02 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou make it sound like the rule against public accusations was made to spare people reading something they are not interested in. That sounds extremely unlikely to me (if it would be true, nobody should be allowed to post anything because there will always be people who aren't interested). I always assumed that the rule was made to protect the accused (because the accusations might be wrong). You may have followed the rules to the letter, but not the spirit of the rules, if I interpret them correctly.
Not to me it ain't; no one had to join the clan if they weren't interested.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by NordlysI don't believe in spirits except smooth Kentucky Bourbon. Would you extend your definition of "public" to include PM's saying someone is a cheat? I believe the main reason for the rule is to avoid huge wars in the Forums involving charges and countercharges of cheating as I am told occasionally happened during the early days of the site. Nothing in Russ' posts suggest that users can't share information regarding who might be using an engine in other medium besides the public forums.
You make it sound like the rule against public accusations was made to spare people reading something they are not interested in. That sounds extremely unlikely to me (if it would be true, nobody should be allowed to post anything because there will always be people who aren't interested). I always assumed that the rule was made to protect the accused (beca ...[text shortened]... ollowed the rules to the letter, but not the spirit of the rules, if I interpret them correctly.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderSo instead we have huge forum wars about how to deal with cheaters. Big difference. 22 more posts in this thread in the last half an hour. It boggles the mind.
I don't believe in spirits except smooth Kentucky Bourbon. Would you extend your definition of "public" to include PM's saying someone is a cheat? I believe the main reason for the rule is to avoid huge wars in the Forums involving charges and countercharges of cheating as I am told occasionally happened during the early days of the site. Nothing in ...[text shortened]... re information regarding who might be using an engine in other medium besides the public forums.
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, just like I wouldn't extend my definition to private clan forums. The public part is announcing in the public forum that you have evidence which you are willing to share with whoever is interested. I can see that there's a difference between doing this and disclosing the names right in the public forum if the purpose of the rule is indeed to avoid a public discussion. OTOH, if the purpose of the rule is to protect the accused, I don't see much of a difference. I don't think Russ has ever explained explicitly why he made that rule (although I may have missed that), so I can only guess.
Would you extend your definition of "public" to include PM's saying someone is a cheat?
02 Sep 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderStatement no1: "You assume this has only happened because no1 said something.
Is what true, Ivanhoe?
Utter rubbish, as far as I'm concerned."
Statement no2: "The Game Mods made clear in the relevant thread that they were already working on matters before no1 publicly said anything."
Statement no3: "Also, does the list of banned people match up with the ones no1 has preesented evidence about? I don't believe it does."
I got the (wrong ?) impression that you presented evidence and that the game mods verified this and agreed with you.
Can you please give us your opinion on all three statements ?
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSome of the people No1 suspected of cheating the mods also found to be cheating . Some of those he thought were cheating they found to be clean or are still under investigation . I think that about covers it .
Statement no1: "You assume this has only happened because no1 said something.
Utter rubbish, as far as I'm concerned."
Statement no2: "The Game Mods made clear in the relevant thread that they were already working on matters before no1 publicly said anything."
Statement no3: "Also, does the list of banned people match up with the ones no1 has ...[text shortened]... ified this and agreed with you.
Can you please give us your opinion on all three statements ?
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI did present evidence.
Statement no1: "You assume this has only happened because no1 said something.
Utter rubbish, as far as I'm concerned."
Statement no2: "The Game Mods made clear in the relevant thread that they were already working on matters before no1 publicly said anything."
Statement no3: "Also, does the list of banned people match up with the ones no1 has ...[text shortened]... ified this and agreed with you.
Can you please give us your opinion on all three statements ?
The Game Mods looked at my evidence and also used evidence of their own that I do not have access to.
They agreed with my conclusion that 2 players I named on the CC Forum as cheats and 1 I had previously ID'ed to his clan leaders were using engines. 1 I named in the CC forum abruptly left the site after being informed by his clan leader of the evidence against him. Two players I named have not been banned yet but I do not know for sure whether they have been exonerated or not; I was told that they were under investigation. 2 players banned by the Game Mods and Site Admins were not on my list and I had not studied their games in any detail.
Clear?
02 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWere there any players whom you accused ever who were acquitted by the game mods ?
I did present evidence.
The Game Mods looked at my evidence and also used evidence of their own that I do not have access to.
They agreed with my conclusion that 2 players I named on the CC Forum as cheats and 1 I had previously ID'ed to his clan leaders were using engines. 1 I named in the CC forum abruptly left the site after being in ...[text shortened]... Site Admins were not on my list and I had not studied their games in any detail.
Clear?
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
02 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeno1, would not know this.
Were there any players whom you accused ever who were acquitted by the game mods ?
But, there are a great many people that have been accused by various members of the site; that have either been: cleared, or insufficent evidence has been found. We don't want to wrongfully ban anybody. The reason this process takes so long is because of that fact.
--tmetzler