We have been going through setting up systems to allow us to publish GOTM / WOTM results in a timely manner. In parallel with this, we have been improving our systems to detect people reloading.

I am very sorry and very disappointed to say that I have just had to send out e-mails to a very significant number of players to advise that we will be excluding their submissions from the results when they are published. Further, a significant number of 'warning' e-mails have also been sent.

This thread is to reinforce to people that the purpose of this competition is fun, in a friendly environment. Cheating destroys our sense of community, and as such we will do everything we can to stop it. This applies to the WOTMs, the GOTMs and the SGOTMs.

I do not want to go into any specifics around these issues. I am not going to name-names, and I will delete any posts that do name-names, along with any that are speculation. Please do not do that.

Further, we are not going to go into details of what we can and cannot detect; to do so would be counter-productive. Make the assumption that we can detect whatever is done that is against the rules, and work within the rules.

Please be advised that we have little tolerance for people cheating in games. We have agreed within the GOTM staff that we will exclude these results, and try to put the issue behind us. We will allow those excluded players a chance to redeem themselves and play within the rules, but we may not be as tolerant going-forward.

To paraphrase what AlanH noted in another thread - you can put your efforts into trying to cheat 'better' so that you're not detected; but we'd prefer you put them in to trying to learn to play better. If you still continue to cheat, and get caught again, as I said, our tolerance only goes so-far.



Regards,

ainwood
On behalf of the GOTM staff, and I suspect also on behalf of the majority of the community who want to play in a fair competition.

Will you also send an email with the specific violation or some kind of proof?

hahah, i received one of these e-mails :)

this was the first time i was playing GOTM and i just forgot to save game on last turn, so i replayed from the last save.

anyway, i lost the space race and this reload couldn't help me to win - it was too late.

even though my result is nothing good, it would be nice to see myself in the stats. but i understand that it's only my fault.

next time i won't do such a big mistake (and hopefully i won't lose the game too :)

I recommend that players with specific issues take them up by PM. As indicated by ainwood, we do not want anyone to name names, or to get into public debates on a case by case basis.

Sorry... just started playing these... and have enjoyed the previous very much (though past deadlines, etc.).

But, just so I'm clear (and hopefully other newbs to GOTM will need this info as well): We cannot restart in mid-game. Check. Do you get only one play period or can you restart from the beginning? Sorry, you've probably said all this before...

Thanks.

But, just so I'm clear (and hopefully other newbs to GOTM will need this info as well): We cannot restart in mid-game. Check. Do you get only one play period or can you restart from the beginning? Sorry, you've probably said all this before...
You only get one play period and you're not allowed to restart in anyway. If you play the whole game through several times only your first attempt can be submitted. Hope that answers your question. :)

... We cannot restart in mid-game. ...
Saving the game then loading from the LAST save is perfectly fine!
Loading from any save other than the LAST save is not!
Saving the game, then playing a few (or several) turns, then loading from the last save or from an auto-save is not!

The ONLY exception is when the game dies on the computer and you didn't get a chance to save. In this ONE case you may load the game from the last Autosave and repeat your moves as precisely as you can remember to the point where the game crashed. You should set your Autosave frequency to 1 so it will save every turn; that way you only go back to the beginning of the turn where the crash occurred. Do this by editing \My Documents\My Games\Warlords\CivilizationIV.ini, and setting the line 'AutoSaveInterval = 4' to 'AutoSaveInterval = 1'

... Do you get only one play period or can you restart from the beginning? ...

You get only one start from the beginning. Restarting is NEVER allowed! After the game is done and submitted you can restart if you wish, to try different things and test the game, but that is your own exploration; do not submit that second (or third ...) game.

(edit - changed 'reloading' to 'loading')

I'm glad to see there is a stronger detection system in place. One of the things that always crossed my mind while playing is wondering if other players were cheating or not. Now we can be sure that even if they do they are less likely to get away with it.

The term 'reloading' is misleading. You can load a save for the second time and not be at fault, because the first time you did not make a move.
On the other hand you can be at fault without reloading, if you load (not: REload) a savefile that you created during a session.

The correct term would be 'playing over', IMHO.

I recieved an email.

I openly apologize to anyone who felt my Red Ambulance award or other lame to mediocre attempts were acheived by cheating/replaying and also to those people who may have been taken some level of hurt or offense at the thought that such action may have occurred in one of my submitted games.


Good luck in those efforts to capture and punish those evil doers that threaten the underlying fabric of the sanctity of these events. :goodjob:

The term 'reloading' is misleading. You can load a save for the second time and not be at fault, because the first time you did not make a move.
On the other hand you can be at fault without reloading, if you load (not: REload) a savefile that you created during a session.

The correct term would be 'playing over', IMHO.
That's probably a better description, but the key bit is that whatever its called, it isn't allowed.

Thanks all. Guess I won't be submitting this time. Finished this twice (won both), but was not happy with my first attempt. I will definitely be posting next time and give it more thought this time.

Keep up all the good work! This series along with the challenge games on the Strategy & Tips boards have me hooked back in to Civ again. So, thanks.

Well, I certaintly wouldn't want to hurt the community but I want to reassure you that for me, and probably others, the actions might have been deliberate but it was not cyncical.

I greatly enjoy playing and submitting the gotm games. It's a shared experience that I enjoy participating in and I apperciate the hard work you all do. I also have enjoyed the challanges of living up to the rules you set forth and have greatly reduced occurances of reloading the game as the months have gone by. There have even been a few games where I actually did manage to follow the rules to the letter and I am quite proud of them.

I understand the desire for a level playing field and in other games have advocated for such myself. The harm that I was causing to the community was minimal as I never won an award someone else should have won and if I was getting to the point that I was, I would stop, we all have a line where we wont cross and I know where mine is. I was getting enough joy in submitting the games to cross all the lines up to that one( I actually was never even close)

There appears to be two fundemtal questions here.

1. Why reload.

2. If reload, why submit.

The answer to 1 is simple, my background is rts, I simply play way to fast to catch everything that needs to be catched and once missed have no desire to continue playing. I only play about 1 game of civ4 a month and its always a gotm game. Im not going to play it out if I will not enjoy it.

The answer to 2 is not as simple but I think it has to do with wanting to participate with a community and a desire improve. I am constaintly trying to be more careful and not reload the game and if I were not going to submit the game I probably wouldn't bother trying not to reload. I feel a great amount of frustration when I get to the point where I feel I need to reload to continue enjoying the game and I think that is part of what I find enjoyable.

I also understand that you guys are overwelmed with work trying to get the results out while policing the submissions. A suggsetion might be to allow those who are like me to submit games but self police. Add a check mark to the submission that says we reloaded the games in violation of the rules and allow the submission to go through but flag the result as a reloaded game and make it inelligable for awards. This way you don't have to police the submission and I can still get all the enjoyment out of it and on the rare occasions where I do succesfully complete the games by the rules I can leave the checkmark off.

For the lifetime awards, only count the games not marked as reloaded for that player.

I believe that most of the players who have been reloading would willing submit the games as reloaded thus saving you a lot of time in trying to police them.

Cheers,
Staffa

I see no point in submitting a "marked" game. It confuses the results listing, and gives no one any useful information. Its position in the list is not useful to anyone other than the player, since it was not played under the same conditions as the non-replayed entries. If the player feels it is of interest (why?), s/he can work out where it would have been in the list simply by looking for the legitimate entries with similar dates or scores.

PS. We would still have to police the unmarked games to the same level.

I think you can post the results of your replayed game in the spoiler threads you just can't submit it.

After reading this thread, and the recent traffic in the SGOTM 3 maintenance thread, I have renewed appreciation for three things ...

1. The dedication and patience of our moderators

2. The workload of our moderators

3. The unlimited capacity of the human being for rationalization.


Again ... Wow!

dV

There appears to be two fundemtal questions here.

1. Why reload.

2. If reload, why submit.


actually, there's only one question there...why reload?
the second one is if reload, DON'T submit.

and seriously...why reload? 99% of the mistakes you think you've made are either non mistakes or not gamebreakers. So your background is RTS games...so? mine is too, that should make you more able to comprehend all the decisions needed to make each turn. RTS games require you to think quickly or you die...in Civ all you've got to do is think. If you think quickly you can obviously finish faster, but I don't see how having the luxury of relaxation would make you forget stuff. Sometimes you'll find what you thought were mistakes actually helped you, but if you change them you'll never learn from them

Just an idea, that need to be discussed and developed if can gather some interest:
Why not have a "major league" where no reloading is allowed, with all the awards and lifetime awards, and a "minor league" where everything is allowed with its awards, without the lifetime ones?
In the submission form the player chooses his "league", so no needs for the Staff to check the ones in the "minor league".
In this way the community can grow, and people interested to improve their skills can try the "major league", and in the meantime keep the discussion flow, eventually declaring in their spoilers they're playing reloading, or restarting, or whatever.

Just to try to keep the discussion in a positive way, with all my appreciation for the Staff and his work and patience.

One thing that might help break people from reloading is for the HoF mod to display a red flag when you have reloaded to an illegal point in the game. This way if you did it by accident you can just go back to the main menu and reload the correct save.

and seriously...why reload? 99% of the mistakes you think you've made are either non mistakes or not gamebreakers.

I do find it that it takes considerably longer to play a GOTM than to play a "normal" Civ game, because I am much more cautious. I end up double-checking a lot, so I don't inadvertently overlook something. In a "normal" game, I would just play faster, and, if I realize the next turn that I overlooked some obvious issue, I can just go back and fix it. I get to the same ultimate result, but more quickly.

But, I entirely understand the GOTM rules. It's not practical to have a "competition" in which there is "some" reloading. How can you draw the line between correcting oversights, and previewing the map, or retroactively building up your forces to defend against an unexpected attack, etc.? I think the right answer is to do everything we can (like many of the features of the HOF mod) to reduce the problem of oversights and obvious errors, and then, to play by the rules.

One thing that might help break people from reloading is for the HoF mod to display a red flag when you have reloaded to an illegal point in the game. This way if you did it by accident you can just go back to the main menu and reload the correct save.

That would probably give clues concerning what is and isn't detectable by the GOTM staff to anyone who's thinking of reloading. So probably not a good idea.

One thing that might help break people from reloading is for the HoF mod to display a red flag when you have reloaded to an illegal point in the game. This way if you did it by accident you can just go back to the main menu and reload the correct save.

This would be really helpful

We have been going through setting up systems to allow us to publish GOTM / WOTM results in a timely manner. In parallel with this, we have been improving our systems to detect people reloading.

Well done! :goodjob:

I am very sorry and very disappointed to say that I have just had to send out e-mails to a very significant number of players to advise that we will be excluding their submissions from the results when they are published. Further, a significant number of 'warning' e-mails have also been sent.

Sigh.. this is very disappointing to hear. :sad:

This thread is to reinforce to people that the purpose of this competition is fun, in a friendly environment. Cheating destroys our sense of community, and as such we will do everything we can to stop it. This applies to the WOTMs, the GOTMs and the SGOTMs.

Amen! I've been away from GOTM for a couple of months to focus on HOF. However, I would say this message holds true for HOF as well.

To all the staff supporting both GOTM and HOF... keep up the great work...

So this means the results of GOTM 10 to WOTM 2 will be coming out soon?

The problem with reloading is the same as with steroids in sports. If you allow reloading there will be people who will reload 100's of times to get better die rolls (you can re-sequence events). In order to compete you would be forced to do the same, which is tedious and would take away from enjoyment of the game.

Why not have a "major league" where no reloading is allowed, with all the awards and lifetime awards, and a "minor league" where everything is allowed with its awards, without the lifetime ones?

The reality is people cheat and that policing the cheating is what is causing so much headache for the staff and contributing the delay in the results. Regardless of what you do, people will continue to cheat. As this is just an informal game with no substantive awards, for most the cheating centers around what is enjoyable not about some kind of gain.

Rather then fighting the cheating, you can capture 90% of it by having the players self admit to it. This does a couple of things. It saves the work of the staff in checking all the games that have self admitted to it and is more inclusive of the vast majority of players out there who are not used to playing without reloading. There are not that many people who submit games and even fewer now.

By not awarding medals or counting the scores towards life time achievements, you do two things. You give an incentive to people to continue to try to minimize their reloading and im not sure why you would need to check the recordings as you can create a filter that filters out all the marked games and make it the default method for listing, thus making it totally invisible to anyone who plays without reloading.

Regardless, bravo to those that did it without reloading, you have my respect. :goodjob:

Please tell me what we should do with a submission that's been reloaded? If we rank such entries we are implying we can compare them. In what way are they comparable? You seem to be asking us to provide a reward system for the best Civ cheats! :eek:

So this means the results of GOTM 10 to WOTM 2 will be coming out soon?

No - it means that the results of GOTM 11, GOTM 12, WOTM 01 and WOTM 02 will be coming out soon!

Reloading doesn't seem such a big deal and I'm fairly certain that most of the people here at one point or another reloaded a game (any game) for any number of reasons... That is all good and fine when playing for your own enjoyment but when said game is competitive (such as GOTM) and there are some pretty clear rules set for the would-be contestants (such as no reloading) then you cannot set said rules aside and still compete without being guilty of cheating. Furthermore, while results achieved while cheating can be compared to other results not involving cheating you cannot derive anything generally useful from said comparison.

For the competition to remain fair and equal for all contestants then obviously everyone has to play by the same rules. Those rules, however, could be changed to allow or disallow any number of things including reloading as is the topic here. That is a process that both the GOTM Staff and the players are responsible for.

Without blowing this way out of proportion though I'll recommend the following: Play the game by the given rules and submit it by those same rules. Then play the game again any way you like and for as much as you like. You are very much allowed to do that I'm sure. I haven't been around here for long but I've seen several people post about their second and third and Nth attempts at a given game and that's perfectly alright, those attempts just aren't eligible for comparison under the rules.

Play for fun and keep playing for fun! Over and out! :)

No - it means that the results of GOTM 11, GOTM 12, WOTM 01 and WOTM 02 will be coming out soon!
Does this mean that GOTM 10 self-destucted ??:eek:

dV

The reality is people cheat and that policing the cheating is what is causing so much headache for the staff and contributing the delay in the results. Regardless of what you do, people will continue to cheat. As this is just an informal game with no substantive awards, for most the cheating centers around what is enjoyable not about some kind of gain. If playing without reloading is not enjoyable, then by all means reload, just don't expect to be able to submit it to the competition.

The competition is intended to allow you to compare your skills at the game to other players. Bad breaks, and "oops I shouldn't have" mistakes are part of the game and of your skill. So when you reload, it is not really your skill at the game on display. I don't see what value reloaders get from seeing their tainted game in a ranking list. Do they really believe the illusion that such a ranking creates?

There is already a way to mark your reloaded game, it is called not submitting !! None of us care to see a tainted game submitted and listed. Comparing a tainted game to the rest of the field only has value to the player of that game, so just don't submit, and just compare the tainted game to the list in the privacy of home or office.

In theory, cheating could range from reloading once to reloading every turn, to playing the game twice and submitting the second one, etc. Why should those who want to play an honest game have such play cluttering up the scoring list? And how does ranking cheating games separately have any meaning?

There are not that many people who submit games and even fewer now. Lenin once said "better fewer, but better" If fewer submissions is the price of fair games, I'm willing to pay it.

I don't get the implication that somehow people are powerless not to reload. Just don't do it. It's not tobacco, alcohol, or cocaine. And if people can't resist reloading, then just don't submit. It's that simple. End of discussion.

dV

Yup, we only had 5 seconds before ... Nah! GOTM10 results are coming out as well!

@Mythinite: very well said! :goodjob: Honestly folks, what is so difficult about playing the game, turn by turn, until it ends, and submit your first, untarnished result. Then, if you feel like doing it, play it again, or play the difficult parts with different strategies to see what works. Post in the spoilers about how you solved that difficult problem, and what you learned. Completely legitimate, you get to participate in the main competition AND improve your game result.

And, what can be said about someone who reloads to improve their result as it is occurring, and submits that game when this other option is available to them? It seems clear to me that they are more concerned with Score and Ranking, to their advantage, then in participating in a level competition. If it were purely the desire to improve their game position by reloading, they could do so, see their final result, and NOT submit.

@Staffa: there are players who do this already, who PM the GOTM moderators to say they reloaded and to exclude their game. I applaud their honesty and decision to abide by the GOTM rules. Unfortunately, there are players who don't, and any option to self-admit would likely be ignored by them.

I know there's a lot of new and inexperienced players who feel overwhelmed; the desire to reload and correct some mistakes or fix a situation is probably really powerful. I urge you to either finish your first attempt and submit it, then go back to see what you can do better (like Mythinite suggested), or go ahead and reload, try to do better, but don't submit.

(edit - crossposted with daVinci :) )

Regardless, bravo to those that did it without reloading, you have my respect. :goodjob:

Ummm, thanks, but it really isn't all that difficult to do it without reloading.

Hmm... silly question (with first an explanation).

My computer is a dead-right sub-recommended one and on large maps I often end up with out-of-memory errors. Standard size maps are just about everything I can handle right now, but even those end up with out-of-memory errors if I play for too long at a time.

I have noticed that with hotseat and non-GOTM games the auto-save sometimes becomes corrupt, especially when my memory runs out and I Crash to Desktop. To circumvent these problems I save manually very often (sometimes almost every turn when the computer starts to slow down). When it really goes slow I CtD and have to restart the computer, or I just restart my computer just to be certain.

GOTM9 I even didn't make it to the end because the game became too slow and I retired.

Because of the way I save and restart so often, it may seem from my replays that I reload far too often in my games. After a CtD I also do not continue from my auto-saves because I simply do not trust them to be non-corrupted. I do replay every turn exactly as done before I CtD, but when I CtD very often in a short timespan and restart/reload the last save it may seem like I'm reloading with prior knowledge of the events ahead....


Is this type of gaming allowed? I would say yes, because I replay every turn exactly as I've done before, but I would like to know the official stance on this.


On the bright side of things, I've recently acquired a laptop which meets the requirements of the game so I can play more constant now.

Iroumen, you're not alone in that problem. I have no doubt that I got pegged in a GOTMs a ways ago for that very reason.

I did the same thing you did, and got myself a new laptop and those problems no longer affect me. I DQ'ed myself from the last GOTM because of a bone-headed move on my part which necessiatated a re-load.

When I had those problems, I was told that if it happened, do your best to reload from the last autosave you can and do exactly what you did prior, until you get to that point. But since it happened frequently...meh, bad computer.

I think that the posting of how to edit your .ini file to autosave every turn was a really good idea. I've done that now too, and I think that will help out.

As a compromise idea/solution, would it be possible to include in your submission code an option to check a box if you reloaded? This code, if marked, would allow submission of the game but would not rank the game according to score. IE. You'd have GOTM submissions that were not market and not pinged for reloading appear first by score, and then after the last non-reloaded game, the other games... Some way of record keeping would be nice for us still somewhat novice players

My computer is a dead-right sub-recommended one and on large maps I often end up with out-of-memory errors.

You could probably add enough memory to run the game properly, for less than the cost of the game itself....

You could probably add enough memory to run the game properly, for less than the cost of the game itself....It's a 6 year old computer, spending money on it is a waste. I acquired a laptop from work so for the moment I'm covered, but at times when my laptop is busy doing hard-time calculations I'm going to have to play on my old one again. Hence I'm asking if I can continue to play on my old computer with the said tactics.

It's a 6 year old computer, spending money on it is a waste.

I guess that depends on what's important to you.

Hence I'm asking if I can continue to play on my old computer with the said tactics.

I would think not.

My 5-year old computer is borderline. ;)
I get the same memory problems but only after a longish session, and I can see it coming so I save and restart from that save. However, I am also occasionally plagued by an overheated video card and that can cause the game to die.

Transparancy works the best. Police cars out in the open are best at controlling driver speed; police cars hiding are best for writing tickets. What is the goal here? More tickets or less speeders? Publish all results, symbols next to games for "tampered" game files. Allow readers to draw own conclusions. Serves to be: less work for mods, everyone sees everything, no feelings hurt or accusations made. All problem solved.

Police cars out in the open are best at controlling driver speed; police cars hiding are best for writing tickets.

I don't think this is really true. Police cars in the open only slow traffic where the police cars are. People go just as fast everywhere else.

I'm in favor of enforcing the 'no-reload' rule- the results of games that were reloaded can still be posted in the appropriate final spoiler section for each game, so there's still the participation aspect for those excluded from the awards...

Not sure I see the need for this, but *if* there is a decision that the results of reloaded games can be somehow uploaded to the staff, to simplify things I'd suggest that the Adventurer start be replaced by the reload-eligble start.

I'd further suggest that this start be world-builder enabled, so people who need extra help or play in a rushed manner can add units to that city they accidentally left undefended, get that last space-race tech that they forgot to get, etc. People who want to bend the rules in order to have an enjoyable game can do so. People who want a fair competition will chose the contender/challenger starts.

The reality is people cheat and that policing the cheating is what is causing so much headache for the staff and contributing the delay in the results. Regardless of what you do, people will continue to cheat. As this is just an informal game with no substantive awards, for most the cheating centers around what is enjoyable not about some kind of gain.

Rather then fighting the cheating, you can capture 90% of it by having the players self admit to it. This does a couple of things. It saves the work of the staff in checking all the games that have self admitted to it and is more inclusive of the vast majority of players out there who are not used to playing without reloading. There are not that many people who submit games and even fewer now.


that sounds like rather stupid logic if you ask me...'people will do it anyway so rather than fight it, just let them'

I don't think this is really true. Police cars in the open only slow traffic where the police cars are. People go just as fast everywhere else.



Actually, it is probably the most effective known method of controlling driver speed. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other method that is pragmatic. Here is how it is done:

Position cars every 3 to 5 miles on heavy trafficked highways. Only put an officer in one out of every four cars, rotating officers so that drivers cannot discern which vehicles are staffed at any point. Simultaneously keep one/two vehicles highly visible, mobile and rolling in traffic at the speed limit. Contolling speed serves the consensus benefit of the community. Writing tickets serves the beneift of the authority, and oft begs the question of whether it may not actually serve to benefit the community.


The metaphor could easily be adpated and applied to these gamesm submissions and results. All that would need be done is to fully publish whatever "evidence" exists right alongside a gamer's file info. The court of public opinion will take care of whatever business need be undertaken.

It's cheap, effective, and nullifies any real gains made from protracted efforts.


Then again, I choose looking at the CIV games in rather similar fashion to the way I view chess; the post mortem is where the real learning takes place. Even the best GM's do not always play the best lines and/or variation OTB. It's in the skittles room or the analyzing stages where the real "correctness" of any strategy can be born out and "proved", if proof even exists. So, I am always more consumed with the autopsy and what can be gleaned from it rather than I am swayed by direct results. Because unlike chess, and a major point from which the games move away from each other, CIV retains a large amount of random element (luck) which can be too decisive in too many games.

I also think names should be used publically (user names). Absolutely. I can see no real reason to not use names. The very system of publishing all submitted files with all pertinent issues precludes the use of names, and from the point of transparancy, makes the most sense. There is nothing to be gained by keeping the names under some cloak covered by one's rusty dagger and everything to be gained by being as open as possible in matters such as this.


~ richard

I think one benefit of the current system is that, by sending out the message that playing over (yes, I think that's a better term than 'reloading') is unacceptable, it encourages people to play straight through and to cope with any mistakes or bad situations that arise; that is arguably an extremely good way to become a better Civ player. It's certainly helped me hugely. Before I started playing GOTMs I was always reloading. Now I almost never do, even in my own private games. As a result of that I've learned that numerous situations that I'd previously have thought of as utterly hopeless and a cause for quitting the game are in fact nothing more than a harder-than-normal challenge (See my WOTM03 final spoiler for a good example of that).

If, as some people are suggesting, the system is changed to allow partially-replayed entries marked as such, that will inevitably send the message that playing in that way is fine, and I think it's inevitable that a fair few people who currently do follow the rules will end up replaying turns. ISTM that will significantly reduce the benefit of the GOTMs in helping people to become better Civ players.

Position cars every 3 to 5 miles on heavy trafficked highways. Only put an officer in one out of every four cars, rotating officers so that drivers cannot discern which vehicles are staffed at any point. Simultaneously keep one/two vehicles highly visible, mobile and rolling in traffic at the speed limit. Contolling speed serves the consensus benefit of the community. Writing tickets serves the beneift of the authority, and oft begs the question of whether it may not actually serve to benefit the community.

The metaphor could easily be adapted and applied to these games submissions and results.

I don't think you can apply that metaphor at all. The speed control system works because speeders fear the possibility of punishment. They wouldn't slow down at all, if they knew that the police never write any tickets.

But I personally have no problem with publishing game "results" from players who don't follow the competition rules. It's just a question of what you want the GOTM to accomplish. Traditionally, the primary purpose of the GOTM (at least as set forth by cracker and others, many years ago) is to explicitly encourage and reward a style of play where players don't take advantage of something that the computer opponents can't do, namely, the opportunity to take back any decisions they regret. It would be a pretty big change to give up that purpose.

The forms of cheating that are the most powerful are also those that are the least possible to detect or prevent. Nothing is going to prevent people from getting high GOTM rankings by cheating, if they want to. I personally don't care much about the rankings, for this among other reasons. But I do think that the GOTM has contributed to the enjoyability of Civ, over the years, precisely by illustrating that it's quite possible to do just as well against the computer, even at high difficulty levels, without having to "take back" one's unfortunate decisions. I hope that aspect continues.

Then again, I choose looking at the CIV games in rather similar fashion to the way I view chess; the post mortem is where the real learning takes place. Even the best GM's do not always play the best lines and/or variation OTB. It's in the skittles room or the analyzing stages where the real "correctness" of any strategy can be born out and "proved", if proof even exists. Heh, this is a slightly optimistic view of the quality of the post-mortem analysis after a game of chess. :mischief:

I have the answer!

How about we just play by the rules set forth by the people who take a great deal of time out of their life to create this game for us? Huh? Huh? :rolleyes:

I play as lousy as anyone, but I absolutely love the GOTM and WOTM. I especially love the pregame discussion... and trying to be so careful to follow my "plan" to victory... and then seeing how everyone fared after I (usually) get my butt kicked.

I wouldn't have that without the GOTM staff. Thanks guys, again, for making a twice monthly event that's just wonderful...

One benefit of private exclusion of submissions suspected of replaying (my favorite term :D ) is it gives people a chance to reform. Someone who reforms and becomes a better player may forever be tainted by their former behavior were their exclusions make public. Also, it is fairly easy for someone to make a mistake if they are not really organized. Needing to learn to be more organized in managing their save files is not a reason for public condemnation.

In addition, publicizing details of why a submission was excluded would only provide information to people who just don't want to give up the crutch of replaying.

So I think that any suggestion to make public the names of transgressors or the nature of their transgressions would be counter productive.

As for allowing people to submit and self report their replaying, isn't that a little like holding AA meetings with an open-bar? :mischief:

One benefit of private exclusion of submissions suspected of replaying (my favorite term :D ) is it gives people a chance to reform. Someone who reforms and becomes a better player may forever be tainted by their former behavior were their exclusions make public. Also, it is fairly easy for someone to make a mistake if they are not really organized. Needing to learn to be more organized in managing their save files is not a reason for public condemnation.

I agree. Also, I would think this takes some pressure off staff. If someone is gonna be publicly named, you need to be very sure about their guilt. It would be hard to "un-taint" someone if a mistake was made.

I think one-strike... you get warned. Two strikes... banned from competition (unless you can demonstrate some extenuating circumstance to the judge.... umm I mean Moderator ;) ).

As for allowing people to submit and self report their replaying, isn't that a little like holding AA meetings with an open-bar? :mischief:

:lol::lol::lol:

I have the answer!

How about we just play by the rules set forth by the people who take a great deal of time out of their life to create this game for us? Huh? Huh? :rolleyes:

I play as lousy as anyone, but I absolutely love the GOTM and WOTM. I especially love the pregame discussion... and trying to be so careful to follow my "plan" to victory... and then seeing how everyone fared after I (usually) get my butt kicked.

I wouldn't have that without the GOTM staff. Thanks guys, again, for making a twice monthly event that's just wonderful...

I totally agree with that. I always absolutely look forward to each GOTM - the staff responsible for creating and maintaining it have created something that provides an awful lot of fun for me and I'm sure a lot of other people. The game rules strike me as totally reasonable, and I don't see any reason to change in that regard. I do though understand it must be really frustrating for anyone who's submission gets rejected because they forgot to save or something - I just don't see what else could reasonably be done in those cases though.

I do though understand it must be really frustrating for anyone who's submission gets rejected because they forgot to save or something - I just don't see what else could reasonably be done in those cases though.

Hey! We're reasonable people! We have, and do, cut some slack for players who have crash problems, or have reloaded from an autosave and explain it to us. If that was all that was happening then this thread would not exist.

One benefit of private exclusion of submissions suspected of replaying (my favorite term :D ) is it gives people a chance to reform. Someone who reforms and becomes a better player may forever be tainted by their former behavior were their exclusions make public. Also, it is fairly easy for someone to make a mistake if they are not really organized. Needing to learn to be more organized in managing their save files is not a reason for public condemnation.

Another reason to avoid public disclosure is that the replays may have been caused by occasional game crashes. I had two crashes in WOMT1, and one in WOTM2, which I documented. I communicated with the moderators this week about these games, and it appears they are acceptable for inclusion in the WOTM rankings.

Flagging my profile/these games with a public indictment of replaying would needlessly sully my name, when I am, in fact, not cheating (or whatever euphemism one wants to use).

In addition, publicizing details of why a submission was excluded would only provide information to people who just don't want to give up the crutch of replaying.

So I think that any suggestion to make public the names of transgressors or the nature of their transgressions would be counter productive.

As for allowing people to submit and self report their replaying, isn't that a little like holding AA meetings with an open-bar? :mischief:

Agreed.

The point is to become better players, and learn from the best. Reloading decreases learning, and learning from "reloaders" is problematic.

One benefit of private exclusion of submissions suspected of replaying (my favorite term :D ) is it gives people a chance to reform. Someone who reforms and becomes a better player may forever be tainted by their former behavior were their exclusions make public. Also, it is fairly easy for someone to make a mistake if they are not really organized. Needing to learn to be more organized in managing their save files is not a reason for public condemnation. I guess there is no private exclusion for those who post in the spoiler threads, since once those great war stories are posted, but the game does not appear in the rankings, the cat is our of the bag.

The-Hawk wants to ban people on the second strike. As in ban forever? That is a pretty harsh consequence (from the perspective of Civ, not real life), and if we are going to be doling that out, we need to be sure that we have a reliable system. So let's bring the science of detection systems into the picture (my next post...)

dV

We have been going through setting up systems to allow us to publish GOTM / WOTM results in a timely manner. In parallel with this, we have been improving our systems to detect people reloading. It is great to improve your ability to detect replaying (more precise, as discussed above in the thread), as long as you don't increase collateral damage in the process (aka increase false positives). Those familiar with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values know where I am heading with this. Once we start to assign meaningful consequences to the results of the detection system, we need to look at its performance.

But first, it appears there are five types of games submitted to GOTM:
1. Games with cheating, by players who care about score and try to be covert
2. Games with cheating, by players who don't care about score, and are perfectly comfortable coming here and telling us that they cheat :confused:
3. Games with replaying due to some inadvertant circumstance (out of players control (crash) or some oops! (like a forgot to save)), where no attempt to change outcomes has been made.
4. Games with no replaying, but there is some feature that makes the staff suspicious of replaying (perhaps frequent save and RESUME events?)
5. Games with no replaying that look clean.

So step one is to decide which of these types of games we want to include in the valid submission category.

Next, we need to decide how well our detection or diagnostic system performs. In particular, it must be able to separate a resume event (nothing replayed) from a replay event.

Suppose that our detection system can correctly identify 90% of cheating games as cheating games. That would be 90% sensitivity. 10% of cheating games go undetected, for a 10% false negative rate.

Suppose our system correctly identifies 90% of valid games as valid. That is 90% specificity. 10% of valid games get identified as cheating, the false positive rate. Not great if we are banning on strike 2.

It gets worse ... now suppose out of 110 submissions, 10 are cheaters and 100 are valid in truth. What will our 90% sensitive and 90% specific system tell us?

9 cheaters are labelled cheaters, 1 slips by. 90 valids are labeled valids, and 10 valids are labeled cheaters. And because there are 10 times more valids than cheaters in reality, of the 19 labelled cheaters, only half really are cheaters!!

So we really need a system with a false positive rate of 1% or less (99% or more specificity) to avoid penalizing the innocent. Do we have that?

It would be in everyone's best interst to reduce false positives. If there are behaviors that raise red flags that can be avoided (such as manual save within a turn, perhaps?), then players ought to know what they are. If more than two or three replays due to a crash won't be accepted, that should be known, as on the fourth crash one then knows not to submit (risk of a strike). If crash incidents need to be reported, that needs to be explicit (seems vague at present).

Yes, this is all a pain in the :spank: But if the mods choose to go to intensive enforcement with harsh consequences, I think they bring this duty on themselves. If we figure this out in detail once, and post it for all to see, it might avoid rehashing it over and over again, which seems to be the usual course of events now (and thus, more efficient in the long run?).

dV

Yes, this is all a pain in the :spank: But if the mods choose to go to intensive enforcement with harsh consequences, I think they bring this duty on themselves.

Or they could just ignore you. That would be my vote.

People have been "rehashing" this on CFC for at least the past five years. I don't personally think an additional round of "rehashing" is necessary or warranted. I certainly don't think the administrators need to justify themselves any further.

Or they could just ignore you. That would be my vote. Your candidate may well win. I just don't want to see a system evolve where people trying to act in good faith get punished.

dV

Your candidate may well win. I just don't want to see a system evolve where people trying to act in good faith get punished.

What do you mean by "evolve"? The system has worked just the same for many years. They were having these exact same arguments when I first joined CFC, in 2003. They come and go, but they haven't changed.

I'm unconvinced there is any problem. Anyone who thinks they are treated unfairly can raise the issue, either privately with the staff, or publicly. I believe they will be treated fairly either way. Until I see evidence to the contrary.

This is how it has always been.

To be true, it is interesting to compare one's game with others.
I consider myself resonably good player, but I allways wander reading reports, how people decided to go this way when there was no indication that word shaped this way befor hand.

I tend to do average plan that most lickly will allways work and have a back up plan if it does not.
For example:
Trying to get CS slingshot on monarch/emperor dificulty is not one of average plans. It is very lickly to fall in many cases and commit too mach resources.

But, somehow, they seems allwasy win. Well, there will be a low of big numbers and some one will be lucky enoght.

Bottom line, better detection system is allways better, as I will be more sure that people got lucky or just playing betetr then me.

On other hand no detection system is unfalible and I see the way to beat any system.

So, maximum this system could achieve is to ensure that majority of results will be valid one's. People who want to get score by any means will allways found way around any system.
One just could hope that people playing Civ is mature enogth not to do it.

I plaed a few GOTM, but never submit as I never had patience to finish game after it was decided and really not mach interested in getting fastest victory posible. On other hand In GOTMs are fun, as one meat some unuseal scenarious, some interesting twists to the formular.

We have been going through setting up systems to allow us to publish GOTM / WOTM results in a timely manner. In parallel with this, we have been improving our systems to detect people reloading.

I am very sorry and very disappointed to say that I have just had to send out e-mails to a very significant number of players to advise that we will be excluding their submissions from the results when they are published. Further, a significant number of 'warning' e-mails have also been sent.

If you still continue to cheat, and get caught again, as I said, our tolerance only goes so-far.

Regards,

ainwood
On behalf of the GOTM staff, and I suspect also on behalf of the majority of the community who want to play in a fair competition. @DaviddesJ: Evolution as evidenced in ainwood's lead post:

1. Technical changes to enhance detection of cheating (are we sure that did not come at the price of more false positives?). If ainwood could have detected all of this before the change, I'm sure we would have heard about it sooner.
2. Significant number of definite or borderline instances (and do I detect a bit of surprise at the number, so it is new?), again raising the possibility that its more false positives. More people who don't cheat raises the number of false positives.
3. If you are caught again ... (unspecified consequences) seems like you better be sure that you are not convicting the innocent.

And posts in this thread that seem to suggest that some acting in good faith are getting dinged. Seems like a sea change to me. (And you did ask ...)

dV

Hence I'm asking if I can continue to play on my old computer with the said tactics.I would think not.That is what I figured, but it is still a harsh measurement for someone who is doing his best to live up to the rules. I enjoy the GOTMs very much and to be disqualified just for playing on an old dingy computer and not using autosave for reloading because they are seriously buggy, seems sort of unfair.

In my view it is an illusion that a load detection system can significantly reduce the amount of cheating. It is simply too easy to circumvent, while it is also guaranteed to generate false positives (crappy computer, two people playing the game on the same system, getting called away frequently, etc.).

It is IMHO far better to look from the other end: the results. The goal of cheating is to get better results. Something useful that can be done is to record actual and expected battle outcomes. If you play fair you cannot consistently beat the odds.
Other types of cheating (foreknowledge of the map, particularly) will raise suspicion from the write-up or the lack thereof, although in these cases one can rarely be sure - but that's life. In the end, it all comes down to trust.

trust as well as integrity

The problem is IMHO, you catch most times the wrong people.

If one really _wants_ to cheat and puts enough effort in it, you cannot detect it. Period.

So 90% of people you detect are just victims of game mechanics, computer errors or oversights that have nothing to do with game play ability (I do not consider this serious enough to make a difference, if one is able to avoid unintended mouse clicks at 100% of the time). In other words: People who do not at all cheat, but just can't handle mechanics as perfectly in their free time, as they would handle their chain-saw on the job.

I have not submitted a GOTM as yet, though I started a few, because to me it was really too much stress to be such over-aware of my finger-movements. I have a job where this is necessary, I won't do it at home.


I don't think this is a good approach for a thing that should, before everything else, be fun.

A suggestion:
Instead of putting an enourmous effort in cheat-checking that anyway is lost effort at those few people that really cheat professionally, rather officially allow a set number of sessions per game (depending on probable number of rounds). Some of these sessions are needed anyway for interruptions.

So there is a set frame, the rules are the same for everybody (so this is still a fair competition), you admins have much less stress and people who play great, but have old computers and the like are not in disadvantage as they are now.

Sheijian

A session count failed hopelessly in the 3OTM because many players kept the game running in the background, sometimes even overnight, just so that the apparent session count was lower. So once again this would be easily overcome by the so inclined whereas others would be excluded for no reason. This rule would also be a great burden on the players.

Don't confuse minutes/hours per session with turns per session. The former is really of very little value in looking at player behaviour, and has never been used as a primary indicator of cheating to my knowledge.

That is what I figured, but it is still a harsh measurement for someone who is doing his best to live up to the rules. I enjoy the GOTMs very much and to be disqualified just for playing on an old dingy computer and not using autosave for reloading because they are seriously buggy, seems sort of unfair.

It sounds to me like you could buy enough memory to solve your problem, for a trivial cost, probably $20 or $30. Your machine would work better for other tasks, too. It seems unreasonable to me to expect the staff to treat you differently from everyone else because you just don't want to bother. If it were really, truly difficult to get a machine that runs Civ4 without crashing, I would have more sympathy.

It sounds to me like you could buy enough memory to solve your problem, for a trivial cost, probably $20 or $30. Your machine would work better for other tasks, too. It seems unreasonable to me to expect the staff to treat you differently from everyone else because you just don't want to bother. If it were really, truly difficult to get a machine that runs Civ4 without crashing, I would have more sympathy.

Note: $20 or $30 is of course trivial to a lot of people in the US, Western Europe etc., and is especially trivial to people like professional developers (who seem to constitute a very high proportion of the Civ fanbase if these forums is anything to judge by :- ) ) But there are Civ players in much less well off countries - I recall someone recently posting to the GOTM forum from Mozambique. To some of those people, I'd imagine $20 is a pretty big sum

Something useful that can be done is to record actual and expected battle outcomes. If you play fair you cannot consistently beat the odds.

I doubt that you would catch anything other than the most blatant cheating with a statistical analysis of all battle outcomes. There are usually one or two really critical battles in a warmongering game. Say, taking a capital with an axe rush. There are 50 or 60 later battles involving more units which only change finish dates by a turn or two.

It's not absurd to win two 20% axe vs archer battles and preserve a SOD in the early game. Its also not absurd to lose 3 or 4 axes taking those archers and these early random events can have huge effects on game progression.

It would take an analysis of multiple GOTMs and a system which understood which battles are truly 'important' to really look for battle reloaders. Looking at battles within x turns of session starts before a certain date might help detect critical reloads. The session count may not be helpful at all if there have been people moving autosaves to other machines to test battle results. (I tend to play a few hours per session so my turns/session numbers drop significantly during late game wars and you wouldn't want to flag lots of clean up battles in any reload check.)

@DaviddesJ: Evolution as evidenced in ainwood's lead post:

1. Technical changes to enhance detection of cheating (are we sure that did not come at the price of more false positives?). If ainwood could have detected all of this before the change, I'm sure we would have heard about it sooner.
2. Significant number of definite or borderline instances (and do I detect a bit of surprise at the number, so it is new?), again raising the possibility that its more false positives. More people who don't cheat raises the number of false positives.
3. If you are caught again ... (unspecified consequences) seems like you better be sure that you are not convicting the innocent.

As I say, this is exactly like the discussions that have always occurred around the GOTM for many, many years. People are found to be violating the rules (via a wide variety of methods). Absolute, total proof is lacking. The offenders themselves generally don't deny it, nor contest the claims, but, other people come out to complain that moral certainty is needed before anyone's results can or should be disqualified. Since it's impossible (and incredibly time-consuming) to have an open discussion of every reason that every game was disqualified, these discussions go nowhere, except to burn out the staff who eventually get fed up with all of the whining, quit, and move on. This has happened lots of times.

And posts in this thread that seem to suggest that some acting in good faith are getting dinged. Seems like a sea change to me. (And you did ask ...)

I have zero doubt that there are people who think they are acting in good faith but who are not following the rules, and who are being disqualified. That's the whole idea. Disqualifying a game is not a criminal penalty. It just is a statement that this game didn't meet the criteria for submission.

There is not one person who has posted here to say that they played strictly according to the rules and yet their game was rejected. There is not one person who says that they appealed the decision to the GOTM staff and that their appeal was not handled fairly or properly. In the absence of any such cases, there is no evidence of a problem. It would take a significant number of such cases, to convince me that there is a problem.

If your computer won't run Civ 4 properly you could always play Civ 3 gotms. In some ways that could present a greater challenge, be just as much fun and less problematic for you.

Note: $20 or $30 is of course trivial to a lot of people in the US, Western Europe etc., and is especially trivial to people like professional developers (who seem to constitute a very high proportion of the Civ fanbase if these forums is anything to judge by :- ) ) But there are Civ players in much less well off countries - I recall someone recently posting to the GOTM forum from Mozambique. To some of those people, I'd imagine $20 is a pretty big sum

He said he has access to a high-end laptop that can run Civ4 fine! He'd just rather play on his other machine sometimes. This is not a situation where someone can't afford a computer.

I will personally send $50 by PayPal to anyone who needs it to play Civ4 by the GOTM rules.

Murky, I don't know ... Civ3 looks incredibly ugly now for some reason. :p

@RobertTheBruce: Good point. It would be easy to 'make up' for winning important early battles against the odds by losing some insignificant later ones. In general, most attention should indeed go to the opening stage since that's when everything can make a huge difference.

Murky, I don't know ... Civ3 looks incredibly ugly now for some reason. :p

@RobertTheBruce: Good point. It would be easy to 'make up' for winning important early battles against the odds by losing some insignificant later ones. In general, most attention should indeed go to the opening stage since that's when everything can make a huge difference.

I miss the Army unit from Civ 3. It has some old graphics but is still a great game.

I miss the Army unit from Civ 3. It has some old graphics but is still a great game.

OT: I recently rediscovered my Civ3 discs and instruction manual. Was pondering spending part of xmas re-reading the manual and trying a game to see how it compares, now that I've got used to Civ4 (and all but completely forgotten how to play Civ3)

I will personally send $50 by PayPal to anyone who needs it to play Civ4 by the GOTM rules.

:wavey::wavey::wavey: Please send me that :help:. I cheat! I cheat! I need $50!:wavey::wavey::wavey:

jk... for those that take this too seriously

If you send me the $50 I'll promise to play by the rules. Oh wait, I already did. :lol:

Just a few observations:

"False positives"? We don't make exclusion decisions lightly. False positives are unlikely - borderline cases get sent a "warning" - in fact, warning is probably a bit harsh a term. They get sent a note that we have some concerns about their submission, offering some options to try and make their submissions more robust (request that they take more care, technical support, setting autosaves to every turn, reminder of what the rules are etc). They have a chance to explain themselves.

Exclusions:
We are confident (after a *lot* of testing) that the system we are using is robust. We will still listen to people's explanations, and reconcile their explanations against our evidence.

Will we publish the evidence for the court of public opinion? Absolutely not.
We are here to help people participate in a fun event. Banning people, or embarrasing them into never playing again is not the way to achieve this. We give people a chance (or two). Banning will be as a last resort.

Finally, I have been involved in the GOTM as a player and as staff for the bettwe part of 5 years. It is absolutely clear that our detection systems have to evolve to stay ahead of a people who just cheat better (to avoid detection) rather than try to play better. We've seen it with civ3; we're seeing it with Civ4. Going back and applying new techniques to old results makes sorry reading.

To make evidence available will make it easier for those dedicated to it to simply find workarounds to cheat 'better'.

I received one of the warning emails and have been trying to figure out wtf I did that made my game 'borderline'. It's possible there was a crash and I had to go back to an autosave and I did reload the last few saves to make sure I was submitting the correct file but it doesn't seem like much.

One possiblity is sometimes when I play I will load my current game just to check some things, not make any moves and quit without saving. When I continue playing I will of course be loading the same game again. I have not seen any posts about this practice and suspect this may be making my game appear as though it has been reloaded.

If this is what made my game borderline then saving my game even when no changes were made should prevent the reload count from being incremented.

Ainwood, you may want to mention in your guidelines for playing a GOTM that you should save your game even if you have not made any moves. I know you mention not to begin unless you can dedicate a reasonable period of time but their are times in a game where I plan out different strategies and may not make any moves.

I received one of the warning emails and have been trying to figure out wtf I did that made my game 'borderline'. It's possible there was a crash and I had to go back to an autosave and I did reload the last few saves to make sure I was submitting the correct file but it doesn't seem like much.Have you checked back with ainwood about your concern? If you replayed only a few turns then that is all it needed to trigger the "warning" mail. A "warning" mail has no effect on your standings here or with the staff. We are just trying to ensure that players avoid behaviour that could look suspicious.

One possiblity is sometimes when I play I will load my current game just to check some things, not make any moves and quit without saving. When I continue playing I will of course be loading the same game again. I have not seen any posts about this practice and suspect this may be making my game appear as though it has been reloaded. As has been stated many times, this is not a problem, and would not put you on our radar screen at all.

If this is what made my game borderline then saving my game even when no changes were made should prevent the reload count from being incremented That is entirely unnecessary.

"False positives"? We don't make exclusion decisions lightly. False positives are unlikely - borderline cases get sent a "warning"
A false positive is not the same as a borderline case, Ainwood.

The first is when suspicion is raised - beyond borderline - while in reality there was no fault, the second is when it is close to where a line was drawn.
What you do once suspicion has been raised is another matter.

Going back and applying new techniques to old results makes sorry reading.
Yes, well, this was always obvious, and we didn't need any techniques to know. I remember a discussion about a Russian site that was so plagued by cheating to the point that the staff just quit and people here took it for granted that it was 'a Russian thing'. That struck me as pretty ignorant at the time.

I remember a discussion about a Russian site that was so plagued by cheating to the point that the staff just quit and people here took it for granted that it was 'a Russian thing'.

I haven't heard anything about that. The topic about cheating is being razed on our site from time to time (just as on CFC), but I never heard any mention of a cheating 'plague'. Everything is pretty much the same as here, I think.

I totally support Ainwoods attempts to detect replaying and other suspicious moves. I agree with those who are saying that there is no point to the GOTM if you can cheat the rules. Easy for me to say as I'm an odd gamer in that I rarely replay sections of games anyway. I find that I get confused about what I've actually done in *this* game rather than the previous one(s):blush: Maybe replaying is a bad habit that people get in to? As someone said previous (Dynamic Spirit?) I've had some excellent games trying to recover from a bad position - not just in Civ but other strategy and RPG's too.

Despite that, though, I've still received a 'warning' message.:( I have only played 1 GOTM and I'm quite sure that I never replayed at all. Not sure whether to send private email to find exactly what the problem was, as I expect they have more than enough work to do anyway. I struggled with HOF mod at first, didn't switch on many features till late-game. Also had lots of short sessions. As a total newbie I probably made a stupid mistake somewhere. I'm not defending my game, as I'm sure the HOF trace is accurate, but I do need to avoid being disqualified through ignorance.

The point is that I believe it's my responsibility to prove that I played fair, so I shall be *very* careful to be above reproach when I start the next game. It's a small effort, really, compared to the efforts of the GOTM organisers.

[QUOTE=man-erg;4848842]II've still received a 'warning' message.:( I have only played 1 GOTM and I'm quite sure that I never replayed at all. Not sure whether to send private email to find exactly what the problem was, as I expect they have more than enough work to do anyway. I struggled with HOF mod at first, didn't switch on many features till late-game. Also had lots of short sessions. As a total newbie I probably made a stupid mistake somewhere. I'm not defending my game, as I'm sure the HOF trace is accurate, but I do need to avoid being disqualified through ignorance.
QUOTE]

I received a polite warning in GOTM6 which was due to lots of short sessions. In subsequent GOTMs I've tried to play longer sessions and haven't received a warning since. That was probably it.

A false positive is not the same as a borderline case, Ainwood.I wasn't saying that they were.


The first is when suspicion is raised - beyond borderline - while in reality there was no fault, the second is when it is close to where a line was drawn.
I would consider a false positive to be where we have considered that a person has cheated, when, in fact, they have not. As I said, we are fairly certain of our evidence before we make a judgement.

I am fairly confident that we are 'drawing the line' in such a place that we won't get any false positives - because where there is doubt, we give people the benefit.

My general observations on all this discussion:

1) "Do-overs" aren't allowed in real life generally, sporting events in particular (Coach: "The defense anticipated that pass play and intercepted the ball. I'm throwing my "do-over" flag and calling a running play") or Civ IV multiplayer games. Accordingly, I find no merit to any contention that reloading should be allowed.

2) A flat rule of "no reloading" (with a small exception for computer crashes) is easiest for the staff to implement. You should keep in mind that the staff are volunteers. If their work gets too complicated, they may burn out and we won't have a GOTM.

3) A flat "no reloading" rule is also fairest to the vast majority of players who don't reload. Allowing some "reloading" or comparing reloaded results to non-reloaded results is unworkable since there are different degrees of reloading. How do you distinguish between a game where one or two lost battles are reloaded (which may or may not be critical battles) and a game where numerous lost battles are reloaded? By the way, when is the last time anyone reloaded because their suicide cat killed the defending longbow despite the 1% chance of success?

4) While false positives are certainly a possibility, we should trust the staff to only disqualify those games which they have reasonable certainty have been reloaded and provide a warning if they have a suspicion. If a game is disqualified and the player doesn't believe it justified, I'm sure the staff carefully re-reviews the game in light of the player's explanation. Ainwood's and AlanH's posts on the policy set forth a reasonable policy in my view. If possible to do so without disclosing the staff's methods for detecting reloading, I would appreciate a list of the types of innocent behavior (such as a lot of short sessions) which can look like reloading. Given the lack of anyone publicly claiming their game was unjustly disqualified, I seriously doubt there are many, if any, false positives.

5) Some of the disqualifications are probably first time GOTM players who don't realize there is a "no reloading" rule. I expect that for the vast majority of those players, they have no problem after being notified of the rule.

6) As a couple of others have posted, I used to reload a lot before discovering the GOTMs. I've found that following the "no reloading" rule is more enjoyable for me for two reasons. First, when I win, I have greater satisfaction that I prevailed without reloading. I've realized that a reloaded victory is tainted. Second, it has greatly improved my game. When a bad result occurs, I have to look for ways around it. Further, if a strategic or tactical decision led to the bad result, I'm less likely to repeat the mistake.

7) I upgraded the RAM in my computer to play Civ IV.

8) For those who think they can't live, especially on higher levels, without reloading, you'll survive. Just do your best, read the spoiler threads and pick up pointers on how to improve your game. Set yourself a goal of doing just a little bit better each time. For me, I'm currently 191st in the Civ IV GOTM global rankings and my goal is to move up each game. You can move up the global rankings even with a low scoring game. In GOTM9 I went from 203rd to 191st with a 1,842 point game after resigning because I had made serious strategic and tactical mistakes and Ghandi was about to overrun my empire with his highly technologically advanced military. The key, I think, is playing and submitting each month as there are a lot of players who don't submit losses.

The nature of a false positive is that there is no doubt, hence the word positive. It is often not the certainty of the evidence that causes this, but the conclusions that you draw. The measurement may be absolutely perfect, but it may not reflect what you think it reflects.

If you rely on evidence there will always be false positives. Even in the best judicial systems this is so. There are innocent people sent to jail every single day. This is usually accepted if a judicial system is, for all its imperfections, serving 'the greater good', an argument also used by the 3OTM staff when they introduced a cut-off point for the number of turns per session. However, in view of what you now know about the 3OTM, that argument must be re-evaluated.

Load detection by itself does more damage than good. It is indirect evidence. In order to draw conclusions with a high standard of validity, you need direct evidence.

My general observations on all this discussion:

1) "Do-overs" aren't allowed in real life generally, sporting events in particular (Coach: "The defense anticipated that pass play and intercepted the ball. I'm throwing my "do-over" flag and calling a running play") or Civ IV multiplayer games. Accordingly, I find no merit to any contention that reloading should be allowed.

2) A flat rule of "no reloading" (with a small exception for computer crashes) is easiest for the staff to implement. You should keep in mind that the staff are volunteers. If their work gets too complicated, they may burn out and we won't have a GOTM.

3) A flat "no reloading" rule is also fairest to the vast majority of players who don't reload. Allowing some "reloading" or comparing reloaded results to non-reloaded results is unworkable since there are different degrees of reloading. How do you distinguish between a game where one or two lost battles are reloaded (which may or may not be critical battles) and a game where numerous lost battles are reloaded? By the way, when is the last time anyone reloaded because their suicide cat killed the defending longbow despite the 1% chance of success?

4) While false positives are certainly a possibility, we should trust the staff to only disqualify those games which they have reasonable certainty have been reloaded and provide a warning if they have a suspicion. If a game is disqualified and the player doesn't believe it justified, I'm sure the staff carefully re-reviews the game in light of the player's explanation. Ainwood's and AlanH's posts on the policy set forth a reasonable policy in my view. If possible to do so without disclosing the staff's methods for detecting reloading, I would appreciate a list of the types of innocent behavior (such as a lot of short sessions) which can look like reloading. Given the lack of anyone publicly claiming their game was unjustly disqualified, I seriously doubt there are many, if any, false positives.

5) Some of the disqualifications are probably first time GOTM players who don't realize there is a "no reloading" rule. I expect that for the vast majority of those players, they have no problem after being notified of the rule.

6) As a couple of others have posted, I used to reload a lot before discovering the GOTMs. I've found that following the "no reloading" rule is more enjoyable for me for two reasons. First, when I win, I have greater satisfaction that I prevailed without reloading. I've realized that a reloaded victory is tainted. Second, it has greatly improved my game. When a bad result occurs, I have to look for ways around it. Further, if a strategic or tactical decision led to the bad result, I'm less likely to repeat the mistake.

7) I upgraded the RAM in my computer to play Civ IV.

8) For those who think they can't live, especially on higher levels, without reloading, you'll survive. Just do your best, read the spoiler threads and pick up pointers on how to improve your game. Set yourself a goal of doing just a little bit better each time. For me, I'm currently 191st in the Civ IV GOTM global rankings and my goal is to move up each game. You can move up the global rankings even with a low scoring game. In GOTM9 I went from 203rd to 191st with a 1,842 point game after resigning because I had made serious strategic and tactical mistakes and Ghandi was about to overrun my empire with his highly technologically advanced military. The key, I think, is playing and submitting each month as there are a lot of players who don't submit losses.
Very good post, I agree with pretty much everything and it's well written. Also occurred to me that, as you said "[g]iven the lack of anyone publicly claiming their game was unjustly disqualified, I seriously doubt there are many, if any, false positives." We don't know exactly what the staff uses for vetting, it does seem that they are doing a good job of determining the intentional re-plays from those resulting from accidents. And I also added more RAM and a new graphics card to play Civ 4.

The nature of a false positive is that there is no doubt, hence the word positive.

This is entirely wrong. "False positive" is a standard term in engineering and statistics, with a standard meaning. It means that a particular test reports a positive result, when the truth is negative. Wikipedia has a good, elementary summary of the usage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

When using any test that can generate false positives, there is always doubt when the test generates a positive result, because the positive result might be either a false positive or a true positive. Some tests generate many more false positives than true positives (for example, explosives screening at airports generates thousands of false positives for every true positive, because very few of the passengers are actually carrying explosives). The usual course of action when a positive result is generated is to use a more sensitive test (e.g., search the passenger's luggage) to determine whether the positive result is a false positive or a true positive.

The nature of a false positive is that there is no doubt, hence the word positive. It is often not the certainty of the evidence that causes this, but the conclusions that you draw. The measurement may be absolutely perfect, but it may not reflect what you think it reflects.
"False positive" was not my term.

Yes, there can be 'false positives', but my point is that I think we have managed the risk of this very well to the point where the number of 'false positives' will be acceptable.

Just a few observations:

"False positives"? We don't make exclusion decisions lightly. False positives are unlikely - borderline cases get sent a "warning" - in fact, warning is probably a bit harsh a term. They get sent a note that we have some concerns about their submission, offering some options to try and make their submissions more robust (request that they take more care, technical support, setting autosaves to every turn, reminder of what the rules are etc). They have a chance to explain themselves.

Exclusions:
We are confident (after a *lot* of testing) that the system we are using is robust. We will still listen to people's explanations, and reconcile their explanations against our evidence. If you are saying that the warnings (yes, I got one too) are more in the line of friendly advice than a message that "we think you cheated but we can't prove it", that is a useful clarification for the recipients. Given the way exclusions and warnings were discussed in close proximity in the first post and the email text, their more benign nature was not so apparent (at least to me). The more harsh impression of their meaning, and posts suggesting they were pretty common, made me worry about false positive issues. Especially with people posting about two strikes and you are banned. If warnings carry no implication of guilt, then false positive is not an issue for the warnings.

I am also reassured to hear that you have looked at the specificity of the system (assuming that is what you mean by robust) regarding exclusions.

In my descriptions of five types of games submitted, the first two (cheaters, I wish we could find them all) and the last one (clean games that look clean) are straighforward.

The fourth type, players who have not replayed any decision in their game, but somehow look suspicious, I would hope is a theoretical group only, and that someone who has not replayed anything always is identified as a clean game.

It is the replays without any attemp to modify outcomes, usually due to crashes, that seems to be the other difficult area. I am assuming that my warning came from my crash nightmare in GOTM 11, which is well documented in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4700014#post4700014 But since the warning covers potentially three games, at present I don't know for sure. I don't know what would have been an issue in 10 or 12. In retrospect, as crashes became more regular after 1950, I probably should have stopped play until I had it resolved (perhaps a future specific recommendation, if not rule, for GOTM?).

My reaction of saving at end of each turn manually, and even within turns (so there would be less to replay if there was a crash), may have made it look worse. If so, maybe a rule of no intra-turn saves?

Addendum: There is another way to deal with crashes late in the game on less powerful computers, and that is to save, exit and reboot periodically (maybe every 10 turns). By doing this under the players control, nothing needs be replayed (although the game is reloaded a lot). But might that show up as suspicious behavior? Hard to know whether that is a viable option or not. If crashes are less of an issue in SGOTM, maybe the fact that turnsets are only 20 turns (or 10 later in game) is protective there (proof of principle?).

Mandating save on exit in HOF would eliminate reloads for exiting without saving.

If you don't want to raise some of these to rule, then perhaps at least to the "ignore at your peril" level ...

dV

This is entirely wrong. "False positive" is a standard term in engineering and statistics, with a standard meaning. It means that a particular test reports a positive result, when the truth is negative.

@DaviddesJ: I am glad you and I have found one thing we can agree on ;) Your description is perfect.


When using any test that can generate false positives, there is always doubt when the test generates a positive result, because the positive result might be either a false positive or a true positive. Some tests generate many more false positives than true positives (for example, explosives screening at airports generates thousands of false positives for every true positive, because very few of the passengers are actually carrying explosives). The usual course of action when a positive result is generated is to use a more sensitive test (e.g., search the passenger's luggage) to determine whether the positive result is a false positive or a true positive. Since we are teaching here, I think you meant to say that the second test needs to be more specific? And the ratio of true positives to false positives is also highly determined by how rare is the thing you are testing for. Even a good test, applied to a populaton where the object of the test is rare, creates lots more false positives that true positives.

dV

Since we are teaching here, I think you meant to say that the second test needs to be more specific?

Ideally, you would want the second test to be more specific, and have higher power. A test that always says "no" is more specific, but it's not much good because it has no power. And, depending on the degree of correlation, it's not even necessarily important that the second test be more specific. E.g., suppose you have an explosives screening test that has a false-positive rate of 1/1000 (and a relatively low false-negative rate). It would be perfectly good to put the false positives through a second test that has a false-positive rate of 1/100 (i.e., less specific), as long as the second test is relatively uncorrelated with the first test (so that it excludes almost all of your false positives).

Ideally, you would want the second test to be more specific, and have higher power. A test that always says "no" is more specific, but it's not much good because it has no power. And, depending on the degree of correlation, it's not even necessarily important that the second test be more specific. E.g., suppose you have an explosives screening test that has a false-positive rate of 1/1000 (and a relatively low false-negative rate). It would be perfectly good to put the false positives through a second test that has a false-positive rate of 1/100 (i.e., less specific), as long as the second test is relatively uncorrelated with the first test (so that it excludes almost all of your false positives). The test that always says no has 0% sensitivity, so as you say is not good for anything. Your explosives example already starts at 99.9% specificity (= 1 per 1000 false positive rate), a rate I would drool over in diagnostic tests. But suppose you screen 10 million and 10 passengers, where 1 in a million has a bomb, and sensitivity is 100%. You get 10 true positives, and 10,000 false positives.

Now if you run your 99% specificity test (1/100 false positive rate) on the 10,010 positives, let's still give it 100% sensitivity, you get 10 true positives and still 100 false positives. Unless you run a test 3, are you going to arrest the 100 innocent? Of your 110 positives now, only 9% are guilty. If your second test had a 1/10,000 false positive rate, then you would only have 1 false positive, and of 11 positive now 91% are guilty.

Problem is finding a test with 1/10,000 that does not have poor sensitivity. Because in my example, once sensitivity gets down to 90%, you will have one false negative. And that is one blown up airplane.

I think you will like this question: what is the specificity and sensitivity of a coin toss as a diagnostic test? :crazyeye:

Do we need a statistics thread ...:D

dV

Explosives,... airplanes,... should we be saying that out loud?
Don't worry, its just a harmless academic discussion ...
FREEZE! HANDS IN THE AIR!
What the ...?
It's ... the SWAT team !!
That's just great! Harmless my ....

With homage to Compromise

But suppose you screen 10 million and 10 passengers, where 1 in a million has a bomb

There were 750 million airline boardings in the US this year. If 1 in a million had a bomb, we would be in a lot of trouble!

Now if you run your 99% specificity test (1/100 false positive rate) on the 10,010 positives, let's still give it 100% sensitivity, you get 10 true positives and still 100 false positives. Unless you run a test 3, are you going to arrest the 100 innocent?

No, of course not. You just do additional tests, that add more and more information. If you see what looks like a bomb in an x-ray, and the passenger also tests positive for chemical traces of explosives, then you're certainly going to examine his bags really carefully!

This thread just proved my beliefs again that we have experts or, at least, doctoral students in almost all areas of science and technology in this GOTM forum.

I was to suggest a method to penalize player rankings based on the number of turns they actually reloaded, thereby giving a small tolerance on keyboard mis-strokes (such as mis-declaring to Monty who is much stronger than you), barbarian take your capital on 1.1% odds and other small odd events that could really discourage a casual player to play through. But now it seems we have too high moral codes in the community to allow for such trade-offs.

So, only one question now, after the added workload on reloading judgments, do our respected staffs still think that we can publish the results in a timely manner?

There were 750 million airline boardings in the US this year. If 1 in a million had a bomb, we would be in a lot of trouble! Indeed! Picked 1 in a million to make my math easy, not as a representation of an empircal finding. But if there are even fewer bombs, the positive predictive value (what percent of test positives are true positives) gets worse and worse ...

No, of course not. You just do additional tests, that add more and more information. If you see what looks like a bomb in an x-ray, and the passenger also tests positive for chemical traces of explosives, then you're certainly going to examine his bags really carefully! Absolutely! And the point of adding all of these tests is to have a series of tests that has enough specificity to not be arresting innocent people, while still not letting any bombs through (perfect sensitivity). Quite the challenge to achieve !

And the coin toss ...?

dV

So, only one question now, after the added workload on reloading judgments, do our respected staffs still think that we can publish the results in a timely manner?We've set-up processes to make them faster.

I have a few things to do first, but I hope to publish to get us up-to-date by the end of the weekend.

After that catch-up, we'll publish within 5 days of the event closing.

Originally Posted by Ribannah: "The nature of a false positive is that there is no doubt, hence the word positive."
This is entirely wrong. "False positive" is a standard term in engineering and statistics, with a standard meaning. It means that a particular test reports a positive result, when the truth is negative.
What we have here is a situation where the measurement is entirely correct, without statistical error, but the model may not be. Statistical error types are not an issue here, but regularity conditions are.

Yes, there can be 'false positives', but my point is that I think we have managed the risk of this very well to the point where the number of 'false positives' will be acceptable.
What kind of number would be acceptable, weighed against what is gained?

He said he has access to a high-end laptop that can run Civ4 fine! He'd just rather play on his other machine sometimes. This is not a situation where someone can't afford a computer.

I will personally send $50 by PayPal to anyone who needs it to play Civ4 by the GOTM rules.Well, last year when I still lived with my parents I've tried to install Civ4 on my dads high end computer but it just wouldn't run because of the notorious problems that Civ4 has with videocards. It did run decently on my own and all heavy duty calculations I could just do at my dads computer, so why upgrade my own computer only for 1 game? I only played Civ3 GOTMs then btw, because there were no Civ4 GOTMs yet :)

After I moved into my own house early this year I heard I was going to get this laptop, but unforeseen events at work caused delivery to take a few months extra. I just coped the first few GOTMs (and skipped some) with the low performance for Civ4. Now I am actually planning to buy a new computer but I may well wait a year or so before I actually go to the store because by then Windows Vista has been tested properly and the system requirements would be better specified.
Still, when my laptop is doing calculations it would be nice to play on my old computer using frequent computer restarts, but I guess I'll just have to plan my timing better so I can use my lappy to play GOTMs.

Well, last year when I still lived with my parents I've tried to install Civ4 on my dads high end computer but it just wouldn't run because of the notorious problems that Civ4 has with videocards. It did run decently on my own and all heavy duty calculations I could just do at my dads computer, so why upgrade my own computer only for 1 game? I only played Civ3 GOTMs then btw, because there were no Civ4 GOTMs yet :)

After I moved into my own house early this year I heard I was going to get this laptop, but unforeseen events at work caused delivery to take a few months extra. I just coped the first few GOTMs (and skipped some) with the low performance for Civ4. Now I am actually planning to buy a new computer but I may well wait a year or so before I actually go to the store because by then Windows Vista has been tested properly and the system requirements would be better specified.
Still, when my laptop is doing calculations it would be nice to play on my old computer using frequent computer restarts, but I guess I'll just have to plan my timing better so I can use my lappy to play GOTMs. Iroumen's situation, among others, is what got me to thinking about the false positive issue in the first place.

I think it would be very useful to get some guidance from the mods, for people with lower computing power, or who's not so low system is behaving badly, if they would prefer that

1. Those players autosave every turn but only exit at end of a session. Fewer game restart events, but at the expense of possibly more crashes with replay of 1 turn.

2. Save, exit and reboot with some frequency (every 10 or 20 turns?), which would mean several in a game session, and lots overall. May prevent crashes, and thus the 1 turn replays.

3. Just not submit the GOTM.

(assuming that improving the machine or fixing the problem are not easily available options).

Of course, if giving an answer is spilling the beans, then I suppose we are on our own to decide.

dV

1. Those players autosave every turn but only exit at end of a session. Fewer game restart events, but at the expense of possibly more crashes with replay of 1 turn.

2. Save, exit and reboot with some frequency (every 10 or 20 turns?), which would mean several in a game session, and lots overall. May prevent crashes, and thus the 1 turn replays.

Reality check!

All this talk of theoretical rates of false exclusions is nothing to do with players who have sub-spec systems and have to reload autosaves.

If we have seen submissions that show signs of intermittent autosave reloads, or more-than-typical short sessions between reloads, then the most those players will have received is a "warning" that their save is not squeaky clean. We would obviously prefer it if everyone played on a fully spec'd PC, and played a reasonable number of turns between save/reload breaks. We know life isn't always as we would like, so we send e-mails asking players to ensure that they are autosaving every turn, and taking care to play from their last save, not an earlier one. Nothing exploded, and no one was arrested.

3. Just not submit the GOTM.

(assuming that improving the machine or fixing the problem are not easily available options).
Are people really playing Civ4 GOTMs on systems that crash frequently, and that can't even make a regular save or autosave without crashing? It seems to me that this would be the only case that would lead to option 3. If that's really the case, then face it - your system is NOT capable of running Civ4,and maybe Civ3 GOTMs would then be a better answer for you.

I wonder whether playing it SGOTM-style (10-20 turns per session in the evening) is allowed then?

I wonder whether playing it SGOTM-style (10-20 turns per session in the evening) is allowed then?

I'm sure they don't have a problem with this. I sometimes play on the train during my commute, which means sessions approximately 45minutes in length, and almost certainly less than 20 turns.

Alan and Ainwood are being a bit coy on how they detect reloads with the HOF mod, but they've made it clear that the length of play periods and number of turns per sessions are not by themselves the evidence they use to detect cheating.

To join in the earlier statistics lesson, its kind of a bayesian thing, where cheating by reloading is more often associated with funky session lengths, etc(adjusting the prior probability distribution), but isn't in itself diagnostic of cheating.

I wonder whether playing it SGOTM-style (10-20 turns per session in the evening) is allowed then?

Huh? How else would you play? Frequently, my GOTM turns can take 30-60 minutes each. I could hardly play more than 10-20 in a session.

I wonder whether playing it SGOTM-style (10-20 turns per session in the evening) is allowed then?

Who ever told you it isn't?

I want to chime in here. I recieved one of the "warning" e-mails. My first reaction was I was insulted. I received the red ambulance for GOTM9, and other than GOTM4 (Russia on warlord level) all my scores are less than 3% of the top score! If I am cheating, I must be really bad at it :).

I am not really sure what flagged the letter, short sessions or an autoload (I do think I used an autosave once when I forgot to save the turn after victory). I e-mailed Ainwood to find out but so far have recieved no reply.

I realize that this is in someway a competition and that cheating should be discouraged, but I think the criterion for what qualifies at cheating should be open for all to see. The idea that if they tell you what they are looking at will allow the real cheaters to hack their way around it might be true, but to not give the criteria makes it feel like you are being tried at Guantanamo!

Warren

PS Here is the text of the warning message in case you haven't seen it.

We have been working to clear the backlog of outstanding Civ4 GOTM and
WOTM results. During this process, we have uncovered a significant number
of entries that are outside the rules, and outside the spirit of our
competition – entries where it is apparent that the player has replayed
portions of their game, most probably to obtain a better result. I hope
you appreciate that we are just trying to make this competition as fair
and equitable as possible for all players.

We are sending you this e-mail, because you have had one or more GOTM/WOTM
entries that appear to be very ‘borderline’. We will allow this
entry(ies) to be included the published results, but we implore you to
take more care in how you play these games in future. In particular, we
strongly suggest that:

• You do not begin a play session unless you can dedicate a reasonable
period of time to it.
• If you are having technical difficulties with the game crashing etc, you
seek assistance in the technical support forum.
• Save before you exit a game, and change the autosave frequency in the
.config file from the default of every 4 turns, to every turn. (Under \My
Documents\My Games\Warlords\CivilizationIV.ini, find the following line:

; Specify the number of turns between autoSaves. 0 means no autosave.
AutoSaveInterval = 4

Change this to:
; Specify the number of turns between autoSaves. 0 means no autosave.
AutoSaveInterval = 1



regards,



ainwood
GOTM staff

Ainwood, AlanH,

You have my support. Keep the rules simple. If that means a small percentage of people can't always submit because their machines are too poor, then so be it. I've had a couple of games which I couldn't finish because my PC is too aged for 6 civs worth of late game warfare. At the end of the day, it's only a game, and I got over it.

@warren peace: (a great civ name, btw!) to you and others who received 'warning' emails, I ask that you not be insulted. Please understand that when ainwood said a 'significant number of entries were outside of the rules ...' that also means a significant # of emails had to be sent out. It sounds like you zeroed in on what caused the flag, you had already notified ainwood of the issue when it occurred, and you've been told your game would be included. It has taken a considerable amount of time to tabulate the list of 'flagged' games and players and generate the email lists to send out the messages. It would have taken longer to edit the list to identify those playes who had previously resolved their issues and it was decided to get the emails out and move on. After all, this is just a warning; even I received one of these warning messages! :)

Steve:

I guess I was insulted because the tone of the letter was a little too accusatory for me. (I am very sensitive ;) . However, my real concern is that I would like to feel confident that the criteria used to detect cheating is objective and fair. As of now I feel like I don't really know what I did wrong.

Warren

as stated in the email, you probably did nothing wrong or your game would have been excluded.

I got a warning message as well, and I'm certain it was because of my crashing problems in WOTM1 and my actions just before death befell the koreans in WOTM2. The warning was a mass email that was basically meant just to inform you that something you've done in past games was out of the norm, but was not something that would get your game kicked out.

I don't think the methodology should be posted because that will allow people to know better what exactly to do to avoid getting caught. The criteria is objective and fair, even if you do not know the methods used to detect such criteria: the criteria is that you don't reload your GOTM from a previous save and attempt to replay it either for higher score or because you are anal about misclicks. You also only submit the first game you play through.

Just because you do not know HOW they detect people who break these criteria does not mean they aren't openly known, objective, and fair. And since no one has yet posted that they were excluded unfairly(I'm not talking about the warnings now because I'm sure the staff will pm the people who've asked what they did that got flagged soon enough), I believe they are doing a great job!

I e-mailed Ainwood to find out but so far have recieved no reply.I am working through the e-mails, but there is a significant number of them, but I am fitting them in between other things.

Please have some patience - any e-mails sent to me will be responded to.

PS Here is the text of the warning message in case you haven't seen it.

We have been working to clear the backlog of outstanding Civ4 GOTM and
WOTM results. During this process, we have uncovered a significant number
of entries that are outside the rules, and outside the spirit of our competition – entries where it is apparent that the player has replayed
portions of their game, most probably to obtain a better result. I hope
you appreciate that we are just trying to make this competition as fair
and equitable as possible for all players.

We are sending you this e-mail, because you have had one or more GOTM/WOTM entries that appear to be very ‘borderline’. We will allow this
entry(ies) to be included the published results, but we implore you to take more care in how you play these games in future. In particular, we strongly suggest that:

• You do not begin a play session unless you can dedicate a reasonable
period of time to it.
• If you are having technical difficulties with the game crashing etc, you
seek assistance in the technical support forum.
• Save before you exit a game, and change the autosave frequency in the
.config file from the default of every 4 turns, to every turn. (Under \My
Documents\My Games\Warlords\CivilizationIV.ini, find the following line:
...
Thanks.

It is the first suggestion that has me worried. What happens if you do not follow this suggestion? Not everyone can know beforehand whether they have 'a reasonable period of time' to play. If your child comes home from school with a problem, to name just one possibility, it is end of session.
Some people cannot play for ' a reasonable period of time', period, even though they may be able to easily finish the game in time to submit. This is the game of the month, right? Not the game of the day?

...(I do think I used an autosave once when I forgot to save the turn after victory)...
From an objective point of view, isn't this a replay? Games are being excluded due to replays. Very important to PM a moderator when you have need to load an autosave, such as in your case or a CTD or a power outage, ... These things happen, are quite understandable, but they still get flagged and wil