I certainly do have a beef about cheating, though I cannot condone public outing on the Forum - something that has happened in a thread with my name on it unfortunately.
There have been players who cheat ever since I joined. The big question is why? I think that it is difficult to answer that one. Some seem to get a kick out of cheating in life full stop - pretending to be someone else on the Internet for example, or starting multiple accounts so that you can support yourself or attack an enemy in a debate (unbelievably common when I was a Mod on a very big site - even some of the Mods resorted to this tactic when they were losing a pride-based argument)... I can almost see some players on this site sitting at their machines thinking: 'Ha ha, that'll teach him!'
I am thick-skinned enough to rise above this somewhat low-level of motivation and try to remove bad players the old fashioned way by just defeating them. However, I have had a pretty bad run of ruined games recently and the collective waste of time and effort has been huge. I am currently arguing with players in WTA games about the very annoying practice of one player helping another to win and justifying this with the, 'you wouldn't support me so I am going to make sure that you lose' logic.
As these games are World games, the amount of time and effort wasted is somewhat greater. Perhaps that is why I am finding the problem worse?
I have always taken the trouble to ensure that I play games to the finish, that I never leave. I have even stuck to that principle in tournaments where I have withdrawn after disputes on rule interpretations - I have played out any games started until a replacement could be found to step in. What I find now though is that with the World map, once a problem is identified, such as a lapdog partner, even after it has been discussed within the game, we have to go through weeks of blatant virtual team playing.
I can no longer justify to myself continuing to play in these games to keep my record of always finishing clean.
I am tempted to suggest starting a new site and experimenting - not with the code of the games, but the way in which cheating and game-spoiling play are dealt with. I do not have time to do this in practice so it has been a thought experiment only. I would rather spend my time thinking about this though than use it to enter moves in ruined games.
Right now, it seems to me that unless there is a provable case of multi-accounting, a game is unlikely to be stopped. A reliance perhaps on a mechanical approach to investigation rather than a judgement call.
For WTA, I would suggest, for example, a card system like that in football. A Mod could be asked to look at a game and award a Yellow card to a player who has, after warning, continued to help another player beyond what could be considered a normal alliance (I will give an example below). This would be a public award and the player's name tagged so that all within the game could see. If that player continues to spoil the game, he gets a second yellow card and is banned (I use the wider term 'spoil' as a way of encompassing cheating as well as other forms of wrongful play such as vendettas and bloody-mindedness). A proven case of multi accounting would get the straight red card and a ban.
I would make the penalties severe so that a ban is permanent. I would not use any form of point system though so as to remove a whole layer of temptation, and players would be identified by their in-play record and reliability. Players who finish games properly would get the higher ratings and could reasonably be considered more likely to play by the rules and the spirit of the game.
I would allow an appeals process but unless overturned, a ban would be a ban.
My feeling here is greatly influenced by my experiences as a Mod elsewhere and the way that people keep coming back after being found to be cheating/causing trouble. Rapid and severe penalties tend to reduce the amount of time someone is able to get any sort of satisfaction out of attempting to get round the rules, and having to start with a new account and address and e-mail etc if you do feel the need to demonstrate your low level of intelligence are greatly added to if your avatar has the lowest level of reliability against it: you would have great difficulty getting into serious games with respected players.
Games stopped for cheating would not be counted in normal stats for win/loss/survive etc...
Of course, this requires Mods who have the time to look. This itself could be dealt with by inviting a greater number of Mods from among the more experienced players: the number needed rising as the number of members increases.
Very clear examples of unacceptable bad play as opposed to merely poor play would be given within the rules and these rules would have to be both read and a multiple choice test passed before a member is admitted (I set exams so I have to put this one in : ) ).
And so on...
I mentioned above that I would give an example of unacceptable play (WTA).
Two players A and B in a game (World Map) are next to each other at the start. Both expand but away from each other. A builds the fleets and armies necessary for a major campaign and keeps light forces along his common border; B builds only armies and moves them all to the far extremes of his territories leaving nothing, not a single unit, on his common border. B's armies are now a great wall inside which is a bubble of controlled space. Because his wall is comprised entirely of armies, he has no way to expand any further when he reaches coastlines and thus has given himself no chance to play any meaningful role in an attempt to win. A though has gained from the completely safe common border and can, at will, roll his own forces across to take out numerous SCs at any time he wants. Even if B wanted to turn round, he would need two to three full years to get where he needs to be, in which time he would have lost most of his SCs - and certainly his home SCs. His lack of fleets would also prevent convoys and off-shore supports. Basically, he hasn't got a hope in Hell of recovering his position. It should also be noted that because of gains, this common border could easily be as long as eight to ten spaces.
We must assume that other players would have questioned B's play right from the outset so it is not a matter of sudden enlightenment.
When the situation is called out as being beyond acceptable - perhaps on the Global Tag, B simply stops playing - not a word to any other player, he just vanishes and A carries on as if there was never anything wrong.
I would certainly stop the game and give both A and B the yellow card here, allowing A to appeal and explain. He still has the full right to play on in other games but would have been warned to make sure that if a similar 'lucky' neighbour turns up he be more open to a consideration of fair play.
Remember, he now carries a yellow card against his name.
How long that card lasts is a point for debate, but it could be something like three finished games... It will be hard for this player to get games and complete the sentence.
Anyway, as I said above, it is a thought experiment.
Live Classic Gunboat Sunday Night Live JOIN
)
)
)
)
)