Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Jan '05 06:04 / 1 edit
    Russ -

    On December 1, you posted the thread "Game Moderators - the Cheat Police" in which you announced the concept of a group of RHP players being formed into a "cheat police" to investigate allegations of player cheating, particulary engine use. This thread was a response, at least in part, to user outcry over the blatant cheating of James Woodley and Tlai 1992. On December 16, you asked the community to vote on whether they believed such a group was necessary; we voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Game Mod concept. From January 5-12, 373 players voted for candidates for the Game Mods for a submitted list of volunteers. This is a remarkable level of interest as I'm sure you'll agree.

    Now Tlai1992 and JW did not last at RHP until the new year and perhaps a dozen high rated players have left the site since the "cheat police" concept was announced, although in most cases their motivation for doing so is uncertain. There is understandably concern among some players as to what over criteria and procedures the Game Mods will use. In addition, today you announced (perhaps reiterated is a better word) that all cheating accusations will be moderated. While I agree with this policy in light of certain vocal, bordering on libelous, assertions against certain players, I believe the solution to public accusations is to select and put to work a team of Game Mods as soon as possible so that CREDIBLE allegations of cheating backed by EVIDENCE can be investigated and the facts ascertained.

    Therefore, I ask that you select in the next several days at least a core group of Game Mods who can develop the procedures and investigative techniques and criteria that will be used to reduce the use of engines here at RHP, which is in clear violation of the TOS. Every user of this site has now confirmed that he/she will NOT use these devices; no one can plead ignorance or mistake anymore. So it is time to get things moving so that we can deal with this problem as you yourself have stated that "serial cheaters do serious harm to a site like ours." I couldn't agree more and urge immediate action.

    Respectfully,

    no1Marauder
  2. Standard member Nyxie
    The eyes of truth
    20 Jan '05 06:44
    I second this motion.
  3. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    20 Jan '05 09:30
    All in favor, I
  4. 20 Jan '05 11:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    we voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Game Mod concept. From January 5-12, 373 players voted for candidates for the Game Mods for a submitted list of volunteers. This is a remarkable level of interest as I'm sure you'll agree.
    I don't think the vote was "overwhelming" or "remarkable" in any way.
    Only 373 members voted - this is but a tiny fraction of users. Also - it seems that most voters were fellow clan members, friends of nominees, etc. - a core group raising hysteria and cheating paranoia.

    Doesn't seem to be a strong mandate to me.
  5. Standard member SirUlrich
    Love gave me wings
    20 Jan '05 11:14
    A fair idea as long as the "Police" don't include any members who have been throwing cheating accusations around over the past months.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Jan '05 11:32
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I don't think the vote was "overwhelming" or "remarkable" in any way.
    Only 373 members voted - this is but a tiny fraction of users. Also - it seems that most voters were fellow clan members, friends of nominees, etc. - a core group raising hysteria and cheating paranoia.

    Doesn't seem to be a strong mandate to me.
    You're consistent anyway. 90% of the people who had an opinion were in favor of the Game Mod concept in the first vote; 373 voted in the second - that's 355 more than the 18 who voted against the Game Mod concept. It sure looks like the only tiny minority is people like you who oppose the introduction of the Game Mods.
  7. 20 Jan '05 11:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You're consistent anyway. 90% of the people who had an opinion were in favor of the Game Mod concept in the first vote; 373 voted in the second - that's 355 more than the 18 who voted against the Game Mod concept. It sure looks like the only tiny minority is people like you who oppose the introduction of the Game Mods.
    ? I don't oppose the use game mods in any way...
    Please reread my previous posts. I'm concerned about the way RHP went about it.

    Please read my threads:
    The “Cheat Police” is a bad & dangerous idea
    and
    The “Cheat Police” vote was fundamentally flawed

    I simply want it to be fair, and unbiased, using credible and accurate criteria.

    I welcome any system that can do the job effectively, universally, and accurately.
  8. Standard member TRACKHEAD21
    Total Domination
    20 Jan '05 11:57
    Originally posted by Kranium
    I don't think the vote was "overwhelming" or "remarkable" in any way.
    Only 373 members voted - this is but a tiny fraction of users. Also - it seems that most voters were fellow clan members, friends of nominees, etc. - a core group raising hysteria and cheating paranoia.

    Doesn't seem to be a strong mandate to me.
    373 is a pretty overwhelming amount considering how few people actually pay attention to the forums which was about the only way anyone would have known about the vote in the first place. This is not at all a tiny fraction of "active" users though yeah it is a tiny fraction of users. Further more how does it seem that mmost voters were fellow clan members, friends, etc.?? Do you have some secret way of looking at the names of who voted and who voted for whom? Give it up, your one man crusade against cheat mods is going no where and if anything you are just bringing attention to yourself as a higher rated player who is unusally afraid of and against the Cheat mods.
  9. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    20 Jan '05 12:13
    I'm curious to know if the names will ever be announced at all or if they will remain as nebulous as the Forum Mods.
  10. 20 Jan '05 12:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21
    373 is a pretty overwhelming amount considering how few people actually pay attention to the forums which was about the only way anyone would have known about the vote in the first place. This is not at all a tiny fraction of "active" ...[text shortened]... rated player who is unusally afraid of and against the Cheat mods.
    Trackhead21 -

    I'm Norman Schmidt - USCF ID is: 12408114, (have been an active member for almost 40 years). I am a member of at least 8 other Internet chess sites, including playchess.com, and my favorite - the ICC (at all sites my rating is comparable to here). I do not use an engine (or database) here in any way shape or form.

    Why, if someone disagrees with you, must you then cast 'cheating' aspersions (or even worse-direct accusation)? Aren't these forums ''public", free and open to individuals for expressing their opinions? You've spoken in the past of 'clamping' people's mouths....
    what's the problem?
  11. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    20 Jan '05 13:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kranium
    Why, if someone disagrees with you, must you then cast 'cheating' aspersions (or even worse-direct accusation)?
    Frightening, isn't it?! When this is sort of thing is coming from someone who's got a high share of the vote, you can see why people are anxious about the 'Cheat Police'.
  12. 20 Jan '05 13:05
    I disagree with this. I would rather have a clean cheat police with no cheaters in them and wait a little longer for them to get online. Then to have them online quickly and just allow obvious cheaters into the cheat pollice.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Jan '05 13:06
    Originally posted by Kranium
    Trackhead21 -

    I'm Norman Schmidt - USCF ID is: 12408114, (have been an active member for almost 40 years). I am a member of at least 8 other Internet chess sites, including playchess.com, and my favorite - the ICC (at all sites my rating is comparable to here). I do not use an engine (or database) here in any way shape or form.

    Why, if someone disag ...[text shortened]... opinions? You've spoken in the past of 'clamping' people's mouths....
    what's the problem?
    Please reconcile the statement you just made in your last post: I don't oppose the use game mods in any way...

    With the title of the thread YOU started: "The Cheat Police is a bad and dangerous Idea". You continue to try to throw roadblocks in the way of the naming of the Game Mods so they can begin their work. Please just be honest and forthrightly admit you oppose the introduction of the Game Mods; I have read your posts and every single one is critical of the Game Mod concept - an opinion shared by yourself and a tiny minority of the RHP community.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    20 Jan '05 13:09
    Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
    I disagree with this. I would rather have a clean cheat police with no cheaters in them and wait a little longer for them to get online. Then to have them online quickly and just allow obvious cheaters into the cheat pollice.
    More nonsense. Russ will be the one to name the members of the Game Mods in either event; I'm merely saying after more than a month and a half it's time to do so (I'll ignore your "obvious cheats" comment as I seriously doubt Russ will name "obvious cheats" to the Game Mods).
  15. 20 Jan '05 13:20 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Please reconcile the statement you just made in your last post: I don't oppose the use game mods in any way...

    With the title of the thread YOU started: "The Cheat Police is a bad and dangerous Idea". You continu ...[text shortened]... inion shared by yourself and a tiny minority of the RHP community.
    No1-

    As I made clear in the threads, yes, I have serious concerns about the cheat police...and I believe these concerns are reasonable, and clearly articulated.
    I'm also concerned about the way it was done. That's why the 2nd thread is named
    "The Cheat Police vote was fundamentally flawed", but I repeat:

    It should be fair, unbiased, using credible and accurate criteria.
    I welcome any system that can do the job effectively, universally, and accurately.
    I have not yet seen any evidence that the current 'game mod' system will meet these requirements.

    PS - in my original post in the thread "The Cheat Police is a bad and dangerous Idea", I clearly state:
    "The best solution here: leave it to RHP….it’s their responsibility, their job."
    Surely, this proves that I'm not blindly against the "concept" as you indicate.

    Norm