, because DarkViperAU does not have enough knowledge to acknowledge this, he has no choice but to assume Dream’s response paper is legit.
46:27 (DarkViperAU) “I find that people are believing one statistical paper over the other, not because they have a statistical background or a real reason to, but just because they like the conclusions of one paper over the other.”
This is a fair point. No one should take any statistical paper, or any evidence at all, just because they like what that evidence suggests. And that is why I implore you to study basic statistics, because I am not continuously denying Dream’s paper because I don’t like its conclusion (which is already not good for Dream, anyway), it is because it has objective flaws and thus lost its credibility.
47:32 “Instead of just looking at ender pearls, they combined ender pearls and blaze rods. Cause, when you’re combining two things, that means they could have combined anything. They could have combined ender pearls with flint, they could have combined ender pearls with other drops other than blaze rods and compare the probability. So, instead of just calculating the odds of being ender pearls and blaze rods, which would be way lower, you have to calculate the odds of them finding any pair of significant RNG that would come to a conclusion of this.”
Dream explains the concept of accounting for p-hacking, one of the more difficult concepts that the statistical reports contain, which is in fact completely accurate. And Dream claims that he has no expertise on statistics whatsoever. So, I want to point out that even Dream has some understanding on what’s going on with his report. Again, I implore you to study basic statistics to understand what the MST, Dream, and any other 3rd party is explaining in their report. And you also get to notice just what terrible status Dream’s report is in, take that as a bonus.
47:59 “My list is a list of things that I believe, like I said, I consulted with Illumina and Benux, other speedrunners that also believe that it is a more accurate list of things that are of reasonable importance, at least as important as blaze rods, maybe not important as pearls, cause pearls are one of the more important things in Minecraft, in speedrunning.”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1izin_dl8PwuF5jFaiVwKSGBs_tfrpDj3tQdE_RwCgKM/edit
This is the document that shows Dream’s list of variables important for speedrunning.
It shows that Dream has 15 non-seed based RNG variables and 22 seed based RNG variables. As someone with sufficient knowledge of Minecraft and statistics (or so I claim), I do not find Dream’s list to be accurate, both in and against Dream’s favor.
The most noticeable error is that Dream has made the decision to use all 37 variables. Why is that a problem? Because ender pearl barters and blaze rod drops(the two items Dream is accused of) are both non-seed based RNG variables, and they have no relationship with seed based RNG variables.
Seed based RNG variables are predetermined once the world is generated. They do not go through an RNG generator to produce random values throughout the run. The values of these variables are set once the game generates the world file, and does not affect the gameplay after its creation whatsoever. They are only calculated once for the entire run.
Non-seed based RNG variables are not predetermined once the world is generated. These variables continuously goes through RNG generators to create random values throughout the run. As they are constantly renewed and recalculated throughout the run, they continuously affect the gameplay, as they are continuously given new values. They keep getting calculated again and again, as long as the run keeps going on.
The two statistical anomalies Dream is accused of modifying, blaze rod drops and ender pearl barters are both non-seed based RNG variables that continuously get calculated, and when we account for p-hacking, we are accounting for observing these random events determined by RNG throughout the run and missing them happening. Seed based RNG variables are predetermined and unchangeable even before the run has even begun, and does not trigger a random event. Because of this, the decision to include Non-seed based RNG for p-hacking is wrong. What Dream is doing is inaccurately adding more variables to adjust the numbers to his favor, which is exactly what he has accused the MST has done. In the MST’s case, Dream claimed that they have multiplied probabilities to make it even lower. In Dream’s case he is multiplying bigger numbers to make it even higher.
On the contrary, when we look more into the list, we can see that Dream has actually lowered the total number of non-seed based RNG variables by grouping multiple variables together. For instance, the 13th non-seed based RNG listed on Dream’s list is ‘Substantially Lower Deadly Mob Spawn Rates’. This broad term combines numerous variables that are individually calculated. I will list some of them below.
- Spawning Cycle: Hostile mobs have a spawning cycle once every game tick (1/20 of a second.) By adjusting the interval of the spawning cycle, we can control the rate of all hostile mobs spawning. In speedrunning terms, you want the spawning cycle to be longer, so that hostile mobs will spawn less frequently.
- Mob Caps: Hostile mobs have a mob cap of 70. By adjusting the value of the mob cap, we can control the total amount of hostile mobs allowed to spawn. In speedrunning terms, you want the mob cap for hostile mobs to be lower, as it limits the amount of the total amount of hostile mobs.
- Size of Pack Spawn: All hostile mobs have a max pack spawn size of 4. By adjusting the probability of the size of a pack, we can control the probability of hostile mobs forming a pack. In speedrunning terms, you want the hostile mobs less likely have a max pack spawn, therefore spawning in less numbers.
- Max Pack Spawn Limit: Continued from above, by adjusting the max size of a pack, we can limit the maximum size of a hostile mob pack. In speedrunning terms, by lowering the max pack spawn limit, you can completely exclude the possibility of getting a max pack spawn.
- Modifying The Spawning Algorithm: Minecraft chooses a random X, Y, and Z coordinate when it spawns a mob. And due to how its calculation works, the closer you are to the bottom of the world,(smaller Y value) the higher percent chance you have the mob to spawn. By adjusting the spawning algorithm, we can control the probability of mobs being spawned. In speedrunning, you want the hostile mobs to spawn less, so it is possible to lower the overall spawn rate in order to make hostile mobs spawn less as well. However, this variable affects all mobs, which makes it easily noticeable when tampered.
Like that, I already identified 5 hidden variables that activate on individual calculations. And I didn’t even account for the individual type of hostile mobs such as zombies, skeletons and creepers, which will divide these 5 variables even further. As the point of this document is not coming up with an accurate list of important variables, I will stop discussing this topic from here. But the point is, the list of Dream’s non-seed based RNG variables is inaccurate against Dream, and he can identify way more variables by distinguishing individual calculations.
Now, we have seen that Dream’s list of important variables are inaccurate both in and against Dream’s favor. This is not a matter of opinion; It is wrong and cannot be applied in its current state. Because of that, we cannot account Dream’s insistence that his list is more accurate than the MST’s one. Since the final calculation in Dream’s report paper uses this number of variables for its correction, we know that the result Dream has gotten does not represent his actual luck in any capacity.
However, the same can be claimed on MST’s side, as they do not have a list to begin with. The MST couldn’t come up with 10 variables, and decided to claim it generous. The problem is, the MST does not have any concrete evidence to prove if there actually are less than 10 variables, or if they lack the ability to identify any significant variable at all. Although I doubt that is the case, since the MST shown their ability to analyze the actual code of Minecraft in their videos, this ambiguity only brings suspicion and doubt to the whole equation.
Because we cannot confirm the MST’s generous number is actually generous or not, I do not believe the MST’s result can be considered perfectly accurate. However, that doesn’t mean the MST’s number is wrong, as it is not disproved that their number is inaccurate. Maybe there are major obstacles when you try to modify the variables suggested by Dream, due to how Minecraft is coded. The MST has analyzed Minecraft’s code for this investigation, and their insight might help debunking or identifying these RNG variables. They might have actually come up with Dream’s variables, but determined it is impossible to modify. And because of that, it is possible that 10 might actually be a generous suggestion when discussing RNG variables.
On Dream’s case, we identified that the non-seed based RNG variables listed are wrong, due to grouping up individual values that should be calculated separately. And because of that, we know Dream’s calculation is wrong for sure and therefore cannot be accounted for.
My suggestion is that we must wait for the MST’s explanation on why 10 can be considered a generous number or what their new calculation accounting their new number of variables is, and for Dream to identify his true number of non-seed based RNG variables and actually calculate his statistical luck this time, as well as fix the other errors in his report.
48:26 "Up-ing the blaze rod percentage drop rate, it does like, nothing. Literally, if you were to actually practice speedrun Minecraft- Maybe, I got a benefit of 1 rod by that extra luck. Which, I know, obviously, you calculated it and go “you’ve got a benefit of 20 rods” But the thing is, blazes spawn in packs, so you usually end up getting extra rods, anyway.”
That is a subjective opinion, as one could also argue that it is a way to slightly raise your probability with low risks of getting caught for. This statement has nothing to do with Dream’s statistical luck, and therefore does not account to him being innocent or guilty.
49:08 (DarkViperAU) “The idea that you would change blaze rod luck to remove frustration issues of RNG doesn’t seem- It doesn’t really fit that idea, cause it’s already 50%.”
This is another subjective opinion, and holds no value in verifying Dream’s statistical case.
The MST did not choose to include blaze rod luck just to make the probability seem even lower. They have calculated that the probability of Dream’s blaze rod luck alone is 1 in 113 billion. This is an abnormally small luck by itself, and thus the MST were forced to include it.
According to Dream’s response paper, his blaze rod luck alone is 3*10^-8, 3 in 100 million, which is 1 in 33 million. I do not believe this is at any way accurate. However, I will pretend to not now statistics and give the blind benefit of doubt and assume it is, just for the sake of Dream’s defense. 1 in 113 billion is obviously way lower than 1 in 33 million, but 1 in 33 million is still a ridiculously small number. Despite Dream claiming modifying blaze rod drops has no significant benefit(and it being a subjective speculation), his blaze rod luck is still insanely small, which is only reasonable to investigate and/or come up with an explanation.
Despite Dream claiming modifying blaze rod drops has no significant benefit(and it being a subjective speculation), his blaze rod luck is still insanely small, which is only reasonable to investigate and/or come up with an explanation. However, the way Dream describes it is that the MST deliberately multiplied the blaze rod luck with the pearl trade luck, just to make it go smaller. Considering he doesn’t mention his blaze rod luck is that small, this can be interpreted as a malicious depiction.
Q. At the beginning of your video you state that “Only my 6 luckiest streams were included”. The implication being both that not including your other 5 streams was wrong to do and that they were specifically excluded because they were not lucky enough.
-Why do you believe these streams should have been included? The paper you commissioned makes no argument they should be, and you make no argument yourself in your video.
- Do you believe the original authors and investigators were malicious in their stream selection? What do you believe motivated them to make the selections that they did?
- What was the time gap between these first 5 streams and the following 6?
- You called the lack of the inclusion of the 5 streams a misconception. As a person who was following this discussion, I had not heard them mentioned until you and your commissioned paper mentioned them. What made you believe a significant amount of people were misconception that 11 streams were assessed not 6?
50:10 (When asked about why he included the 5 streams) "I don’t think they should be included. I think they should be known that they were not included, but I don’t think they should be included."
If by including 5 streams means ‘get the sampling data from the 5 streams’, this is true, as the probabilities including 5 streams is shown to have no significant statistic value at all.
50:28 “I believe that if they(5 streams) had been lucky, they would have been included.”
This is a manipulative response, because Dream is making it seem like the MST first investigated all 11 streams, and then chose not to include the first 5 streams because they weren’t lucky (FYI, that’s the definition of P-hacking, deliberately omitting insignificant samples after you collect it.) This is maliciously depicting the MST for being dishonest with their investigation, because the MST stated why they only investigated 6 streams in their report, and they did not collect data of the first 5 streams at all.
This is from the MST’s Report, page 3. It says they reviewed six consecutive livestreams. They investigated 6 streams. They didn’t investigate 11 streams and then just give away the 5 streams because it didn’t fit their narrative.
There is a possibility that the MST lied in their report and they actually collected data from the first 5 streams, but that is not what the MST claims, and since Dream also didn’t provide any evidence that the MST lied in their report, there is no reason to assume that is the case.
This is from Dream’s response paper, page 6. In here, Dream’s statistician says “I make no assumptions or assertions about MST’s motives other than their self-acclaimed choice of investigating a specific set of runs precisely because they were unusually low probability.” They did not assume the MST had any malicious intent when choosing to investigate 6 streams.
Through this, we can tell Dream is highly suggesting that the MST cherry-picked the data on his behalf, which is maliciously depicting the MST.
One may argue that by ‘include’, Dream meant that the MST only calculated the luck of getting 6 lucky streams, and they didn’t calculate the chance of getting the luck from his 6 lucky streams out of 11 total streams. However, (though I believe that is not what Dream meant,) the MST actually did calculate it, so it doesn’t matter what Dream meant.
This is from the MST’s report, page 21. They are correcting Dream’s pearl luck to account. The highlighted area says ‘in a sequence of 11 streams (the number of streams that Dream did)’, which shows they accounted for the 11 streams. Therefore, there is no way to justify Dream maliciously depicting as if MST investigated the first 5 streams and intentionally dropped the data afterwards.
DarkViperAU askes when these streams were done and Dream answers, which is verifying information and not adding any new statements. Dream would later on explain his mindset when he streamed the accused runs, which is again subjective speculation.
51:57 “There definitely is a difference between the two group of streams, but the way that is was presented made a lot of people believe it was all my streams ever.”
This is a fair response from Dream, as though the MST’s report dedicates a whole section explaining why they chose the 6 latter streams, they do not clearly address the existence of the first 5 streams in their video or paper. Only the ones willing to dig through the MST’s report would have noticed that the MST recognizes the first 5 streams, as it is not written in an easily noticeable area. This has led to the misconception that Dream only did 6 streams, and though it does not disprove the MST’s report by itself, it has undeservingly harmed Dream’s reputation with potential misinformation. The MST should have given the full story of the 11 streams.
52:08 “I saw tons of comments on Reddit and everywhere saying that “Well, you can’t say it’s cherry-picked because of the fact that they included every stream he’s ever done.” And so that was mostly me clearing up the misconception. And like you said, they weren’t included in the analysis in the report.”
The misconception is that the MST included every stream he’s ever done, and as we already went through the MST acknowledging 11 streams, that is not true. However, this is a fair response from Dream, and it is the MST’s blunder that caused it.
Another potential misconception is that when people were claiming it wasn’t cherry-picked because they included every ‘stream’ Dream has ever done, what they could have meant was that they included every ‘run’ Dream has ever done (for his 6 streams). People with little knowledge of Minecraft or streaming often have the misconception that streams and runs are interchangeable words that have the same meaning, when in reality there can be multiple runs in a single stream.
One potentially inaccurate statement Dream has made is that the first 5 streams weren’t included in the analysis in the report. They were in fact included in it, as we just saw above. They were just not used for sampling data. I assume by ‘include’, Dream meant they weren’t included in the sampling group to count blaze rods and ender pearl trade rates. Since this term is easily confusable, I do not believe Dream had any malicious intent in this statement alone.
53:01 “If the other five streams were just as lucky, they would have been included. But I also think that if there was one stream in the group of streams that was really unlucky, it probably would have been included, too.”
Subjective assumption, no value. Malicious answer, implying the MST was P-hacking.
53:18 “Let’s say it was the first stream of the six. Would it have been included? Let’s say if it was completely- super unlucky. Would they have included it or would they have said “No, it’s still five in a row, so we’ll take those 5.” Let’s say it was the second stream. Would they say “Oh, the first stream was really lucky. The second one- The next four, we’re just going to take the next four.”
This is the very example of P-hacking. And Dream is implying the MST has malicious intention of performing that malicious act of cherry-picking. However, say it with me-
53:34 “I really don’t know their intentions, so I don’t know what they would have done. We don’t have any way of knowing what they would have done.”
Thank you for explaining it to us, Dream.
53:41 (DarkViperAU) “I had not considered what you said before, that they may have included those first 5 streams had they been lucky. That is interesting to consider.”
DarkViperAU has fallen for Dream’s manipulative trick. We don’t know if the MST actually counted the blaze rod drops and ender pearl trades for the first five streams, and then decide not to include that. That is not what the MST’s paper says, but DarkViperAU is now under the assumption that they did.
53:54 (DarkViperAU) “Because the paper (Dream’s response paper) goes into a great detail to saying like “Look, I can’t tell you when you should make the determination as to how many streams to include or when the cheating likely occurred.”
That is not a fair comparison, since the MST stated that they only investigated 6 streams from the beginning. Only if the MST investigated the 11 streams and then decided to say the cheating probably happened since the 6th stream does this statement becomes fair.
Q. At the very beginning of the video on your list of quick misconceptions to clear up, you literally state outright that the paper clears you of any wrong doing, stating “If all 11 streams are included, no statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities”. This is of course false on multiple levels. Calling a misconception to be quickly addressed rather than the premise to be argued for is the smaller part but more importantly while the paper has that quote it only applies to a specific form of analysis on those 11 streams. As the paper notes, numerous times, it shouldn’t be a surprise if you add a bunch of normal readings to a group of unusual readings that the new group will look less unusual. But even analysing all 11 streams, there were still scenarios where your odds were quite high. Do you accept the charge that you misrepresented the paper, if not, do you have a defence for your expression of it?
At first the two ramble about the reason of using the phrase related to ‘wrong doing’ which is insignificant and unrelated as it is a subjective statement about motives.
57:03 (DarkViperAU) “Your interpretation does seem plausible to me. I don’t claim to have absolute knowledge.”
That is how a person without the knowledge to back him up should act. Claiming you know what you don’t often leads to terrible conclusions. So DarkViperAU made the right choice, unlike someone else.
Dream continues to give the false assumption that the MST actually counted the number of drops in the first 5 streams and then deliberately ignored it, which is again, a subjective speculation and manipulative answer.
59:11 “And also, the main outcome that he(The Author of Dream’s Response Paper) mentions is not the outcome that includes the 5 streams. We wanted to go with what- I even suggested him as we should just go with- Using the same stuff as them as essentially. We could correct things they did, but you should use exactly the same parameters, I guess, that they used.”
This is again, true. As by include, what Dream and the paper means is ‘sample data from all 11 streams.’ The result they calculated (although it’s wrong) was not used for the argument, and Dream has made a fair explanation.
Question 12 is about Dream and his statistician, which is what I mentioned in the beginning that I won’t cover. It is subjective speculation and has no significance over the actual statistics.
Q. The authors write quite clearly “The Author’s opinion is that the original report was well-written and was mostly correct in how it assessed Dream’s odds. It provided an explanation that works well for both the laymen and the expert. However, there are several issues and inaccuracies that are addressed here”
Do you feel that the way you presented the original paper, in terms of its degree of inaccuracy, communicates well the author’s opinion on the matter?
Young, volunteers, I am sure they did their best, off by 7.49999 trillion. This last number of course is not in the paper anywhere and only comes close to showcase on of the half dozen scenarios based on different assumptions explained in the paper.
Dream explains why he did it, subjective speculation, has no meaning.
1:04:07 “One small thing- and I even said this to the mods. I was like, you should be very careful. Because, one small thing- Like, let’s say you remove one ender pearl. Boom! That’s like a trillion down. You just remove 1 in 1 trillion. So when you’re working with numbers so small and a probability so small, every little mistake makes a huge difference.”
If only he told this to his statistician.
1:04:23 “So the author’s opinion was obviously “Hey, they made a few little mistakes. That made a huge difference.”
Talking from experience, I assume? Here’s one example of a little mistake he made.
This is from Dream’s response paper which claims that the MST’s report made a mistake with their example with getting 20 heads in 100 coin tosses. This whole example is meant to demonstrate how they are overshooting the calculation so it’s way lower than what it actually is. But Dream’s statistician claims that the overshooting method gives a 1 in 13,000, when the actual calculation is 1 in 6,300. What does this mean, you might ask?
According to Dream in his response video, 8:54, the MST’s “Lowest Possible Odds” formula was twice as high as the actual odds, which means it’s not the lowest and is therefore a wrong model.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DreamWasTaken2/comments/kkaysw/the_chances_of_lucky_streaks/
This is post made by the statistician redditor, and they teach you that the actual odds is not 1 in 6,300, but is actually 1 in 25,575. This is not just some big numbers thrown, they actually explain what is going on and how you calculate it, one step at a time. They even show you where they assume Dream’s statistician made his mistake. Their post is objectively true, and it is displayed in a way that even people with no knowledge in statistics understand the calculational error. For this example, Dream’s statistician is objectively wrong, as he miscalculated the actual odds. What a shame that Dream just had to use this wrong example for his video.
1:05:06 (DarkViperAU) “I do not like the way that it was presented. It came across to me- It was too performative. Too drama to me.”
DarkViperAU notices Dream is not focused on rebutting his allegations, but is rather focused on building an image and making a show.
1:05:16 “That’s kinda how YouTube works- I mean… (It is.)”
Dream accidently states that his response video was performative, and that he was exploiting the accusation as drama material since that’s how YouTube works.
Because of this statement, the previous statement Dream made that he wants to keep things private and doesn’t want to make drama is now contradicted. He did a good job keeping it consistent, but this statement makes it fall apart.
1:05:50 “Like, if this was before I had popularity on YouTube and a following, I would have definitely presented things differently. That’s just because that’s how YouTube works. The reason this video has this many views as is does right now is because the fact that certain things are presented in ways that it was the most consumable, and the most watchable and the most way to make them like the video and make the video to get to a wider audience. And those are the things that I’d prefer not to do, but I don’t think it’s dishonest to do that. I just think it’s honest knowing “Hey, if I phrase it is this way, it’s going to be better to receive it this way. Honestly, depending on what side you’re on, you may think that one is dishonest”
This is a deceiving way to phrase “I know I’m doing things what people might consider dishonest, but you gotta do it this way to get more views.”
This statement makes me question if he really does hold speedrunning dearly and he doesn’t want to make any drama, if he wants to keep things private. Because in this statement, he’s saying that even when he doesn’t prefer to do so, he will act performative and make a drama if it means getting more views.
Dream continues to talk about the statistician’s credentials, which has nothing to do with actually dealing with his statistical allegations.
DarkViperAU also says something about your lack of knowledge might make you misunderstand the statistical paper, which I think is a good statement.
Dream makes the excuse that he rushed it, and therefore it became sloppy. This is the same man who said you have to be careful with numbers, because small mistakes create huge outcomes. Since Dream’s paper had way more, if not the equal amount of mistakes that he claims the MST’s paper contained, all of Dream’s claims saying the MST’s paper cannot be taken as valid rebuttals.
1:09:56 Question 14
Q. You claim the first paper “Calculated the odds of a top 1000 speedrunner on recording or stream, getting these odds during a streak of 6 streams or less”. Having read both the first and second paper, this was not immediately obvious to me. So I spoke to the authors of the first paper, they claim that what you believe they should have done would be grossly unethical as it would be biased in favour of finding you guilty. I asked them this question “If I sat down, myself, and attempted to replicate what Dream experienced myself, how many times would I have to attempt it before I could be confident I would experience it?” There answer was sextillions of attempts, 1 with 21 zeroes after it compared to the 12 of a trillion. I am a laymen, I have done stats courses but obviously I lack the ability to assess the best way to ask or calculate the answers to this question. However, you confidently expressed that they asked the wrong question and should have asked another to be fairer. What is your basis for this assessment especially given that none of this is explicitly in the report you commissioned?
This is what the question is asking of, shown on Dream’s response video 4:24. Dream claims that the MST did option 1, which is actually a nice move of Dream, since he’s trying to be fair to the MST.
The MST did not calculate either option 1 or 2. They calculated the odds of a top 1,000 speed runner, on a recording or stream, getting these odds during 11 streams.
This is from the MST’s report, page 21. They are correcting the naïve luck of pearl trades, which is what Dream claims to be option 1.
Any active runner in the Minecraft speedrunning community’ means top 1,000 speed runner. ‘Within his 11 streams’ means they will assume the lucky 6-stream-streak will happen somewhere in a total of 11 streams. This is not what Dream said, ‘DURING A STREAK OF 6 STREAMS OR LESS’, but that’s probably because Dream doesn’t know statistics and I believe there won’t be a malicious intent here.
By the way, Dream didn’t even give a close answer to this question. He did not address anything about the odds of a top 1,000 speedrunner on recording or stream or whatever. He completely dodged the question with an unrelated answer, and unfortunately DarkViperAU fails to catch it.
1:12:00 “The two questions that I think that should be asked are “What are the odds of this happening to somebody? Or to anybody, or to multiple people in the Minecraft community that are doing all these piglin trades and all these things?” Because then I think it’s a fairer assessment to say “Hey, this is impossible.” Verses saying what, you know, I believe their original presentation was essentially “Hey, these odds are so low that this is literally impossible, and you are dumb for believing it. If you think that it is possible”, which I think is fair to the assessment of “Hey, should we verify this run?” “But fair to the assessment of “Should we brand Dream as a cheater?”
What I think Dream is saying is that the MST shouldn’t have presented it that way, they should unverify his run for being too lucky, not brand him as a cheater and insult him. It is another subjective statement that doesn’t affect the actual statistical accusation, and if Dream is claiming that the MST branded him as a cheater. The way the MST presented their video(the title literally says ‘Did Dream Fake His Speedruns’) and the words used in their statistical report greatly suggests Dream being a cheater, which is understandable in Dream’s account. the two questions of ‘calling a run unverifiable’ and ‘branding someone a cheater’ continues to persist in this interview.
Q. (DarkViperAU): “You seem to be suggesting that it doesn’t matter how improbable a run is, you should never conclude a person as a cheater.”
1:13:13 “Well, no. I think that- I think that there’s obviously certain things that- There’s obviously some- I don’t think it’s unfair to conclude someone is a cheater off of purely probability, especially depending on what it is. But what I do think is that it’s definitely something that you should have more confident outside of it. More confident outside of the statistics.”
Dream starts with the answer with ‘no. I think that-‘. It is safe to assume that Dream is talking about his personal view.
DarkViperAU points out the contradiction that Dream has said “you should never conclude a person as a cheater based on probability” in his response video. I couldn’t pinpoint this exact moment, but since Dream does not claims he didn’t, I will assume that that is the case.
1:13:43 “I think my personal view, my personal view is that I never would, and that you never should.”
This feels quite odd. Dream is literally rebutting his own personal view, what he literally just said before, thus creating a contradiction.
We could somehow fabricate a possible explanation, such as Dream’s first statement was about how he thinks others are like, and his second statement is how he thinks that him and others should be like. This interpretation creates a statement that goes like “Depending on what it is, it’s fair to conclude someone is a cheater purely off of possibility, but I think you never should.”
This is a reasonable interpretation of what Dream’s contradiction actually meant, and I hope it’s not an attempt to gaslight DarkViperAU by using his ambiguity of words to escape the contradiction he just created.
1:14:34 (DarkViperAU makes an example about some crazy multiple 1 out of million chances aligning to beat a speedrun in record time with a 6-hour difference from 2nd place which is unverifiable)
1:15:03 “It’s like, as an example, I think that the probability should be gaged with other stuff. I think there’s something he mentioned that there’s this logical fallacy called the prosecutor’s fallacy. What it means is that that somebody generally will equate the odds of something happening with the odds of someone cheated, when they’re not. They may be comparable, they may be correlated, but they’re not at all similar.”
The point of the prosecutor’s fallacy is that you can’t claim someone is guilty just with statistics, and that you also need physical evidence. This is a fair point, and as long as there is no physical evidence that Dream actually modified his client, it is unreasonable to claim that Dream cheated.
However, that is when it’s talking about physical evidence, and not the behavioral justifications that Dream is bringing up. This shows Dream does not understand the prosecutor’s fallacy, and thus he is misinforming DarkViperAU with inaccurate knowledge. I do not know if this is intentional or not, therefore I will not claim he is maliciously tricking him into mislearning the wrong meaning of said fallacy.
One problem of the prosecutor’s fallacy being applied in this case is that probability itself is something that can be proven by statistics.
Assume there is a monte where the proposed win rate is 25%. If we were to verify this 25%, we can play the monte for a significantly large number and use our win rates to calculate the actual probability. For example, if we played the monte 1,000 times and got 500 wins, which is a 50% win rate, it is safe to assume the actual win rate is 50% and the monte is rigged.
This is what happened to Dream’s case, as for the ender pearl monte of a proposed 4.73% win rate, Dream played it 211 times and has actually gotten a 16% win.
The matter boils down to if 211 is a significantly large number, did they did the calculations right, how frequently would this actually happen or whatnot, but long story short, the MST did the math to correct it and their conclusion is that the only explanation is that Dream’s game was modified (Which is technically not calling Dream a cheater, but it gives the implication that he did so Dream’s response is reasonable.)
1:15:25 “If, let’s say, like Illumina, who’s one of the most respected speedrunner. He spedrun since 2012 and like- He’s by far the most respected and trusted speedrunner in Minecraft. If, let’s say, he had odds that were, you know, 1 in 10 million, I would be much much more inclined to believe him than if some random guy, like you mentioned, got a six run streak that no one knows who it is.”
This is a nice thing to say about Illumina, but someone being famous and respected has no significant correlation with someone actually cheating. This is again subjective speculation and appeal to emotion. There has been multiple cases where skillful and respected figures in speedrunning has cheated, two famous ones being Todd Rogers and Billy Mitchel. Emotional fondness does not in anyway help proving or disproving statistical allegations or accusations of cheating the game. Therefore, it should not be considered at all, as it has no significance.
Also, this is the example Dream brought up for explaining the prosecutor’s fallacy, which requires physical evidence, not emotional justifications. This is misleading, and that is because Dream does not understand the very concept he is discussing about, or he is misusing it to justify his appeal to emotion.
1:15:49 (DarkViperAU) “I understand what you’re saying that external factors should be taken in consideration to whether to believe that something improbable happened based on cheating or simple chance.”
DarkViperAU also misunderstood the prosecutor’s fallacy, as in here the external factors does not mean physical evidence but subjective speculation and reputation, which are basically appeal to emotion, another logical fallacy.
Dream goes back to talking about the ‘unverifiable’ and ‘calling someone a cheater’ problem. Basically, what Dream is trying to achieve is his run being unverifiable for its astronomical amount of luck, but also not being called ‘he probably cheated’.
This boils down to ‘I am so lucky that I got a run that you can’t verify’, which means ‘I’m just that lucky.’ Again, what a way to sound stupid, according to Dream.
Another point to notice is that Dream is addressing the situation as if he is accused for cheating a single run. That is not the case. Dream is accused for cheating 22 runs that were played on stream, not his record run. The run that got removed from the leaderboards had 3 barters and 2 pearl trades. That is already a suspicious looking 66%, but in reality, it’s not that bad as it seems when we plug it in the Binominal Distribution formula.
The actual luck of Dream getting at least 2 pearl trades in 3 barters is approximately 0.0064, a 1 out of 156 chance. Don’t get it wrong, it is lucky, since it’s only 0.64%, but it’s not even close to the ridiculous 1 in 40 billion(MST) or 1 in 3.3 billion(Dream) chance suggested by both papers.
By the way, this I realized nobody mentioned what Dream’s calculated pearl trade luck is, and just to show I’m not making things up, here’s a screenshot from Dream’s response paper. The value they used is 3*10^10, 3 in 10 billion, which is 1 in 3.3 billion (333 million if you go with 3*10^-9). Nothing even close to the 1 in 156.
Dream’s record run was lucky, but it wasn’t that lucky and he’s not accused for it. He’s accused for cheating 6 streams, and since the luck involving these 6 streams are ridiculously huge, all 22 runs performed during this period are all unverifiable, regardless of how lucky or unlucky each individual run was.
Dream continues to push his point that ‘unverifying a run’ and ‘calling someone a cheater’ is different. That is true, and since the MST gave the implication that Dream cheated, it is a fair argument.
1:16:21 (Previously saying it’s understandable to unverify a run) “But it’s a different probability to the fact of “Okay, let’s look into every external factor of “Did this person cheat?””, like they did, Is there’s glitches? Were they using a mod? Were they accidently using a mod? All these different things that person could have potentially been doing. And they can look into those things to consider them.”
All of the examples of external factors given from Dream are physical evidence. Because this statement does not include subjective speculation as considering someone’s behavior or justification, which are what Dream has been talking for minutes, I think it’s a very unexpected yet nice statement. This could potentially suggest that Dream has a correct understanding of the prosecutor’s fallacy, but in that case it means Dream is deliberately including subjective speculation to the mix and thus lying. But that’s my subjective speculation, don’t believe he actually did.
1:16:42 (DarkViperAU) “In the paper, it gives a hypothetical scenario where- For external reasons, let’s say we believe, because you have good character, you have a history or whatever, that the odds of you cheating is 1 in 100. Even if the odds for your run are therefore very unlikely, you need to factor that in. Whatever the calculation was. Then the odds of your run being cheated aren’t necessarily very high, even if the run is improbable. Because, the odds of you actually engaging in cheating is low.”
This is bullshit.
What DarkViperAU is saying is that someone’s personal image affects the chance of someone is actually cheating or not. That is wrong, as there are already examples of people cheating despite of having good reputation within the community. Also, you cannot objectively calculate emotional aspects such as reputation, nor can you use that to soften a statistical calculation of real events.
This is the same as saying “Even though it’s highly probable that you cheated, since I don’t think you will, you didn’t.” It’s the same as saying “Even though it’s just probabilities and there’s no physical evidence, since I think you will, you cheated”, only making the opposite assumption. Subjective speculation and explanation of one’s emotions has nothing to do with one actually cheating or not. It cannot be used to prove someone being guilty, but also cannot not be used to prove someone being innocent.
One more thing, Dream did not correct DarkViperAU’s misunderstanding, which suggests that he probably doesn’t understand the prosecutor’s fallacy or he’s leaving DarkViperAU think that way since it benefits him, which is a manipulative behavior.
1:17:28 “I considered hiring a behavioral analysist to analysis my streams, because I believe that the behavior that I exhibited was not at all someone would do if they believed they had higher drops. As an example, there was multiple times I traded with piglins when the run was completely dead and it didn’t matter at all. And then there was one time I got five pearl trades, or four pearl trades in the span of like 10 gold, when the run was set. I have logged out right after that happened. I completely left the world. I didn’t use that world- that run, it didn’t benefit me in any way. And I feel like there are certain things that I did that if someone was looking at it and they were going like “Okay, what are the odds that this person was aware or intentionally modified their drop rates?” And when, Okay, their drop rates are high”. and then analyze them, they probably continue to the conclusion that “Well, it seems very unlikely, because of all these things that they would definitely not do if they would have modified these drop rates.“
Again, someone’s appeared behavior and intentions does not matter with the actual statistical anomaly, and has no way to prove or disprove someone was cheating. It means nothing.
Because, someone could also say “They knew they were suspicious, so they deliberately tried to act innocently.” Analyzing someone’s behavior is fruitless, and thus should not be considered at all.
1:18:53 “If I know I have much lower drop rates, I’m probably gonna collect less gold, as an example. Or I’m probably going to leave the world- (An example you just gave of doing extra trades or whatever you didn’t need to do, why would you do that if you did cheat? Because, then it’s just giving more evidence that you cheated. You’re showing off more-) Exactly. (-improbable things. That is not discussed anywhere that I’m aware of.)
Because, I don’t know, maybe he knew that he had a trade-off of acting suspicious or giving evidence, and he chose to act less suspiciously?
See what I did there? I made a subjective speculation that justifies Dream’s behavior if he did cheat. However, all of these explanations of “Why Dream acted that way” does not affect the fact that Dream got 42 pearl trades out of 211 attempts. It’s not discussed anywhere because it is subjective speculation and has no effect on the actual drop rates calculated.
1:19:30 “Even if it is a 1 in a billion or whatever it is- (External things.) -there’s outside factors to consider where you should, even if it doesn’t change your mind. You should consider them.”
This is misleading and potentially manipulative. If Dream is referring to the prosecutor’s fallacy, then he is making an inaccurate statement. Someone’s behavior or social status is not physical evidence and is something that should not be considered at all for this matter.
1:19:41 “Even if it’s 1 in 1 billion odds, the odds of him not cheating might be a 1 in a million.”
As I said multiple times, you cannot quantify someone’s reputation since it does not affect what actually happened. This is just a fancy way of saying “Why would have cheated? There’s no reason!” It has the same weight of “Of course you would have cheated! This the reason!”, and thus should not be considered at all.
Q. You communicate many times in this video, in many different ways, the obvious reality that if “Even 1 in a trillion events happen daily”. This is of course misleading because as long as something is logically possible, given enough instances of an event, it will become certain. Your continued repeating of this seems silly because in no way does this mean that any event will happen to you, or is likely to happen to you. Your argument is like saying “Conspiracies exist” therefore Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are conspiring to make super intelligent elephants. The existence of unlikely events does not in any way shape or form mean an unlikely event actually happened.
1:21:02 “If somebody was to come to you and say “Hey, this person cheated because there’s a 1 in 1 million odds”, that is an argument. You’re saying “Hey, you’re right. But I’m choosing to believe him because of his character, because of the things I know about him, the things that I heard what he said. And therefore, I’m just going to assume unlikely things happen everyday and he didn’t cheat.”
Reminder: This is basically saying “I like him, so I’m just going to think he’s really lucky.” What a way to sound stupid, according to Dream, is this the 3rd time this came up?
Subjective speculation does not affect objective statistics. It neither proves nor disproves someone cheating.
Dream continues to talk about ‘unverifying a run’ and ‘branding someone a cheater’. I think by this point it’s obvious that Dream is more focused on maintaining his public image than actually proving he didn’t cheat. It’s even stated in his response paper.
See? It says over there.
1:22:20 “Yes, unlikely things happen. Whether or not you think an unlikely thing like this happened to me or happened to someone else is completely subjective. It’s not a very objective thing. My luck does not change because I am who I am.”
Not to state that he’s saying “I was just lucky” again, that’s typical. But another thing is that completely contradictive to everything he said in the previous question. If your luck does not change because of who you are, then who you are shouldn’t matter at all in determining if you cheated or not.
1:22:30 (DarkViperAU) “What weight you’re giving to the statistical and likelihood verses external factors, I agree, is subjective.”
If by ‘external factors’ DarkViperAU is referring to the physical evidence mentioned in the prosecutor’s fallacy, he is making an inaccurate statement, as subjective speculation is not physical evidence.
Q. As I am not a statistician, I cannot rule well on the different stopping criteria using in the different papers. However, your paper states “The main challenge is that once a speedrunner gets particularly lucky, they are more likely choose to stop playing. Dream has
expressed that this was his stopping criterion.” “If the last barter in a sequence is always an ender pearl (because then the speedrunner leaves), then it simply cannot be claimed that all barters are fully independent and identical.”
But this…isn’t true. If you get lucky and get an ender doesn’t mean you won’t barter again. You will stop bartering in that run yes, but you will start barter again in the next run. Even if you stop your stream, you will still come back next time and barter again.
Just to clear off one huge misunderstanding, this whole explanation given has nothing to do with the stopping rule. This is explaining the tendency of stopping piglin barters once you get 10 pearls, not stopping to stream after a particularly good run.
Dream starts off the conversation with “This is what the statistician told me, I’m not an expert”, which is an easy way to dodge the blame when you get things wrong. However, since Dream is in a position that he has to give an explanation, this is an understandable statement. Because of that, even though Dream states wrong statistical knowledge, we will not accuse that in any cases.
The two continue to debate why two different kinds of stopping rules were used in his response paper. Again, this ‘stopping rule’ for each individual piglin barters in a run has nothing to do with stopping a stream on the high note, thus is completely unrelated.
1:26:24 “But I’m pretty sure what he’s saying is that if you get particularly lucky in a span of multiple streams, if you get particularly lucky, like, obviously, which is unlikely to happen, but if you do, you will look luckier even with the combined streams because of the fact that you got particularly lucky. So, instead of being particularly lucky and looking unaverage how lucky you are, you will look even luckier. because you got lucky and you stopped, you got luckier and you stopped. If you get lucky multiple times in a roll, then it matters, because you look way luckier than you do.”
The stopping rule is about removing the last lucky run, since it is assumed to actually be lucky. Why is it assumed that way? Because we think streamers are going to end their stream with a high note, which is represented with Dream not streaming speedrun attempts after his record run. Since it has a high chance of being lucky, adding this to the whole sample will make the calculation seem to have a higher luck than the actual luck. So, to prevent that, we are removing the last run of all six streams, since it is presumed to be (and actually) lucky.
What Dream claims is that if you have a consistently lucky streak, you will seem way luckier than the actual luck. This is slightly true, but not to an extreme degree. Let me explain what’s going on. For this example I’ll use the last run Dream did, 2 pearl trades out of 3 barters.
We’re doing 3 trades, and the outcome is we either get or don’t get pearl trades (2 possible outcomes of a 4.73 chance). So, the total number of events is 2^3, 8 events, and among those events we get at least 2 pearl trades with the events Fail-Success-Success, Success-Fail-Success, Success-Success-Fail, and Success-Success-Success.
- FSS= (1-0.0473) x 0.0473 x 0.0473 = 0.002131466183
- SFS= 0.0473 x (1-0.0473) x 0.0473 = 0.002131466183
- SSF= 0.0473 x 0.0473 x (1-0.0473) = 0.002131466183
- SSS= 0.0473 x 0.0473 x 0.0473 = 0.000105823817
If we add all these up, we get 0.006500222366, approximately a 0.65% chance.
So, the actual chance to get 2 pearl trades out of 3 barters is 0.65% Compared to the 0.64% (0.00639439855) from the Binominal Distribution model, which the paper calls Bonferroni correction, there is only a 0.01% difference (0.000105823816), so the Binominal Distribution made Dream seem 0.01% more luckier.
Why does this happen? It is because the Bonferroni correction computes SS as SSF and does not count the event, SSS (all successes, which is a 3 out of 3). This is what Dream meant by ‘If you get lucky multiple times in a roll, you look way luckier than you do.”
If we compare the actual approximation to only the 3 events that have 2 successes and 1 failure, 0.006394398549, there is only a 0.000000000001 difference, since that’s what the model actually calculated. This is what Dream meant by having a lucky streak seems luckier with the Binominal Distribution model.
From my perspective, I think a 0.01% difference out of only 3 samples is not that big, and the error from the Binominal Distribution model only gets smaller with more samples. And since the MST made the decision of calculating the whole number of samples, 211 trades at one instance, I can only assume the margin of error will be insignificant. But however, the author claims that their formula is more accurate, since they went through the labor of actually checking if Dream got any lucky streaks that end with 10 pearls. Though this has a fair point, unfortunately, they fail to make the correct comparison.
This is the part from Dream’s report, page 7, where the statistician explains how his his model works. If we see the highlighted area, it says their model gives a random value between 4-7 pearls. The actual game gives 4-8 pearls. Their model uses the wrong value, and because of this, their whole calculation is botched.
Now, that could be just a typo, and the actual calculation may be correct. So, let’s check the code provided in Dream’s report and see how it actually calculates the number of pearls given.
The author noted ‘# give between 4-8 pearls’ here, so we have hope that this calculation is correct.
The number of pearls given is calculated by the following python code.
numpy.round(4*numpy.random.uniform()+0.5)+3
numpy.random.uniform() gives a random value from 0 to 1, so the whole part being rounded will have a value between 0.5 to 4.5.
However, for values exactly halfway between rounded decimal values such as 1.5 and 2.5, the numpy.round function rounds to the nearest even value. This means 1.5 and 2.5 both round to 2.0, as 2 is the nearest even value. So, the random value will be rounded into numbers between 1 and 4 (It’s technically possible to get 0, since the lowest value we can get is 0.5. But, that requires the numpy.random.uniform() function to actually produce a flat 0, which is highly unlikely)
Finally, if we add 3 to this value, it becomes something between 4 and 7. This is not 4-8 pearls, and since they used this wrong 4~7 ender pearl model for their whole calculation, their calculation is completely wrong.
Thus, since the statistician’s model calculates the wrong values to begin with, we cannot trust the result given and the statistician’s claim that his model is significantly more accurate when compared to the binominal distribution model.
1:28:06 “He’s applying a different stopping criteria to each different run, depending on what happens in the run. As an example, if I stop with a pearl, it’s included with the new stopping description. But if I continue trading for whatever reason, let’s say I dropped gold and I came back later and there’s pearls and a bunch of other stuff, that doesn’t count. So it doesn’t count toward it. The thing is that when I stop directly when I get a pearl, on those specific runs that have only been, let’s just say that happened on 20 runs, - (But then again, you do never stop.) Except not for that particular run, though.”
Dream is describing how the statistician applied their supposedly more accurate model, which is the process of using their model if Dream stops to do piglin barters when he got 10 pearls, and the Binominal Distribution model in any other cases. This is a reasonable approach, though it didn’t make a reasonable result since the code is wrong.
1:28:37 “What he’s saying is, If you get particularly lucky, you’re going to do less trades, and less trades mean the sample size is smaller. So in this case, because I’m getting lucky in all of these runs, the sample size is much lower unlike as if you compare my 5 other streams, where my sample size is much larger.
That is not what the statistician meant. The statistician meant how the SSS is omitted from the Binominal Distribution model. It’s about accounting for Binominal Distribution model not accounting for higher events of success, the not the sample size.
1:29:24 “ Also, within all these runs, you will appear more lucky if you get lucky, because the sample size will be smaller. So if you get 10 times lucky in a sample size of 100, that’s it.”
Again, it’s not about the sample size. Though this is wrong, it is understandable since Dream stated that he doesn’t know statistics that well.
1:30:00 “It’s not that far off of what they used, but it’s far enough off that when it’s applied to every run, it makes a big difference overall.
Unfortunately, we cannot know that, as the calculation is wrong and cannot be trusted.
1:30:26 “(But you would agree that the original paper disagrees that that stopping criterion should be applied?) Yeah! Well, I mean, obviously. Because, they didn’t use it. If I think they agreed, they would have used it.”
As I am not the MST, I cannot say if they disagree on the proposed stopping criterion, since it has given a reasonable explanation, though the calculation was wrong. However, what I can also say is that we do not know how far off the Binominal Distribution model is, and I believe it should be close enough to the actual luck Dream achieved. So, it could be possible that the MST does not particularly disagrees the proposed stopping criterion, but decided not to use it since the Binominal Distribution model is accurate enough.
1:31:50 “If you get that number more times, and you keep stopping when you get that number, then overall when you look at that number you’ll look more lucky, you’re not actually more lucky, you don’t actually have a higher chance of getting that. But it will appear as you do.”
This is describing how the Binominal Distribution model doesn’t account for higher streaks of luck. It is a reasonable explanation, but due to Dream not knowing statistics, he has failed to accurately convey the point. This is an unfortunate case on Dream’s side.
Q. You claim “When me, the other runners, or the expert would look into it, it would turn out that number that would be the best possible number in my favour was so far from it that it was actually the worst possible number against me”.
None of that is in the paper. Given the numerous times your commissioned author affirmed the efforts and work of the original writers, this claim seems extraordinarily strange. Indeed, even when I pressed the statisticians, stating that I believe the way the conduct themselves would lead to people not believing their conclusions, they implied they would rather be correct and ethical than effective. Indeed, it is somewhat humerous to me that you criticized the original authors for not stating why they should use 6 streams, while you made no attempt to state why 11 streams should be used. What did you base this “worst possible number” claim on?
One thing is, they actually explain it in their report.
That bold sentence asking ‘Why are you not analyzing all of Dream’s runs?’ is the part where they explain why they used 6 streams.
1:34:29 “In my opinion, if you go and watch the video, I only mention the 11 streams on… I’m pretty sure it’s only on one occasion. I think it’s right at the beginning, where I just say ‘If you include the 11 streams’, that’s it. And then I don’t talk about it at all, I’m pretty sure.”
What Dream says in his response video, 1:41 is “Not all of my 1.16 livestreams were used for the data. Only the 6 luckiest ones were. I had 5 other streams before those streams I did in 1.16, but they had below-average luck and were not included in their analysis. I had the expert include these streams in a much smaller, separate analysis which concluded that with these 11 streams included, the data shows quote, “No statistically significant evidence that Dream was modifying the probabilities.”
He then never corrects or further explains that he didn’t use 11 streams for the actual statistics he used, which leaves the viewers have the misconception that he actually did use 11 streams. This is why DarkViperAU and so many people misunderstood Dream’s result took samples from 11 streams, when in actuality it also took from 6 streams.
Also, it is hard to know exactly what ‘include 11 streams’ mean, since it could also mean the probability of modifying all 11 streams, or the probability of modifying 6 consecutive streams within 11 streams (which is what the MST accounted for.)
1:34:32 (DarkViperAU) “Well it’s a very important inclusion because it’s where you say “There was no statistical significance.” And that’s kind of a big thing.”
(Dream)”I said if the 11 streams are included, then there is no significant significance, which people can take that as what they will, which is kind of what they all said. You can interpret it how you will.”
With this, we identified that by ‘include 11 streams’, Dream means the possibility of him modifying all 11 streams.
1:34:52 “I don’t believe that those 11 streams should or have to be included to come through a statistical analysis on whether or not I cheated. So I think that- the reasons the 11 streams aren’t backed up in the paper at all are because they are not used. There’s one section in the paper that says “If these were used, these are the numbers. But we’re not using this.” And then it goes with “We’re using the 6 overall”, which is how they come to the 100 million number, which is put in the beginning.”
Since Dream was so confident that he actually put up 1 in 100 million as his actual chance, I at one point doubted myself and had to go check the video again. Nope, he wrote it’s 10 million. That’s how confidence makes you question your own sanity.
Dream goes to discuss the RNG variables, stating that 10 is not favorable against him. Due to the non seed-based RNG variables Dream has come up with is flawed and needs reevaluation, in this point, there is no way to actually judge if 10 is favorable against or biased toward Dream.
Q. At roughly 9 minutes into your video you go on a tirade claiming that the mods and authors made you look “guilty as possible” and “It was not something they needed to do”. This is a very high claim as this speaks to the intent to achieve an outcome rather than just the outcome itself. On what basis did you ascribe the malicious goal of making you look as guilty as possible to the mods and authors? From a 3rd party perspective, all that made you look more guilty is an explanation of the lengths they went to get the results they believed were fair and correct and that the results were still not favourable to you.
1:38:25 “If I’m gonna call Pewdiepie out for cheating, I need this to be the most sound thing ever. I need him to look the guiltiest as possible. That way his fans don’t attack me.”
Yikes. Even DarkViperAU says “I don’t like that phrasing” afterwards. Dream is willingly saying that he will not objectively depicture his accusers and make them seem as malicious as possible.
Dream continues to explain how Geosquare’s video wasn’t malicious, but it still tried to depict Dream as guilty as possible, which in a way indirectly damaged his public image unfairly. He states that it’s kind of like the same thing phrased in a different way, that is how YouTube works, and that’s how you don’t get backlash from the accused one’s fans.
1:40:14 (DarkViperAU) “Would you agree that saying that they weren’t malicious, but they worked to make you look as guilty as possible kinda looks at odds?”
DarkViperAU points out that those two are basically the same thing.
1:40:26 (Dream) “I personally do not believe what they did was malicious, cause like I said, I would do the same thing.”
(DarkViperAU) “And your wording wasn’t intended to imply that, they were malicious?”
(Dream) “No, no. That’s why I mentioned multiple times that I don’t believe that they were being malicious. That I genuinely do not believe that they had any malicious intent with the way they phrased things. Actually, Geosquare knows how YouTube works, and he’s a smart guy. And he knows “Hey’ if I phrase things with uncertainty, any uncertainty at all, then Dream fans will pick up on that and go “Oh, he’s uncertain! He said this! That means there’s a chance!” So the way they were phrasing it in an extremely certain way. That way, people will leave it, feeling certain with their results.”
By ‘how YouTube works’, I believe Dream is implying the toxic nature of fans and how they will accuse anyone with uncertainty. If this is the case, I understand Dream’s reasoning of how not being malicious yet trying to accuse someone as guilty as possible works.
What I do not like is that the MST stated multiple times that they tried to stay as objective as possible, to the point of Geosquare unmonitizing his channel for holiday season, the most profitable time of the year for ad revenue. Dream is, in a way, depicting Geosquare as guilty as possible while not being malicious with this statement.
Q. From 9:50 onwards you explain some statistics are thrown out in court and debate exists as to the best statistical methods. You understand that this argument boils down to “false things exist”, except of course the existence of false things does not in any way make anything else more likely to be false. Indeed, the quotes you use are, in my reading entire against the desired intention of the author. This line “There will always be a way to improve a model’s approximation to reality” when but at some point you reach a fidelity that is considered acceptable and appropriate” expresses it better. Your author is not expressing frustration or dismissing statistics as often wrong, merely that no model can be perfect, they can only be useful. No model or method can ever perfectly map reality, just become close enough that they help us reach practical ends, and there can be more than one way to reach a useful conclusion. Think of it light going right, left than right in your car, versus going left right then left, different way of doing things but you end up in the same place. I am frankly unsure why you would go to such lengths to just say “errors exist” other than to just poison the well. It is a manipulation tactic so that, even if your stats are found to be false, you can potentially not be blamed for it, and you can look to your false stats to say “Well, look how easy it is to get things wrong, I guess we will never know”. Please defend these statements.
1:42:13 “That is kind of the intention, but it’s for a different reason than you may think. The intention is for that I don’t want to make another video. I don’t want to get in a back-in-forth drama with anybody. So, if I can phrase it in a way that “Look, statistics is misleading. There can be tons of different things done.” I don’t want to get into it…”
Dream literally admitted that he poisoned the well. The reason he brings is that he doesn’t want to keep this drama persist for a long period. That is an unreasonable excuse, as if someone would strive for no misunderstandings, they would focus on being accurate and objective, not being manipulative with logical fallacies. He should have rebutted why the MST’s statistics was wrong and in what way is deemed to be accurate, which he does not and hides behind his statistician.
What this shows is that Dream is willing to use logical fallacies just so he doesn’t get bothered by further accusations.
1:44:38 (DarkViperAU) “I understand why you’re doing it, but it doesn’t look good.”
DarkViperAU notices the fallacy of Dream’s statement.
1:44:40 “I won’t say it’s poisoning the well of statistics. It’s mostly saying…What’s the better phrasing for it… It’s more or so saying “Hey, just don’t trust everything as you see as facts because it has tons of numbers and is a long document or something like it.” There could always be refuted, there could always be things wrong in it, and I think there will be. I believe fully that there will be certain problems with the document the author(MST) wrote, and I also believe there will be certain problems in the response, and the response to that, and the response to that.”
Doubletalk. He insists he isn’t doubting statistics, and he continues to say statistics are bound to have certain problems, which is exactly doubting statistics.
Q. My comment section is bombarded with explanations of various external programs that can achieve the effect you are accused of, as well as endless ways you could have cheated using the methods described while covering your tracks. Additionally, given that essentially no will have the expertise to assess what you have released publically, would you agree that your speaking about releasing your world file and such was merely a performance to generate good will despite that, if you cheated, it would be similar to a murder explaining all the ways he didn’t murder someone, effectively meaningless.
1:47:08 “I wouldn’t say it’s performance. I would say that technically it’s not important to the statistics. But I think there’s one thing that I may have not expressed clearly enough in the video again, is that the world file thing, that was uploaded days before the investigation started.”
That does not prove anything, since Dream could have modified his world file regardless of the investigation going on. And we don’t even know if that world file is the actual one he played with or an untouched backup file. This is another excuse Dream is using to make him seem innocent, which is subjective speculation and has no value.
1:48:02 (DarkViperAU) “Rather than necessarily clearing all the possible ways that you could have cheated, it’s more about saying “Look, I’m making a sincere effort. Why would I do this sincere effort if I did actually cheat?”
DarkViperAU is confirming that Dream is not providing objectively assessable evidence but mostly subjective speculation, which does not prove if he cheated or if he’s innocent.
1:48:24 “People leave their video thinking “He looks suspicious because he deleted this.” So I kinda have to equally counteract that by saying “Look, I’m so unsuspicious that I have provided them will all these files. And I’ll provide you with them, too, if you want to look through them.”
This is a fair argument, but it loses its fairness when Dream goes above the point of what he was actually accused for (deleting his mod folder). However, it can be debated that if Dream does not prevent any further argument related with providing files, there will be people who will suspect him for that aspect, and that Dream is forced to act this way to minimize the amount of unreasonable hatred affecting him.
1:48:38 “But I do believe the world file has significance for that particular- for one particular reason that they mention on their website, actually, that it’s very difficult to edit world files. And that world files can be edited theoretically, but they’re very difficult to keep consistent and to edit. And they mention that as a piece of evidence on their site when verifying runs.”
Dream is not accused of editing his world file. Though the mods might have requested it for investigation, it does not have any significance in this accusation, which is why it wasn’t even mentioned in their video or their report. Therefore, what Dream doing by deliberately mentioning his world file on every single opportunity to paint an extra thin layer of innocence.
1:49:08 “It’s not that significant at all to show that “Hey, it’s impossible that I could have cheated.” But it is significant in my mind, again, for my character.” …(Continues to mention the various effort he put to prove his innocence)
Dream acknowledges that he’s pulling off a performance to make his character seem innocent, and that it doesn’t have any significance in actually proving it.
1:49:59 (DarkViperAU) “If you did cheat, you can guarantee that everything you are willing to give wouldn’t make you look guilty.”
DarkViperAU points out that it is completely useless, as it is subjective speculation, which is, subjective.
1:50:48 “Let’s say a gun, right, was used in a murder, and it’s a specific type of gun. And then the person that was accused of it is saying “Look, here’s the receipt of this, I didn’t buy it. You can check all these stores here. You can interview all these people and all these different stores that say I didn’t. They have like security camera footages that say I didn’t.” But they are like “Yeah, but you still could have gotten it somewhere else.” (There’s a way on the stores somewhere.) But it does make the average person think you look more innocent if you say “Look! There’s no proof that I’ve ever bought a gun!”
Again, Dream is not accused for editing his world file. He is accused for his abnormally high luck, which is proven by statistics. His insane amount of fortune is what this ‘specific gun’ is in this analogy. The evidence he has given with his response paper is objectively flawed and inaccurate (this is not an opinion), which mean he failed proving ‘how he didn’t get that gun’, and he is instead bringing up proof he didn’t buy any knives and clubs for distraction and saying “I didn’t buy these weapons. And these are what you can use for murder! That has to show I’m innocent, since I’m cooperative and trying to help you!”
1:51:27 (DarkViperAU) “A person who cheated and a person who’s innocent will probably do many of the same things, because they both have the same goal; To look innocent. And that’s the problem.”
This is the whole point why subjective speculation shouldn’t be used for this statistical accusation.
Q. This question speaks to my ignorance of minecraft mods but I will ask it anyway. A commenter claimed that the reason your use of fabric was suspicious was not just because you had it but because it showed no purpose for you having it running. If you indeed had no other mods loaded, why was fabric loaded at all?
Before we move in, Fabric api is allowed for speedruns for boosted PC performance and optimization. Using it is completely valid, and Dream’s statement is completely logical.
1:54:30 “This is before they even had any evidence that I was suspicious. I even openly told them. I said “Yeah, I may have been running it.””
Again, this is subjective speculation. However, this explanation is required due to the MST making the wrong decision to imply Dream used Fabric api to modify his game, which makes Dream’s rebuttal reasonable.
Q. During your video you take two quotes, showing no context, giving no sources, and include them seemingly entirely because you agree with their opinions. How does the opinion of anonymous individuals help your case and how are you not engaging in the same cherry picking you accuse others of?
1:55:28 “I easily could have included who certain quotes were by. But at that point they receive tons of hate.”
Then why bother quoting someone anyway? Also, if he were to keep them anonymous, why bother mention their title, thus exposing their identity?
Dream is using the cancerous culture of internet as an excuse to disguise his potential misusage of quotes that happened to fit his standpoint out of context and leverage the reputation that the MST and the Minecraft developer has to make his claim seem more appealable. We don’t even know if these are actual quotes or just sentences Dream fabricated, and we can’t check it since he kept them anonymous. It’s the classic “My dad works in Nintendo” all over again.
If Dream truly wanted to stop people from bombarding hate messages to said figures. He shouldn’t have used said quotes in the first place. If he didn’t want his statistician to get doxed, he should have ensured the statistics were rock solid and shouldn’t have rushed it.
1:55:42 (DarkviperAU) “Usually, when you include anonymous quotes, it’s when you have to. There’s no choice. If you don’t include these, you can’t establish something or it really speaks well to your case. But in the case of the speedrun.com moderators, all it did was them saying “Hey, we didn’t like that video.” I don’t know how that was meaningful. Or the Minecraft developer saying “Hey yo, I don’t think you should base things on chance. Like it’s- These quotes don’t really mean anything. The opinion of the speedrun moderaters is meaningless.”
DarkViperAU comes with another good point. The anonymous quotes have no significant meaning in proving or disproving Dream’s case. The statistician being anonymous is understandable, since without any statistics, Dream’s rebuttal has no base. But for the rest of anonymous quotes, that is not.
1:56:13 “That’s subjective, though. You agree with that.”
That is not true.
Dream is accused of unbelievably high statistics, and the Minecraft developer’s statement on general statistics or the MST’s opinion on a video has nothing to do with the actual calculation done by the MST, since it is subjective speculation.
1:56:25 (DarkViperAU) “There are a lot of speedrun.com moderators and people who worked on Minecraft. I’m sure if you were motivated, you can find a quote -Or at least you can ask them, and they would give you a position- entirely opposed to the one that you presented. What you’ve done is just cherry-picking two quotes that happened to be in favor of your opinions and presenting them in an authoritative way, without establishing in any capacity that these should be authorities, or that they should matter, or that their opinion should matter more than any other speedrun.com moderator or any other Minecraft developer, you understand?”
DarkViperAU comes up with another point that these quotes are shown to add authoritative weight to Dream’s case, giving him a better image, when it can easily be cherry-picked or forged.
1:57:03 “I think that to me, though, it’s mostly just like “Hey, there are opinions on the contrary” When you’re talking about the first video’s presentation, even though they didn’t have anonymous quotes or anything, it’s presented in a way like “No one disagrees with this”, right? So what I’m trying to establish in my video is “Hey, there are conflicting opinions. Like, even people who are prominent, whether if they’re anonymous or not, there are conflicting opinions.”
New case of appeal to emotion. Instead of saying “This is why I’m innocent”, Dream is saying “These people believe I’m innocent.” Just because someone believes Dream cheated doesn’t mean he cheated. And just because someone believes Dream didn’t cheat doesn’t mean he didn’t cheat. The best way is not adding subjective speculation entirely.
1:57:25 “I think to the average person, it may not matter. Like, who cares about, you know, a random Minecraft developer says? But I didn’t go around asking every Minecraft developer and took the one that gave the best answer. I talked to one Minecraft developer and quoted one of the 100 things they said.”
My dad works in Nintendo. And also, giving that detail of information doesn’t change a single thing. I do not know why Dream stated that extra information.
1:57:40 (DarkViperAU) “You understand of course the difference between these quotes being anonymous and being completely made up is, for the person watching, nothing, because there’s no source.”
DarkViperAU points out the possibility of making up quotes.
1:58:08 “I don’t think it necessarily matters who people are. I think it matters if it’s true or not. That’s why I think is, people who believe in my character and believe I’m a good person are going to believe “Hey, he’s probably not lying about this.” People who don’t believe in me who think I’m a liar and I’m a cheater will believe “Hey, he’s probably lying about this.” And one of the things I mentioned, actually, one of the speedrun moderators I talked to before was mentioning that to me, saying “You should release the name of the person you were talking with. You should release this.” before I even did the video. And I was like, the thing is, I’m not going to.
If somebody- if it becomes a big enough deal where people are insisting on and saying that I’m lying and that I’m making these things up, I can easily prove they’re true, without revealing who they are. I can have independent sources. I can have moderators come and say “This is the person. They can confirm. Here’s their quote. This is what happened.” And then they can go “Oh, you’re right. He’s not lying” And if I have many people do that, then obviously it’s up to you whether or not you believe that- now you’re going to call me a liar, and the other 10 people a liar, and those people who believe it a liar. It doesn’t matter much to me if- If you want to believe I’m a liar, you’re going to believe that nothing I said is true.”
Dream states that he can easily prove his quotes are not cherry-picked or fabricated, but he chooses to instead make anyone questioning the source go through a painstakingly long and tedious telephone game that involves numerous people. Not only is this process impractical and unnecessary, it also key-chains people’s trust like a network marketing scheme which can easily be manipulated by a selected few, and it gains more traction as more people are obligated to doubt more and more people as the chain goes on.
Further on, Dream is splitting the general audience into two extremes that just questioning the source of a quote is branded an enemy and who think he is a liar, when he is the one that made the very people question him by keeping people anonymous despite them saying he should release their names. This manipulative behavior is disguised in a cloak of defense against internet hatred, and if people are going to find out anyway, then he didn’t even keep the people’s name anonymous, which means the whole point of this is just Dream messing up with people just for his own spite against anyone who dares question his verifiability.
However, there is one counterargument out of this situation, and that is publicly stating that he shared the credentials only with the MST and they have confirmed it. That way, since the ones in argument guarantees their quotes to be real, nobody has to go through a game of trust upon whether or not believing his statement.
1:59:27 (DarkViperAU) “Again, it’s all character building”
DarkViperAU goes back to the point that the anonymous quotes are subjective speculation and just serve to make Dream’s character seem innocent without proving or disproving anything.
1:59:38 “If I was making a completely objective argument, or a completely objective video, then none of those things I would have included. But the thing is that I’m making an objective argument with a subjective one, saying “Hey, this is me. This is me. I’m talking about myself, I’m talking about my personal experience. Who I am, my experiences, the things that I’ve heard, the things that I’ve seen. And so, I think there’s a little bit of a… Like you said, I think it’s all from my perspective. And so to me, those things matter, but to someone else, they wouldn’t.”
The problem is that he is using subjective narrative to gain credibility on objective evidence, which is literally appealing to emotion. It also means that because of that biased subjectivity added, the whole video has been tainted of his opinion and thus lost its credit of ever being an objective rebuttal.
What he did well was rebutting Geosquare’s claim that he deleted his mod folders regularly and disproving any suspects related with Fabric api, which is is allowed for speedrunning. But except that, all he’s doing by adding subjective speculation is playing the victim and defaming others against him, which does not help rebutting the statistics. And in some way, he understands it, as he acknowledges that in a completely objective argument, none of these would be included. So he just had to make people seem malicious, because it makes him look better.
Q. You mention that the bedrock edition moderators banned you because they do not like you. I was conducted by two diferrent moderators independently who claim you were banned specifically because you were ruled to have cheated in Java. People in the audience may be unaware, but this is not particularly uncommon. Even in GTA Speedrunning, when a runner Anti was found to have cheated in some GTA games, they were banned from all GTA games. This is not a rule in speedrunning however, as Anti did go onto do other runs I think for Super Mario 64. Regardless, the bedrock moderators do not seem, to me, to be acting abnormally if their claims are correct. On what did you base your belief they banned you for no reason? More importantly, why on earth would a different leaderboard banning you lead you to believe another independent group was treating you unfairly? Especially considering the Java Team didn’t even ban you, indicating a completely different mindset.
2:01:10 “So, there’s two things. One, it’s actually the Java team. You can ask them. You can go and ask the mods and they expressed discontent with Bedrock mods themselves, and expressed concerns with bias and things like that publicly in the Java speedrunning Discord.”
I have blurred out everyone’s credentials, but left the mod’s ones to be distinguishable.
This is the only instance that I managed to find what Dream is most likely claiming. However, one thing to note is that what they are referring to is not Dream being banned from the Bedrock leaderboards. He is actually banned from the Bedrock Discord server, which is considered a meme and not a serious ban from the leaderboards.
Except this moment, There was not a moment where the Java mods has expressed discontent with the Bedrock mods concerning Dream’s case, but that was under a Discord search using the word ‘Bedrock mod’, so there may be information I failed to search. There is also possibility that the mods discussed this in a private chatroom, so this is not to be taken seriously.
2:01:29 “I was banned like, a month and a half ago (from the Bedrock leaderboards). I was banned. So, it was well before any result was called in any way whatsoever. And that can be easily confirmed, because there was obviously receipts of that, and people talked about it in the Speedrun Discord way before it (MST’s Report) came out.”
According to the Bedrock mod’s official statement, Dream was removed from the Bedrock speedrunning leaderboards on December 11th, the exact day the MST’s video was uploaded on Geosquare’s channel.
(Source:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zXv6aXn7vgL--XpY8-3IbDTx4ar5gQpfTL9nkjCnTrc/edit)
However, when I searched the Bedrock version’s Discord server, I found a mod stating that they banned Dream from the leaderboards ‘a few weeks ago’ on December 12th, which means the actual leaderboard ban happened prior to the release of the MST’s report.
This seems like a contradiction, and it proves Dream’s claim to be reasonable. However, though it might seem like the Bedrock mod is lying, the true matter is that they were actually joking, as banning Dream has been a recurring joke in the Bedrock Discord server, dating way before Dream even ran the accused runs.
Message from October 23rd, 1 and a half month before the MST’s video was released.
Message from September 30th, before Dream even streamed the accused runs.
Message from August 23rd. Way before anything happened.
One thing that deeply matters in this case is that Dream has never submitted a record on the Bedrock leaderboards, therefore banning him has absolutely no meaning. When the Bedrock team says Dream is banned from the leaderboard, it has no effect on anything, which is why it is most likely an easily misinterpreted meme. However, as there is no reasonable evidence that Dream knew him being banned is a meme in the Bedrock speedrunning community, it is reasonable to assume he has misunderstood their joke to be a serious ban. Therefore, on this account, Dream has made a fair response, minus the fact that it has no relationship with him cheating or not.
2:01:57 (DarkViperAU) “I interpreted what they said to be that they banned you when the run was removed. So that’s my misunderstanding, and you say that’s not the case.”
DarkViperAU is confirming Dream’s claim by asking if it is a misunderstanding that he was banned with the Java run was deemed unverifiable.
2:02:14 “I’m pretty sure that I was banned actually before even the stats came out. I was banned before then. But I have no evidence of that, and I don’t even, like I said, I never even spedrun on Bedrock Edition, I wouldn’t even know when exactly I was banned.”
Dream realizes that he has made a clear statement, and he stutters a moment to reconcile his thoughts and corrects it into a strong assumption. Though this might be a tactic to not get any repercussions upon being proved he lied, it is also the same case of just not being confident, since all he saw was some Discord messages.
2:02:25 “I remember the first time I saw a message about it. It was like a little bit after the random person did the stats on my runs. That very well have been the reason. But them seeing those stats and then just banning me, in my opinion, is unfair.”
This is a misunderstanding, as banning Dream is a recurring joke in the Bedrock Discord server, however, since there is a low chance Dream could have known it, it is a fair response.
Dream continues to say he included the Bedrock leaderboard ban rant in order to form his character and explain his motives. Again, subjective speculation that doesn’t prove or disprove anything.
2:03:10 (DarkViperAU) “Yeah, I understand. You were trying to establish that while yes, you may have acted poorly maybe on Twitter or something, if not justifiable, it is understandable.”
DarkViperAU notices Dream is again forming a character, which is not justifiable.
2:03:22 “That’s why I even said I don’t think that the actions of the Bedrock team imply the intentions of the Java team. I think they’re completely separate and different teams. But it does relate to my feelings…”
Though Dream’s resentment toward the Bedrock team can be considered fair due to his misunderstanding, since they are not related to the accusation, they must not have been included. Dream acknowledges this, and he states that the Bedrock team issue has nothing to do with the Java team. However, he still chose to mention the Bedrock team, who are unrelated with the Java team and has nothing to do with disproving his accusation or proving his innocence, because they hurt his feelings. Another tool to appeal to emotion.
Q. You show 5 anonymous messages on stream. 2 said they don’t like your viewers. 3 said they don’t like you. Without any context to these messages, why am I to believe, as you have presented them, that these messages were unprovoked or undeserved? Especially considering I do have discord messages of you being rude and disrespectful yourself.
In this section, Dream claims that those anonymous messages were randomly sent out of nowhere, which is very plausible. As there are obviously ‘Dream Haters’ who have an unreasonable amount of hatred toward him. It is most likely possible that Dream has received such unprovoked and undeserved messages.
Dream also claims that there were unincluded rude messages traded between one of the mods, but he chose not to include them since they were having an argument about the situation. This is also plausible, however, that does not justify adding the 5 anonymous messages.
2:05:51 “The verifiers don’t like me. There was multiple times like the mods came in and scolded the verifiers in the chat, saying “Hey, you guys need to stop saying stuff about Dream and stop saying about these negative things and stop being rude” and stuff.”
This is very plausible and would have likely happened. And though I believe Dream was most likely unfairly treated, this does not serve any function in proving or disproving Dream’s accusation.
2:06:30 (DarkViperAU) “While you say these things could be- We could look through the Discord and find these things. But let’s be real, no one’s going to do that.”
2:06:52 (DarkViperAU) “Pointing that out, that it could be searched, I suppose you wouldn’t have much reason to lie in that regard? Because, as you said, it could be verified, then people would call you out for your bullshit. So you will be motivated in that case to only include things as you say that legitimately showcase the sentiment that other people had in that discord. Fair enough.”
Unlike DarkViperAU’s assumption, as Dream lied about the Discord messages, this reasonable reaction turns into a hoax. In his response video, 19:12, Dream claims that “While the mods were looking into my 1.16 run, a lot of the official speedrun verifiers were saying incredibly disrespectful things about me and about my fans.”
Yeah, I dug through the Discord, Matt.
This is the first discord message that shows up, ‘dreams viewership is the most aids I’ve witnessed anyway’ and it was posted on August 8th, 2 months before Dream even streamed the accused runs. The mods cannot verify streams that doesn’t even exist, so this is a blatant lie.
This user is also currently (Dec.27) not a verifier, which means Dream may have lied in this matter. However, there is a possibility this person was a verifier when Dream took a screenshot for his response video, so I cannot say Dream also lied about this message coming from a verifier.
The second message, ‘i’m so tired of hearing about dream stans’ has been removed.
This is the third message, ‘Also like a third of the mod team doesn’t like dream at all’.
The date is in April 3rd. 1.16 wasn’t even officially released back then.
Here we have the forth message, ‘Dreams p scummy’.
This message is taken from a conversation about the whole ‘finding Pewdiepie’s Minecraft world seed’ back in April, and it is totally unrelated to Dream’s 1.16 speedrun accusation.
The fifth message, ‘lmao all his videos are scripted, but in the end nobody gives a shit about dream’ was not found.
Out of the 5 messages, only 3 messages remained undeleted. And they all were not posted during the time Dream’s 1.16 speedrun was being verified by the mods. Given the information, we can safely say that Dream has lied, and he cherry-picked these three messages to fit his narrative.
If I were to make a wild guess, I would assume the second and fifth messages were actually sent during the moment Dream’s streams were being verified, and they removed it after seeing it in Dream’s response videos, as avid Dream fans will find and harass them. But there is also the possibility that these messages were not sent during that time, and the users were just extremely careful and made extra precautions. We will never know, since Dream censored their identities in his video, the only evidence that shows those messages ever existed, and as Dream said, “He really hates his fans harassing people, so he’ll keep them anonymous.”
One more thing to mention before we move on is that even if we assume that these mean messages were sent while Dream’s streams were being verified, it still serves nothing in disproving his accusations. This is another appeal to emotion, and all it does is make Dream paint himself as an innocent victim.
2:07:23 Question 32
Q. At 20:45 you imply the mod team did the statistical analysis. I was under the impression this was not the case, perhaps some who worked on it were mods, but not all were. Perhaps I misunderstood something somewhere, can you clarify?
For this question, Matt checks the credentials of the MST with Dream, which is not significantly related to Dream’s response whatsoever.
Q. Finally, your making the ad-revenue into the minecraft anti-cheat. You must accept that there is no reason for this performance other than for it to be a performance. You do not need the revenue from the video to achieve such a purchase.
2:09:57 “Yeah. Obviously. But I think that’s kind of a moot point, because in this case, it’s me saying “Well, hey. This video was only made due to a cheating allegation in the speedrun community, And they didn’t monetize their video. So I feel unfair monetizing my video and making a profit off of it. But I’d rather, you know, monetize it. I don’t think it’s a big deal to have ads on the video, so I’d rather just monetize it, and then have an amount that I can give to them in order for them to develop whatever they want.”
He literally admitted he didn’t need to do this if he wanted to fund the MST for developing a speedrunning client. If he felt unfair making a profit, he could have just unmonetized his response video. If he wanted to help the speedrunning community by giving them money, he could have just given it without making such a ruckus. But he didn’t. We can argue that as a YouTuber, Dream did not want to have any money go wasted. But since using that money himself wouldn’t seem that good, he decided to give it to the MST.
However, given that Dream has depicted others maliciously and states multiple times that he is focused on giving himself a better public image, it would not be a stretch to assume this is a petty excuse and he’s just trying to and coat himself as the bigger man, making generous donations to the devilishly depicted MST. The wronged knight in shining armor who is so forgiving and generous to his treacherous foes or something DarkViperAU said in his 2nd reaction video.
2:11:15 “Look, here’s further proof that I am not upset about how things went. But I think they are good people. No hard feelings. I want to still help the community. And that’s more of the intention than you know, making myself look good or something.”
Speak of the devil.
Throughout the interview, Dream has shown multiple occasions that he knows how things can be interpreted maliciously and how he would still intentionally depict others maliciously, nonetheless. He also lied about objective facts to better suit his narrative. Given how far he would go to build his character, I find it difficult to accept his statement.
Dream further on states about how he privately offered the MST to host a server, but this is again subjective speculation and does nothing but build character.
2:14:11 (DarkViperAU) “But of course, I am just human. I can always be influenced by outside variables to be biased toward a particular conclusion.“
Some people accuse DarkViperAU as switching boats and appeasing Dream and his stans to gain views (and money). However, as I went through the whole interview, what I would believe is that DarkViperAU understands where Dream goes discreditable, but does not disprove him on the spot, as he does not have the proper knowledge to back him up.
There are even occasions that DarkViperAU notices that Dream is making logical fallacies and shakes his head multiple times, and yet he fails (or is disinterested) to refute since he is neither a statistician nor a Minecraft player, he does not have the required knowledge to debunk Dream’s claims. And the right thing to do when you don’t know enough is to comply. He did a reasonable job and tried to stay neutral throughout the whole video.
2:16:41 “I don’t think it’s fair for anybody to say I they are certain that I didn’t cheat or that they are certain that I did cheat. I don’t think it’s fair for anybody to say either one, whether they are a huge fan of mine or anything.”
This is a genuinely good comment from Dream. Though it might be just him building his character again, it is still true and remarkable, The MST said his runs were unverifiable, and there is no physical evidence to prove Dream’s innocence. Nobody can say he either cheated or didn’t cheated.
2:18:20 “I don’t like people saying “It’s just someone cheating in a block game.” Like, no. It’s against the heart of the game to cheat and I will always 100% hold that stance, even if they go and say there’s a 1 million percent chance Dream cheated. I’ll always be saying “Yeah. It’s horrible to cheat in games like this, especially on speedrun leaderboards. I’m totally against it. And that’s one of the reasons why it’s acceptable for the mods to remove the run. And I’m perfectly fine with them removing it, because there has to be a standard for something that’s being improbable being removed. And if the standard isn’t 1 in a million, then what the hell is it? What were you going to put it? This is probably far past the standard of not verifying the run.”
Due to the probability suggested from the MST stays unrefuted, it is most likely that Dream cheated. How horrible will he feel.
2:20:28 “You can go back and look at a lot of the ways I respond at controversies and I respond similarly to this in some ways at first. And then I always go on to collect myself. I don’t know what it is. That’s kinda who I am. Something happens and I’m being bombarded with stuff and I get overwhelmed and I say something dumb. And then the next couple days, I’m like, that was really dumb. Like, why the hell did I say that.”
Dream is feinting self-reflection, which is a common theme shown throughout this video. He admits that he made mistakes on face level to show humility and earn compassion, but in reality, he did not clear up to the public why he behaved that way. He merely says he did something wrong toward a vague group that may or may not include who he offended, but he does not address what he did wrong nor does he apologize to the actual people that deserve it.
This is shown in how he continuously depicts Geosquare and the MST, the ones he insulted in said anger but realized he did the wrong thing, to possess malicious intent and humiliate their report with his endless road of gold blocks in his response video. And that was released literally 2 days before his interview. Unless he secretly made up with the MST and is pulling off a sick prank, he’s acting as if his whole response video is a fictitious recreation and that any hate or conflict generated from it is not what he intended nor is his responsibility. He already said previously that his main audience doesn’t watch this interview, and that is why he can pretend to be humble.
2:21:17 “Whenever I got into beef with somebody on Twitter, back in the day, I would make it public. I would express discontent with people. And then eventually I realized, “Hey, you have an audience. You have to be responsible. You have to realize that that’s not what you do. If you don’t like somebody, you don’t like them. Whatever, who cares? You don’t need to tell people that.”
To be fair, Dream did claim that he keeps making similar mistakes. So, even though he describes this attitude of his as if he grew out of it, despite showing the exact same misbehavior toward the MST and others, we can only hope that maybe he will learn and stop repeating it next time.
2:23:38 One last question, perhaps.
Q. (DarkViperAU) “You were not familiar with me at all before seeing that video and contacting me, correct? I’d be interested if you knew more about me as to whether or not you would have contacted me. Because, I get that impression from some people that they think, as perhaps that I come up in the videos that- They would expect that in this, that I will tear you to shreds. My main goal would be to break you down. My response videos would often have that kind of flavor.”
From this, we learned that this interview was held as per Dream’s contact.
2:26:00 “I’m humble enough to admit when I’m wrong, even if I say “Hey, I have a different perspective. But yes, I was wrong.” The reason that I was keen to talking to you is that I just thought, I thought there were more possibility that you were be more aggressive and be stronger and in that way. And that would truly challenge the way I’m doing things, and you did. Even though you didn’t do it as strongly, you still challenge the way that I was thinking. I think it’s always good to challenge the way you think about things, because, that just helps you become a better person.”
Just with the fact that Dream deflects every accusation about his proposed statistics being wrong with it being rushed, therefore dodging the blame, I cannot agree he is humble enough to admit when he’s wrong. I would rather suggest that since Dream is the one who contacted DarkViperAU, he is preying on his authority as an accuser and using this opportunity to build up his character yet again. However, this is merely a speculation without any backing evidence.
2:26:31 (DarkViperAU) “How many discussions did you have with prominent YouTubers about this issue? You had the one with SomeOrdinaryGamer. Was that the first one? (It was the only one. I don’t know if I’d do another one.) How did the SomeOrdinaryGamer one come about?”
Long story short, Dream DM-ed him with a seemingly genuine message, and he asked Dream if he wanted to talk.
2:28:11 (DarkViperAU) “I called you a manipulative asshole quite a few times. But certainly, it’s being bombastic in the video, certainly. And communicating the point of disagreement or dislike of certain things are occurring. But I can say that I do not, from this conversation, that you are still a manipulative asshole. If anything, in your video was manipulative or could be said to be slanted in a particular direction. I don’t think it comes across in a kind of “Ah, I’m going to confuse everyone and manipulate people.” It’s more like that’s just how it came out. And I don’t believe you to be an asshole either having this discussion. Does that matter to you?”
Even I have questioned my logic numerous times as I went through this video. If it were not for the obvious lies and contradictions that Dream has created, I would have also believed that Dream was not an manipulative asshole.
One thing that I can say is that Dream consistently admits that he knew video is manipulative and slanted to a certain way. It is not in hindsight or a late realization, he states as if that’s the obvious thing to do. To make it manipulative and slanted. He also thinks the MST’s report video uploaded on Geosquare’s channel is also manipulative and slanted in the same way, when in some aspects he might be right(Fabric api & wrongly saying Dream regularly deletes his mod folders), that is not true, as their video at least tried to stay on an objective standpoint but made mistakes. Dream did not make mistakes. He made intentional decision.
2:29:01 “There is one thing that you didn’t mention that I thought was kinda funny in the video and people were calling that I was manipulative for, is that, when I gave my example about numbers 1 to 10, I say 7, and apparently 7, you have a 25% chance of picking for… (Chatting about certain Twitch Streamers’ reaction to it)
…The thing is, people were saying it was manipulative, because, technically, you have a much higher chance of choosing 7. And I was like, “Well, I must have chosen 7 because of that reason. I didn’t know that. I had no idea that you had a higher chance of choosing 7. I must have fallen into the same trap like everyone else.”
The ‘1-10 pick x streaming analogy’ is actually not manipulative, but inaccurate. What Dream is trying to convey is that if you multiply two events, it is bound to get lower. However, picking a number and streaming has no correlation or significance. The ender pearl barters and blaze rod drop rates, however, have a significant correlation, as they are the only two items that can craft an Eye of Ender, a key item that you are required to beat Minecraft, and is the only way to obtain it. And Dream had insane ender pearl barter luck AND blaze rod drop rates simultaneously. The MST didn’t multiply it together just with the intent of making it lower. They multiplied it because they are forced to calculate its probability that way, since they both happened at the same time.
What is more manipulative is that Dream is laughing off the analogy’s flaws away than the actual analogy itself.
2:29:53 “I think it’s always good to have conflicting views come together and talk about it. That’s how we have a functioning, good society, I guess”
Building his character as a levelheaded man.
Due to the amount of deceit, lies and contradictions he make, it is difficult to accept this comment at its face value. It feels like Dream is rather willing to exploit conflicting views to either build his character or gain more publicity.
Q. “Let’s say the mods come up with a document saying things they disagree within the report, they think the numbers are much higher, this is why they believe that and they stick to that assessment of whatever. What do you recommend that how I should respond?”
2:30:31 (DarkViperAU) “Are you asking in terms of what I would believe to be the honest thing to do, or how you should respond if you merely wanted the most people to think you were innocent?”
Don’t answer questions with questions, that’s rude.
DarkViperAU mentioned earlier in the interview that the character he plays on his videos is not what he is actually like. In a sense, all YouTubers act a persona to convey a narrative to their viewers, even when that is not necessarily how they would actually feel or think.
Because of that, DarkViperAU understands how Dream presents himself in his videos and how he acts in this interview can be different, so he is asking Dream which side he is requesting the answer for.
2:30:45 (DarkViperAU) “On the second, do nothing. Because, I think your first video is going to have such a large reach, and again have more reach than anything else there than said. If a document is released, even if small channels talk about it, the overall vast majority of people are not going to hear about it. And I don’t think your making of another video will necessarily change anyone’s minds. I think people are pretty set. But it all depends on what is in the actual thing.”
This is the way for if Dream wanted the most people to think he was innocent. (Videos)
2:31:17 (DarkViperAU) “The honest thing to do would be to draw much attention to it as possible. Make a video that says “Hey, this is the additional things they say in their video. Da-dada.” But that’s only if you have a thing to actually say. Or if you have a statistician to say or whatsoever.”
Sick burn.
DarkViperAU continues to give advice on how to accept the split fanbase and just keep a low profile. This is on the assumption that Dream is innocent, and even if he isn’t, let’s be honest, it’s just a block game and the worst thing from cheating a speedrun was always getting deleted from a digital leaderboard. He is advising Dream how to do damage control and let the scandal get forgotten from the mass, since as a giant YouTuber with 14M subs, losing your public image for funny block game is not an ideal business strategy.
After that, they share stories about the games they speedrun and have a small chat which is completely unrelated to Dream’s allegation. The video ends afterwards.
Afterthoughts
One speech habit Dream often shows in this interview is that he often uses excuses like “I may not be sure”, “This is what I think”, “I don’t know anything about statistics.” “It could be wrong, I don’t know. This is just my interpretation.” Though it might seem as someone being humble, it can also be used to dodge any responsibility of what he stated and directs the blame to other groups(MST, The PhD with the wrong statistics) or the questioner from interpreting his intentions the wrong way. The most the annoying part is, as shown in this interview, when he is accused of his contradiction, he will always weasel out with another “Oh, that’s not what I meant. What I really meant is~.”
After going through this video, I have a grim suspect that Dream might actually not care about speedrunning or cheating in a whole. It seems that he’s just using every opportunity to make a marketable YouTube video, build up his public image and destroy everything that comes in his way. The reason why he did speedrunning in the first place was just a hobby, and since it was that, so he didn’t care much about it anyway. The way he treats his response video is like an exaggerated performance rather than an objective rebuttal, and sadly, what should have I expected? The man studied the algorithm to build the giant conglomerate that is the Dream Team. Whatever he sees, he sees monetization, and he lost his vision to seek integrity. What is left in reality is merely a mask, and the dream of a Minecraft speedrunner is long gone. That is the price he paid for speedrunning to success.
Documents
Did Dream Fake His Speedruns - Official Moderator Analysis
Dream Investigation Results
https://mcspeedrun.com/dream.pdf
Did Dream Fake His Speedrun – RESPONSE
Dream’s Expert's Report & Analysis
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yfLURFdDhMfrvI2cFMdYM8f_M_IRoAlM/view
Dream’s list of RNG-based variables important for speedrunning Minecraft
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1izin_dl8PwuF5jFaiVwKSGBs_tfrpDj3tQdE_RwCgKM/edit
Dream Interview - Answers Hard Questions About His Behaviour and Response To Cheating Allegations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEvlmBmjjc&t=2930s
Questions for Dream – DarkViperAU
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NA1Z2tRGS6NhsAF3yU2hhIzzZp02pBVPpNno8riiZIA/edit
Did Dream Fake His Speedrun: Was The Astrophysicist Right? (Mathematical Analysis)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb81i9aHMsM&feature=emb_title