Standard Games Rule Change

[Mr Changsha]

From another thread...

Over the years there have been countless cases of real-life friends engaging in secret diplomacy that always seem to get away with it, as the CC-rule has always seemed to be 'real-life friends can play in large public standard games and we just have to trust that they are playing fairly...'

So we have to presume innocence in these cases. Yet I have always been deeply suspicious of any players that do this, in fact I naturally presume guilt, for it has always seemed to me that it is fundamentally dishonourable to play games on this basis. Private games are a different thing as all the players will probably be aware of the various relationships involved, it is real-life friends playing in public games that in my view should have been made against the rules many, many years ago.

Furthermore, we have to consider if there is a repeated pattern. Playing the odd public game with one's real-life friends might be considered 'a bit dodgy and should probably be avoided (warning)', however numerous games - especially if unusually high win rates are achieved - should lead to an immediate block. I disagree with you in that we should need to comb through the logs, the evidence is all there in the win rates.

I would like to see a line or two added to the rules of the game along the lines of "Please avoid playing public standard games with your real-life friends, as such play is unfair to the other participants in the game". Now this is not a new idea for me, I have made this point on more than one occasion, but I feel now would be a good time to make it again.

[Agent 86]

You have my vote, just that it's a bit of a grey area to know who everyone's real-life friends are?

86

P.S. Putting it in general discussion is a good idea..more will see it. Will probably get moved to suggestions.

[Tenebrus]

I do agree, but it also inevitably raises the question "what is a friend". From a purely CC perspective, I'm sure a lot of people are closer to their clan mates than their actual friends. Do we plan clan mates from playing games together? Sometimes a hard and fast rule is just not the way to go, and you have to leave it to interpretation and the particular case. If you draw a bright line then inevitably some hard cases fall on the wrong side of it.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the "Don't be an a**hole" rule. And I think you have to trust the C&A team on that - generally I think they do a good job with it.

[stahrgazer]

This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

[Funkyterrance]

This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

I think Mr. Changsha is suggesting we go a step further because in reality as we know it, real-life friends and family will favor one another much more than they will a faceless online person. This is not to mention the very real possibility that supposed "flatmates" are actually the same person.
I know in my heart that I am super strict with myself about fair play. However, I play on here with a couple of people that I know in real life and I would never play against them except in a 1v1 game. Not only would it unfairly arouse suspicions with the other players in the game, I might subconsciously favor them in a situation that was close strategically. Why put yourself and your other opponents in this predicament? If you want to be "challenged" by playing against your real life friends, play a 1v1 freestyle speeder or break out the actual board game(gasp!).

[ManBungalow]

I mostly figured that's what team games are for.

(in response to this thread in general)

[Gabriel13]

This is a suggestion that is adding a rule to something that is already against the rules. Secret Diplomacy.

People could be in cahoots in a variety of ways, sure. One is pm's. One is emails. One is skype or other voice chat. One is phone. Another is, as this suggestion intimates, "playing with a rl friend where you can either speak with them about what is happening or watch each other as it's happening."

These are all still banned under the ban on "secret diplomacy."

So, no new rule is needed.

Now, if the concern is, "because player 1 likes player z so does things to help z win if player 1 cannot win," well, as someone suggested, clanmates, chatmates, ranks... all sorts of things affect whether you will "favor" one player over another, too many to ban unless there is some sort of global limit on how many standard games player 1 and player z can participate in together.

So, maybe a global limit for any 2 players on standard public games (or terminator, or assassin) would address all situations, rather than adding a rule where an existing rule already covers the problem.

I think the global limit thing is a terrible idea, as I play MANY speed games with the same people over and over (6-player standards), and there aren't that many people that like FS speed games as much as we do, so the limit thing would honestly completely ruin the site for me and others that love their settings on certain games.

[thegreekdog]

My response to Mr Changsha is whether he has considered whether people would stop playing the game if they were discouraged from playing public games with their friends. In other words, is there a group of players that joined this site and continue to play games because they play with friends?

[Crazyirishman]

I personally would be more inclined to attack somebody who was my rl friend just to stick it to them, maybe I'm the only one.

[KoolBak]

Of the 100+ members in our group, all are friends but many are RL friends and they are who I play the most (99%) with. Stupid rule. Our motto (for over 8 years) has been "Friends Killing Friends, With Honor".....I'd much rather hit a bud than a stranger

[Funkyterrance]

It does seem like something of a conundrum. Ideally, people who were friends in real life would only play either on the same team or in private games where all players knew each other.
The problem obviously lies in constructing a filter that can tell when each of these is happening and when it's not. Maybe the proposed standard game friend blocking filter should be "turned off" when it is a private game and "turned on" when it is public? Would that be an ok solution?

[Mr Changsha]

My response to Mr Changsha is whether he has considered whether people would stop playing the game if they were discouraged from playing public games with their friends. In other words, is there a group of players that joined this site and continue to play games because they play with friends?

I think real-life friends should play private games with those friends and other players who are aware of their relationship.

However, I am aware that it is basically impossible to stop people from playing in public games with their real-life friends. What I would like to see, and I mentioned this in the OP, is that CC switches from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt in those CandA cases where secret diplomacy is suspected. As it is right now we have to prove foul play, which is devilishly difficult, while I feel the site should assume that where real-life friends are playing in large standard flat games they are up to no good...and certainly where the win percentages are more than suspect.

[stumeister69]

and what about innocent until proven guilty

[Mr Changsha]

and what about innocent until proven guilty

That is of course a good point.

However, consider the analogy of a man caught with his hand in the bag of a woman he does not know. Now I suppose it is possible his hand is in their for a purely innocent purpose, but one must assume its intention is in some way destructive - whether to fondle a lady's feminie hygeine products, or check for a pair of emergency briefs, or simply and far more boringly, lift her mobile phone.

Any woman who happened to find a strange man in such a state would naturally presume guilt and it would be up to the gentleman to explan his way out of the situation. She would certainly not presume innocence.

[koontz1973]

Amazing how reactionary some players can be.

Off course friends should be able to play friends, even in large games with other people. Should they be declared as friends in the log, no. No matter what the club does to deter players from cheating, some will always try to circumvent the rules for benefit. You change the rule to include this, how will you determine they are real life friends?

[DoomYoshi]

There are some unambigous cases. If you play a wide variety of team games with a player, you can be considered a "friend" real-life not important in this case.

I fully support this.

Also, while this is "reactionary" it is a reaction to what itself was a reactionary banning. If you support the banning of Kiron and xiangwang, logic precludes you from not supporting this idea.

[BigBallinStalin]

My response to Mr Changsha is whether he has considered whether people would stop playing the game if they were discouraged from playing public games with their friends. In other words, is there a group of players that joined this site and continue to play games because they play with friends?

I think real-life friends should play private games with those friends and other players who are aware of their relationship.

However, I am aware that it is basically impossible to stop people from playing in public games with their real-life friends. What I would like to see, and I mentioned this in the OP, is that CC switches from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt in those CandA cases where secret diplomacy is suspected. As it is right now we have to prove foul play, which is devilishly difficult, while I feel the site should assume that where real-life friends are playing in large standard flat games they are up to no good...and certainly where the win percentages are more than suspect.

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

[Evil Semp]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

[Lindax]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

I thought you guys already had multiple sets of rules?

[Evil Semp]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

I thought you guys already had multiple sets of rules?

What took you so long?

[Lindax]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

I thought you guys already had multiple sets of rules?

What took you so long?

Believe it or not, I do have better things to do then scan the forums. Just happened to see this in passing.

And believe it or not 2: I really don't give a flying f*ck about any of this. I simply find it unbelievable that a C&A department can't even come up with the slightest sense of consistency. So, if I come across something like this, I'll let that be heard (or read).

Next time you post your crap, let me know and I'll jump right on it.

[Mr Changsha]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

Let me give you an example:

Say I play 10 public 8 man standards in the same game as spazzattack (a friend of mine). Now after those 10 games I win 6, he 3 and someone else grabs another. Now I am capable of winning 6 from 10 8 man standards in a purely legitimate fashion - just about - and spazz is certainly capable of winning 3..but if those 10 games were pointed out to you through a secret diplomacy case, and you knew of the relationship between spazz and I (and in this case it would be very obvious), I would expect you to find us guilty of secret diplomacy even if the log did not show clearly that it had taken place.

I want a lower burden of proof in cases where a personal relationship is known and the win rates are high (remember in this situation combined we would have a 90% win rate...and I made this same point in the kiron xiangwang debacle).

Secret diplomacy in large standard games is one of the worst forms of cheating we can find here on CC, yet because it is difficult to prove from the logs, and because players say oh so innocently "I want to kill my real-life friends the most!" I feel more often than not that these kinds of cheaters get away with it.

Why is it so hard for CC to advise all players to avoid playing with real-life friends in large standard public games? It seems perfectly obvious to me that if, for example, there are 3 real-life friends in a public 8 man game that the deck has been stacked horrendously for the other 5, that secret diplomacy WILL be taking place, and that such actions should result in a ban.

[BigBallinStalin]

Makes sense, or at the very least, the C&A should lower their standard of proof in cases where two friends play with each other in public games.

This can be more of an informal rule--or perhaps stated clearly somewhere. E.g. "if you play public games with friends, and if you're suspected of cheating, then we'll use a lower standard of proof."

If we want to lower the burden of proof lets start with the forum users and see how it goes. For example if you post an X amount of times and someone accuses you of trolling we just accept the accusers word for it.

Do you really want two sets of rules?

Forum behavior and cheating on games with friends are two distinct actions. Let's try to keep them separate.

[Mr Changsha]

As Kiron has got his conqueror rank back, I think it is worth reminding everyone that xiangwang has played 41% of his games with kiron, quite openly as real-life friends, and yet due to CC's inability to 'accept the bleeding obvious' both of them have not suffered the life-time bans that should have been their due.

[macbone]

-1 billion for me.

I think this is a terrible idea, actually. How many users are here because their friends recommended the site to them? Maybe they have one friend they invited, or two, maybe three, maybe four. Maybe they don't want to play team games, or private two-person games. Are we really going to limit the user base like this?

If people abuse the system, go after 'em. But don't punish the majority of players who don't conduct secret diplomacy because of the minority of players who do.

And I like to play play 6-player Terminator Escalating on Classic settings. Does that mean I only get to play 2 games of that sort vs. the hundreds of other SoC grads and former students brought up on those settings?

Should we make sure that only one SoC grad is playing in one game at a time?

What about games I play against clan mates? Should we avoid joining games that another clan member is in?

Oh, there's a game versus former Team Student X. Guess I can't play that one. Oh, there's some games versus former Team Students Z, Gamma, and Aleph. Guess I can't play those ones. Oh, gee, my Escalating-loving clan mate started a bunch of games. I sure would like to take some of his points. Guess I can't.

Frankly, this will lead to less games, and less users overall. Is this really what we want? Is this going to ultimately benefit or harm the site's long-term health?

Why are we letting the violations and abuse perpetrated by a small minority undermine the enjoyment of the large number of paying customers who just want to kick back and throw a little dice, sometimes with people they enjoy playing against in a friendly game of world domination?

See, here's the thing. What makes this site so great is the community that's built up around it. When I was looking for a board-game-like strategy-lite game, I tried a couple of different sites, and CC won hands down for me because of the community established, the camaraderie that's here. I can't support any measure designed to fragment, ghettoize, or prevent friends from getting together to eliminate each other over a friendly game of Ri - uh, land-grabbing.

Frankly, I just don't get it. I think this policy will cost CC users, and not the rule-violating type, either, but the casual gamers who are looking to play their turns with their morning coffee or between classes. These folks exist, right? I think they do. I used to be one of them.