* Game moderators - the cheat police

Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrow
I dont think anyone has. Fair play probably wont be an issue, their moves either match up to an engine or they dont.

Agreed, this shouldn't be a witch hunt at all. It is about putting a stop to cheating on a generic level, not seeking out and applying punishment with a look of glee in one's eyes.

Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC

I would like to help out where (if) I can.

I will be creating a private forum for game moderators where any evidence can be discussed and a decision reached. (In private)

The decision on the final team will probably be quite contentious, so if you are interested, please put your name down in this thread. (Copy any previous volunteer's names into your post, add your name to the bottom of the list, and then submit the post.)

I will ...[text shortened]... me know your thoughts on this anyway, and please let me know if you feel you can help.

-Russ[/b]

Well, it sounds like such a team of moderators could use some direction. I would like to be on this team not just to catch cheaters but to protect the innocent. Also, if the team does catch a computer cheater they should put a "C" after his/her handle. That would allow other players to know that this person has used computer assisted aid.
Arrakis - former computer buster at ICC

Originally posted by arrakis
Also, if the team does catch a computer cheater they should put a "C" after his/her handle. That would allow other players to know that this person has used computer assisted aid.
Arrakis - former computer buster at ICC

I was thinking that this would be a great way to deal with cheats. Mark them with a C and bar them from tournaments/clan games/sieges. That way, the only games that the cheater can play are challenges with the other player knowing that he/she is playing a cheater.

This would obviously have to be reviewed after a fixed length of time.

D

Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit

I'll hop on the list, for same reasons as arrakis.... I don't want people getting blamed if they are not using engines.

P-

I put arrakis on the list, as he did not add his name.

I have some basic concerns in regards to the set up of the “Star Chamber”. I would like to make sure of the integrity of the game analysis. How will this go down? Would it be best to have 2 partitions to the analysis?
In each partition you should have people with all of the same machines, trying to reach the same conclusion based on data. For example I would volunteer for duty with my cm9k on partition 1 and phlabibit would be on partition two with his cm9k. We would be assigned a game to analyze. Doing so under the same technique we would come together and compare data. If there was a huge discrepancy we would have to go back and do it again. Then all involved would look at the analysis to see how many more games should be run on the individual in question. Just for clarification, the same game would be run by others with different chess engines at the same time to find the software being used. People make mistakes, and when this is done there should be none.

Everyone would have a redundant partner.

I will throw my name into the hat as well.

Mike


Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7

Originally posted by Russ
Now leagues are underway, next on the hit list is to combat increased concerns that some individuals are cheating. This is not an easy thing to prove, but people have produced fairly conclusive evidence in the past. Currently though, there is no process for dealing with suspect cheats.

So, what I am proposing to do is introduce 'game moderators'. I am h ...[text shortened]... me know your thoughts on this anyway, and please let me know if you feel you can help.

-Russ

I think that something should be done but I would sooner see the Admins implement an automated process for scanning games on completion.

Having seen the ongoing rows over Forum Moderation that only started to ease once some sort of automated process was put in place, my fear is that these Chess Mods would be the cause of much controversy and argument and it would be almost impossible to guarantee thier impartiality.

Originally posted by Exy
I think that something should be done but I would sooner see the Admins implement an automated process for scanning games on completion.

Having seen the ongoing rows over Forum Moderation that only started to ease once some sort of automated process was put in place, my fear is that these Chess Mods would be the cause of much controversy and argument and it would be almost impossible to guarantee thier impartiality.

Oops, clicked recommend instead of reply and quote.

While an automated system would indeed be the best solution, I don't see how it is possible. First of all, game analysis uses up massive system resources, and even running as many as 2 games at once on one machine is pushing it. Secondly, the problem of automagically interacting with the various chess programs is probably beyond anybody outside of the companies who wrote the engine software.

While this may not be the optimal resolution, I think at the moment, it must be the best. Impartiality will only be guaranteed with a big mix of different players, all of whom can't have a dislike for the same player.

Forum moderation is a whole different kettle of fish as well, as it is all a subjective analysis of what different people find offensive. Game analysis will be documented proof of cheating.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Oops, clicked recommend instead of reply and quote.

While an automated system would indeed be the best solution, I don't see how it is possible. First of all, game analysis uses up massive system resources, and even running as many as 2 games at once on one machine is pushing it. Secondly, the problem of automagically interacting with the various ches ...[text shortened]... at different people find offensive. Game analysis will be documented proof of cheating.

D

When the team gets going, and the number come in... there should be little doubt if a user is using an engine in their games.

If there is any doubt, there will be no harm... as it will not be public knowledge who's games are getting looked into.

P-

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Oops, clicked recommend instead of reply and quote.

While an automated system would indeed be the best solution, I don't see how it is possible. First of all, game analysis uses up massive system resources, and even running as many as 2 games at once on one machine is pushing it. Secondly, the problem of automagically interacting with the various ches ...[text shortened]... at different people find offensive. Game analysis will be documented proof of cheating.

D

I agree with you and the first post you quoted. While I could see problems arising with this group of mods I think it is the best solution for right now. I also like the C next to the name thing but could see problems with banning the players from tournaments, clans and sieges since those are part of the benefits of being a subscriber those players would probably simply want to cancel their membership if they can't partake in them. Hmmmm, now that I think about it, while I do like the C that too could cause people to cancel their membership although I personally wouldnt mind if a cheating player decided to leave the site, that would be lost money for the site which would be a problem. Something I spoke to some people about a couple month ago an idea which some liked and some disliked is if it would be possible to not have access to the pgn and fen of a game until after it's over. While that wouldnt stop engine use I think it would make it harder for engine users to do what they do, just a thought.

Just reposting the list for so far. It looks good. Question is, is it enough people and how many do you all think we need? With that partition idea, i'm thinking arounf 15-20. Anyway, on that thought I was thinking about an analysis problem. One computer with 256MB of RAM and then my computer with 3GB of RAM. We both run the same engine, will our engines have the same results, make the same moves in the same given time period for calculation? I've played against engines on other peoples computers and they are weaker playing. My computer which has the 3GB of ram, a bit over a terabyte of hard drive space, 6GB of virtual memory and amd 3200+ processor has to run an engine much stronger than a normal puter. So, what about that?

oops forgot to repost it lol

Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7

Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21
I also like the C next to the name thing but could see problems with banning the players from tournaments, clans and sieges since those are part of the benefits of being a subscriber those players would probably simply want to cancel t ...[text shortened]... , that would be lost money for the site which would be a problem.

Hmm Subs vs cheat? Subs vs cheat? To me it is obvious. The long tem benefits of not having cheats far outweighs the subs they pay.

If RHP became a well policed site, it would encourage many more honest players onto the site.

Becoming a member or subscriber to RHP implies that you will undertake to follow the rules of the site. And the rules state no engine use. If you abuse that rule, then getting a "C" and being barred from events that automatically generate games (clans/tournies/sieges) is very small punishment indeed.

While the benefit of the doubt remains with those being investigated, the rights of honest subscribers (who are the vast bulk) have to be protected to the hilt.

So I will add my name to the list.

Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7
Gatecrasher

Originally posted by arrakis
Well, it sounds like such a team of moderators could use some direction. I would like to be on this team not just to catch cheaters but to protect the innocent. Also, if the team does catch a computer cheater they should put a "C" after his/her handle. That would allow other players to know that this person has used computer assisted aid.
Arrakis - former computer buster at ICC

This may start a fight but ................ As Arrakis is team captain of the Fun Clan in the 3 day league, Division 2 and has on his team blatant and obvious cheater James Woodley who, I assume, would be the first person investigated by this group, his inclusion on the Cheat Police would be a complete conflict of interest. I also have reason to believe that he may have prejudged the case that I am unable to disclose because I received it via PM. Therefore, I think Arrakis should be disqualified from the group.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This may start a fight but ................ As Arrakis is team captain of the Fun Clan in the 3 day league, Division 2 and has on his team blatant and obvious cheater James Woodley who, I assume, would be the first person investigated by this group, his inclusion on the Cheat Police would be a complete conflict of interest. I also have reason ...[text shortened]... because I received it via PM. Therefore, I think Arrakis should be disqualified from the group.

I thought Russ was going to have a public vote on this?