Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI think it should be people that are trusted and known to be good players in real life. The idea of the cheat police cheating could then be sidestepped.
I guess the cheat police is a good idee as long as they are very carefull in their work. But who will see to it that the members of the cheat police themselves don't cheat???
Maybe making 2 diferent teams that check each other would be a good idee???
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYeah,sure,we make the team which monitors the cheats,the team that monitors the team which monitors the cheats,then we create another team that controls the team that monitors the team which monitors the cheats........................
I guess the cheat police is a good idee as long as they are very carefull in their work. But who will see to it that the members of the cheat police themselves don't cheat???
Maybe making 2 diferent teams that check each other would be a good idee???
Originally posted by RavelloNo of course not, these teams will monitor each other and together they will monitor the rest if the site's people.
Yeah,sure,we make the team which monitors the cheats,the team that monitors the team which monitors the cheats,then we create another team that controls the team that monitors the team which monitors the cheats........................
I mean if no one is going to monitor the people in the cheat police then the first thing a cheater is going to do is join the cheat police right?
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardSurely the cheat police will monitor the cheat police???
No of course not, these teams will monitor each other and together they will monitor the rest if the site's people.
I mean if no one is going to monitor the people in the cheat police then the first thing a cheater is going to do is join the cheat police right?
If there is a cheater on the cheat police, the only difference between him/her and another user would be that he could see straight away that s/he had been accused. Everything else would be exactly the same. I don't see why the processes would change.
D
Originally posted by chess kid1I imagine that policy decisions are likely to be discussed once the group is formed.
i am wondering. what if someone accuses someone for the fun of it? and are non-subscribers allowed to accuse?
And yes, I don't see as anyone in the "police" is any different to anyone else when it comes to being policed, being as surely it is a reactionary force (used when someone alleges cheating) than a proactive (monitoring) force.
Originally posted by mrmistThat's right. Everyone can and should be part of the monitoring force.
I imagine that policy decisions are likely to be discussed once the group is formed.
And yes, I don't see as anyone in the "police" is any different to anyone else when it comes to being policed, being as surely it is a reactionary force (used when someone alleges cheating) than a proactive (monitoring) force.
No-one wants vigilantes, but there's no harm in vigilance.
Starrman
Lucifershammer
Paultopia
NicolaiS
ouroboros
David Tebb
Grayeyesofsorrow
tejo
trekkie
Mephisto2
mrmist
Marinakatomb
TimmyToilet
TRACKHEAD21
Crowley
chess kid1
Ragnorak
cbd
TheMaster37
SirUlrich
SteveC
arrakis
Phlabibit
rapalla7
Gatecrasher
Cheshire Cat
SirLoseALot
I have thought long about this.Still some doubts,to be honest,not sure how accusations will be handled.Which system will be used to reach a final result.But if I can agree with the system chosen,I'd be happy to help,if I get selected.
Originally posted by chess kid1This should not be a problem, and I am sure anyone can report cheating. I think a quick glance should tell if someone needs a little looking into.
i am wondering. what if someone accuses someone for the fun of it? and are non-subscribers allowed to accuse?
Once a little looking into is done, a lot of looking into will follow (it would only go that far if the player was suspect). If the team is big enough each of these members could start an engine and throw the info in for all the CP's to look at.
I'm not 100% sure it will be as simple as I say, but I think the system is worth getting going soon. I was thinking the CP should be a small team, but now after that thinking perhaps there should be a large team where lots of info is shared.
Will be interesting to see how it goes, but I don't think this will be a failed project.
P-
It has been suggested that the "Cheat Police" are not going to be subjective but that they are simply going to run suspected games through analysis to see if they match up.
How about this for an idea - in future any new unsubsribed member has to play at least 20 games to get a non-provisional rating before being invited to subscribe. These 20 games are then run through for analysis and the person's subscription is only allowed to go forward if these 20 test games are pukka.
I know this won't stop people from cheating once they've subscribed but it may well discourage the vast majority of potential cheats from signing up in the first place.
It can some quite a lot of time to check games, checking every new person on the site would be a nightmareish job.
A lot of people we know about havent used the engine in their first games, only turned to it when their ratings drop below 1100 :-)
I think the people who are more intresting are those who did use an engine for those 20 games and are thought to be great players on this site, but in reality their moves match up 100% to fritz.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I like this idea and also think it would prevent rogue applications.
I think it should be people that are trusted and known to be good players in real life. The idea of the cheat police cheating could then be sidestepped.
Even if a players real identity and chess credentials are only verified by Russ.
If someone is willing to prove their credentials in this way, then I say it is fair to assume they would take the responsibility of arbiter seriously.
Just some thoughts...
To be effective, I think Game moderators must react to complaints, not initiate which hunts. It cannot be an isolated game, or an isolated complaint.
Maybe a good way of doing it is, in each case, for the chairperson to assign one moderator as "prosecutor" and one as "defender". Both can use other moderators to "obtain" evidence.
Once all evidence has been posted, the chairman calls a vote. All moderators can vote. I think you would need a higher percentage of votes for a "guilty" verdict, say 66% or 75%.
The results can then be sent through to Russ. Ultimately, he is the one who administers "justice".