webdiplomacy.net

Thanks Kestasjk.

Some thoughts:
(1) This is a tool I have to now use and put my hands up for not using when it became clear I had 1 relationship I should have flagged. Am a committed player of several years and am very happy to be a case study/test case for whatever makes things better for the site

Definitely appreciate you being a willing guinea pig will be a good test case.

Note you're not out of hot water yet. Still need to clean a couple things up, so can you go here and respond to my message at the bottom: https://webdiplomacy.net/group.php?groupId=28

My hope is that with mod-suspected multi-accounters we don't ban, but we assign a STRONG relationship. This will prevent the accounts from joining the same game, unless:

• They both join first and other players knowingly join, seeing that there are two STRONG linked accounts.
• It's a password protected game, where a private group knowingly gave access to the game

This way a family or classroom, that to webDip may be indistinguishable from a multi, could freely play together in private games, play separately in public games, but not join the same public game.
So then we don't really care whether it's one account or not, there's no harm either way, no need to ban, no need to sneak back in and reban: Less work for mods, less ruined games, less families/friends mistakenly banned. (In theory..)

(2) A good initiative and whilst nothing is perfect, we need to be clear, fair and quick. People can't just make accusations willy nilly and bog the game down in mud throwing, but we probably need a useguide to outline:
- (i) what is an actual relationship self declared,
- (ii) what is an investigated relationship which was accused and is fals. Part of me feels this should be shown to put aside fears of other players if people keep thinking X and Y are friends, but mods have looked into it and found not to be the case
- (iii) what are the categories of relationship investigation so we are clear what we mean by "other" etc...

Yep definitely. One thing to be clear on is that a suspicion won't have any effect on the suspected until it's mod verified: Visible to the suspector(?), the suspected, and mods only.

1. The suspicion is created from a game, and needs an explanation.
2. The suspector will see a flag against the suspected in-game, and the suspected players will be able to view, comment on, DENY, or confirm the suspicion.
3. Mods can check the suspicion, the explanation and discussion, check whether the stats and logs support the suspicion, and either:

• Query => Submit a comment, and set a flag redirecting the suspected to respond before they can continue to use the site
• DENY => Confirm the suspicion is invalid, there's good reason to doubt any link
• DOUBT => The link is possible, but seems unlikely\
• WEAK => There are some pretty weak reasons to suspect a link, but it could be coincidence
• MID => There is definitely reason to thing there's a link, but it doesn't really look like the same person
• STRONG => As far as the mod can tell this could be the same person[/quote]
  
  
  DENY will block any new suspicions in future.
  DOUBT will warn future suspectors that they are probably not one player, but still allow new suspicions.
  WEAK links will only be visible on a user's profile page.
  MID links will put a light colored icon next to countries who are in the same game, showing the possible relation to other players, and games will have an option to stop MID linked players joining. (i.e. only one linked player can join)
  STRONG links put a heavy colored icon next to countries who are in the same game, and games won't allow two STRONG linked players to join the same game unless it's password protected, or they are the first to create&join.
  
  Hope that makes sense and clears things up any confusion. If you see any problems in this now's the time

This sort of problem is always quite difficult to strike a balance with, and the above approach seems quite reasonable to me.

About the only concerns I have revolve around dealing with bad actors. If someone is cheating and their multi-account gets flagged with STRONG, and they respond by creating a new account to continue cheating with, then they should just be banned completely and forever.

The other side is if someone is found to be ok/not doing anything knowingly wrong, the process can leave a stain/mark on them.

Careful balance needs to be struck

But I agree with Gwyn- zero tolerance is needed with cheaters where it is 100% certain they cheated. Ban them and yes, we know they'll be back somehow. But a good deterant isn't always 100% effective i guess

So, if you play against someone in non-anonimous and then a new game starts, and you know they are trustworthy, and work with them the second time? That is bad? Maybe all games should be anonimous then.

I am playing in one anon game. There is a large message on the game screen asking about my suspicion that I am cheating in the game. If I try to respond, I get an error message. Is this normal ?

I have the same issue, and in my press game there is a large box at the bottom to lodge cheating suspicions that just errors if I try to submit.

Yes, same although I can only lodge suspicions for myself. There is no option to accuse others.

A design suggestion: having it at the bottom of the page so I don't have to keep scrolling past it until the 15th.

I also have this issue - it's quite annoying so grateful if it can be migrated to another page rather than appearing in-game.

Or alternatively, as C0nd0r has suggested, could it be at least moved to the bottom of the page (below the summaries of SCs/units/points etc.).

Also, why is it only available to accuse oneself? I tried doing so and had errors like poyo245 did.

It's clearly and obviously a feature in progress that was accidentally added to production. Chill out, it'll get fixed soon.

I'm totally zen, just providing feedback as requested by OP: "Note the idea is that eventually all cheating accusations will require submitting via this system, so it is worth giving feedback while it's still fairly open to change."

Sure, but the same feedback provided 5 times isn't all that productive :)

My question concerns those Bloomin' BlighterDalekBots.
I note that there is now an easy to use "report your suspicions of cheating/metagaming etc" function for games against the Bloomin' BlighterDalekBots.
Should I infer that it is possible there are some Wicked BlighterDalekBots suspected of cheating & the Almighty Mods need help to catch them at it?
I have been the victim of some asinine attacks by BlighterDalekBots when we are both being attacked by another fiendish BlighterDalekBot and these asinine BlighterDalekBots don't defend against the BlighterDalekBot attacking both of us, but keep attacking me and allowing the other one an easy run at their home scs, rnd result we both get defeated, and the obvious play is to stop attacking me and join me in attacking the common enemy and greater threat.
I have had my suspicions about the BlighterDalekBots ganging up on the lone human player when clearly they are meant to squabble with each other and let the human player pick them off one at a time.

Those bots cheat all the time. I knew it.
Yah, do report them. We need to get them banned.

Johnny Big Horse wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:28 pm

So, if you play against someone in non-anonimous and then a new game starts, and you know they are trustworthy, and work with them the second time? That is bad? Maybe all games should be anonimous then.

No, the rules are clear on this: You can't enter a games with a pre-determined intent to ally or attack another player. You also can't play public games with acquintances.
Working with someone again is fine and normal.

Most games should indeed be anonimous.

I tried using this feature to disclose that I knew userID=19589 in school, but got this error:

Error triggered: Unknown column 'gameId' in 'field list'.

I was just trying to test the feature (the relationship is more than a decade old and I have lost touch with this person).

Just wondering where this is up to? I am in an anonymous press game where I have a mild-medium strength suspicion of metagaming/cheating. Nothing that I would bother emailing the mods with (and certainly not in global) but I would love to lodge a suspicion. More just for the experience TBH.

I haven't been able to find where to lodge this? It seems the two places to lodge a suspicion have disappeared. Thanks to anyone who can help.

C0nd0r wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:27 am

I haven't been able to find where to lodge this? It seems the two places to lodge a suspicion have disappeared. Thanks to anyone who can help.

It's not yet finished.

ok, thanks

C0nd0r wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:27 am

Just wondering where this is up to? I am in an anonymous press game where I have a mild-medium strength suspicion of metagaming/cheating. Nothing that I would bother emailing the mods with (and certainly not in global) but I would love to lodge a suspicion. More just for the experience TBH.

I haven't been able to find where to lodge this? It seems the two places to lodge a suspicion have disappeared. Thanks to anyone who can help.

Thanks for the patience; we've reactivated this feature, hopefully now working fine and looking a bit nicer also. The "Lodge Cheating Suspicion" link will no longer take you to the mod contact page but instead open up the suspicion submission form. Any issues let us know, and thanks for lodging even low level suspicions; the more data we have the better

Thanks, Kestas. Looks like it is in fact working now!