Why do site rules protect cheaters and punish the honest

[Ginge86]

I have noticed a lot of cheating recently on this site and I cannot understand why the site rules seem to protect these people and also why reports of cheaters take so long to be dealt with.

Currently, when someone is cheating, you are expected to sit there quietly, watch them cheat and say nothing. This would be fine in a world where accusations are dealt with quickly but currently that does not seem to be the case.

How is it fair to honest players, that they must allow cheaters to get away with it, until one of the mods,whom I am sure are busy, is able to get around to it. This just results in your game being ruined, as surprisingly, cheating does work and does give people an unfair advantage.

This is an issue which affects everyone and if cheaters are consistently ruining games o n this site, it will not be long before they go elsewhere for there diplomacy.

I would love to hear people's thoughts on this. I have had 2 games ruined by cheaters in the last 2 weeks, this issue is getting out of hand and nothing seems to be being done to stop it

[Jamiet99uk]

What kind of cheating are you claiming to have witnessed?

[Ginge86]

One game the player admitted to a preplanned alliance. Luckily he dropped out before too much damage was done.

The second has 4 players in it, that when you view there game history, almost all the games they play are together and they ally every time. The players in question made suspect moves, which prompted me to do some digging. As you can probably imagine, sitting back and watching 4 players ruin the game, when all the evidence is there for all to see, is extremely frustrating.

This was reported over a week ago, I have had no response from the mods.

What I do not like, is the fact I risk punishment, if I dare point this out to the other players. It feels like we are expected to just let cheaters get away with it on this site.

Any ideas on what I can do?

[kestasjk]

Hi, it does take a while to properly investigate cheating accusations, but I can assure you if you log your suspicion in the system we will get around to looking at it. We're making it more systematic and have more info available to make decisions so there is a backlog, but we will get around to investigating. I'm sure I remember your name from a prior investigation we've done, so I expect you've interacted with the suspicion page in the past and seen it at work?

We'll be making it quicker and more efficient, but please just log it for the time being. Next weekend is another dev cycle that I'll be putting into webDip (last couple of cycles unfortunately I had other dev work for an old colleague), so you'll see some updates then.

[JECE]

Any ideas on what I can do?

Play somewhere that still has mods, like our sister site vDiplomacy.

[Ginge86]

Any ideas on what I can do?

Play somewhere that still has mods, like our sister site vDiplomacy.

Just checked them out, I love the fact that games with cheaters don't affect you rating. That is how it should be. I will register later today. Thanks

[Ginge86]

Hi, it does take a while to properly investigate cheating accusations, but I can assure you if you log your suspicion in the system we will get around to looking at it. We're making it more systematic and have more info available to make decisions so there is a backlog, but we will get around to investigating. I'm sure I remember your name from a prior investigation we've done, so I expect you've interacted with the suspicion page in the past and seen it at work?

We'll be making it quicker and more efficient, but please just log it for the time being. Next weekend is another dev cycle that I'll be putting into webDip (last couple of cycles unfortunately I had other dev work for an old colleague), so you'll see some updates then.

I know you guys get busy and I appreciate all your work. The issue for me is I play to be competitive. I am ranked 17 in press games, was aiming for number 1 lol. With 40 percent of my current games having cheaters and no recourse for the damage it does for players, that goal would seem impossible to reach. I will most likely drop from said games, as I feel strongly cheaters should not affect my gr and instead lose rr raring, then be unable to join any decent games going forward. Meaning I may need to wait a year to do so, all because, someone was cheating. Hopefully this explanation helps you understand my frustration at the current system. Unsure if others feel the same

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

The cheater accuses other people of cheating! This is called audacity, sir.
And may I remind you that there was no alliance (Egypt and France are quite apart to cooperate, especially in early turns), and the player dropped because he couldn't enter orders until he found the procedure to answer your accusation.

[Ginge86]

The cheater accuses other people of cheating! This is called audacity, sir.
And may I remind you that there was no alliance (Egypt and France are quite apart to cooperate, especially in early turns), and the player dropped because he couldn't enter orders until he found the procedure to answer your accusation.

When a player says in press that another player invited them to a game and that they are cooperating closely in this one, it raises a red flag. If there was nothing to my accusation, the mods would have said so. If there was no cheating, perhaps you should be more annoyed with them for what they said. Rather than me for reporting what appeared to me as someone admitting to braking site rules. One would assume the mods found no foul play, based off what you are saying here, if that is the case, then I will apologise for any issues I caused you but again, my report was based of what they said, so I still feel reporting was the right move.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This is very interesting. Upon seeing more names and background details, I believe I took over the relevant open position in one of the games being discussed.

My read of the previous players' (France to Egypt) chat does not point to any untoward collusion (at least via in-game chat), though of course that's a determination for the mods. Both players were clearly annoyed with how OP conducted themselves in the chat and the accused departing player whipped up some extra unnecessary drama in the global chat on the way out - seems to me like bad blood and poor sportsmanship on several sides.

Of course, this is just one instance and OP claims there are several. I'll be curious to see what, if anything, comes from the mod review on this one.

[Ginge86]

This is very interesting. Upon seeing more names and background details, I believe I took over the relevant open position in one of the games being discussed.

My read of the previous players' (France to Egypt) chat does not point to any untoward collusion (at least via in-game chat), though of course that's a determination for the mods. Both players were clearly annoyed with how OP conducted themselves in the chat and the accused departing player whipped up some extra unnecessary drama in the global chat on the way out - seems to me like bad blood and poor sportsmanship on several sides.

Of course, this is just one instance and OP claims there are several. I'll be curious to see what, if anything, comes from the mod review on this one.

Indeed you did, thanks for that info, good to know. I hope I was wrong but, again, when a player says these things, what else can one do? The message was sent to the mods, they clearly agreed that it warranted investigation, otherwise, it wouldn't have been.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

For sure, I totally agree it's bad if players are inviting one another to games with the purpose of colluding. Even if they don't actually work together in a particular game (which I believe is probably true in this case), it certainly erodes trust if certain pairings of players are intentionally joining the same games. If this is a common practice then anonymous games are even more susceptible.

Seems like a practical challenge for moderators. In this case if there's a text-based admission you'd think that would help clarify the issue. In other cases like this where there is no confirming chat I don't even know how you could prevent it.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

I started the game and mentioned it to the other player if he'd like to join as he liked this variant more than the classic, as I do too. There was no deal or pre-arrangement.
And we talked a little off the game in the press because I told him I am Greek, and we spoke about Greek cuisine.
Toxic people like you Ginge, are one of the main reasons that the game in question is my last one (you may have noticed what is happening at the east end of the map). I am fed with as****** like you and I am quitting playing.

[Aristocrat]

This is always a tough area. If you play enough (non-anon) games on this or any other site, you will run into the same players. Sometimes you will run into the same players very often. If someone knows a certain player is very good, or very bad, or super trustworthy, or likes to make foolish stabs, etc., it is practically impossible to truly exclude this from their decision making. I don't think this is necessarily always a bad thing, since this information can actually make the game more enjoyable, as long as it's not abused. Diplomacy was not originally created as an anonymous game where your reputation from one game doesn't follow you to the next (obviously, as you can't have anonymous FTF games). Anon games tend to devolve into least common denominator affairs where everyone defaults to relatively basic strategy, whereas if you know the background of the other players in the game, it's easier to launch into more exotic strategies and have a more in-depth game. To get around this and still have anonymity, you either need very high point bet games (200-300+), which still sometimes don't work for an adequate filter, or have a set group of people join a private anon game, which has problems of its own. Plus lots of people don't have the time to sit around and farm thousands of dipcoins. Creating games with ghost rating limits would be a potential option but is not possible on the site currently, but that would be another way to ensure quality in anon games.

On the other hand, there are some things that clearly cross the line, like joining the same game with the predetermined intent of having an alliance (regardless of whether it makes sense to do so), trading favors in one game for favors in a second game, kamikazi-ing against someone who wronged you in a prior game because you're still upset, not giving people you don't know a fair shake because you unduly favor people you do know, etc.

Point of this long post - it's not always clear where the line is and whether players have crossed it. I don't think an invitation, without more, crosses that line.

PS - If there's a mod backlog or the admins need support, I know there are players who are willing to volunteer to be mods and help the site (for free).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

For any lurkers to the thread, the exchange between OP and William was pretty much the tenor of the chat in that whole game lol.

My 2 cents:

The players inviting one another to the game should recognize how that might make other players uncomfortable, even in a situation where there is no collusion at all. In a perfect world competitive play would be like it is for almost all other online board games: anonymous play and join-by-queue - of course, that's not possible for Diplomacy.

At the same time, I think anyone who has interacted with OP in games could identify them as an unusually abrasive and conspiratorial player. I have the misfortune of being in two games with this player at the moment and their toxicity is not rule breaking, but it is game warping and unfun.

I truly wish there were a blacklist that prevented joining matches with certain players. Ginge could block all those they suspected cheating without having to make a huge ordeal in the chat. William could block OP for their perceived toxicity. I'd block you both just to play more Diplomacy with less acrimony lol.

[Ginge86]

For any lurkers to the thread, the exchange between OP and William was pretty much the tenor of the chat in that whole game lol.

My 2 cents:

The players inviting one another to the game should recognize how that might make other players uncomfortable, even in a situation where there is no collusion at all. In a perfect world competitive play would be like it is for almost all other online board games: anonymous play and join-by-queue - of course, that's not possible for Diplomacy.

At the same time, I think anyone who has interacted with OP in games could identify them as an unusually abrasive and conspiratorial player. I have the misfortune of being in two games with this player at the moment and their toxicity is not rule breaking, but it is game warping and unfun.

I truly wish there were a blacklist that prevented joining matches with certain players. Ginge could block all those they suspected cheating without having to make a huge ordeal in the chat. William could block OP for their perceived toxicity. I'd block you both just to play more Diplomacy with less acrimony lol.

That would be a great idea, perhaps then I can stop you stalking me, everywhere I go. You really should avoid grudges in this game.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

Also, to put things in their right place. Rules are there to protect players from cheaters, but they are there too to protect people from false accusations, which may I remind you are also against the rules.

[kestasjk]

For any lurkers to the thread, the exchange between OP and William was pretty much the tenor of the chat in that whole game lol.

My 2 cents:

The players inviting one another to the game should recognize how that might make other players uncomfortable, even in a situation where there is no collusion at all. In a perfect world competitive play would be like it is for almost all other online board games: anonymous play and join-by-queue - of course, that's not possible for Diplomacy.

At the same time, I think anyone who has interacted with OP in games could identify them as an unusually abrasive and conspiratorial player. I have the misfortune of being in two games with this player at the moment and their toxicity is not rule breaking, but it is game warping and unfun.

I truly wish there were a blacklist that prevented joining matches with certain players. Ginge could block all those they suspected cheating without having to make a huge ordeal in the chat. William could block OP for their perceived toxicity. I'd block you both just to play more Diplomacy with less acrimony lol.

That would be a great idea, perhaps then I can stop you stalking me, everywhere I go. You really should avoid grudges in this game.

Once the suspicion functionality is completed it will let you block players you've previously suspected, so even if a ruling isn't made you'll at least be able to avoid games with players you've suspected previously.

I like the sound of the vDip feature that excludes games involving cheaters from the rankings, will look into that

[x3n]

Blocking sounds like a great idea. I once received the following text from a player, and the mod's advice was just to mute them.

"You weak, sad, pathetic little man.
If this was a face to face game, I would have taken you outside, snapped your jaw and left you in hospital for a month. Your lucky this is over a screen."

Anyway, given that this message is acceptable diplomacy and Mute only empowers the offender, a Block option seems like almost a necessity.

[qrzy]

A have already two false accusations.