1. Joined
    24 Jun '04
    Moves
    9995
    16 Oct '05 08:58
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The purpose of the proposed vote is not to set policy, but to inform the site administrators of the customers' desires so that they can make an informed business decision.
    Fair enough -- but there's the problem of nonresponse bias. In other words, there may be more people on one side than the other who don't respond in a thread like this. It's not a very reliable way to measure people's opinions on the matter, and you can really only take it qualitatively (i.e. the arguments made) rather than quantitatively (i.e. the number of people arguing for each position).
  2. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    16 Oct '05 10:01
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Using an engine for one move is sufficient to actually be a cheater. Matching an engine for one move is obviously not sufficient evidence to conclude that somebody is a cheater. The first point concerns what it is to cheat, the second point concerns what it takes to show that somebody is a cheater.
    Of course, but there seems to be a misconception on here about how easy it is to catch a cheater.

    Obviously, Paulie's question applied to proving engine use. rhb posted that 1 move was enough.

    Semantics.

    D
  3. Standard memberrhb
    Ginger Scum
    Paranoia
    Joined
    23 Sep '03
    Moves
    15902
    16 Oct '05 11:02
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    So if I find one of your moves that matches up with an engine, that's it: you're a cheater?

    D
    Nope.

    If you can prove I cheated once, then that should be enough.
  4. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    16 Oct '05 11:24
    Originally posted by rhb
    Nope.

    If you can prove I cheated once, then that should be enough.
    Reread Paulie's original question. And your reply to it.

    In principal, I agree with your point here. In theory, its spot on.

    D
  5. Standard memberrhb
    Ginger Scum
    Paranoia
    Joined
    23 Sep '03
    Moves
    15902
    16 Oct '05 11:34
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Reread Paulie's original question. And your reply to it.

    In principal, I agree with your point here. In theory, its spot on.

    D
    If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that would be considered to be cheating (in line with the TOS), then that user has cheated once.
  6. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    16 Oct '05 12:00
    Originally posted by rhb
    If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that would be considered to be cheating (in line with the TOS), then that user has cheated once.
    I agree with you 100%, in theory.

    Now, please explain a feasible way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that could be considered to be cheating, taking into account the fact that the cheater is sitting in a room possibly on the other side of the planet, possibly on his own, with no spyware or hidden cameras watching his every move.

    D
  7. Standard memberrhb
    Ginger Scum
    Paranoia
    Joined
    23 Sep '03
    Moves
    15902
    16 Oct '05 12:35
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I agree with you 100%, in theory.

    Now, please explain a feasible way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that could be considered to be cheating, taking into account the fact that the cheater is sitting in a room possibly on the other side of the planet, possibly on his own, with no spyware or hidden cameras watching his every move.

    D
    I have no feasible way to do as you describe.

    I said one move should be enough, not that it could be.

    Interestingly though. based on the case of Blobby - who admitted he had had (human) 3rd party assisitance for a small number of moves - if any player were to post an admission that someone else made just one of their moves for them, then that'd be a breach of 3(b) and qualify for a ban.
  8. Joined
    22 Aug '05
    Moves
    26450
    18 Oct '05 04:05
    Originally posted by Paulie
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/comhub/volunteers.php

    List of Mods 😉
    Thanks.🙂
  9. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    20 Oct '05 04:39
    Nyxie
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree