As M57 stated in a previous thread "This really could be a new thread."

(http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2800/I_confess_I_cheated_)

I think this is a separate discussion to be had.

According to Luieuil:  "Well, I would like to comment on this topic. Not whether it's right or wrong to open a 2nd account and punish cheaters, but more to the question how to prove cheating and/or prevent cheating.

I've mentioned several times people are cheating in games to the admins. But as it turns out it's quite hard to convince the judges here to prove someone is cheating. Obviously the bad cheaters get caught, they do not take any actions to hide their cheating. But it's not this kind I'm worried about.

It's more the kind of cheaters who does take the necessary actions to hide their cheating. By mixing up wins/losses, by ensinuating fights or even by being open about knowing eachother. In this way it will be almost impossible to prove cheating when you've got no understanding of the real tactics in the game. 

If people know each other, they should limit play to only team games. Altought they might both play for the win this kind of behaviour is still cheating in my perspective, because the reason to attack or not to attack someone isn;t just based on board position, but also personal motived come into play. Not attacking your friend while you would do when it was someone else is also considred cheating.

And as far as I can go with proving cheating I would ask the judges to not only look at single games, but rather try to find additional indications of cheating based on statistics. If someone wins by far more games with player x in the game then when player x is absend then it's an indication of cheating. Then when you find out those same 2 players have played eachother far more then other players we've got another indication of cheating. I'm not saying when these indications occur it's always cheating, but I do think it can be used as additional evidence. 

Last point I think it's fair to have different degrees of punishing cheaters. A warning might be good for 99% of the times. A ban can be fair for repeating cheaters. But I miss the option to prohibit players to enter games simultanious. I think this helps solving a lot of "suspicion of cheating but can't be proved" situations. And the risk of wrong verdicts "found guilty but innocent" is small. Because the sentence is big for the cheater and light for the ones being convicted not guilty."

My thoughts:

While I agree that it might be productive to have some sort of progressive discipline between warning and banning, I wonder if Luieuil's definition of cheating is a bit on the overzealous side. What is the difference between deception and dishonesty? What's the difference between an advantage and a dishonest advantage?

Do I win more when certain people are in the game? Hell yes! Is it because I am cheating? No. it's because I have knowledge of their style, their character, and their game play. If you pay attention, and keep track it only takes a few games or sometimes just one to gain this information.  

Is it really cheating to not attack someone you know will act in a certain manner even if you would have attacked a total stranger in the same position?  Is it cheating to more often offer a truce/alliance to someone you know will act with honor, and increase your in game advantage because of it? Is it cheating to be more likely gang up on someone you know to act erratically or dishonestly and again increase your advantage? 

Personally, I'm much more offended by someone offering alliance against a superior foe and then not living up to it than I am by two people (possibly friends) ganging up on me for advantage. But again, is this cheating?

My subjective view says no. Thoughts?

I am offended by friends ganging up on me for advantage.  I don't like it.  I will curse and scream bloody murder of course if someone tells me they won't attack me if I go after player "x" and then attack me the next round.

Backstabbing is low down dirty and cruel.  But so is ganging up with a friend because instead of playing a 1v1v1 game you're playing 2v1 and I see no point in playing at all if it's a 49.5/49.5 shot for the 2 and a 1% shot for the 1.

Is it cheating to exploit particular playstyles by altering your typical strategy? No.

Is it wink wink nudge nudge okay to not attack your friends because you're friends? Also no.

Andernut wrote:

I am offended by friends ganging up on me for advantage. 

If by friends, you mean players who systematically ally with each other at turn one, ..then absolutely, it's cheating.

If by friends, you mean players who systematically ally with each other when at some point in the game it is advantageous to do so, then it is a tactic ..and this is where ethics come into play.  I almost never engage in this type of behavior.  Even if a player I don't know asks me mid-game if we should call a truce to beat up on someone who's ahead, my "positive" response might be something along the lines of..

"Right now, a truce between us is implied because we probably won't survive if we attack each other."

Is it cheating to exploit particular playstyles by altering your typical strategy? No.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  I am always willing to alter my strategy depending on what my opponents do.  Not only that, but I alter my strategies on a player by player basis.  If I'm in a game with 5 total players, three of whom have ratings of ~1200 and one of whom is Andernut, I will pay special attention to Andernut.  I much prefer my chances in an end-game where he's been eliminated. Mind you, I would never tell the other players in the game what I'm up to.

Is it wink wink nudge nudge okay to not attack your friends because you're friends? Also no.

Agree. This is the same as the first case.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Do I win more when certain people are in the game? Hell yes! Is it because I am cheating? No. it's because I have knowledge of their style, their character, and their game play. If you pay attention, and keep track it only takes a few games or sometimes just one to gain this information.  

Obviously this is not what I meant to say and it would be no discussion; your example is not cheating at all. In fact that's all what strategie is about.

If you read my post again you will see what I mean. If you enter a game with someone you know from outside the game you will most likely be inclined to leave eachother alone, or start in different corners. So without the verbal agreement of playing together I still believe this is (a light form, but still) cheating because those two players have an advantage the other players don't have It changes the games dynamics.

The "friends" question is a great one. I don't feel that I need to stay away from a game if there is someone that I consider a "friend" or "acquaintance" in the game. As pointed out previously, the knowledge swings both ways. 

I will likely be extra wary of that person from a strategic standpoint because I know their skill. On the otherhand, I don't like making alot of deals, but, I will be more likely to make one with that person that I have played with before because I can have a reasonable expectation that we will both follow the terms. 

I will also sometimes avoid playing games that have players who I know try to make lots of deals, because I prefer playing it out on the board, rather than off the board. I would go play "Diplomacy" instead. Maybe there could be the option when creating a game to disable private chat?

+1 for disable chat option.

Disabling private chat is just not going to work.  There are just too many ways to communicate for those that are willing to stretch the rules.

Best bet might be a gentleman's agreement to not make deals.  I'm not sure how to do that before people join though.  Maybe in the game title?

Statement of bias: I am a person who is willing to make deals, and who carries out the terms of any deal I make even to my detriment because I want people to remember that and know that they can trust me if they try to make a deal with me in a future game.

I don't enter games intending to make deals.  But if I find myself in a strategic position where making a deal makes tactical sense, well, that's part of the game.

I'd personally view joining a game that said up front "no deals" to be making a deal to not make deals.  I'd be game for it.  But I don't know how many others would, in the heat of the game, keep such a deal.

btilly wrote:

Statement of bias: I am a person who is willing to make deals, and who carries out the terms of any deal I make even to my detriment because I want people to remember that and know that they can trust me if they try to make a deal with me in a future game.

I don't enter games intending to make deals.  But if I find myself in a strategic position where making a deal makes tactical sense, well, that's part of the game.

I'd personally view joining a game that said up front "no deals" to be making a deal to not make deals.  I'd be game for it.  But I don't know how many others would, in the heat of the game, keep such a deal.

+1

btilly wrote:

Statement of bias: I am a person who is willing to make deals, and who carries out the terms of any deal I make even to my detriment because I want people to remember that and know that they can trust me if they try to make a deal with me in a future game.

I don't enter games intending to make deals.  But if I find myself in a strategic position where making a deal makes tactical sense, well, that's part of the game.

I'd personally view joining a game that said up front "no deals" to be making a deal to not make deals.  I'd be game for it.  But I don't know how many others would, in the heat of the game, keep such a deal.

I'm impressed. Sometimes I don't trust even myself.

Help Tab ---> FAQ ---> Are alliances allowed?

"Alliances in games are allowed and usually make sense from a strategical point of view. However, pre-conceived alliances are NOT allowed or tolerated. Player's that are found colluding in multiple games will be at risk for being banned."

itsnotatumor wrote:

As M57 stated in a previous thread "This really could be a new thread."

(http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2800/I_confess_I_cheated_)

I think this is a separate discussion to be had.

According to Luieuil:  "Well, I would like to comment on this topic. Not whether it's right or wrong to open a 2nd account and punish cheaters, but more to the question how to prove cheating and/or prevent cheating.

I've mentioned several times people are cheating in games to the admins. But as it turns out it's quite hard to convince the judges here to prove someone is cheating. Obviously the bad cheaters get caught, they do not take any actions to hide their cheating. But it's not this kind I'm worried about.

It's more the kind of cheaters who does take the necessary actions to hide their cheating. By mixing up wins/losses, by ensinuating fights or even by being open about knowing eachother. In this way it will be almost impossible to prove cheating when you've got no understanding of the real tactics in the game. 

If people know each other, they should limit play to only team games. Altought they might both play for the win this kind of behaviour is still cheating in my perspective, because the reason to attack or not to attack someone isn;t just based on board position, but also personal motived come into play. Not attacking your friend while you would do when it was someone else is also considred cheating.

And as far as I can go with proving cheating I would ask the judges to not only look at single games, but rather try to find additional indications of cheating based on statistics. If someone wins by far more games with player x in the game then when player x is absend then it's an indication of cheating. Then when you find out those same 2 players have played eachother far more then other players we've got another indication of cheating. I'm not saying when these indications occur it's always cheating, but I do think it can be used as additional evidence...

I have been fighting against cheaters for a long time. Got some success and also some times I could not convince admins, because cheaters were a bit clever.

Luieuil is saying exactly what I feel. Can't agree more with this.

Although I stopped playing (for a while ?), I am still reading forums and looking at the rankings. I am wondering if nothing will be done before they reach seats #1 and #2.

Toto wrote:

Although I stopped playing (for a while ?), I am still reading forums and looking at the rankings. I am wondering if nothing will be done before they reach seats #1 and #2.

 

Toto, who are you talking about?

tom doesn't want anymore public call-outs. causes too much strife. there's a reporting system and a team of users/tom that investigates. however, noone is stopping the PMs of these name between curious 'friends'

weathertop wrote:

tom doesn't want anymore public call-outs. causes too much strife. there's a reporting system and a team of users/tom that investigates. however, noone is stopping the PMs of these name between curious 'friends'

I mentioned no names just because of that. I have used the reporting system a long time ago but failed to convince Tom. Their recent climb and the stats makes me even more certain I was right.

I can think of maybe only one game where I had any kind of agreement with another player, and I've never been particularly suspicious of cheating against me. Do you all really find this stuff to be common? Maybe it's more prevalent in games with fewer players than I normally play with?

The only thing I'll avoid if I happen to see it is a game with a player rated in, like, the 600s. I figure that is below the point anyone would be if they were playing honestly...

It seemed more prevalent a year or so ago, but back then folks posted whenever they suspected cheating, and the community took a good look at a number of their games.

Tom has since made it such that accusations of cheating go directly to him, so there's no way to know if cheating is on the rise, constant, or in decline.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the rise, just because there are more and more players, and less people actively looking closely at suspected cheaters.  On the other hand, tom has much better diagnostic tools at his disposal.

There's a Apple Vs. Microsoft aspect to this issue.  Would you rather have an all powerful omnipotent ruler that takes care of everything, or would you prefer that all the laundry is hung out to dry such that everyone can smell it?  ..where suspected cheaters would have to defend themselves in the open forums, some of them ending up with black marks even if they're innocent?  This use to happen here.

It is a personal viewpoint, but I am VERY chatty in almost all of my games. If I can broker a deal between one or more players, why not? Anyone has the ability if they wish. I will be firing off messages both public and private most turns. A border agreement here, an alliance against a common enemy, etc, all part of the fun for me.

That being said, it is all IN GAME, all as a reaction to what is on the board. I don't have anyone I know who will side with me etc  before the game starts, or even after the first few turns. It generally is as the board starts to form I can see who it would be mutually benefit to ally with. Even then we always know that the stab has to come at some point. I love the balance between trust, benefit and having to look after ones own ass!!!

I'm not really a fan of players being able to privately message each other. I mean, alliances are fine, but to do that in a real life, in-person game of Risk, what are you going to do? What's the real life analog? Telepathy? I don't think there is one--you simply have to have the conversation in front of everyone if you want to broker a deal--all players are privy to the arrangement agreed upon.

I guess this is beside the point somewhat, though, and probably easy for me to say since I haven't signed up for a premium membership yet and therefore don't have pm privileges. From that perspective, though, can you see how it could be thought of as awfully close to cheating, if some players have access to something rather game-changing and some don't? Oh well.