Originally posted by buffalobillThe only court it could appear in is if a paying member were banned and they approached the Small Claims Tribunal (or local equivalent) regarding financial loss caused by what they considered a breach of contract. (RHP's case, of course, would be that the complainant themselves caused the breach of contract when they broke RHP's terms of service, thus RHP did not breach the contract.)
This is my problem with the banning. We haven't been privy to the evidence but if it was on the basis of occasional (suspected) cheating in a few games where there was some 90% correlation with an engine, then I have a problem. Some days you're going to play that way, others not. There needs to be consistent and damning evidence and the balance of prob ...[text shortened]... set very high. The question is, will the evidence stand up in a court of law if it came to that?
As with any civil court, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. RHP would only need to show that they had reasonable cause to remove the member for cheating. Even if the case was awarded to the complainant, which is unlikely, RHP wouldn't be liable for anything more than a refund of the person's membership fees for the applicable time period.
Nonetheless, I don't doubt that the mods are careful to avoid false positives, because it's not in their interest to ban anyone unjustly. Bad press scaring off customers would be the biggest consequence for a site that wrongfully banned people.
Ultimately, there aren't any worse consequences involved to the individual than being banned from a chess site (which is private property), thus essentially the worst consequence is minor financial loss to a paying member. Such a consequence isn't significant enough to require evidence to be made publicly available so it's up to RHP to choose whether to do so. One reason they may prefer not to reveal it is that the details may give ideas to other users who wish to cheat.
Originally posted by orfeoRight. It's like they say, "you can't be a little bit pregnant"
But if you cheat in 5 games out of 30, you're still cheating. Showing another game where there isn't a high match (and whatever other criteria the mods use, I know this isn't the only one) isn't terribly good evidence that someone is not cheating.
People who commit fraud don't do it every single bank transaction.
You either are or you are not a cheat......you couldn't be partly a cheat.
One cheating move makes a person a cheat!
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. [metaphorically speaking]
Originally posted by karnachzBanned players have their subscription refunded.
The only court it could appear in is if a paying member were banned and they approached the Small Claims Tribunal (or local equivalent) regarding financial loss caused by what they considered a breach of contract. (RHP's case, of course, would be that the complainant themselves caused the breach of contract when they broke RHP's terms of service, thus RHP ...[text shortened]... may prefer not to reveal it is that the details may give ideas to other users who wish to cheat.