Game Moderation

So why not assemble a points system? Allow the tickets to be accumulated as usual. If a given user is reported more than once, he is give 1 pt. per accusation. Now, even though no value of points should be "ban worthy" this system would lead to putting each player into a "More Damaging" category.

Furthermore, as rating increases use the point system across a multiplier. Say multiply the points x .25(Rating) giving a system which is modified based on the amount of games won/lost. This would attack users who harm the top charts. It would also put users who would be easier to catch in earliest study. Also should a cheat for some reason begin to stop cheating his rating should fall, and thus end any problem or worthiness for study.

Moreover, instead of creating a "team" which works together, why not create a slightly altered system. What if a system was created in an almost "Guerrilla" tactic? Where Russ, or someone predetermined (I don't know who Russ is?) assigns certain users as valuable in game moderation. (anyone whom is rather overzealous) and their findings are attached to the ticket. Now if Russ had even 10-15 of these users checking games and reporting findings within just a few weeks time each player would have a file from dissenting users and their findings. Then whatever "Mod-Team" was in place could oversee the findings and make a decision based on accumulated data. This adds some secrecy to how it is done, (Guerilla's unknown) and yet adds authority over certain head-hunters.

Bump.

I'm afraid that point system would be far too easy to abuse. It'd be way to easy for someone to start a campaign against a given user and get their report total pushed way up.

As to accumulated points, if someone's total was high but they were investigated and found not-guilty, would the accumulated points be erased? If not, it's just going to lead to open accusations against that player when the total remains high but no ban is forthcoming. In general, it would be nice to know a player had been investigated and found clean. Right now, the only way we know someone has even been looked at is if they are banned.

I like the "Guerrilla" mod team (although I prefer "Ninja" 🙂) idea. I really don't think the identity of the mods needs to be or should be public. I'm hoping what you've proposed is actually what the new, as-yet-unpublished, game mod system looks like under the hood.

Originally posted by Ichibanov
I'm afraid that point system would be far too easy to abuse. It'd be way to easy for someone to start a campaign against a given user and get their report total pushed way up.

As to accumulated points, if someone's total was high but they were investigated and found not-guilty, would the accumulated points be erased? If not, it's just going to lead to o actually what the new, as-yet-unpublished, game mod system looks like under the hood.

If it is abused, even to the highest degree, would only become truly "Abused" if the player was of a high enough rank that the multiplier and the points become suspect. If the study should reveal he is legitimate, then all cases of the cheat have been tested, and the points are of course removed. This is why I think the multiplier system is so important. The amount of players who believe they've seen a cheat, and the increase in rating should both grow at a high rate. I think this would make all the studies much more pertinent and would have a much increased conviction rate.

Furthermore, this attitude of "head-hunting" and campaigning against a play for cheating would in fact reward the system. It would effect the study of the mods by vote of the community. This seems like exactly what should be done. When the community campaigns against a player, it would seem fundamental that the powers that be would investigate. If the player is found innocent, then his point total would fall to 0, and the only way to be suspect again, is to play games in which he is reported.

I think perhaps I need to clarify how points are given,
1 Point is given if: A player is accused by an opponent in a game.

I.E: Your playing a game, and your certain your opponent is not legitimate. You have the option of submitting feedback for that game id. Now, any player who wants to submit feedback to give a point to that player, would have to play a game against them for an appropriate ID in order for a point assignment. So campaigning with your "buddies" just simply won't work unless you all have played the player in question.

As long as the game mods act swiftly when a total is high and the points are removed, it seems like a workable system. Also, restricting cheat feedbacks to opponents would curtail abuse enough that I withdraw my previous abuse objection.