* Game moderators - the cheat police

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing
if they doesnt visit the forums, more in favour of my argument, 'cos they doesnt care!

Originally posted by nemesio
If people don't visit the forums, it's because they don't care
about cheating?

Is this your claim?

If you wanted to claim that they don't care about forum
moderation, then I could understand that.

But cheating? Do you want me to debunk this or do you
see that it makes no sense?

Nemesio

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing

Not only about cheating, Nemesio...
I hinestly think they want tho have a simple chess game.
No more, nor less. As I do.
So, ithe enumarated categories in the poll doesnt sontamplate it... it is BLACK, WHITE, and I DONT KNOW.

Im sure that a lot of people hasnt put a vote because there isnt an option to manifest "I don't care"

Its my humble opinion. May be Im wrong...

-J

Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrow
There is a "I have no opinion" option. Frankly this debate is being closely followed by the cheaters on the site. So, so far the graph is swinging more in their way than it would if the whole of RHP voted.

If you ask most people on the site they are totally against cheating.

Here is what you wrote first:

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing
IMHO you must to take into account the lacking votes from active star pawns players in the third option (No opinion).

As the player's table tell us, there are app 4900 active players. So, 100+ or so votes in the poll arent significative.... only polarized crap.

In this post, you are suggesting that, of the 4900 active players (many
of whom are not pawn stars, and therefore cannot vote), they are taking
an active stance of not caring.

I pointed out that this is not a valid position, because many of those
active players 1) aren't pawn stars; and 2) either can't (no english
facility) or don't want to read the forums. Of those who do, a smaller
percentage read the annoucements regularly and fewer still read the
post about voting.

You responded with:

if they doesnt visit the forums, more in favour of my argument, 'cos they doesnt care!

I pointed out that this is categorically not true. There are many
reasons why people don't frequent the forums. None of them
are dependent on their stance about cheating.

You followed up with:

So, ithe enumarated categories in the poll doesnt sontamplate it... it is BLACK, WHITE, and I DONT KNOW.

First of all, 'I don't know' and 'I have no opinion' are not synonymous.

Second, people who don't care may very well vote for 'I disapprove of
this idea,' since Russ will be wasting resources on a topic that they
don't care about instead of the stuff they do care about.

Third, the poll was instituted on a Friday and many people do not
have internet access over the weekend, so any judgments you may
have about the situation is premature in any event.

Last, your position has changed.

First you said: The poll is 'polarized.' While this is true, that doesn't
necessarily mean it can't be trusted; polarization is only a big deal of
the nature of the polarization is one that would skew results. The
polarization is towards those who attend to the forums. Unless you
conclude that people attend to the forums are more likely to be
concerned about cheating that those who don't, then this polarization
is not statistically significant.

Next you said: The absence of votes means people don't care which is
demonstrably false.

Last you said: The poll asks a question which is unreasonably unanswerable.
Either a person does want the resources allocated, doesn't or doesn't have
an opinion. I don't see how a person who 'doesn't know' can't pick a category.

Frankly, I don't know how a person 'couldn't know' about their opinion
about cheating such that they couldn't pick one of the available options,
but, if such a group exists, you have to confess that such a group of people
would be a miniscule minority. No?

To which untennable position (or combination thereof) are you holding?

Nemesio

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing

yup. i understand, im not an idiot!!!!!

But if they have the oportunity to express their ideas, why they arent doing?
Cos the link to the vote thingy is hidden? Nah!
Thats simply idiot. Fault of commiment with the site and site ...[text shortened]... Tho they know about it, and read the forums...)

Regards

-J

The game mods are a team of people appointed by the community who will analyse games of suspected cheats. In cases where there is judged to be overwhelming evidence that cheating has occurred, the guilty party will have their account terminated.

If anything the question is skewed AGAINST the game mods concept, as some of us don't believe that a proven cheater should automatically have his account terminated - I would allow for a lesser punishment at the site admins' disgression if mitigating circumstances were shown. Be that as it may, since the voting started the percentage of people supporting the game mods' concept has stayed very close to 90% of those who have taken a stand. I see no reason to believe that this isn't a valid expression of people's opinions on the site - it is common sense that people don't approve of cheaters.

While I have a profound respect for your opinions (Nemesio, #1 et al)
my point is that statiscally 100/X, (up today at least), where X stands for the total number of members who are allowed to vote, doesnt reflect the opinion of the whole community.

In my honest opinion, there are a lot of ppl that are aware of this problem. So, if they don't care about it, they simply aren't voting.

So, their vote is lacking in the 3rd option.

The result of the poll will be brutally distortioned, and I cant have any confidence on it.

But I dont care. After all, i have left the site from may (this year)

I hope u understand my concerns about this. RHP its a site that i love.
So, while I may be wrong, I want to supply my humble quote of help to solve any problem.

My heart is with u, great people!

-J

P.S.: im a lot sensible tonite, sorry 🙂

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing
While I have a profound respect for your opinions (Nemesio, #1 et al)
my point is that statiscally 100/X, (up today at least), where X stands for the total number of members who are allowed to vote, doesnt reflect the opinion of the whole community.

The question isn't whether or not the whole community has voted
but whether the ones who have are statistically representative of
the whole community. If 1000 people should be able to vote and
you sample 100, and if the demographics of your sample size are
commensurate with those of the whole, the percentages should not
change.

The question is: Is the fraction of people who voted representative
of the community? I see no discriminating feature to preclude such
a judgment.

In my honest opinion, there are a lot of ppl that are aware of this problem. So, if they don't care about it, they simply aren't voting.

I've addressed this already:

1) Perhaps they don't read the forums.
2) Perhaps (being an international community) they can't read english.
3) Perhaps they don't know about the vote.
4) One who doesn't care can very easily pick 'I disapprove'
for reasons stated above.
5) One who doesn't care can also very legitimately
pick 'No opinion.'

#s 1, 2 and 3 address why someone wouldn't vote, even if
they care about cheating. #s 4 and 5 give those who 'don't
care' reasonable options for voting.

I see no reason to believe that the vote is skewed towards
a specific mindset. I certainly don't see that your reasons
are valid for believing such a claim.

Nemesio

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing

While I have a profound respect for your opinions (Nemesio, #1 et al)
my point is that statiscally 100/X, (up today at least), where X stands for the total number of members who are allowed to vote, doesnt reflect the opinion of the ...[text shortened]... eat people!

-J

P.S.: im a lot sensible tonite, sorry 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder
If this logic was applied uniformly by the site admins, nothing would EVER get done on this site. No clans or clan leagues, no tournaments, no improvements of any kind as I seriously doubt that a majority of SUBSCRIBERS ever publicly stated a preference for anything. I see no reason to believe the people who are voting are not representative of the ...[text shortened]... if the majority of subscribers vote because you, me, Russ and everybody else knows they won't.

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing
by my condition of "not a pawn star" I cant vote.
Anyway, this isnt a problem for me.

There are two possible reasons for not allowing non-pawn
stars to vote:

1) Cheaters can make many bogus accounts and vote in 'disapproval.'
2) The people who pay are the one's most entitled to 'demand' changes.

Its a very low sample of the opinion of the members, and imho, you must agree with that.

About 100 million people voted in the US election. When the
polls were done for those elections, they usually polled a few thousand.
A very, very small percentage, yet very accurate. Why? Consistent
demographics.

The question isn't so much of sample size (in this case, 100 represents
about 5% of the people who have moved in the past few days, and a
higher percentage of pawn stars who have moved in that time), but
whether that sample size matches up demographically with the rest of
the population.

If I flip a coin 10 times, you expect 5 of heads and 5 of tails. 50%.
If I flip it 100 times, you expect 50 and 50. Still 50%.

It doesn't matter how many times I plan to flip it, the likelihood of
heads or tails remains 50%. Similarly, if demographics of a small
sample size is commensurate with the whole, the likelihood of polling
error is reduced markedly.

The vote MUST be obligatory.
But I hate the institutionalization of a GESTAPO police here.

You'd force people to vote, but you don't wanto GESTAPO police?
Can you explain this?

You may not like the idea that not everyone votes, but the question
is:

Can you demonstrate that the results of the section the does vote would
be different than if everyone was forced to vote? I don't think that there
is any reason to believe this, and I don't think you do either, based on this
comment:

of course, I agree that extrapolating these partial results, we could get the same or very similar results.

Nemesio

Originally posted by paultopia
Subject to the same caveats as lucifershammer, I'm happy to volunteer.

I do note, however, that although my chess skills aren't sufficient to recognize cheating, I do posess a high level of skill in investigating and proving charges, as well as in questioning accusers and accused...

Originally posted by mateulose
Ok, this is nice, but who's going to monitor the cheat police so they don't cheat themselves?

Originally posted by CrazyLilTing
What I see like a problem is, from the pure mathematical thing, a total number of votes near one hundred, doesnt is representative of the whole community opinion.

Its a very low sample of the opinion of the members, and imho, you must agree with that.