16 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFair enough -- but there's the problem of nonresponse bias. In other words, there may be more people on one side than the other who don't respond in a thread like this. It's not a very reliable way to measure people's opinions on the matter, and you can really only take it qualitatively (i.e. the arguments made) rather than quantitatively (i.e. the number of people arguing for each position).
The purpose of the proposed vote is not to set policy, but to inform the site administrators of the customers' desires so that they can make an informed business decision.
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrOf course, but there seems to be a misconception on here about how easy it is to catch a cheater.
Using an engine for one move is sufficient to actually be a cheater. Matching an engine for one move is obviously not sufficient evidence to conclude that somebody is a cheater. The first point concerns what it is to cheat, the second point concerns what it takes to show that somebody is a cheater.
Obviously, Paulie's question applied to proving engine use. rhb posted that 1 move was enough.
Semantics.
D
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by RagnorakIf you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that would be considered to be cheating (in line with the TOS), then that user has cheated once.
Reread Paulie's original question. And your reply to it.
In principal, I agree with your point here. In theory, its spot on.
D
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by rhbI agree with you 100%, in theory.
If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that would be considered to be cheating (in line with the TOS), then that user has cheated once.
Now, please explain a feasible way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that could be considered to be cheating, taking into account the fact that the cheater is sitting in a room possibly on the other side of the planet, possibly on his own, with no spyware or hidden cameras watching his every move.
D
16 Oct 05
Originally posted by RagnorakI have no feasible way to do as you describe.
I agree with you 100%, in theory.
Now, please explain a feasible way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that one single move was made through means that could be considered to be cheating, taking into account the fact that the cheater is sitting in a room possibly on the other side of the planet, possibly on his own, with no spyware or hidden cameras watching his every move.
D
I said one move should be enough, not that it could be.
Interestingly though. based on the case of Blobby - who admitted he had had (human) 3rd party assisitance for a small number of moves - if any player were to post an admission that someone else made just one of their moves for them, then that'd be a breach of 3(b) and qualify for a ban.