I'd like to say something on the matter of multiaccounters, and I think it best if I don't start a panic topic with a scary title.

It seems that most multiaccounters we found are playing anonymous games. My suggestion to you guys is to avoid anonymous games as much as possible, or make them with a 101 pot.

Also of note are the amount of gunboat games (where the unfair advantage is even more obvious) and in some cases, live games being played.

So I recommend not playing live anonymous games, because the mod crew will never get to the case before the game is over, and while we can give you your points back, we can't cancel a game that has ended already.

Is multi-accounting really that common?

I fear so. It is safer even than game-long alliances with friends. People want to play the game but don't want to take the risk.

Depends on what you mean by "that common". The site hosts a huge number of games, so at any point, I'd say there are about 4 to 10 games that have multis or metagamers in them.

Wow so many. I thought so. It's amazing to me how people will do that just to win.

Thanks for the updates! :)

Is it really that high? 40% is a lot. Guess I'm not playing such games that much though.

Do you believe a 'whitelist' approach can sort this? Check everyone after 20 games, then once a year, and then apply rules (min 6 'good guys' for Anon, 5 for normal games, etc.). It must be very discouraging for newbies to face this. If I get this 10% of the time it has to be 2/3 for them. This looks really bad.

Oh, I didn't read that properly. 4 to 10, not out. Ok, that's more ok, with ~100 games active usually.

Yes, that's 4 to 10 games out of about 100.

It should be noted that I pulled this number right out of the top of my head, taking into account how many accusations we get, the number of games being played by the multis, etc.

According to the bottom of the page there are 551 active games. So it's a max. ≈1.815% to min. ≈0.726%. Of course, you said its much more likely in live or anon. games.

Mostly anon, but live too.

There's also the problem of telling which are multi-accounters and which are different people who know each other in real life, play in the same games, and cooperate

But thanks to the mods you can at least be sure multi-accounters will be much less likely in high-point games than entry-level

Thanks for the update! I was wondering about the progress in that arena myself. I appreciate all your work.

Of course avoiding anonymous games just opens you up to other forms of cheating...

I don't see how.

I'm yet to see a multi with over 250pts (that isn't really obvious - there were some a while back but they were only rich because they'd been playing games involving entirely their own accounts!). So yes, if you play games that are worth a reasonable amount you should be safe.

We are working to catch up, but do remember that each case takes quite some time. After all, imagine how you'd feel if someone reported you and we banned you without giving you a chance to defend yourself, especially if you were innocent! (well, hopefully as you are innocent, but that's a different matter)

Well crapsticks. I host a lot of anonymous games, and this explains why folks are so recalcitrant about joining them.

Xapi: I've barely been here long and I've already had someone message me out of game about a game...

I think we're on about 400 bans total atm, out of ~21k accounts, so it's not a huge problem (and often people think someone is a multi when they're not, new code making it clear for obvious cases that someone *isn't* a multi before they get reported will probably save more mod time than any improvements to multi detection code)

thanks for the update, I tend to agree that mutli-accouting or metagaming is not a huge problem.

I also think organized crime is not much of a problem. I don't see much of it. :)
Actually I think the multi and meta level is much higher than we all think. Since clever cheaters (which may be a contradiction in itself---why would they cheat if they are clever) could make the cheating very subtle.
And about the anon games---exactly my experience. I only played two. Both spoiled by very funny things (to say at least) going on.

I'm sure 10, 7, 6, etc. day phase anon. games are devoid of cheaters. I can't imagine multi-accounters having that type of patience!

presjpolk: Was that for a public press ("Global messages only, no private chat/press") or no press ("No in-game messaging") game?

Ballack, well fair enough. If you have any suspicions feel free to email us about them (although as mentioned it could take some time to get back to you).
I don't think there are any high-level cheaters, and if there are I'm very impressed.

2222. Hmm, fishy.

*imagines: JECE o (0 ) *


*resists ... just*

But yeh, I like to bet points such that the remainder is a 'nice' number. Don't think I've played a high pot game for nearly 2 years now.

"Xapi: I've barely been here long and I've already had someone message me out of game about a game... "

Report it.

"Xapi: I've barely been here long and I've already had someone message me out of game about a game... "

This isn't disallowed unless its a restricted press game.

My limited experience with multi-accounters has been that it's not win% they're interested in as much as racking up quick points so that they can play in the "big boy" games. On the plus side, they aren't multi-accounting in high point games (because it's enough effort to inflate one account, let alone several), but on the minus side, it means that high point games may not be as competitive as they should be, with multi-accounters with weak skills getting into the game.

In detecting multi-accounters, anonymous games have been mentioned, but most of the multi-account games I've seen have been unannounced private games, password locked to keep out honest players who might report on the shady business. As such, there may be more multi-accounting going on then we're aware of.

I now check my opponents' previous games, and if I see any previous games with a lot of the same "opponents", or with a lot of one-game-only "opponents", I will report them.

Another serious problem, but one more difficult to deal with, is what I call the "club": a group of players who know each other well, often play in the same games, and give each other preferential treatment. That stinks in my view, even if it's technically legal, and even if some of the otherwise skilled players do it. The only real solution for the "clubs" is to put them on a personal blacklist, as I'm not sure there's anything else that can be done about it.

Riight, responses...
I do think points are a big part of many multi's aims, but I wouldn't say that's it.
I think the best avoidance methods are to stay away from games with players you don't know in a timescale where you can't get help. I've started talking with Kestas about how we could improve it to add suitable methods to sort out any problems after a game has completed, but obviously it is easier to nip them in the bud and catch 'bad' accounts early in a game.
Clubs: Well there are some diplomacy clubs that play on here, and that can be an issue. However I think you should consider that by building up a black-list (especially if you won't play with newbies) you are making yourself a club anyway. Most clubs are good, and don't cause a problem. In my case I don't mind playing with any random people, but because I don't have time for many games any more I prefer to play with people I've got to know quite well, and this doesn't mean it won't be really competitive!

As far as our side, I understand why it is annoying if you spot what seems like a blatent multi and we don't close them off quickly. Firstly obviously, sorry about that! We don't have lots of time and to ensure the accused have a fair chance to defend themselves the investigation tends to take a few days, or longer. As mentioned above Kestas and I have been talking about how to improve the setup, and hopefully that will reduce the workload and thus time taken to deal with an issue.
If you're in a game with a multi then you can email us of course, and we'll do our best to get back to you soon. If they're clearly innocent the reply shouldn't take too long, but if not then it could take time. Note that just because we don't tell you their innocent doesn't mean they're guilty! If you and the other players in your game are very worried that you're being cheated, when you email us we may pause the game for you and explain in your global chat. Indeed, if you mention this in your email its more likely to happen - we're only human and do forget things!

Disclaimer: These are my personal views and do not necessarily the views of other mods or Kestas.

@figlesquidge, it's not the fact that players know each other, or are more inclined to join games with players they know--I think everybody does that, and it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is preferential treatment for "club" members, game after game. The mentality is, "let's work together to dispatch the outsiders, then decide this game amongst ourselves". That turns it into a rigged game, with the outsiders being the marks, and the "club" significantly increasing their net gains. That's what I disagree with, but again, not much that can be done about it.

But in any event, thank you for your work on policing the game, it's appreciated.