Cheating in PBEMs - Page 2

The ANZAC · November 22, 2002, 20:05

But how does cheating have any influence on whether or not they make a contribution to the forum in other areas? Also if we have a public list, then it's much more adaptable to the needs and if the cheater wants a second chance it can happen. If nobody wants them to play, then they won't. But if you outright ban them, then you leaving no room for compromises. And also it brings up the point if it isn't exactly proven the person cheated or it was under questionable circumstances? Then the player is screwed. Leave it in the hands of the users in general and not to site staff.

Darius871 · November 22, 2002, 20:12

So is someone going to set up a thread or what?

conmcb25 · November 22, 2002, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
But how does cheating have any influence on whether or not they make a contribution to the forum in other areas? Also if we have a public list, then it's much more adaptable to the needs and if the cheater wants a second chance it can happen. If nobody wants them to play, then they won't. But if you outright ban them, then you leaving no room for compromises. And also it brings up the point if it isn't exactly proven the person cheated or it was under questionable circumstances? Then the player is screwed. Leave it in the hands of the users in general and not to site staff.

Second the ANZAC

conmcb25 · November 22, 2002, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Darius871
So is someone going to set up a thread or what?

Ditto Darius

Choke · November 22, 2002, 20:23

.

conmcb25 · November 22, 2002, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Choke
"if you outright ban them, then you leaving no room for compromises."

Compromises are for fools and weaklings.

I believe you may be showing a lack of wisdom here. There is a time and a place for everything and the way to deal with this type of issue in a forum like this one where we have so many differing opionions is to compromise. I dont necessarily like it but it can and it will work in this situation.

I personnaly would like to execute cheaters but we all know that isnt going to happen, but the Anzacz way and Cases way is a good compromise that will do a lot to control cheating from happening.

Again just my opinion but it seems like you maybe in the minority here.

I say set up a thread, and inform the users of this forum who they are and where they did it, let them make there own judgement

Choke · November 22, 2002, 20:35

It's obvious I'm in the minority here and I wish I hadn't made this thread...

conmcb25 · November 22, 2002, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Choke
It's obvious I'm in the minority here and I wish I hadn't made this thread...

I dont think you should look at it this way, this has been a healthy discussion and maybe, just maybe we will do something about cheating. It may not be exactly what Choke WANTS but it maybe just what everyone who uses this forum NEEDS. And that is progress. I hate comprising probally more than you do or at least as much, but in this case you brought up a good topic to discuss and hopefully we as a community can now do something about it. You did a great job, we agree with you something must be done, its just we feel there might be a better solution. Lets focus on where we agree OK?

conmcb25 · November 22, 2002, 21:50

I jsut had a long AIM discussion with one of my PBEM buddies and it is possible there maybe a cheater in a few PBEM's Im in. Well it sucks, we need to do something about it so you brought up a great topic to discuss Choke, really!

The ANZAC · November 22, 2002, 21:58

Choke: No need to feel cornered; this is a healthy discussion and hopefully a warning thread will be made.

So, who's willing to setup the Pillary Thread?

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 00:59

No need to edit your posts Choke, you weren't out of line.

Editing posts is for fools and weaklings.

Civfan · November 23, 2002, 01:30

if this you say is a democracy, maybe we should first have a poll before doing such extremes.

MagyarCrusader · November 23, 2002, 03:48

OK, I have to ask this. What exactly is defined as cheating in PBEM games? I assume editing rules.txt in ones favor and prehaps cracking people's passwords.

But what about something like if you take your turn and you launch a series of stupid attacks and other moves and near the end of the turn you decide to just reload from the beginning and do things different? Is that considered cheating?

conmcb25 · November 23, 2002, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by MagyarCrusader
OK, I have to ask this. What exactly is defined as cheating in PBEM games? I assume editing rules.txt in ones favor and prehaps cracking people's passwords.

But what about something like if you take your turn and you launch a series of stupid attacks and other moves and near the end of the turn you decide to just reload from the beginning and do things different? Is that considered cheating?

I would consider that cheating, but how is it going to be proven? I dont know!

Pavlov · November 23, 2002, 08:29

That would be impossible to prove, unless the guy who did it tells anyone about it or has an uncanning knowledge of his enemy's defences.

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 12:04

It is easy to prove if the person did it so fanatically that his combats results are always impossible.

klesh · November 23, 2002, 12:54

Well I do that latter all the time. I always take my PBEM turns 4 or 5 times. I never considered that cheating because trhe units there are just the units there, there is no fooling around with them.

When playing civ against humans, it is gravely important that you maximize your results. You dont have the leniancy that playing against a dumb AI affords. So when I unleash an attack of 30 units onto an enemy's border, I will attampt that attack a few times to see how far I can get it.

Especially for scenarios that have wildy alternate unit stats (tsfe comes to mind) you rarely now how attacks will turn out. If I attack a city with a T-34 a plane might defend, but if I go with an infantry I might get to take out that evber important bunker unit.

If playing your turn a few times is cheating, them put me on the 'blacklist'

-FMK.

klesh · November 23, 2002, 13:59

Has anyone looked to see how the other PBEM forums handle this problem? CtP, AC, and CivIII all have PBEM forums and they must be debatting the same things... or perhaps they have a solution already.

Either way, this seems like it should be discussed and handled by PBEM playing moderators rather than freelance vigilante threads.

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 14:50

Klesh, why exactly do you have a problem with the thread? Is it just the ugly connotation of the word "blacklist"?

If people remain civil and just post the facts, I don't see what is unethical about it. The difference between this thread and Salem or McCarthyism is this: in those cases all one had to do was yell "she's a witch!" or "he's a commie!" and it would be accepted as fact. In the case of PBEM cheaters, they are proven to have cheated, either by a file check and/or a confession, and then that undisputed fact is made known to everyone who wants to know. There's a huge difference between these two situations.

techumseh · November 23, 2002, 15:43

I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.

The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways.

Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach.

Henrik · November 23, 2002, 15:51

I agree with Tecumseh and FMK here, I really don't like the "blacklist" concept.

Oh and btw tecumseh I believe it's your turn in lebensraum

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by techumseh
I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.

Ok, I will. I just didn't think I should dig up ancient history, but I have links to the 7 cheating busts I've experienced, so I can take 10 minutes and post them all if you like.

Quote:

Originally posted by techumseh
The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways.

This is not necessarily true; I've seen a cheater from civfanatics game join a PBEM here without mentioning his past, and if it weren't for Case bringing it up, the other players wouldn't have known. That's exactly the type of situation a list is meant to prevent. There was another case where only two people knew that a player had cheated, they sorted it out with that person, and they let him continue without telling anybody else.

Also, if people are aware of who the cheaters are, there is a higher chance that they would be able to catch DL's. Whether it be grammar, location, playing style, signature contents, or whatever else, DL cheaters could be identified if people know who their old alias was.

Quote:

Originally posted by techumseh
Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach.

By using the word "more" you act as if it were an either-or approach, but it's not. I believe we should use both methods.

Regardless, routine checks are already being done by Duke of Marlbrough at CFC and is nothing new. But you have to accept the reality that people do not have the time to repeatedly check these games. Who would do it? Would you like to volunteer?

klesh · November 23, 2002, 16:27

Daruis, my only thing is that any lists or whatever type of thing we do should be done by the mods of this forum, preferably ones that are familliar with PBEMs. This way we can get a consensus for the entire community as opposed to little bits and tads here and there. One set of rules, one set of methods, applied to all.

I like your idea techumseh, but as it is hard enough to find people williung to devote real time to play a PBEM, think of how hard it'll be to recruit PBEM sheriffs. That is, unless it is a duty of being within the PBEM community.

I still think we should opperate this all within the civII PBEM civgroup. This allows the rules to be set, and if one doesnt like it they can play a game outside of the group. This also allows us to keep tabs on all the playes. PBEM Civgroup sanctioned games would be assigned a Sherrif by the leader of the PBEM Civgroup. It would be a rotating job, so everyone in the civgroup will have to do some policing..... Thats the price you'll have to pay to be in league with people who want to curb cheating.

This way we have rules, we have a standard, and we have an enforcement method. Anyone can come and go from this forum.... but the civgroup is a way to have a registered list of players, and a way get rules etc solidly in place.

Thoughts?

-FMK.

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 16:31

I would certainly love having a sheriff in every game, but I just don't think it's practical; people just don't have the time. It's a huge load to handle.

As for what you said about having rules and structure I totally agree; that's why I said on the thread just the facts, in a specific format. If anyone has anything immature or off-topic to say, they can say it elsewhere.

techumseh · November 23, 2002, 16:38

Sure, I'll do one or two, if some others will volunteer also. Somebody's going to have to bring me up to speed on how to go about it.

I'm looking for playtesters for my new Test of Time scenario 'Roman Civil War', and I'm making it the first PBEM with a "Subject to random audit" warning label right from the start. So I'm looking for 6 players and one auditor or alternatively, 7 players and I'll do the audit.

Any takers?

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 16:43

Btw FMK, I thought I'd mention that having a bunch of regular players doing file checks is very risky.

For one, letting a veteran player look deeply into someone's savegame could give that player important information about that player's strategies and playing style, information which they could use to their advantage in another game where they're playing against that person.

Secondly, having average civgroup members going around checking files could result in someone getting falsely accused. As some of you are aware, someone was falsely accused in the Mongols PBEM here and he ended up leaving because of it. Now that check was done by DoM who is very experienced at doing this. Could you imagine if less experienced people go around doing it, do it sloppy, and then falsely accuse people? That's a big risk.

St Leo · November 23, 2002, 17:13

I am going to let you guys elect an extra-dedicated moderator for fun stuff like IP checks. Tentatively, the candidates will be Darius871, Techumseh, Case, and FMK. Please inform me of other deserving regulars before I create the poll.

Dr. Nick · November 23, 2002, 17:22

You could just punish all four of them, Leo.

St Leo · November 23, 2002, 17:29

You could just punish all four of them, Leo.

Yes, the poll will be multiple-choice.:P

The ANZAC · November 23, 2002, 17:33

I think the list is a good idea, one of the better ones too. The problems with "PBEM Sheriffs" are valid and that is why they can't be standard. However it would be nice to see if we can get more features associated with our CivGroup implemented.