Originally posted by N Herts EagleThat depends on whether our objective is to reduce cheating, or to make cheating undetectable? As far as I am aware our mandate has always been the former.
Surely what you should be doing is precisely that you will never stop everyone determined to cheat on here what you can do is show the evidence and the methods used to obtain it and halt those from being used by other players.
No1 has stated earlier in this thread that he makes a judgement on the totality of evidence. So do we. Releasing partial evidence will only achieve more controversy. It is has to be all or nothing. The current RHP policy is nothing, and that is not about to change.
Those who argue that releasing evidence will not assist cheats are speaking from ignorance. You cannot make that argument unless you know what that evidence is. It is a Catch 22. Neither the game mods nor site admins are about to throw away many months of hard work just to satisfy the curiosity of a vocal few.
On the other hand, we also recognise that 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c) is insufficient explanation for why a person is banned. We are currently debating how we can provide a more detailed explanation. We are also investigating the use of an objective statistical standard for cases that involve engine use, and whether the results of these could then be made public. These steps could be achieved without jeopardising the game mod process itself.
However, even if we do take these steps in the future, there will still be disatisfaction, disagreement and controversy with each decision reached. That is an unavoidable cost of combatting cheats.
Our mandate is to substantially reduce the levels of cheating at RHP, and we are resolved to do that in the most effective way possible.
Originally posted by GatecrasherGatecrasher, has Exy been shown the evidence against him?
Our mandate is to substantially reduce the levels of cheating at RHP, and we are resolved to do that in the most effective way possible.
He seems confused as to the mechanism of his cheating (based upon his posts in this thread). You may not be able to trust us with his methods, but if you are 100% certain then there can't be any harm in letting him know. Can there?
(Rec'ed the above for the general sentiment of greater transparency, but obviously the "most effective way" is always going to be open to debate.)
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 655696
1 edit
Originally posted by The Swine Down HopeIf an exposed cheater were told how they were caught, next time they would avoid their mistakes, and hide their engines work better.Then they could return maybe under a different nick, or on another site.
if you are 100% certain then there can't be any harm in letting him know. Can there?
Edit: what the point in cheating is, however, still escapes me.
Originally posted by GatecrasherGatecrasher: Releasing partial evidence will only achieve more controversy. It is has to be all or nothing. The current RHP policy is nothing, and that is not about to change.
That depends on whether our objective is to reduce cheating, or to make cheating undetectable? As far as I am aware our mandate has always been the former.
No1 has stated earlier in this thread that he makes a judgement on the totality of evidence. So do we. Releasing partial evidence will only achieve more controversy. It is has to be all or nothing. ...[text shortened]... he levels of cheating at RHP, and we are resolved to do that in the most effective way possible.
I do not agree with the first statement. First, I don't see how there could be more controversy. Second, if that partial evidence is strong enough it would close the matter so far as I'm concerned. Third, you failed to address why saying that player X used engine 1 in games 1, 2, 3, 4 ............ n" would be a problem at all. Fourth, game analyses are in no way confidential and can be easily replicated by other persons. You haven't given a single reason why that type of semi-public evidence can't be revealed except a suggestion that it might not be sufficient in and of itself. While that might be true, engine analyses with high matchups would be substantial support for the Game Mods' decision and would surely be sufficient for most here.
"All or nothing" is an illogical choice you and the Site Administrators have freely made. It should be reconsidered in light of recent events. No one ever voted for a system where even the accused are not told what they supposedly did (specifically not "You cheated"😉.
Originally posted by GatecrasherWorth posting in its own thread? I was unaware of this and find it encouraging.
We also recognise that 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c) is insufficient explanation for why a person is banned. We are currently debating how we can provide a more detailed explanation. We are also investigating the use of an objective statistical standard for cases that involve engine use, and whether the results of these could then be made public. These steps could be achieved without jeopardising the game mod process itself.
Originally posted by GatecrasherCheers Gatecrasher I will admit from ignorance I cannot say if your wrong...which is one of the big issues as it stands..... but I do appreciate the reply even if it does not help....
That depends on whether our objective is to reduce cheating, or to make cheating undetectable? As far as I am aware our mandate has always been the former.
No1 has stated earlier in this thread that he makes a judgement on the totality of evidence. So do we. Releasing partial evidence will only achieve more controversy. It is has to be all or nothing. ...[text shortened]... he levels of cheating at RHP, and we are resolved to do that in the most effective way possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. His 2nd point is something I have also raised - if this satisifies people, it reduces the controversy. If it doesn't... well then, we haven't exactly moved backward.
Gatecrasher: Releasing partial evidence will only achieve more controversy. It is has to be all or nothing. The current RHP policy is nothing, and that is not about to change.
I do not agree with the first statement. First, I don't see how there could be more controversy. Second, if that partial evidence is strong enough it would close the ma ...[text shortened]... where even the accused are not told what they supposedly did (specifically not "You cheated"😉.
I also very strongly agree with the 3rd and 4th points. The 3rd point is essentially the equivalent of a charge against someone. The Game Mod system moves straight past this to the sentence, and while I FULLY appreciate you may not be able to disclose the ID of suspicious games beforehand, I cannot contemplate why there is a problem now. Logically, it is no different to me posting one of my games here in a thread and saying "hey, everybody, take a look at this and see if I'm cheating".
Heck, why don't I do that now? This was a win against a pretty good player, judging by his current rating. [edit: just checked, both our ratings were very similar then as well, so the differential is around 300 points]
Game 1267657
Anyone care do the analysis and determine if I cheated? And then zeeblebot can explain why you've breached security.
All or nothing are not the only options. I think I already demonstrated with the taped conversation analogy that it's simply not true to say that evidence is an all or nothing proposition.
Originally posted by orfeoYour opponent played at a level far below your rating. No need to analyze the individual moves.
I agree. His 2nd point is something I have also raised - if this satisifies people, it reduces the controversy. If it doesn't... well then, we haven't exactly moved backward.
I also very strongly agree with the 3rd and 4th points. The 3rd point is essentially the equivalent of a charge against someone. The Game Mod system moves straight past this to t ...[text shortened]... sation analogy that it's simply not true to say that evidence is an all or nothing proposition.
So I've been thinking about this whole situation...
I support the game mods. I've always gone on record as supporting them, even when I was a bit perturbed when I felt my computer was being intruded.
But here's something that I realized - woke me up in the middle of the night actually...
It makes sense to me to start a database at RHP. Hell, the whole world is using databases, why shouldn't RHP use them? They need to start a database that simply "asks for the member's current chess rating". This is not a big deal and I understand that many users do not belong to a national chess system. But MOST do!
Think about how simple this is... when a person signs up, ask for their current rating from whatever membership they have. If they have none then they go in RHP's records as "RATING NOT CONFIRMED".
Know what? There aren't any Expert level players who do not have some kind of rating! Yeah, it's true. I think anyone against this idea would only be against it because their REAL OTB rating is probably 300 points below their rating here! So what does that tell you?
Does it make any sense that a player who has an established rating of 1549 is on here as an Expert? There is no reason for anyone to hide their real rating. ANd if they don't belong to a national system then they go into the database as unconfirmed. That information is very important.
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldPrivate clan forums. No1 did it once, with his own evidence in his defence, but the private clan forums are unmoderated...No1 advertised for people to join the CC to see his evidence. What could stop him doing that again?
Why not send at least some info, not all of it, to no1 through PM. I mean, he doesn't seem like a person who would post any of it in the forums, not that people are supposed to anyway. Seems that way that everyone would be happy.
Originally posted by arrakisI would think you'll find MOST DON'T have a rating previous to coming to RHP. And wouldn't that be pointing the finger of suspicion at anyone who stated they didn't and then played well.
It makes sense to me to start a database at RHP. Hell, the whole world is using databases, why shouldn't RHP use them? They need to start a database that simply "asks for the member's current chess rating". This is not a big deal and I understand that many users do not belong to a national chess system. But MOST do! .
Originally posted by The Slow PawnI am very very late on this topic but I just want to agree with boris here. I too have played exy many times. I won them all and maybe we drew once. Exy is a nice person and, looking at the #2 ranked player on the site, I think it ridiculous that exy of all people would be banned for engine use. And the same goes for Ironman.
Oh my god ...
Exy banned, for cheating ?????
That is the darkest joke RHP has produced so far ... I've played Exy many times, lost some and won some and in some games I only won due to him making a very human error ...
What has RHP boiled down to ??
Who is next, helden (for playing too fast) ????
Sorry moderation team, but this clearly is a mistake (beyond a shadow of a doubt)
Regards
Boris