Announcements
06 Mar 08
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by fiftyonehzFrom page 11 or so...
Not sure if anyone has suggested this in the mountains of recent posts regarding cheating and game moderation, but ...
Could the game mods be organized into more than one team that work independently? This would add a layer of redundancy and avoid sticky situations that could arise if, for instance, a game mod is accused of cheating.
Originally posted by Phlabibit
I don't think 2 separate teams is a good idea, a case of the left hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. The team always worked on several cases at once until they were sure a user was cheating. That is when the person is removed by the admins. There is no advantage to having separate teams.
There is never a case where you decide a user is NOT a cheat, if more complaints come in about a user more games are run if needed. If more time is needed, a player may go to a back burning until more evidence comes in while working on other cases.
The team has always just given their info for all to review, it's always Russ' decision in the end since he's the only one that can remove the player and put a 3(b) next to their name.
P-
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf i read this correctly there is an automatic assumption of guilt but no action until sufficient damning evidence is amassed. Furthermore, number of complaints is regarded as evidence in itself. Under that system anyone could be banned eventually if enough people could be persuaded to complain. I guess any system is better than no system at all.
From page 11 or so...
Originally posted by Phlabibit
[b]There is never a case where you decide a user is NOT a cheat, if more complaints come in about a user more games are run if needed. If more time is needed, a player may go to a back burning until more evidence comes in while working on other cases.
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by Kepler[/b]
If i read this correctly there is an automatic assumption of guilt but no action until sufficient damning evidence is amassed. Furthermore, number of complaints is regarded as evidence in itself. Under that system anyone could be banned eventually if enough people could be persuaded to complain. I guess any system is better than no system at all.
I may have wrote it that way, but what I am saying is there is never any way to say "this user is NOT guilty".
If we move on to another case, and weeks or months later more complaints come in... we check the new info.
There are levels of suspicion with some users, no way to get around that. These are borderline users. There are users we get that there is NO suspicion at all.. it depends.
In other words, game mods don't assume EVERY user is cheating if they are reported, but there are instances where we suspect they are but don't have enough evidence.
P-
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherOh, obviously I never meant these details should be public, but I would want Russ to have verified these people are real in a chess qualification sense.
I think it is fine to offer suggestions in regard to specific qualifications, but any requirements concerning identity and verification, here in cybersapce, can only be enforced by the site owners, at their discretion.
80-90% of game mod work is sheer drudgery, requiring virtually no chess ability whatsoever. 10-20%, however, does require some keen c ...[text shortened]... e. Any additional abilities beyond these should be conidered a bonus, rather than a requirement.
This is also why I would say these candidates must have been members here for at least 2 years, as this would be an easier gauge about their personality traits...
I also don't really care about rating too much here, but they must at least be above my level of ChessTardness.
10 Mar 08
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundGame mods only determine whether there is a violation of 3b. The site owners dole out the punishment, and if they have allowed this player back after a two year ban, then that is their prerogative.
Quick question.
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=88568&page=2
What is the point of game moderation, if cheats are being let back in to play as they wish ?[/b]
But a precedent has been set, so I guess any player who has been banned in the past now has a path back by appealing to Russ/Chris.
Any player coming back after a ban must know, however, that they will be playing under a very bright spotlight.
Does this make game moderation pointless? I don't think so. But I wouldn't like to see too many successful appeals.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by Dragon Fire"You are of course correct that there can be a difference of maybe about 200-300 points between an OTB rating and correspondence rating but it stretches credibility too far when the difference is 600 points."
True but if an OTB rating is high then it lends credibility to a high rating here.
You are of course correct that there can be a difference of maybe about 200-300 points between an OTB rating and correspondence rating but it stretches credibility too far when the difference is 600 points.
As far as being reasonably certain about you compared to som ...[text shortened]... r, etc. so I have as yet not formed an opinion. Of course my feeling could be completely wrong.
I do not agree. I know some Dutch players with established OTB- and CC-rating where their OTB-rating is 1800-2000 and CC-rating over 2400 and I am certain that's genuine
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by Arrakis"I suggest that people like this meet me in the blitz area and we'll see if they come close to their RHP rating. If a person can't perform in blitz chess in accordance with their rating, then their rating shouldn't be used in consideration for the mod position."
Ok, this is 'on topic'.
I have a suggestion for any player who carries a high rating and is using that as one of his qualities for being a mod. An example is the arrogant post by Wormwood above. I suggest that people like this meet me in the blitz area and we'll see if they come close to their RHP rating. If a person can't perform in blitz chess in accordan ...[text shortened]... th their rating, then their rating shouldn't be used in consideration for the mod position.
This is just nonsense, blitz has nothing to do with CC-chess.
A lot of players play CC-chess because they make blunders when forced in to moving fast (like when you only have 2 hours for 40 moves in normal games and I'm not even talking about blitz here). They play CC to avoid blunders. As I said elsewhere I know some people in Holland whose CC-rating is 500 points or more higher than their OTB-rating.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI don't really see a reason for you to be opposed to it.
Why is that important?
In the words of MissOleum.
"The alternate team could then be used where an individual moderator was suspect, or where there was a strong connection between the suspect and one of the moderators. In cases where the 3 didn't agree conclusively, the other team could then tackle the same case independently.
The workload on any individual or team should then be less demanding because only a few of the cases would require the attention of both teams."
I just feel like it would lessen the peer pressure that someone might feel from a Sepico setting.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by cashthetrashWould it not be simpler if a suspect or connected moderator is recused, and the case investigated and deliberated upon by the remaining moderators?
I don't really see a reason for you to be opposed to it.
In the words of MissOleum.
"The alternate team could then be used where an individual moderator was suspect, or where there was a strong connection between the suspect and one of the moderators. In cases where the 3 didn't agree conclusively, the other team could then tackle the same case in ...[text shortened]... t feel like it would lessen the peer pressure that someone might feel from a Sepico setting.
In the case of two teams, unless carefully coordinated from above (which is unlikely), you could get significant duplication of effort if suspects are reported to more than one team. Wouldn't the evidence gathered by one team be beneficial to the other? The idea just seems a little unweildly, inefficient and impractical.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherOf course I don't know what exactly MissOleum had in mind, but I would have thought that when someone would be reported, it would be reported to the whole team, and it would then be decided which sub-team will handle that case, taking into account the case load of each team as well as possible bias. From the point at which one sub-team has been assigned a case, I wouldn't see a need for the other sub-team to be involved at all unless the case is borderline, and the sub-team that got the case asks for help.
Would it not be simpler if a suspect or connected moderator is recused, and the case investigated and deliberated upon by the remaining moderators?
In the case of two teams, unless carefully coordinated from above (which is unlikely), you could get significant duplication of effort if suspects are reported to more than one team. Wouldn't the evidence ...[text shortened]... e beneficial to the other? The idea just seems a little unweildly, inefficient and impractical.
11 Mar 08
Originally posted by GatecrasherThank you.
Would it not be simpler if a suspect or connected moderator is recused, and the case investigated and deliberated upon by the remaining moderators?
In the case of two teams, unless carefully coordinated from above (which is unlikely), you could get significant duplication of effort if suspects are reported to more than one team. Wouldn't the evidence ...[text shortened]... e beneficial to the other? The idea just seems a little unweildly, inefficient and impractical.