If we're going to get into the nuts and bolts of the system, I'd propose the following:
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n number of complaints which are adjudged to be genuine and not for the purposes of harassment and/or "sorelosership".
2. The player who was being investigated would be informed of the investigation by PM and the reason for it. He would be given an opportunity to admit or deny cheating. If he denies cheating, he would be given a chance to produce evidence supporting his denial and would be entitled to study any evidence being used against him in the investigation.
3. The cheat police would make a finding in the case as to whether the player had cheated. Such a finding would be based on a "clear and convincing" evidence standard and would require the positive vote of a large majority of the cheat police, perhaps 3/4 agreeing that the person had cheated. The player would be informed of this finding and of the results of the vote (a number not how individuals voted)
4. The finding would be forwarded to the site admins. The player would have a chance to PM Russ disagreeing with the finding or producing mitigating circumstances. Russ would then make a final decision and publicly announce it.
I would tend to think that either a ban from the site or a ban from clan and tournaments games would be acceptable. I would support an amnesty only if the player who had cheated confessed to the site admins and was placed on some sort of probation to be monitored by the cheat police, although his name need not be made public.
I'd appreciate any feedback or comments on these proposals.
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyIronic that you should be upset by mudslinging and
God give us a break, that's just a pathetic excuse for mud slinging and verbal abuse in the forums, and you know it, so dont get on your high horse with me nemesio, if you want to claim the moral high ground nemesio then you act like an adult and talk like an adult.
verbal abuse.
No, not ironic: Hypocritical.
Nemesio
Originally posted by orfeoorfeo if you could be bothered to check you would find that i no longer play chess on this site, ive resigned all my games and left my clan. I have 1 game in progress, against a friend, its unrated, and no im not running an engine in that 1 game.
FGWE, if I want to play against an engine, I will download one. I do not come here to play against engines.
If I am ever drawn against you in a tournament or clan game I will protest long and loudly and refer to this thread while doing it.
As hard as this might be for some of you guys to understand, I can actually play chess to a reasonable standard without an engine.
On the subject of "wanting" to be a chess mod, and the acussation that i admitted engine use simply to try and become one, well LOL.
All rated games on RHP are public, i dont need to be a chess mod to look at the games of anyone i think is cheating and make a considered judgement on the results of the analysis of those games, in or out, it makes no differance to me.
Trust, someone mentioned trust, you cant trust someone who has admitted engine use ?, WHO can you trust on RHP, all the other names on that list ?, all the people who have made public accusations with little or no proof, all the people who have made public accusations but then been "selective" in who they name for reasons best known to themselves ?, all the people who have chosen to ignore this subject for so long in the hope that all the fuss would blow over, only acting now because it didnt ?, all the people who have remained silent because cheat A,B or C was a team mate, a fellow clan member or friend ?, all the people who simply dont want to "rock the boat" ?, yeah you feel free to trust them, and lets see where that gets you.
Shame, some people seem to think you can shame the engine boys, put a (C) next to there name (it should be an E but thats a minor point, lol), these guys have no shame, what do you think will happen if you stick a (C) next to all there names and ban them from clan games and tournys ?, they will simply all just start playing each other, and you will have an unofficial engine playground, so why not just do as other sites have allready done and give them there own little field to play in, simple and effective.
Regards FGWE
Originally posted by no1marauderSounds good as guide lines, yet I think the over all deciding factor in anything should be common sense.
If we're going to get into the nuts and bolts of the system, I'd propose the following:
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
...[text shortened]... I'd appreciate any feedback or comments on these proposals.
Say another JW came onto the site and played every opening in the scholars mate fashion but still won every game. I dont think you'd need X number of complaints to notice something dodgy.
I do think a (C) should be added to their names, the chess mods are probably going to be more of a deterrent that catching people, if a cheater knew that once he was caught his name would be released then they might have second thoughts. This is only a guess but people cheat to seem better than they are which probably means they place value on what others think of them. Id imagine it was that way in the JW case.
if engine users are going to get a "C" next to their name and be allowed to continue, then players should be able to volunteer their names if they want to use computer assistance and save the detectives a lot of time: some people would happily do this ... some would not.
p.s. greyeyes: have you run dscp's games? how do they match up?
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyThere is only one trust that matters on this site: trust that people
Trust, someone mentioned trust, you cant trust someone who has admitted engine use ?, WHO can you trust on RHP, all the other names on that list ?, all the people who have made public accusations with little or no proof, all the people who have made public accusations but then been "selective" in who they name for reasons best known to themsel ...[text shortened]... ant to "rock the boat" ?, yeah you feel free to trust them, and lets see where that gets you.
are playing chess to their best ability, and not to a engine's best
ability. Cheaters, like yourself, violate the only significant trust.
For you to try to argue any points which glorify such activity is
morally and intellectually absurd.
The resulting trust -- the candor I spoke about -- is a by-product of
anonymity. It's sociologically interesting, but insignificant. If
someone wants to pretend that they are a woman when they are
a man, or young when they are old, or stupid when they are smart,
it has no impact on 'the game,' the ostensible purpose of this site.
And, almost invariably, a person finds out when a person is spoofing,
and this tells you even more about them.
It astounds me that you are still permitted to be here at all, frankly.
Your arguing for any rights, privileges, or dignity of cheaters makes
your presence all the more puzzling. As long as you never play again
in a rated capacity, it isn't outrageous, but I feel sorry for all the people
whom you cheated against who have to read your posts, all the while
being reminded of what a nasty cheat you were.
Nemesio
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyIf you no longer play, what are you doing here now?
orfeo if you could be bothered to check you would find that i no longer play chess on this site, ive resigned all my games and left my clan. I have 1 game in progress, against a friend, its unrated, and no im not running an engine in that 1 game.
And who's to say you won't restart playing games later?
The whole point is that according to the Terms of Service as they currently stand, I shouldn't HAVE to check anything. I have the right to assume that I am playing against a person. As I said, if I wanted to play an engine I am quite sure I could get one of my own, and I wouldn't need an internet connection to play it.
If you want to get the ToS changed, that's an entirely different matter and you can try and persuade Russ to create a "battle of the engines area" (which, pardon my language, sounds like a damn stupid idea, but each to their own). But the current philosophy of this site and the one that you signed up to is one that is against use of engines. Why on earth did you sign up to THIS site if there are others that would allow you to use assistance?
As to trusting other people: yes, I do, until given some reason not to. Maybe a few of them are duping me. So be it. But then again the ratings graphs of most people, when I bother looking at them, don't look remotely like yours.
Originally posted by flexmoreNo I havent, it might be intresting. Shame he wouldnt talk about it all really.
if engine users are going to get a "C" next to their name and be allowed to continue, then players should be able to volunteer their names if they want to use computer assistance and save the detectives a lot of time: some people would happily do this ... some would not.
p.s. greyeyes: have you run dscp's games? how do they match up?
I'll get around to it then send you a pm.
I personally don't have the time or expertise to volunteer for this type of oversight, but I do support it. For one thing, it would (or should) put and end to reckless public allegations. Cheating, if it can be proven, should be punished by cancellation of the account and deletion of ratings. All games in progress would be awarded to the opposing player. End of discussion. Public posting of the identified cheat and the actions are also of utmost importance in reassuring all members that something is being done. Public accusations, however, should also be a sanctionable offense. Whether based or not, it should be a clear violation to publicly accuse another player of cheating. Perhaps a warning from the admins or moderators on a first offense, followed by a suspension on the second, and cancellation of account on the third. Of course, I do not support amnesty for past cheaters, as they have clearly violated site policy. That being said, this new board should only look at games that actually start after implementation. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game, and newly defined sanctions would be such a change (that's my generous side speaking, personally, I'd like a comprehensive review of all archived games even though it isn't even remotely feasible). As a precautionary measure, though, if a strong IM or GM played on this site, and produced a track record like that of Ironman, that player should certainly be afforded the respect that his/her real title deserves. Accusing titled players could be a dangerous business for the longterm good of this site.
BLR
Originally posted by BLReidOnce there is a process for id'ing and punishing cheats, then public accusations should be unnecessary. I think you would be blind, however, to say that the public accusations in the last few months are not directly responsible for something being done to solve the problem.
I personally don't have the time or expertise to volunteer for this type of oversight, but I do support it. For one thing, it would (or should) put and end to reckless public allegations. Cheating, if it can be proven, should be punished by cancellation of the account and deletion of ratings. All games in progress would be awarded to the opposing player. End ...[text shortened]... Accusing titled players could be a dangerous business for the longterm good of this site.
BLR
That being said, I wonder if you'd care to comment on the proposals for guidelines that I presented on the previous page.
Originally posted by no1marauderGladly,
If we're going to get into the nuts and bolts of the system, I'd propose the following:
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n numb ...[text shortened]... d not be made public.
I'd appreciate any feedback or comments on these proposals.
I think the provisions in item 1 are a good start, but they do not seem to address cheaters with established ratings, as many of the top players here appear to be on the "popular" list of candidates for such screening. Perhaps your suggestion of the mechanism being triggered after "n" number of complaints had this in mind, but would require considerable thought. As far as your recommendations for an appelate procedure, I wholeheartedly agree. I would also underscore your suggestion for Russ to be the final decision maker in all cases. Notification of the accused is a very good idea as well. "Clear and convincing" evidence would seem to be in line with "Clear and articulable facts" that I recommended in another thread, and a majority vote as opposed to a unanimous vote is paramount. Requiring a unanimous vote would render the system inneffectual. How the majority would be defined would, of course, be open to suggestion. These are my thoughts in general on your suggestions, since you asked.
And no, I don't argue that the accusations prompted this into existence, I am simply saying that now that something is being done to address the problem we should move to stop the accusations as well, since they can be very damaging to the site also.
BLR
The proposal to allow people to play here using engines and to somehow mark them with a notifier (C) is not a very well thought out one, IMHO. I have seen other sites adopt this policy, and still have cheating that has to be addressed. The bottom line is, this site does not condone engine use. That's one of the things that appealed to me about it in the first place, and I'm sure many will agree. To accept engine use as an inevitability, and do nothing to address it, is tantamount to telling the honest people who enjoy playing here that their membership is of less value than the dishonest members. If that policy were adopted, I would have to give serious consideration to ending my membership. However, Russ has stated on a number of occasions that he will not give in to computer use (at least, he has indicated that it isn't allowed here). It is because of that stance that we are now here having this discussion, and it is a good discussion to have indeed.
BLR
Originally posted by no1marauderI think serious consideration should also be given as to whether computer users (if allowed to remain on the site, with a 'C' as proposed) should have a separate rating system. Otherwise, the proposals are pretty much what I had in mind as well.
If we're going to get into the nuts and bolts of the system, I'd propose the following:
1. Investigations of cheating would be undertaken only where there was: A) A very sharp rating rise of an established player;
B) A new player who comes in and wins a certain number of games without loss;
C) Some n numb ...[text shortened]... d not be made public.
I'd appreciate any feedback or comments on these proposals.