Cheating in PBEMs

[Darius871]

It is easy to prove if the person did it so fanatically that his combats results are always impossible.

[klesh]

Well I do that latter all the time. I always take my PBEM turns 4 or 5 times. I never considered that cheating because trhe units there are just the units there, there is no fooling around with them.

When playing civ against humans, it is gravely important that you maximize your results. You dont have the leniancy that playing against a dumb AI affords. So when I unleash an attack of 30 units onto an enemy's border, I will attampt that attack a few times to see how far I can get it.

Especially for scenarios that have wildy alternate unit stats (tsfe comes to mind) you rarely now how attacks will turn out. If I attack a city with a T-34 a plane might defend, but if I go with an infantry I might get to take out that evber important bunker unit.

If playing your turn a few times is cheating, them put me on the 'blacklist'

-FMK.

[klesh]

Has anyone looked to see how the other PBEM forums handle this problem? CtP, AC, and CivIII all have PBEM forums and they must be debatting the same things... or perhaps they have a solution already.

Either way, this seems like it should be discussed and handled by PBEM playing moderators rather than freelance vigilante threads.

[Darius871]

Klesh, why exactly do you have a problem with the thread? Is it just the ugly connotation of the word "blacklist"?

If people remain civil and just post the facts, I don't see what is unethical about it. The difference between this thread and Salem or McCarthyism is this: in those cases all one had to do was yell "she's a witch!" or "he's a commie!" and it would be accepted as fact. In the case of PBEM cheaters, they are proven to have cheated, either by a file check and/or a confession, and then that undisputed fact is made known to everyone who wants to know. There's a huge difference between these two situations.

[techumseh]

I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.

The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways.

Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach.

[Henrik]

I agree with Tecumseh and FMK here, I really don't like the "blacklist" concept.


Oh and btw tecumseh I believe it's your turn in lebensraum

[Darius871]

Originally posted by techumseh
I find this approach distasteful. Already, the one guy who 'fessed up (yes, I know he was forced to) and continued to post about this issue is the only guy on the list. If you're going to list the cheaters, do your homework and list ALL of them.

Ok, I will. I just didn't think I should dig up ancient history, but I have links to the 7 cheating busts I've experienced, so I can take 10 minutes and post them all if you like.

Originally posted by techumseh
The problem with this approach is that the majority of cheaters who are caught disappear and if they return, they return under a different name. So this approach ONLY affects those 1) who are caught, and 2) want to reform and keep playing PBEMs. It does nothing to increase the chances of catching cheaters and is a huge barrier to anyone who wants to mend their ways.

This is not necessarily true; I've seen a cheater from civfanatics game join a PBEM here without mentioning his past, and if it weren't for Case bringing it up, the other players wouldn't have known. That's exactly the type of situation a list is meant to prevent. There was another case where only two people knew that a player had cheated, they sorted it out with that person, and they let him continue without telling anybody else.

Also, if people are aware of who the cheaters are, there is a higher chance that they would be able to catch DL's. Whether it be grammar, location, playing style, signature contents, or whatever else, DL cheaters could be identified if people know who their old alias was.

Originally posted by techumseh
Though my proposal was more or less ignored, I will repeat it: Random audits of PBEM games by experienced and neutral third parties. If, when someone sets up a PBEM, he also recruits someone to take a look through some of the posted files at some point in the game, and everyone knows this in advance, I think we will do more to PREVENT cheating than this vindictive approach.

By using the word "more" you act as if it were an either-or approach, but it's not. I believe we should use both methods.

Regardless, routine checks are already being done by Duke of Marlbrough at CFC and is nothing new. But you have to accept the reality that people do not have the time to repeatedly check these games. Who would do it? Would you like to volunteer?

[klesh]

Daruis, my only thing is that any lists or whatever type of thing we do should be done by the mods of this forum, preferably ones that are familliar with PBEMs. This way we can get a consensus for the entire community as opposed to little bits and tads here and there. One set of rules, one set of methods, applied to all.

I like your idea techumseh, but as it is hard enough to find people williung to devote real time to play a PBEM, think of how hard it'll be to recruit PBEM sheriffs. That is, unless it is a duty of being within the PBEM community.


I still think we should opperate this all within the civII PBEM civgroup. This allows the rules to be set, and if one doesnt like it they can play a game outside of the group. This also allows us to keep tabs on all the playes. PBEM Civgroup sanctioned games would be assigned a Sherrif by the leader of the PBEM Civgroup. It would be a rotating job, so everyone in the civgroup will have to do some policing..... Thats the price you'll have to pay to be in league with people who want to curb cheating.

This way we have rules, we have a standard, and we have an enforcement method. Anyone can come and go from this forum.... but the civgroup is a way to have a registered list of players, and a way get rules etc solidly in place.

Thoughts?

-FMK.

[Darius871]

I would certainly love having a sheriff in every game, but I just don't think it's practical; people just don't have the time. It's a huge load to handle.

As for what you said about having rules and structure I totally agree; that's why I said on the thread just the facts, in a specific format. If anyone has anything immature or off-topic to say, they can say it elsewhere.

[techumseh]

Sure, I'll do one or two, if some others will volunteer also. Somebody's going to have to bring me up to speed on how to go about it.

I'm looking for playtesters for my new Test of Time scenario 'Roman Civil War', and I'm making it the first PBEM with a "Subject to random audit" warning label right from the start. So I'm looking for 6 players and one auditor or alternatively, 7 players and I'll do the audit.

Any takers?

[Darius871]

Btw FMK, I thought I'd mention that having a bunch of regular players doing file checks is very risky.

For one, letting a veteran player look deeply into someone's savegame could give that player important information about that player's strategies and playing style, information which they could use to their advantage in another game where they're playing against that person.

Secondly, having average civgroup members going around checking files could result in someone getting falsely accused. As some of you are aware, someone was falsely accused in the Mongols PBEM here and he ended up leaving because of it. Now that check was done by DoM who is very experienced at doing this. Could you imagine if less experienced people go around doing it, do it sloppy, and then falsely accuse people? That's a big risk.

[St Leo]

I am going to let you guys elect an extra-dedicated moderator for fun stuff like IP checks. Tentatively, the candidates will be Darius871, Techumseh, Case, and FMK. Please inform me of other deserving regulars before I create the poll.

[Dr. Nick]

You could just punish all four of them, Leo.

[St Leo]

You could just punish all four of them, Leo.

Yes, the poll will be multiple-choice.:P

[The ANZAC]

I think the list is a good idea, one of the better ones too. The problems with "PBEM Sheriffs" are valid and that is why they can't be standard. However it would be nice to see if we can get more features associated with our CivGroup implemented.