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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 26 May '06 11:05
    I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
  2. 27 May '06 13:12
    Originally posted by Zumdahl
    I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
    Trouble is, that would be unfair to ALL the players the cheat played and beat on the way to the final. Any one of them could've technically gone on to win.
    I agree they should be stripped of their victories though - maybe nullify the tournament or something.
  3. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    30 May '06 18:43
    Originally posted by Zumdahl
    I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
    Better yet, leave their profile as is, except add a big red stamp over it: "BANNED FOR CHEATING". Then, the multitude of tourney victories only makes them look pathetic.
  4. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    04 Jun '06 19:32 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Better yet, leave their profile as is, except add a big red stamp over it: "[b]BANNED FOR CHEATING". Then, the multitude of tourney victories only makes them look pathetic.[/b]
    Can't do that - theres never absolute proof that anyone is actually cheating (unless they come out and say "i cheated" ).

    You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically - and that could cause some nasty goings on...

    M
  5. Standard member XanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    05 Jun '06 01:58
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    Can't do that - theres never absolute proof that anyone is actually cheating (unless they come out and say "i cheated" ).

    You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically - and that could cause some nasty goings on...

    M
    If that was true then the removed players list would already give grounds for libel. It's not true though. It's the same as I can call someone who has been convicted of murder a murderer (careful, a politician here called someone a murderer except he was convicted of manslaughter and had a case for defamation). They have been found to be cheaters and are therefore branded as such. Players are not banned because they are thought to be cheats but because the Game Mods have provided Russ with proof that they are a cheater.

    Also, saying that Ironman was banned for cheating is not something that is even applicable to this. He was indeed banned for cheating and there can be no argument about that.
  6. 05 Jun '06 11:48
    With all the latest cheats that have been removed there are alot of tournies to be rolled back to the other finalists now.
  7. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    05 Jun '06 12:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    If that was true then the removed players list would already give grounds for libel. It's not true though. It's the same as I can call someone who has been convicted of murder a murderer (careful, a politician here called someone a murderer except he was convicted of manslaughter and had a case for defamation). They have been found to be cheaters and are t ...[text shortened]... applicable to this. He was indeed banned for cheating and there can be no argument about that.
    I think there is a major difference between privately removing someones access for being suspected of cheating, and actually saying "This person was banned for cheating".

    [edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]

    M
  8. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    05 Jun '06 16:48
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically
    How can you libel a made-up online nick?

    D
  9. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    05 Jun '06 16:56
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically - and that could cause some nasty goings on...

    M
    It's not libel, as other posters have already indicated.
  10. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    05 Jun '06 17:04
    Originally posted by noxidjkram

    [edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]
    M
    But it's not a very different thing. Your latter option meets the legal standard of proof.
  11. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    05 Jun '06 17:42
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    How can you libel a made-up online nick?

    D
    You don't libel the nick - you libel the person represented by the nick.

    M
  12. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    05 Jun '06 17:43
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    But it's not a very different thing. Your latter option meets the legal standard of proof.
    And I do see what you mean.... hmmm...

    Very well put argument is that!

    M
  13. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    05 Jun '06 17:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    It's not libel, as other posters have already indicated.
    Libel is written or published defamation of character.

    I would say calling someone a cheat could definitely fall under this definition of the term?

    M
  14. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    05 Jun '06 19:43
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    Libel is written or published defamation of character.

    I would say calling someone a cheat could definitely fall under this definition of the term?

    M
    Libel is false statement(s) in written or published form that negatively affect reputation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel)

    Second, RHP is not giving out the real names of the cheats. They maintain their anonymity, and suffer no real reputational damage.
  15. Subscriber noxidjkram
    Anal(yst) Programmer
    05 Jun '06 21:22
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    Libel is written or published defamation of character.

    I would say calling someone a cheat could definitely fall under this definition of the term?

    M
    Libel is written or published defamation of character. - http://www.investorwords.com/2796/libel.html