06 Dec 04
Originally posted by RussDo you have any plan to deal with these users that violated the trust of the good people here at RHP?
Just so you all know, I have had a small flood of confessions since this thread started, so there has been a positive effect already.
I will try to get the tools required for this project implemented as soon as possible, but I do have a few other commitments in the coming days.
-Russ
It makes me wonder if these users feel bad for what they did, or feel bad cuz they were going to be caught. Or even feel bad at all.
P-
06 Dec 04
Originally posted by RussI was thinking what might be able to help the team.
Just so you all know, I have had a small flood of confessions since this thread started, so there has been a positive effect already.
I will try to get the tools required for this project implemented as soon as possible, but I do have a few other commitments in the coming days.
-Russ
I don't know how you retrieve ips, but it would be great if you could run a process, which automatically checks whether there are 2 accounts with the same IP address. Obviously, you wouldn't reveal to the team the IP, just the accounts. Then they could be further investigated to see if one of the accounts is being used to boost the other account's rating, or whether its just a couple people using the same pc.
Also, it would be good if the team had access to a report showing people who have played a lot of games against a specific opponent. Like Player A plays Player B 50 times. I know that this doesn't mean that they are cheating, but it would be quite easy to flick through this report and see if all the games were fools mates or resignations to 1 party. Would be good to show players' names, games played, games won by player A, lost by Player A. I know its possible to see these things already, but it would be good to have a succint report to assist the team.
Just some ideas, which might help the police.
D
06 Dec 04
Originally posted by RagnorakWith dynamic IP it's perfectly possible for more than one person to share an IP over time, mind...
I was thinking what might be able to help the team.
I don't know how you retrieve ips, but it would be great if you could run a process, which automatically checks whether there are 2 accounts with the same IP address. ...
06 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakJust google for 'anonymizer' - sufficient to circumvent any simple IP checks.
I was thinking what might be able to help the team.
I don't know how you retrieve ips, but it would be great if you could run a process, which automatically checks whether there are 2 accounts with the same IP address. Obviously, you ...[text shortened]... t the team.
Just some ideas, which might help the police.
D
However a table of most frequent opponents would be useful, at least it would make cheating more laborious.
(Oh yeah, jftr I don't think moderators or arbiters should ever get to see real IP addresses).
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
06 Dec 04
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
Zumdahl
06 Dec 04
Originally posted by John DalmasI agree completely, that's why I said in my post: 'Obviously, you wouldn't reveal to the team the IP, just the accounts.'
(Oh yeah, jftr I don't think moderators or arbiters should ever get to see real IP addresses).
I didn't realise that it would be so useless to run that check though.
D
07 Dec 04
Originally posted by GatecrasherI think all should be "defenders".Investigate the games,try to prove the accused is NOT using an engine.If none finds proof,the verdict is reached,no voting needed.We're talking banning players here,60-70% agreement is not enough.It must be absolutely certain!
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" ...[text shortened]... sults can then be sent through to Russ. Ultimately, he is the one who administers "justice".
For the rest,I agree with you.
07 Dec 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI agree, the best way to work is just to suspect the person of using an engine and then try to disprove it, instead of trying to prove it.
I think all should be "defenders".Investigate the games,try to prove the accused is NOT using an engine.If none finds proof,the verdict is reached,no voting needed.We're talking banning players here,60-70% agreement is not enough.It must be absolutely certain!
For the rest,I agree with you.
07 Dec 04
Originally posted by SirLoseALotI would think in most cases, the evidence would be clearcut and decision unanimous.
I think all should be "defenders".Investigate the games,try to prove the accused is NOT using an engine.If none finds proof,the verdict is reached,no voting needed.We're talking banning players here,60-70% agreement is not enough.It must be absolutely certain!
For the rest,I agree with you.
But I do think that evidence is always subjective in how it is selected. The use of an engine may be sporadic, thus it would be very easy to find games that point to innocence. For that reason, moderators need to see both sides of the coin, before making an objective decision.
You need a Devil's Advocate who backs up the complaint with evidence. Of course, if no evidence is found, case dismissed.
Sure, everyone else can be a defender, but both arguments have to be rigourously presented. That is the best way of avoiding any injustice, both to the Suspects and to everyone else at RHP.
07 Dec 04
Originally posted by RussAOL is the nastiest when banning IP's...but unfortunately there are other prvoders who do that as well. Makes moderating a little more cumbersome (I moderate on another site).
Don't worry, IP address are considered private (and personal) information. They are not revealed to anyone.
They are not very useful anyway - AOL in particular seem to rotate their IP addresses among quite a few users here - you would be amazed who gets lumped together sometimes.
-Russ
On that site we invented range bans 🙂 It seems that the IP's given to a person don't vary too much. But the risk of banning an innocent along with a troublemaker is still there. Range ban, then release the ban after a while. The troublemaker will have left, and the non-troublemakers will try again eventually.
07 Dec 04
Originally posted by RagnorakNot sure how many people still use dial-up but for those people it would be pointless as their IP varies across a range of different addresses. Icould sign in today and be on an IP you used yesterday if we are both using the same service. This check would only be effective for broadband users and alot of those services even offer you more than one IP for a little extra money. I think mine offers like 6 additional IPs.
I agree completely, that's why I said in my post: 'Obviously, you wouldn't reveal to the team the IP, just the accounts.'
I didn't realise that it would be so useless to run that check though.
D