Announcements
06 Mar 08
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by MissOleumI don't think 2 separate teams is a good idea, a case of the left hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. The team always worked on several cases at once until they were sure a user was cheating. That is when the person is removed by the admins. There is no advantage to having separate teams.
My personal vote's irrelevant since I'd be a "donkey voter". But I'd like to see two separate Game Moderator teams of 3 each, looking at different cases. The alternate team could then be used where an individual moderator was suspect, or where there was a strong connection between the suspect and one of the moderators. In cases where the 3 didn't agree ...[text shortened]... less demanding because only a few of the cases would require the attention of both teams.
There is never a case where you decide a user is NOT a cheat, if more complaints come in about a user more games are run if needed. If more time is needed, a player may go to a back burning until more evidence comes in while working on other cases.
The team has always just given their info for all to review, it's always Russ' decision in the end since he's the only one that can remove the player and put a 3(b) next to their name.
P-
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitWouldn't having two teams expedite the whole process? How much damage can be done in the time it takes to investigate a cheat before he is jettisoned?
I don't think 2 separate teams is a good idea, a case of the left hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. The team always worked on several cases at once until they were sure a user was cheating. That is when the person is removed by the admins. There is no advantage to having separate teams.
There is never a case where you decide a user is NO since he's the only one that can remove the player and put a 3(b) next to their name.
P-
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitPerhaps this is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it would be a good idea to put a user on involuntary vacation (i.e. suspend him from moving but stop running the clock) once the Game Mods have rendered a decision that he is a cheat beyond a reasonable doubt. It sometimes seems to take Russ a while between getting the finding and finally pulling the trigger; in the interim a "player" that the Game Mods have found to be an engine user is allowed to continue to cheat. I don't see anything would be lost; if Russ decided (for whatever reason) not to ban the player, his games could resume without any change in the time settings.
I don't think 2 separate teams is a good idea, a case of the left hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. The team always worked on several cases at once until they were sure a user was cheating. That is when the person is removed by the admins. There is no advantage to having separate teams.
There is never a case where you decide a user is NO ...[text shortened]... since he's the only one that can remove the player and put a 3(b) next to their name.
P-
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderGood idea
Perhaps this is beyond the scope of this thread, but I think it would be a good idea to put a user on involuntary vacation (i.e. suspend him from moving but stop running the clock) once the Game Mods have rendered a decision that he is a cheat beyond a reasonable doubt. It sometimes seems to take Russ a while between getting the finding and finally pulli ...[text shortened]... eason) not to ban the player, his games could resume without any change in the time settings.
09 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KatonahAhem!
I have applied personally to RUSS for over 2 years
2 years..?
Katonah
Joined : 20 Apr '07
Moves : 3123
I think you've just discounted yourself there, buddy.
Also, I'd make it a rule that every candidate must have been a subscriber for at least 2 years before even being considered, notwithstanding the requisite of a 'good' rating and proven identity with actual verifiable OTB experience.
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KatonahUhm, if you were appointed into a position of trust, like a game moderator, you're MAKING it my business, as I'm helping to keep this site up and running with my hard-earned money.
Marauder and Crowley I joined this site before both of you. And the rest is none of your business.
09 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KatonahWhats your previous nickname? And it is my business, because according to your texts maybe you are violating TOS in site which I` (like other subscribers) support with my subscribtion.
Marauder and Crowley I joined this site before both of you. And the rest is none of your business.
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by KorchFrom what can you infer that this person is violating the ToS? There are several acceptable ways through which this situation could have arrived. As long as this person is not using two active accounts in parallel, what is the point? There are several known cases of players who closed an account and opened a new one (for whatever reason), and if the admins have no objection, why would we?
Whats your previous nickname? And it is my business, because according to your texts you are violating TOS in site which I` (like other subscribers) support with my subscribtion.
09 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2Ok. I agree that more precious statement would be "maybe is violating ToS".
From what can you infer that this person is violating the ToS? There are several acceptable ways through which this situation could have arrived. As long as this person is not using two active accounts in parallel, what is the point? There are several known cases of players who closed an account and opened a new one (for whatever reason), and if the admins have no objection, why would we?
09 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by CrowleyXanthos last moved 301 days ago, and is just as ignorant with his replies at times . . . the rating would be similar too 😛
Uhm, if you were appointed into a position of trust, like a game moderator, you're MAKING it my business, as I'm helping to keep this site up and running with my hard-earned money.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by Green PaladinNot necessarily. I'd say just elect the mods, and leave it up to them how they organise themselves. This is what I intended to say with the last post, but as it was not clear, I'll say it again.
Wouldn't having two teams expedite the whole process? How much damage can be done in the time it takes to investigate a cheat before he is jettisoned?
Anyhow, who else wants to be a mod? I've added to David's list. As far as I am concerned it is for Russ to decide who is eligible or not. And you, dear reader, if there is a vote.
cmsMaster
irontigran
!~TONY~!
Korch
Gatecrasher
pineapple42
gezza
no1marauder
David Tebb
vipiu
Phlabibit
Katonah
Any more for any more?
09 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ArrakisI agree 100% with this.
Russ,
You simply cannot put such an important position up for a popular vote. Most members claim they have NO IDEA what a cheater is or how to catch them.
I admire your flexability in the decision to renew the mod team, but let's do it right. Let's not put up a popular "vote" on it. Please change your stance for people interested to contact the site hat this team has to be made up of people based on their expertise and not a public vote.
I have just been away for 10 days so have missed all the excitement.
There are however a number of important issues to consider when determining who should be put in the game mod team.
(1) the members must have integrity. By that I mean both Admin and the site members must be 100% confident that they are dealing with people who would not themselves use engines under any circumstances;
(2) the members must have time to devote to this task. My gut feeling is that there are a lot of people to look at and a lot and games to go through and this will take a lot of time; and
(3) they must be able to tell what constitutes engine use. To me this is the hardest bit. A match up with an engine (any engine) is not definitive proof of anything. For example Fritz, Rybka, Chessmaster, etc may all give different moves in a given position and may if left to think about a position for say 15 minutes cycle through 4 or 5 different "best" moves. Different versions of an engine and different speed processors may all give different "best" moves, so any given position could have 6 or more "engine" choices. The only way to identify engine use is to know how an engine plays and identify engine shortcomings in a persons play and this is easier said than done. The fact that a certain member of the mod team was considered guilty of engine use would indicate that either a member of the mod team was unable to identify engine use in his own games (and avoid it) or that other strong players are mistaken and have assumed engine use in the wrong circumstances. Either way someone is wrong! I know I could not identify engine use with certainty unless it hit me in the face.