Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't think we should alllow any computer users on this site, as it is against the TOS.
I 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.
However, it would probably be easier (at least legally) for all involved to flag known cheaters with a (C) and bar them from all tournaments, clan challenges, rather than kick them from the site completely. Chances are that once they have been flagged and excluded from tournies/clans, then they may not feel it to be worth while sticking around anyway.
I don't think a seperate rating system would be required. Maybe have the option of viewing the player tables excluding people flagged with (C) to see your true position amongst human players.
2Bit, I think u should put yourself forward for the cheat police. You have some good ideas, are a strong player and have been very vociferous on the issue. It would be a shame not to put your name forward for consideration for the cheat police. If the citizenry of RHP don't feel you're suitable, then so be it. But at least give them the chace to decide.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThanks for the kind words, but I agree with Dave Tebb as to the qualifications necessary for someone to be on the cheat police and I don't meet them. My knowledge of chess engines is rudimentary and I have no experience at all with anything more advanced than the Fritz4 in the ChessbaseLight download which I understand is years behind the engines in use now. I will continue to make suggestions for consideration of the procedures I think would be fair has I have considerable experience in administrative factfinding which is similar to what we're discussing, but I leave the actual determination of who's cheating in borderline cases to those more qualified than I with engines (any person with a modicum of chess knowledge could determine that Tlai and JW were cheaters, but I assume that most cases will not be so clearcut).
I don't think we should alllow any computer users on this site, as it is against the TOS.
However, it would probably be easier (at least legally) for all involved to flag known cheaters with a (C) and bar them from all tournaments, clan challenges, rather than kick them from the site completely. Chances are that once they have been flagged and excluded ...[text shortened]... P don't feel you're suitable, then so be it. But at least give them the chace to decide.
D
In regard to spotting Engine users, what software do you need and how do you use it?
Is there something you can buy, feed in the moves in a game and it goes whirr click and out it comes a verdict?
What are the logistics of this is it 20 minutes a game? Is there a standard report that could be shown on the web next to the game?
If this is the case could not ALL tournament and Clan games be run through this process automatically?
This would give total cover and not rely on the anonymous informer and secret policeman approach which may lead to:-
1. Favouritism in who gets investigated, due to resources or relationships.
2. Infiltration of the watchdogs (one guy who uses computers has already tried to get onto the moderator list, are the others unimpeachable, I wouldn’t know).
3. Extraneousness accusations just to cause trouble or because someone has an axe to grind.
An absolutely transparent process with an analysis that could be repeated by everyone that is applied to everyone would seem a good option if it were possible.
Also imagine if the message could say
‘All Games in this tournament will be analysed post match by XXX analysis program, if you receive a greater then 85% score on engine usage and won the game the result will be reversed, you will be disqualified from the contest and subject to the standard penalties for cheating’
No one in their right mind would cheat, cheat police included.
In addition a few other points:-
1. There should be a right for appeal, using a pre-published appeals procedure.
2. The penalties should be published and should be targeted towards reform of the offender not removal.
Despite the cries of the ultra right wing hanging brigade all they will do is drive offenders away from the site and loose their input or back on again as different users even more determined to crack the system.
Something like an X match ban along with monitoring or maybe a computer engine icon for three months as a first offence. Offenders would have to go through the probation process and state they regret their crime and wont do it again (maybe a parole board).
In this case then an amnesty would not be required.
This is a community and all communities require a fair and just legal system rather then the ‘death penalty’ for the first offence (or first time caught).
Lastly how do other sites do this? Is there a working model in existence now, how does it work and what are the penalties and methodologies?
Originally posted by DeepfaultI reckon that you might get a high number of false positives if you're just looking at one game (like in a tournament round or clan game). You'd have to look for a pattern.
If this is the case could not ALL tournament and Clan games be run through this process automatically?
Originally posted by DeepfaultWhile your post is well thought out, it seems as though you haven't read some of the threads relating to cheats and how to deal with them. If you are as interested as it seems from your posts, it might be an idea to read the following threads...
In regard to spotting Engine users, what software do you need and how do you use it?
Is there something you can buy, feed in the moves in a game and it goes whirr click and out it comes a verdict?
What are the logistics of this is i ...[text shortened]... , how does it work and what are the penalties and methodologies?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16313 ***
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=15723
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=17093
To answer quickly some of your points...
No automatic process. Each game needs to be processed individually using at least 1 (at least 2 is better) engines. Each game can take 30 minutes to analyse. The only report would be something like grayeyes has posted. Then experienced players would have to go through that report and investigate possible reasons for engine and human move concurrance.
1. Favouritism: Cheat police would be an investigative body rather than an active police force. ie: They would require a number of allegations to instigate an investigation, rather than going out there and findign the cheaters.
2. People on the Cheat police would be as open to report and investigation as any other site user.
3. Personal vendettas: This is why a number of allegations or other mitigating circumstances would be required b4 a full investigation would be launched.
Absolute transparency outside of the cheatpolice would mean that the name of every person accused would have to be published. Bad idea. With a large and diverse cheat police then this wouldn't be required.
As per the message: individual game match-ups mean absolutely nothing. There are many other factors to be examined before a guilty verdict can be passed.
I, personally, think the 'death penalty' would be the most effective deterrent, but others may disagree and that would need to be decided. As Russ said in the first post of this thread regarding the responsibilities of the cheat police...'The penalties for those judged to be cheating would be one of the first things discussed. '
D
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 226614
I fully support the proposals. But I would also add that partitial users should be monitored as well. i.e They play with an aid until they get a lead and then switch to playing themselves. This was how I sussed a person discussed previously on here.
However, in terms of the process of game assessment, I don't think this should be discussed in the forum. You are just giving the users the chance to see how they are going to be found out so that they can find another way around it.
I would also like to point out that not all of the members of the site read the forums and I would suggest that a site message be sent to all mail boxes.
Finally, can we have a members only rating table without the non-members. I have a feeling that more non-members than members may be users.
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterAbout the forums thing the same goes for messages. Many members don't come to the forums and alot also don't use the message system either though they would be more likely to respond to a message. I don't like the emmbers only rating table though, while more non-members than members probably use engines it's not fair to those that don't. Some people just want to play some chess and either cant afford or have the time to take full advantage of being a subscriber.
I fully support the proposals. But I would also add that partitial users should be monitored as well. i.e They play with an aid until they get a lead and then switch to playing themselves. This was how I sussed a person discussed previously on here.
However, in terms of the process of game assessment, I don't think this should be discusse ...[text shortened]... ble without the non-members. I have a feeling that more non-members than members may be users.
On another note, any word from Russ as to how soon till the voting takes place? I havent been in the forums much lately as I've been working on getting my rating back and here at work it loads so darn slow I don't even try to browse through. How much longer till we vote for mods, just want to know to rally support and votes for those on the list which would make good members on this group.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21Russ said this on December 10th:
About the forums thing the same goes for messages. Many members don't come to the forums and alot also don't use the message system either though they would be more likely to respond to a message. I don't like the emmbers only rating table though, while more non-members than members probably use engines it's not fair to those that don't. Some people ...[text shortened]... ow to rally support and votes for those on the list which would make good members on this group.
Work is proceeding on the code - hopefully by the mid/end of next week we can start to elect the game mods. I will be writing some tools to support them too.
-Russ
So hopefully by the end of the week.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21I think the idea behind the subscribers only player table was to have multiple tables, with options as to who was included... ie: everybody, only non-C's (if that is implemented), only subscribers, only non-subscribers. Just a way of personalising the player tables to see where you stand according to certain criteria.
I don't like the emmbers only rating table though, while more non-members than members probably use engines it's not fair to those that don't.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakAh I see, well we do have that now just not to that degree. I like to be in the top 20 on the MAP of the month.
I think the idea behind the subscribers only player table was to have multiple tables, with options as to who was included... ie: everybody, only non-C's (if that is implemented), only subscribers, only non-subscribers. Just a way of personalising the player tables to see where you stand according to certain criteria.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak!!!
However, it would probably be easier (at least legally) for all involved to flag known cheaters with a (C) and bar them from all tournaments, clan challenges, rather than kick them from the site completely. Chances are that once they have been flagged and excluded from tournies/clans, then they may not feel it to be worth while sticking around anyway.
What?! Let cheaters stay, brand them, and then they will lose heart and
leave?
No. They will abandon that account and make another one that doesn't
have a (C) on it. Cheaters do not deserve to stay. Period. It's the one
of the only clear offenses a person can commit on this site. How can
we justify keeping them here? What purpose would it serve? Who does
it benefit?
I say kick them and the horse they rode in on. (You know what I mean.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI do not see why cheating on RHP is any worse than deliberately making malicious and false accusations.
!!!
What?! Let cheaters stay, brand them, and then they will lose heart and
leave?
No. They will abandon that account and make another one that doesn't
have a (C) on it. Cheaters do not deserve to stay. Period. It's the one
of the only clear offenses a person can commit on this site. How can
we justify keeping them here? What purpose would ...[text shortened]... benefit?
I say kick them and the horse they rode in on. (You know what I mean.)
Nemesio
I say mark the accounts of those pointing a finger, just to cause trouble, with an "A" and tell them not to slam the door on their way out. The RHP community is starting to fall to pieces and the people responsible are the witch hunters.
A small number of cheats will always be in any sport to some extent, but apart from a small influence over ratings here and there they only cheat themselves, but the accusers have more sinister motives and they will de-stabilize the site if left unchecked (sic)
Please Russ ACT
Originally posted by SirUlrichI agree that false accusations ultimately have a negative effect.
The RHP community is starting to fall to pieces and the people responsible are the witch hunters.
There needs to be a clear and private system of accusation.
However, as no1marauder said, the fact that people have been
complaining publically has been a motivating factor for the
administration. There can be no doubt or dispute about this.
These early public accusations (long with the analyses that
accompany them) have provided the reason and impetus for
the imminent changes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioOkay, you're saying that they will just get another account if they have a (C). So why wouldn't they do that if they were kicked off the site?
!!!
No. They will abandon that account and make another one that doesn't
have a (C) on it. Cheaters do not deserve to stay.