 |
|
Choke
|
|
.
Last edited by Choke on 23-11-2002 at 05:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Choke
|
|
It's obvious I'm in the minority here and I wish I hadn't made this thread...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Civfan
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:23
|
|
if this you say is a democracy, maybe we should first have a poll before doing such extremes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002 time: 23:23
|
|
Klesh, why exactly do you have a problem with the thread? Is it just the ugly connotation of the word "blacklist"?
If people remain civil and just post the facts, I don't see what is unethical about it. The difference between this thread and Salem or McCarthyism is this: in those cases all one had to do was yell "she's a witch!" or "he's a commie!" and it would be accepted as fact. In the case of PBEM cheaters, they are proven to have cheated, either by a file check and/or a confession, and then that undisputed fact is made known to everyone who wants to know. There's a huge difference between these two situations.
Last edited by Darius871 on 24-11-2002 at 00:14
|
|
|  |
 |
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999 time: 22:23
|
|
I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.
The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways.
Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002 time: 23:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by techumseh
I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.
|
Ok, I will. I just didn't think I should dig up ancient history, but I have links to the 7 cheating busts I've experienced, so I can take 10 minutes and post them all if you like.
quote: Originally posted by techumseh
The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways. |
This is not necessarily true; I've seen a cheater from civfanatics game join a PBEM here without mentioning his past, and if it weren't for Case bringing it up, the other players wouldn't have known. That's exactly the type of situation a list is meant to prevent. There was another case where only two people knew that a player had cheated, they sorted it out with that person, and they let him continue without telling anybody else.
Also, if people are aware of who the cheaters are, there is a higher chance that they would be able to catch DL's. Whether it be grammar, location, playing style, signature contents, or whatever else, DL cheaters could be identified if people know who their old alias was.
quote: Originally posted by techumseh
Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach. |
By using the word "more" you act as if it were an either-or approach, but it's not. I believe we should use both methods.
Regardless, routine checks are already being done by Duke of Marlbrough at CFC and is nothing new. But you have to accept the reality that people do not have the time to repeatedly check these games. Who would do it? Would you like to volunteer? 
Last edited by Darius871 on 24-11-2002 at 01:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
 |
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000 time: 00:23
|
|
Daruis, my only thing is that any lists or whatever type of thing we do should be done by the mods of this forum, preferably ones that are familliar with PBEMs. This way we can get a consensus for the entire community as opposed to little bits and tads here and there. One set of rules, one set of methods, applied to all.
I like your idea techumseh, but as it is hard enough to find people williung to devote real time to play a PBEM, think of how hard it'll be to recruit PBEM sheriffs. That is, unless it is a duty of being within the PBEM community.
I still think we should opperate this all within the civII PBEM civgroup. This allows the rules to be set, and if one doesnt like it they can play a game outside of the group. This also allows us to keep tabs on all the playes. PBEM Civgroup sanctioned games would be assigned a Sherrif by the leader of the PBEM Civgroup. It would be a rotating job, so everyone in the civgroup will have to do some policing..... Thats the price you'll have to pay to be in league with people who want to curb cheating.
This way we have rules, we have a standard, and we have an enforcement method. Anyone can come and go from this forum.... but the civgroup is a way to have a registered list of players, and a way get rules etc solidly in place.
Thoughts?
-FMK.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|