Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666All games played between club members, will automatically count, whether they are games started by the players, clan games, siege games or tournament games.
What is the procedure to get a game. Is there some prescribed challange system or will we be automatically asigned games within our team? Will the challanged player be allowed to decline to play? I have a very strong feeling against the rating system for players of lower ratings to benefit unfairly from a draw or a win. I have lost games to sandbagge ...[text shortened]... e this a good site, and regardless of how things turn out, thanks for your time and effort".
The sooner games are rated based on the rating when the match is started, rather than when it finishes, the better.
It will mean that sandbaggers will take much longer to recover their true rating and may make them think twice about their antics.
Originally posted by adramforallWhy, thank you for asking.
How did you work that out?
Use your imagination. Help me out here.
Under the circumstances -- a major scandal, followed by the introduction of an admittedly half-baked idea, and one that threatens the clan system and will likely dent the site's revenue -- it must be that the clubs are intended as part of a new regime that will better protect the site from the consequences of engine use. After racking my brain for a plausible scenario in which clubs help catch cheaters, and coming up with a broken rack and an empty brain, I started going back over some of the recent forum threads and was inspired.
Clubs won't help catch cheaters; clubs will protect the site from the consequences of banning suspected cheats.
Abject inaction in the face of engine use is bad for business. On the other hand, almost any banning is going to generate some ill will -- also bad for business, especially when the ill will is voiced on the public forums. Moreover, no matter how robust the test, there's always a possibility that one day a 3(b) will turn out to have been a false positive -- again, bad for business, possibly very, very bad. What is a way to appear to protect the integrity of the site's rating system while, at the same time, protecting the site from the different kinds of blowback that taking measures must generate, especially when, as has just happened, both the party of the first part and the party of the second part seem to have large fan clubs. The answer is -- depending on circumstances -- don't ban the accused cheater, just kinda sorta isolate him.
Here's a rough outline. An allegation of engine use is brought to the game mods. The game record of the accused is tested. (The new test procedure may be somewhat streamlined. My hunch is that the current procedure is way too labor intensive.) Some complaints won't get far. If the accused is using an engine, he's not using it often enough officially to call it engine use. Other complaints will lead to a (nearly) dead certain finding of engine use, and that player will be banned from the site. The bar here, for rejecting the null hypothesis, will be very high -- high enough to stand up in court -- which means the test will fail to catch a lot of cheaters. What to do about the malefactors in the middle -- the ones who are very probably cheating, "known" to be cheating by their accusers -- but whose cases are statistically dodgy under the new rules? Inform them privately that they can no longer play in rated site games. Of course, if they have a club, or a trusting friend who has a club, or a trusting friend who has a friend ... then they can play all their games as club games, with ratings and everything. There could even be clubs for computer users, although I've never understood why a cheater would want to belong to a club full of cheaters. In the end, most cheaters won't have been banned, just "restricted" in the sorts of games they can play. And it will all be handled privately, or at least in such a way that no one can run howling to the site forums, or no one will want to. And the site's position, when someone huffs off the site --- or starts a contra RHP blog or whatever -- will be: "Well, no, we didn't ban him, actually, we just told him that, in view of the very strong evidence of engine use, he wouldn't be permitted to play outside his clubs. And, of course, he's a paid-up subscriber and can play in as many club games, of all kinds, as he likes."
Or so, I suspect, is the plan for the clubs. And, so far, no one can come up with anything remotely as plausible to explain the existence of "minisites."
Originally posted by luctrucAnd that's why they've started looking for another game mod team.....because they just don't give a crap. Your logic is so perfect, i think i might poo.
Why, thank you for asking.
Use your imagination. Help me out here.
Under the circumstances -- a major scandal, followed by the introduction of an admittedly half-baked idea, and one that threatens the clan system and will likely dent the site's revenue -- it must be that the clubs are intended as part of a new regime that will better protect the sit ...[text shortened]... th anything remotely as plausible to explain the existence of "minisites."
Now, back to reality.
Originally posted by luctrucHave you forgotten what the clubs games will consist of?
Why, thank you for asking.
Use your imagination. Help me out here.
Under the circumstances -- a major scandal, followed by the introduction of an admittedly half-baked idea, and one that threatens the clan system and will likely dent the site's revenue -- it must be that the clubs are intended as part of a new regime that will better protect the sit ...[text shortened]... th anything remotely as plausible to explain the existence of "minisites."
These will be Clan games, Siege games, Tournament games or just normal games started by an individual.
There are no "special" club only games.
Are you inferring that individuals that cheat will be allowed to continue to do so just because they are part of a club?
I would like to think the opposite will happen, and that the club admin will decide that potential/suspected cheats will either not be allowed to join their club, or will be booted at a later date. I know that is how I will be treating people who apply to the IVV club.
I have given each applicant a cursory glance and anyone whos record looked a little dodgy was bounced.
In time I will delve a litle deeper and will boot anyone who I or any other member suspects is cheating.
Originally posted by adramforallThe rating system is fine. It is typically more accurate.
The sooner games are rated based on the rating when the match is started, rather than when it finishes, the better.
It will mean that sandbaggers will take much longer to recover their true rating and may make them think twice about their antics.
For example, the other day I joined a game with a user rated 1750. We played it over the course of a week. His play during this game was certainly NOT even 1600; when we finished it was 1500 - but that's the level he played at during the game. So I won the appropriate score.
The rating system is not meant to be adjusted towards those who don't care about the rating.
Originally posted by luctrucYou are imaginative but a little too provocative...
Eureka! The new club system is not intended to help catch cheats. The new club system is designed to let the site admins avoid banning cheats.
Whew. Took me a while. The clubs will serve as dumping grounds for cheats with a fan base.
Originally posted by RamnedWhich is why it would be better based on the rating when the game starts and not when it ends.
The rating system is not meant to be adjusted towards those who don't care about the rating.
If you play a 2000 rated player who dropped to 1200 via timeouts and then played as a 2000 player they would take far more points off you for winning than they deserved.
You would also not get the benefit of the points you deserved if you beat them.
However if the ratings when the match started were taken into account then you would both get the points you deserved.
I think luctruc is somewhat on the right track. I don't see the mods taking away someone's right to play regular rated games without banning them. But I do see them being able to say, hey, if you don't like the way we're handling things, just kick the guy out of your club. Which players are capable of affecting your club rating is under "your" (meaning the club leader's) control, so there's no (or less) reason to complain to the game mods about not banning someone, or not banning someone quickly enough.
If David Tebb and English Tal have a problem with cludi, they just kick him out of the clubs they run, and get him kicked out of the clubs they're highly influential in. Theoretically removes the need to start some kind of smear campaign in the forums because they feel nothing is being done.
Now, how this is not just going to lead to a different kind of forum drama is beyond me...
Another problem here is that it makes it almost impossible to disallow accusations of cheating in the forums. Right now, with accusations disallowed, most of the time (barring what happened in the last couple of months) the forums are kept pretty clean. Either the person is banned, at which point it can be discussed, or nothing is said at all.
But in this system, it's going to be obvious when someone is kicked out of a particular club (or are you going to disallow discussing this as well?) The mere fact that someone is removed from a club is going to be, in most cases, an implicit accusation of cheating (ok, granted in some cases it could be for spamming the club forum or something). This is going to lead to more speculation in the forums by uninformed people about whether the ousting was justified. It's almost encouraging the situation we should be trying to avoid.
Originally posted by incandenzaDude. There's 19,000 people on the player list, and less than 500 people in clubs (some people are in nearly every club, so just counting the numbers isn't accurate). Kicking someone out of a club would be like Cancelling Mugabe's Golf club membership at St Andrews.
I think luctruc is somewhat on the right track. I don't see the mods taking away someone's right to play regular rated games without banning them. But I do see them being able to say, hey, if you don't like the way we're handling things, just kick the guy out of your club. Which players are capable of affecting your club rating is under "your" (meaning ...[text shortened]... , how this is not just going to lead to a different kind of forum drama is beyond me...
Cheaters will still cheat, and will still be banned. All this bolloxology is just people trying to put down something new, before it gets off the ground.
And the earth is flat, i tells ya 😛
I don't see how the 500 vs. 19,000 makes any difference. Those 500 are also the people who are active in the forums. To people who pay no attention to the forums, it makes almost no difference either way. They may not even be aware of the fact that people are sometimes banned.
Imagine back in January that the club system is already in place. People start getting suspicious of cludi, and he gets kicked out of a few clubs. You really think there aren't going to be a few threads going, gee, why was he kicked out? The difference is it wouldn't even be necessary to make any veiled accusations of cheating--it would already be public knowledge that he was kicked out. This system is essentially guaranteeing that the same kind of drama would develop.
I believe it's been said that club membership is going to be listed directly on the profile, just like clan membership. If someone gets kicked out of clubs, people are going to notice. Heck, even if it's not on the profile, people are going to notice--there's always someone out there who will take the time to look for this kind of thing.
I'm not at all opposed to new ideas in general. Russ asked for honest criticism, and said that even he's not sure about this concept. To me this idea has a lot of potential for divisiveness, and virtually no upside other than that it gives people a new toy to play with.
I'd rather have the potential downsides expressed now than only discover later that this turns out to be detrimental to the site.
Originally posted by incandenzaWhat you are saying is that game mods will not do their job, and instead tell a small group to throw the cheat out of the group and that'll be enough......It's groundless pap, my friend.
I don't see how the 500 vs. 19,000 makes any difference. Those 500 are also the people who are active in the forums. To people who pay no attention to the forums, it makes almost no difference either way. They may not even be aware of the fact that people are sometimes banned.
Imagine back in January that the club system is already in place. People ...[text shortened]... pressed now than only discover later that this turns out to be detrimental to the site.
adramforall
Have you forgotten what the clubs games will consist of?
These will be Clan games, Siege games, Tournament games or just normal games started by an individual.
There are no "special" club only games.
Good point. I suppose that, in addition to being banned from formal, site-sponsored competition, a user in cheater limbo would have his site rating disabled, such that participation in private club tourneys, club ladder games, intra-club team play, and so on would affect only his club rating.
And, incidentally, you've forgotten what I'm trying to do here. Coming off a database disaster and what must have been a record-setting downtime episode, with the game moderation regime a shambles and a number of promised site improvements overdue, the management decides that what we really need now is an additional layer of player associations -- oversized clans that don't play each other, that admit non-subs, and that permit unlimited multiple memberships. Call me suspicious, but I'd like to know why. If you'll go back to Russ's initial post, you'll see that multiple parallel ratings are supposed to discourage cheats and somehow keep everyone happy. Huh?
Are you inferring that individuals that cheat will be allowed to continue to do so just because they are part of a club?
Yes. Infer me something better. Actually, incandenza's theory that being able to fire suspected cheaters from clubs will take some of the pressure off the game mods is good. This would be a goofy theory were it not for all the posts that suggest that club admins are looking forward to exactly that -- "I'll show those game mod pussies what real action looks like! I'll kick him!"
I would like to think the opposite will happen, and that the club admin will decide that potential/suspected cheats will either not be allowed to join their club, or will be booted at a later date. I know that is how I will be treating people who apply to the IVV club.
Please describe for us the tests you will be using to determine whether a player is cheating. It will be helpful to those club lead admins who are clueless re the whole business. Also, you'll want to have your decision rule on the record when your first kickee raises a big stink on the site forums.
I have given each applicant a cursory glance and anyone whos record looked a little dodgy was bounced.
What's "dodgy" look like? I'm not talking sandbagging; I mean engine use. What is the secret of determining engine use at a glance? Tell you the truth, any player with a high rating would be a boob to join one of these things.
In time I will delve a litle deeper and will boot anyone who I or any other member suspects is cheating.
Good. Well, in time, these abominations may do a lot of damage to the site. Multiple anti-cheating regimes, endless feuds, still more distractions for the site admins and the new game mods, and, of course, more people spending more time in clubs, and not clans, because clubs are, after all, where all the good fights happen, and clans are just chess.