Some points that have been made earlier are being ignored. The problem in the Mongols case is that not enough was done to contact the person involved before going to the boards. If contact had been made, I'm sure it would have been cleared up, and the charge of cheating never would have been made.
Auditing is the way to go, IMHO. If the PBEM game is identified as subject to audit before people sign on, then I think they'll have greater confidence in the game. I'm talking about random spot checks, perhaps no more than once in each game.
I think we should lay out some principles around this. Here are my suggestions.
1. The PBEM game belongs to the people playing it. So no one should be doing audits of any game without being asked to by the organizer of the game or by a player who suspects cheating is going on. Penalties for cheating should be laid out in advance and the final decision rests with the players of the game.
2. Games subject to audit should be identified at the begining. IMHO, these games will be considered as the most desirable to join.
3. Anyone suspected of cheating has a right to be contacted privately and to respond to any evidence before any other players are informed of the cheating allegation. The onus is on the person doing the audit to make the contact.
If we adopt something like this, then we can establish at least some games where cheating is very unlikely, and set a standard for the community.
Auditing is the way to go, IMHO. If the PBEM game is identified as subject to audit before people sign on, then I think they'll have greater confidence in the game. I'm talking about random spot checks, perhaps no more than once in each game.
I think we should lay out some principles around this. Here are my suggestions.
1. The PBEM game belongs to the people playing it. So no one should be doing audits of any game without being asked to by the organizer of the game or by a player who suspects cheating is going on. Penalties for cheating should be laid out in advance and the final decision rests with the players of the game.
2. Games subject to audit should be identified at the begining. IMHO, these games will be considered as the most desirable to join.
3. Anyone suspected of cheating has a right to be contacted privately and to respond to any evidence before any other players are informed of the cheating allegation. The onus is on the person doing the audit to make the contact.
If we adopt something like this, then we can establish at least some games where cheating is very unlikely, and set a standard for the community.
Comment