"This site is not a democracy so shut the hell up. "

Spoken like a true dickhead.

"This site is not a democracy so shut the hell up. "

Yes, we should all shut up now. In fact, let's all stop posting on the forum altogether. Because that will solve everything.

Imaloser just spent the last two weeks CDing out of his games so maybe he should concentrate on entering moves.

Also, agree that it's not a democracy but without us, the players, the site couldn't exist.

"This site is not a democracy so shut the hell up. "

"Yes, we should all shut up now. In fact, let's all stop posting on the forum altogether. Because that will solve everything."

Don't you know that we can only shut up and stop posting on the forum if the Mods allow it? ;-)

I must say though, I'm very curious who the cheaters were (if they were dedicated players or not) and how rampant this latest scheme was...

Can anyone suggest a more democratic site to play diplomacy?

you might try voting one into existence..

In all seriousness, I don't feel democratic sites to be a good thing, as they devolve into a popularity contest, so good luck with that!

Transparency on the other hand I could see as being a good thing in certain cases but not all.

The Forum has descended into anarchy. When order is re-established, changes will be made. But right now, your mob mentality is not helping your case. One mod has commented on this thread, I think you should take that as a sign. A decision has been made, and unless the mods have a change of heart, any changes will not be in your favor. All complaints here have been made, and validated by others, but none of you have any sort of leverage to offer. This site is not a democracy, but the mods haven't taken interest in changing the situation, so you might do yourself some good to sit and wait quietly.

Okay, so I'd posted several extremely long messages on the Global of the game itself explaining things, but they all got drowned and nobody seemed to read them. They're gone now anyway, so I guess I'm going to have to write it all over again.
That's probably a good thing, in a way. I was getting fairly frustrated by the constant abuse I was getting from one player and so my last few messages were probably a little tainted by that.

This post will be split into three parts, since it's so long, for ease of understanding what relates to what.

*************************************************

1) Why the cancel?

Okay, so firstly, I need to say that this was a decision that almost all the Moderators discussed for a full week (the case was opened last Thursday, and was concluded this Friday). It was not a decision that was taken lightly - we knew cancelling a WWIV game would be controversial, but we came to the conclusion that this was the only fair thing we could do.
It probably felt like it was not a thoroughly thought-out decision because there was only a total of about 17 hours between the message being posted on Global and the game being cancelled. However, a large amount of thought and effort was put into this case, and the consequences of it, by all Mods involved.

This was an extraordinary case, as there has never been one to this scale before (as far as I'm aware), so we've never even had to contemplate cancelling a WWIV game before. There were seven metas in this game, and this had board-wide implications from the start. People all over the board underperformed and overperformed due to what I call the ripple effect - I put quite a long explanation of this in the Global chat (which, unfortunately, is gone now), but it's really quite simple - if there are a group of cheaters in an area, the countries surrounding them have to move to counter them, leaving them unable to interfere with neighbouring countries. This causes those neighbouring countries not to have to watch their backs, which means they overperform, and as such, the next ring of players underperforms, and so on.
The ripples tend to have less of an effect the further they are from the epicentre, but in a case such as this they are still very large. This impacted the entire board in one way or another.

Due to the massive effect this had on the game, there was really no other option than to cancel this that would have been fair on the negatively affected players. Also, there were 6 players who were caught between the meta'ing countries and never even had a chance. They didn't deserve a defeat from that.

It is true that people put effort into this game, but myself and the other Mods talked about this and none of them seemed to be the right thing to do. Allowing a draw instead of a cancel would have given all the unfairly defeated players a defeat on their records and taken quite a lot of HoF points from them. Cancelling, but giving D-Points to the survivors didn't really seem fair either because that assumes that the survivors have put a lot of effort into the game and nobody else did - in reality, some of the people who did well could have put a lot less effort in than some of those who were eliminated.

If anyone has any other suggestions, please propose them - but we couldn't come up with any that would be fair.

*******************************

2) Why are the Mods attempting to protect cheaters?

I don't really like the wording of this question, but that's what's being asked, so I'll answer it.
As I said above, this case involved seven players metagaming. Two were banned, but the other five were not, and their names were not revealed.

Firstly, why were these five not banned? Well, the simple answer is that we do not ban every person we've found cheating. Such an approach would make our jobs much easier, this is true, but the way we conduct things at the moment is that we investigate cases and then decide, as a group, what the appropriate action taken should be. Banning is not the only punishment available - there is something else we use that I will go into more detail about soon.

When we find a multi-accounter who has been using their accounts in the same games, that is incredibly serious and usually results in a ban. If someone has shown that they are prepared to make extra accounts to cheat, then most likely they would be prepared to make extra accounts to get around anti-cheating measures we put in.

However, with metagamers it's slightly different. There is another thing we can do which prevents certain players from playing anon games with one another, and which alerts us if they join a non-anon game together. This effectively stops any ability they have to ruin games by metagaming, in that they cannot even join an anon game to meta in, and if they join a non-anon game with intent to meta we find them very quickly and can usually tell if they are intending to do so (and so ban them for a second offence) within the first year, before they've had time to do any damage.
We tend to find this preferable to banning them instantly as it gives them a chance to reform, with practically no risk to any games. A few former metas have come to be good members of the site and have completely reformed, although most tend to leave after they realise they can't play with their friends in the way they would like. Still, as those few tend to positively contribute to games, it seems to be worth it.

The problem with revealing their names is exactly what Guaroz mentioned above (although I wouldn't put it in the same way as he did). They wouldn't get 'lynched', but they would never be accepted, because the feeling of hatred for ruining this game would always be there for those involved in this game, and the knowledge that these people had cheated would always be there for everyone else. They would (most likely) never be treated the same as any other player again.

I imagine some of you would reply to this saying "So what? It's their punishment for cheating!" but doing this would essentially just be a ban from the site, just a slower one, as they realise they'll never be welcome here and leave. If we wanted that to happen, we'd just ban them. The point of this approach is to allow them to oppurtunity to reform if they want to, while still punishing them in a way by putting restrictions upon them - it is supposed to be a better alternative than a ban. It wouldn't work if we gave their names out freely.

I hope that's understandable. I know that they take a slightly different approach to this on WebDip (as they tend to ban anyone who cheats instantly) but they have to as they have a much bigger community and monitoring former cheaters, even with the aid of software, would be much more difficult for them. Here, it's an option, so we prefer to utilise it.

The other two were banned because they had cheated before - the fact that they were not spotted cheating in this game was human error on my part, as they were being investigated for different reasons and I did not think to check if they were connected. This probably would have been resolved much sooner if I had done, but what is past is past - there's nothing anyone can do about that now. The other five had never cheated before and had not done so in any other game.

*************************************

3) Other general stuff:

This will just be some other answers to questions brought up on this thread that aren't central to this issue.

Why did I say that this wasn't a Democracy on the Global chat?

This is rather simple to explain. The other Mods and I had spent over a week working on this case, considering every outcome and debating what end result would be fair. When I posted our decision on the chat of the game, there were some reasoned arguments against it, which I replied to in detail (much of this was the same as I have posted in this post, but there was more too). There was also one player who took to posting abuse, demanding answers, and then when I posted the answers to his questions he ignored them and instead posted a poll for players in the game to vote on whether the Mod decision was correct or not.

This annoyed me somewhat, as I hope the majority of you will understand, so I reacted by (rather angrily) saying that this site was not a Democracy. It wasn't meant as a 'We don't want any feedback from you because you aren't in charge of this site" statement, as the opposite is true - the playerbase is one of two major factors that make this site what it is (along with Oli's dedication to make this site the best that it can be for the players) so community input is much appreciated. However, what isn't appreciated is ignoring the reply to this input and then making a "Let's see how many people I can get to hate the Mods!" poll. I overreacted a little, I think, but I'm as human as the next person and I'm also subject to emotions sometimes. Being a Mod doesn't eradicate them, contrary to popular belief :)



@DEFIANT - The problem with your suggestion of allocating SCs depending on who were eliminated by the cheaters is the same as I have mentioned in section one - due to the ripple effect, this sometimes has board-wide implications (and would pretty much always have them in a game where this approach needed to be taken) so determining who was eliminated due to the cheats and who was eliminated due to their own actions would be very difficult to judge.

@PE - The 'Non-Contest' options seems to be a very good idea, in my opinion. I have no idea how plausible it is though. You may have to ask Oli about that.

***************************************

I hope that explanation satisfies everyone. I am happy to discuss this, if you want to continue, but please read the post first :)

15 years old. The game was 15 years old. There were other people banned (Chipatis and others) and Bluesclues said he lodged a complaint. I was also told that others had filed complaints. So why was the game allowed to go on so long beyond that and why did you let us waste so much time? I got my 7 back in exchange for thousands of typed words and probably 30+ hours spent on this game.

I don't really care who the cheaters are. I'd like to know who the people are who were so seriously affected. Are you counting countries like India, who missed every other turn? Or Thailand, who made several ill-advised stabs and poor moves? Besides Blue, who else is there? I didn't see any known good players on the defeated list (I took screen shots) and no one else has stepped forward, so I'd like to know who these people are who could have won if it weren't for the cheaters.

I'd also like to assert that just because there were cheaters, it doesn't mean that they were evil players. I found them actually very willing to work with me when I messaged with them. I also think they turned on some of their buddies during the course of the game.

I'm still very much not liking the implicit statement that known cheaters are being trusted not to cheat again, but that upstanding members of the vdip community aren't being trusted to treat them equitably. How anything can be considered inevitable in such a matter just escapes me.

I'd suggest that if aforesaid cheaters are serious about reform that they ought at least apologize to their fellow players.

I would like to invite Gumers to start his own site. I'm sure that after he did all of the work that Oli et al do to make this site run he would find all sorts of ways to improve thinks in incremental but vital ways. Then through the wonders of the free market, his superior site would draw us all away from this marginally inferior site and we would all be better for it. That would show those arrogant mods.

BTW, I decided almost a year ago to stop joining games after playing a 7 day move game that went on for almost a year, a player called me a faggot among other things in between genuinely vile rants, the game degenerated into a horribly ugly experience and in the end he was discovered to be cheating. The game was drawn immediately after I was eliminated by a coalition of three cheating players. Cancelling the game being discussed above was a much fairer solution that what happened in my last game. I can attest that being the last person defeated right before the coalition of cheaters is discovered leaves a horribly bitter taste in one's mouth.

Additionally, the mods all have a little decal identifying them publicly.

Captainmeme,
I don't think anybody here thinks you don't want feedback, Oli and the rest of you have worked too hard(on your own time) to make this the best site there is. And you have done the job so thank you.
However I think we can make it better. As you said you have never seen a metagaming cheat as bad as this one and I agree, neither have I and I have been on alot of sites and in alot games so this is the game we have to make precedence . So while it is tedious to listen to us I think it is vital because if you don't listen then there will be mods without players. That said, you have listened and your "customer service" is outstanding, in respect to your latest post.

I understand it would be tough to decide who gets what in a game of the dynamics of a 15 year game. But your 'best' guess compromise is better than a cancel. Let me ask, did you return the points to the 5 players that cheated? If you want to I can go in detail on how to do it apply points(theoretically), but that is not for here unless you say otherwise.

You used the term lynch like Guaroz which I think is the wrong application of the word in this sense, metagaming is the proper term we should use. It is accurate to say that here if someone has a preconditioned position on a player in a game. You say you are protecting him from that, ok, but indicating cheating from others will occur if you do this, not much confidence in the good players of the board. As I said earlier I would not reserve judgement in a game if one of the five are in it, because that is cheating.

This site is not a democracy nor can it be if you want it to work, and your decision is final and I respect that but I hope you take our insight into the next occurrence of this and your decision is not to cancel the game. For if you do, the playability of this site will diminish if this occurs more frequently, what's the point of joining a game that can be cancelled down the road because someone might cheat. Very hard to dedicate the time and energy and for what?

Captainmeme, Oli, and other MODs,
I´d like you to accept my apologies for being rude before. I honest regret that. I´m sure I´d have more success to convince you of your wrong ways (or be convinced) if I´ve acted differently.
Unlike you think, I´ve read every post of yours, considered the issues brought as explanation and changed my own aproach based on them.
I´ve even admited a cancel was a valid option and would accept it IF the non-cheaters involved decided it was the best option.
Why, in a case of this magnitude, you ONLY listenned to the cheaters before taking an irrevocable decision? Why cant we, the victims, be heard as well? Maybe, if we could share with you our oppinions, desires and point of views before the decision was taken (LIKE the cheaters could), that decision would be different.

Now, about metagaming.... I´m in a position in wich 5 previous metagamers know I want their heads and think they shall be benned from the site... I dont know who they are, but they know who I am.... Will the preventive measures taken by the MODs protect me from them? Or shall I play only anonymous games from now on ?
The way it is, I am half-banned from this site, while cheaters are free to play and even exert revenge upon me...

"Why, in a case of this magnitude, you ONLY listenned to the cheaters before taking an irrevocable decision? Why cant we, the victims, be heard as well? Maybe, if we could share with you our oppinions, desires and point of views before the decision was taken (LIKE the cheaters could), that decision would be different."
I don't think the cheaters wanted this game cancelled. Some of them were quite larger and doing well.

Its not that we listened to the cheaters, its that we determined the best decisions was to cancel the game. This was without input of either those who cheated or those who didn't.

This is not the first game we have cancelled due to cheaters ruining it, we did what the we thought was the best decision.

Everything we did was not to protect the cheaters, but to protect the victims of the cheaters.

Fasces, how, exactly, was I protected?

Fasces, that is true but you did nothing to protect the players that did well and were honest, they got the shaft, that is my complaint and I feel it is an important one.

Meh. It is a free site. What do you expect? I got hurt more than anyone but understand that a corrupt game is no game. I would prefer to throw out the cheaters... But that isn't my decision.

I wasn't in this game, so allow me to offer my outside perspective as well-
@the mod team- maybe as a sort of compromise, you could at least tell everyone exactly what their punishment was(EX. just a warning, point docking, HOF rank dropping, etc).
@all- The mods did make the right decision not giving out the names. While I would like to assume that if we knew the names of the cheats, we would all be willing to give them another chance, the reality is most players would never truly accept that they may have reformed. therefore, anonymity of the players should be kept.

At the same time, I think that the players here would be more willing to forgive the cheating players if they were to openly and willingly admit that they were one of the cheaters, and submit a formal(and I would hope genuine) apology to the players whose game they ruined.

Captainmeme, your efforts in this matter are greatly appreciated, even by some like me that disagree with the eventual rulings. My concern remains the secrecy of the process, specifically why Guaroz is involved in this, as it appears quite clear that he has been and continues to be. Either this guy is a moderator or he is not. Why does he have access to the site like one? Why is he allowed to access and read our in-game and private messages and log in times if he is not a moderator? The decisions that came down, which he unsurprising rushed in to defend, are part and parcel of his philosophy for dealing with cheating and abuse, namely to punish those who play by the rules, and protect those who do not. And why is he tasking you with writing the decision, when this is all him behind the scenes? If he's going to play the little tyrant in a case like this, we deserve to know that it's his doing.

Yes, this site is free. Yes, people put in lots of time to provide for our playing enjoyment. And if you (not you, but the tyrant and his crew of apologists and backers) wish to say to people, 'shut the fuck up' to the players, that's fine too. But the credibility of this community has been seriously called into question by this mess, and everyone deserves to know a little more about what happened and why it was wrong. The reality is that cheaters are being protected, and the victims of this behavior are not only having their game canceled (something which is probably the only solution), but the shielding of the cheats, and the failure to provide an explanation of how the cheating specifically destroyed the game is making a terrible situation worse.

Wait...Guaroz is a Mod?

Doesn't everyone pretty much know what happened? Regarding "why it is wrong"... That's one for the philosophers and kindergarten teachers.

@RUFFAUS
Nononono. You’re wrong. Again.
I’m not a Mod. I’m a SUPERMOD.
I can’t only read your private messages. I also can read your emails. Your paper mail. Your phone texts. Your bank statements. This is very easy for me, because Oli gave me the strongest power he could give me: he gave me THE EYE OF RA !!
I CAN READ YOUR MIND !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1IXQ1pKl_Q


@ALL
For those who don’t know it yet, RUFFHAUS hates me and, well, it didn’t take me much time to hate him as well.
You can see dozens of old threads in which we disagree. Some months ago, in order to save my time, I stopped reading his posts since he basically never says anything interesting. Unless someone (like Halt this time) says something that makes me think he said something interesting (or should I say funny).
It’s not the first time he says I’m a Mod. I take it as a compliment. Though I believe it’s involuntarily made. :)
I think it’s because I usually put some effort in thinking why Mods took some action or made some decision, a thing that he looks unable to do. In the long time I’ve been here, I had to do many times with most of them and I learnt to appreciate each person who now is a mod. So when I see a decision looking weird, I think that these wise people must have had a good reason to do so and I start thinking what. I try to think as a Mod. That’s why you hear me often say the mods are right. And that’s why I respect (or maybe over-respect, if you like) their job: lack of time aside, I’d never volunteer for a job in which nobody ever thanks you and many often insult you. So I tend to magnify their good jobs and to minimize their (rare) mistakes. In abstract this might not be completely fair, but I think it is indeed: it’s my way to thank them for their dirty job. Once I volunteered for GameMastering a SRG (Bourse). It was very time-expensive but it was funny, at the beginning. Then RUFFHAUS started accusing me to help some players and not others (=cheating) and I gave up GM, not having the time both to GMing and to discuss with any idiot on this site. For that SRG only, I was given some powers (force pauses, extends, etc…) and this is probably the second reason why he thinks I’m a mod. 1+1=2. Simple, isn’t it?

@Halt. Now you know where I come from, also. In that Bourse game no active player publicly defended me, although there were many great players, mods themselves included. It has been a very bad and demoralizing experience. RUFFHAUS was driving a big power and nobody was keen to displease him. A big draw was in sight and everyone was willing to take part in it – RUFFAUS as an enemy could mean defeat. Pot was 600 or so. That’s why I don’t like in-game polls: everybody would vote for his own convenience and not for what is right. Looks like even the best people stop thinking right when their interests are being touched. And that’s why I usually support people like mods (though they didn’t defend me that time: all forgiven), who put their time and effort in making decisions people usually don’t put any effort in understanding and rather they start crying some nonsense if the decision in question doesn’t match their convenience and interest. I hate this. And I dislike the laziness of those who support them on the Forums, without spending 1 minute thinking what the reasons of the other side might be. Yes I gave my +1 to ashelygirl, yesterday. And I like people, I could disagree with, who made the effort to consider each side before speaking.

Guaroz, please let's not start that argument again. We've been through it enough times already, and it always gets heated and out of hand. If you hate RUFFHAUS so much, please mute him and be done with it.

@Everyone else - Mods have the Mod flag next to their names, as you can see with Fasces and I on this thread. If anyone claims to be a Mod and does not have that flag, they are not telling the truth.

WEll, Guaroz
You are a "puxa-saco". I was forced to look in a dictionary to know this word in english. I´m not sure wich one to use... Would you help me describing wich one of the following words describe you and you relations to the mods best ?

- Apple polisher;
- Sycophant;
- Toady;
- Boot licker;
- Brown-nose;
- Asslicker;
- Flattener;

Othe players, please be free to enlight me as well.
Thank you all for helping increase my vocabulary!

@ Gumers :

Do you think that you are helping your case by being rude with other people ?

Why are you so disrespectful towards Guaroz ? Doesn't he have the right to simply agree with the Moderators' decision ?
For your information, I fully agree with the Moderators' decision and with Guaroz' comments. And I would like to thank here all the Moderators for their fantastic job which allows us all to enjoy this great site !

Not really, I just genually want to know which word shall be used... I´m sorry if some of them are offensive. That was not my intention...

I think that last one should be 'Flatterer', not 'Flattener' :D

lmao

I think the only one that's not a huge slap in the face is "flatterer"