- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
26 May 06
I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
27 May 06
Originally posted by ZumdahlTrouble is, that would be unfair to ALL the players the cheat played and beat on the way to the final. Any one of them could've technically gone on to win.
I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
I agree they should be stripped of their victories though - maybe nullify the tournament or something.
30 May 06
Originally posted by ZumdahlBetter yet, leave their profile as is, except add a big red stamp over it: "BANNED FOR CHEATING". Then, the multitude of tourney victories only makes them look pathetic.
I looked through some of the cheaters and I noticed quite a few of them have tourney victories under their belt.. I say we get rid of those victories from their profile... and perhaps take it a step further, and go ahead and give the peoepl that they faced in the final roudn of the tourney the tourney victory.
04 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemCan't do that - theres never absolute proof that anyone is actually cheating (unless they come out and say "i cheated" ).
Better yet, leave their profile as is, except add a big red stamp over it: "[b]BANNED FOR CHEATING". Then, the multitude of tourney victories only makes them look pathetic.[/b]
You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically - and that could cause some nasty goings on...
M
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by noxidjkramIf that was true then the removed players list would already give grounds for libel. It's not true though. It's the same as I can call someone who has been convicted of murder a murderer (careful, a politician here called someone a murderer except he was convicted of manslaughter and had a case for defamation). They have been found to be cheaters and are therefore branded as such. Players are not banned because they are thought to be cheats but because the Game Mods have provided Russ with proof that they are a cheater.
Can't do that - theres never absolute proof that anyone is actually cheating (unless they come out and say "i cheated" ).
You'd be (for want of a nicer word) besmirching their character - libel basically - and that could cause some nasty goings on...
M
Also, saying that Ironman was banned for cheating is not something that is even applicable to this. He was indeed banned for cheating and there can be no argument about that.
05 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think there is a major difference between privately removing someones access for being suspected of cheating, and actually saying "This person was banned for cheating".
If that was true then the removed players list would already give grounds for libel. It's not true though. It's the same as I can call someone who has been convicted of murder a murderer (careful, a politician here called someone a murderer except he was convicted of manslaughter and had a case for defamation). They have been found to be cheaters and are t ...[text shortened]... applicable to this. He was indeed banned for cheating and there can be no argument about that.
[edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]
M
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by noxidjkramBut it's not a very different thing. Your latter option meets the legal standard of proof.
[edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]
M
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by noxidjkramLibel is false statement(s) in written or published form that negatively affect reputation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel)
Libel is written or published defamation of character.
I would say calling someone a cheat could definitely fall under this definition of the term?
M
Second, RHP is not giving out the real names of the cheats. They maintain their anonymity, and suffer no real reputational damage.