Many of you may know that each month we receive hundreds of submitted game files for each QSC and GOTM game and that every one of the save game files is carefully scored and/screened to determine if the submitted games should be considered valid for inclusion in the game results. The vast majority of the game submissions easily pass the initial screening review indicating little or no problem with 85 to 90% of the game submissions.

The remaining 10-15%, some 20 to 30 games each month, are screened to determine if the initial indicators of technical problems or potentially unusual play behaviors might be signs of greater problems such is player cheating or the use of external advantage tools and/or exploits. Again the vast majority of these games are cleared and accepted without difficulties.

Each month we have an average of 6 to 8 games out of more than 200 submissions that begin to represent conditions that we might say include some use of play factors that should be prohibited. The vast majority of these games are from newcomers or inexperienced players who do not know any better or who are still trying to develop the confidence to participate in the community on their own level. These players receive counseling and assistive contact that we are expanding to include helpful welcoming services and other introductory information.

Mixed in with these few new players who are naturally developing an understanding of the simple basic rules of the GOTM, we also will usually have one or two games by experienced players that may push close to the acceptable limits and require a detailed review to help assure that all rules are being followed. In many cases, these reviews can determine that things are definitely unusual even if 100% evidence of wrong doing cannot be determined from any one single set of events in any one single game. We cannot say that it would be impossible for a galley to survive for two successive turns in the ocean without sinking, but we do know that this event does not occur every time.

Over the past six months, we have been actively reviewing the game submissions of one particular player that have been being flagged each month by two or three of our screening methods as being somewhat unusual. These reviews have indicated with certainty that something is unusual about these individual games and many of the individual game events, even though no one event or game could be ruled out as impossible. It would be unfair and unreasonable to accuse a player of wrong doing just because of one lucky sequence or one unusual set of events in one game.

However, when we begin to combine all of the statistics that are available to us, across hundreds of different players in sequences of 4 or 5 different GOTM games and then compare these statistics against the reloading, play time duration, map movement decisions, and RNG outcomes for any one player we can begin to determine if the game results of that player are reasonably obtained or if those results are obtained by cheating in any one of a number of different methods. The signature of this unfair behavior becomes more and more pronounced as we have more games to compare and base our decision upon. With only one or two games, we can only be 60% to 75% certain that something is wrong. Even under these conditions we will usually contact the player to attempt to steer them away from the suspected rules violations.

When we get three games in a pattern, then we can often determine with 85-90% certainty that something unfair is being done in the games. Depending on the game play signature of all the other players who played the same game there may be enough information at this point to determine that a players is actively cheating and then to take definitive action. When a fourth game in a pattern is received and continues to demonstrate questionable reload and game durations statistics combined with unusually favorable results this provides us with enough specific information to say with 90-95% confidence that the player is deliberately using reloading or advanced map knowledge to unfairly manipulate the game results.

By the time we reach this point, the individual players responsible for these submissions have usually received multiple private warning and counseling contacts as well as consuming literally hundreds of extra volunteer staff hours plus usually delaying the publication of game results by one or two days each month.

This is the condition that we currently find ourselves in with reaching a decision that one of our regular players who has been disciplined the past for reloading and cheating but has continued to do this on an ongoing basis during the last four GOTM and QSC games.

While I personally want to respect the individual human dignity of this individual player, I also believe that we have an obligation to the greater community of all players who participate in the GOTM. This obligation includes recognizing that a fundamental respect for your friends and your peers will not include deliberate cheating to manipulate the game results to always obtain only the most favorable outcome from every game situation. All things should average out over time and in allowing these natural rhythms to occur we will find and conquer new challenges.

I have asked the primary staff members to initiate processes to locate the affected games from this player over the past 10 months and to make preparations to remove these results for all reported game announcements. We will also make sure that any other players in previous games who may have been denied awards or recognition due to these illegitimate games will have these recognitions rightfully restored to them.

The individual player in question will also be banned from further participation in any GOTM or QSC game event or discussion and will be removed from the Community Participation (Monk Rankings) Roster as well as the Global Ranking. It will take several days to a week to correctly update all these features.

All the members of the GOTM Staff urge you all to recognize that normal players who play and enjoy their games to the best of their own personal abilities do not fall into these same categories of detectable and deliberate long term distortion of the game results. We have very few of these events that occur within the GOTM games and the people who make up virtually all the members of the GOTM community are rarely subject to the intense scrutiny that has been required for this specific case.

Our purpose is providing you with this explanation of the actions that you will observe taking place in the background, is to help you see that these processes are fairly and evenly applied over a series of months and always with the intent of trying to help the individual players resolve the apparent play issues before they might effect their position in the community or their relationships with other players. It takes an active effort for someone to violate the expected rules of play and to exploit these advantages over a four to six month period and normal players who do not use artificial foreknowledge of the map or reload to alter the expected outcomes of events will not be effected by these screening and review processes.

I would like to ask all members of the community to read this information for what it represents and not to focus too much on the individual who elected to provide us with this specific set of examples. Records of past games will be properly updated and the challenges and excitement of current and future games will continue to hold our attention. The sooner we can address any questions that you may have and move forward with the more enjoyable focus of the games, the more we will all be able to continue to add to the great acheivements that we have already made during the first five months of this record setting year.

If you have any questions or concerns on these issues during the coming weeks please feel free to contact me privately by email at gotm@civfanatics.net and I will either answer your questions personally of ask one of the primary GOTM staff members to provide you with any specific information that you may need.

Sincerely,

Cracker

Wow, judging from the length of your post it’s about a highly visible player.

I guess we’re going towards the Catholic Church policy of preventing recognition of ‘false’ miracles even by dismissing questionable ‘real’ ones. I’m OK with that and with you (the Staff) to judge on it (I’m also OK with the Catholic Church for that matter).

Banning someone from the event is something which I would not agree but it’s your call and if you can live with that I can too.

I normally do not feel like adding my voice to this kind of matters, as I doubt that I would add anything to the considerations of people who are by far more experienced in the management such an environment and in the mechanics of Civ3.

I only want to stress that, from the limited understanding of my perspective, this can hardly be considered a "questionable real miracle".
No criticism intended to your post, Yndy: I only wanted to point everyone to the contents of Cracker's announcement, and to the care he took in writing it, as an indication of the scruple and the time he (and the staff) have dedicated to this issue, and especially on the matter of treating all players fairly and equally.

My personal doubts were cleared when I was able to witness the amount of work that is going on behind the scenes, and I suggest that anyone who may justifiably have other concerns to contact Cracker as he suggests.

What does it take to be branded a "reloader?"

I have submitted two games of the month (19 & 20) and won both of them, but my score is rather pitiful compared to most people here. :(

But when I'm playing the GOTM I every once and a while to check my e-mail for my PBEM turns, and to do that I have to exit PTW completely to check my mail (I use dial up). The reason I have to exit is because I use MS Word as my e-mail editor and for some reason a MS Word-PTW combo causes my computer to crash. I have saved the game regularly and exited or just exited at the beginning of the turn and loaded the autosave when I came back.

I even had to load an autosave from the turn before I won GOTM 20 and redo the turn because my win was unexpected (diplomatic) and I hadn't saved the game the turn before I won...

I would hate to be branded a "reloader" when I not even sure what that is. And I would hate to stop playing my PBEM turns while I'm playing GOTM. :(

I understand (from other threads) that the player in question has also been banned from posting on these forums, and so has no "right of reply". Given that his/her identity has not been kept secret, and most of the community is aware of who it was, I wonder if this is a bit of a draconian thing for us as a community to have done?

@ltccone: I'm not officially in the loop, but I've been playing for the last four months and lurked in the forum for three months before that. I've seen this discussion before, several times.

So I feel safe in saying that you have nothing to worry about. What Cracker is discussing with respect to reloading is getting an unfavorable RNG result (like your first suicide galley sinking on its first turn, for example), reloading the game to the same turn, doing something to use up that RNG roll (I'm not sure what all does this, but it's a fairly long list of things), then trying again. Maybe this time the galley survives its first turn, but dies the second. So you reload that second turn, reset the RNG, and try again.

What you're doing is nothing like that --- you're not manipulating game results ---, and I'm almost positive it wouldn't even show up on Cracker's radar. Even if it did, the worst you would get at first is an email from Cracker asking you about it, and the option to change your emailing habits in the future to avoid further odd-looking submissions. :)

Renata

From my own experience, and I'm sure cracker's and the team's too, public flaming between the accused cheater and other posters is never good, not for anybody involved. Discussing bans is not allowed in other parts of the forum, either. PM is the right tool for that, and as cracker mentioned, that tool has been used extensively for the last several months.

Originally posted by Renata
@ltccone: I'm not officially in the loop, but I've been playing for the last four months and lurked in the forum for three months before that. I've seen this discussion before, several times.

So I feel safe in saying that you have nothing to worry about. What Cracker is discussing with respect to reloading is getting an unfavorable RNG result (like your first suicide galley sinking on its first turn, for example), reloading the game to the same turn, doing something to use up that RNG roll (I'm not sure what all does this, but it's a fairly long list of things), then trying again. Maybe this time the galley survives its first turn, but dies the second. So you reload that second turn, reset the RNG, and try again.

What you're doing is nothing like that --- you're not manipulating game results ---, and I'm almost positive it wouldn't even show up on Cracker's radar. Even if it did, the worst you would get at first is an email from Cracker asking you about it, and the option to change your emailing habits in the future to avoid further odd-looking submissions. :)

Renata

Thanks. That makes me feel better. Now I know what is meant by "reloading."

I am assuming that if you haven't gotten a notification that every thing is not out of the norm. My particular habits vary. I have a habit of rushing through the QSC period quickly but in the end a session may only last 4-5 turns 10 tops over an hour period or so. Not to mention the times when I just sat down and open the game only to be booted by my wife.

It would be interesting to see exactly what our individual reload counts are as an FYI.

Originally posted by hotrod0823
Not to mention the times when I just sat down and open the game only to be booted by my wife.
:rotfl:

Perhaps we could start a "Partner of the Month" game with a medal for the most "Civ Denial" points.

No pictures please...


Ted

She keeps threating to break my disks. ;). Oh the joys of 1:00AM civ.

In all seriousness I hope the community realizes that this was obviously a hard decission to make and from the sounds of things coming for a long time. Overall making these tough choices are what makes the game more enjoyable for the rest of us in the long run and I applaud crackers and the GOTM staff for addressing these issues and taking what they deem to be appropriate action.

Hotrod

[edit] Anytime a player leaves or Is asked to leave they will be missed. Theory, game play and discussion is and should be just as important as results. That is what will be missed the most NOT the final score.

ltccone,

Here is another piece of information to help clarify the issues and reassure you that what we are looking at here are longterm averages of behaviors of all the players around you in all the GOTM games. The process does not target individual people but clearly helps us to identify games that are substantially "not like what the normal games look like."

You see some of this data being presented to your each month as the GOTM results are published and each month our confirmed base of data gets better and allows us to make stronger determinations about how the various submitted games fit into the overall picture of what the scores and results shoul look like.

The image below, is taken exactly from the statistical summary of the Gotm18-Celts results that you saw published two weeks ago. The basic graph shows the turns-per-session results for all the game submissions for Gotm16-Rome, Gotm17-Carthage, and Gotm18-Celts.

I have overlayed on top of this image to add the turns-per-seesion data for your Gotm19 game even though we have not yet completed the full statistical analysis of the GOTM-19 data. Your tps value for Gotm19 was at 27.9

I also included Renata's Gotm19 tps value of 55.25 shown as the forward most blue telephone and just marked the column in the Gotm18 data were Renata's tps value would have fallen because I had that value handy.

The purple shield is the tps value for hotrod0823 in Gotm19 at 33 turns-per-session.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/images/gotm19_excluded_tps.jpg

The tps values for the excluded games where not the only factor used to determine that something unfair was being included in those specific games but I have marked the positions on the graph where all four of the most recent games would have appeared in the data if they were not now excluded.

It is very unusual to see games down in the lower TPS range without being able to trace those results to some sort of known technical problem, player experience, or some sort of game altering elective player choices.

The ongoing averages across hundreds of players playing the games independently and in their own personal styles continue to reaffirm our understanding of the key game mechanics and how the successful as well as average players play the game. A player who is playing anywhere close to the way the 95% of all the other players play the game will not be likely to brush up against the screening limits except of rare and unusual occasions.

Originally posted by cracker
ltccone,

Here is another piece of information to help clarify the issues and reassure you that what we are looking at here are longterm averages of behaviors of all the players around you in all the GOTM games. The process does not target individual people but clearly helps us to identify games that are substantially "not like what the normal games look like."


I really appreciate how much effort you went through explaining this. It really makes a lot of sense now. :goodjob:

My tps will probably be a little lower for GOTM 20 because I finished on the weekend when I get more PBEM turns and late turns can take a long time to play. But I can see why a tps of 5 or so would raise a red flag because in a "normal" game you really play many turns in one session, especially in the ancient age "spacebar" turns.

I'm very sorry to hear about Ribannah. Since there are always at least two sides to every story, it's very hard to sort out what is right and what is wrong. On one hand, I do believe that Ribannah innocent because she told me so and because it was obvious that she is a very skillful player who knows almost every trick in the book. On the other hand, I also trust the GOTM staffs and their decision because I know that they didn't take this matter lightly, considering that it took them many months and countless hours reviewing and analyzing her games in comparing to every other submissions before they come up with this decision.

-------

To Ribannah,

I know that you can not post here no more, but I'm sure you can still be reading this. If you are truely innocent, I hope that you hold no ill feelings toward Cracker and the GOTM staffs because they have a tough job to do and you didn't make it any easier for them. For example, I was totally speechless about your lone archer who was responsible for the destruction of two civilizations in the GOTM18. You were either very lucky and brave or you had ESP or something because I don't think any of us would dare to make a move like that. Yes, I know...an archer against a warrior, chances are the archer will win most of the time; however, I would never dare to attack a city with only 1 archer (who happen to travel a long way from home) because even if my archer win, he may be wounded and he would have very little chance against the counter attack of another warrior which I would have no sure way of knowing about the number of defenders in that city. Although it is possible to stand on the near by hill/mountain to observe the AI movement in/out of that city to predict the defenders' strength, but I think it would be very tough to convince the jury about that.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you were cheating in any case because I have always believed that everyone is innocent until proving otherwise. I'm saying that even if I'm the world #1 defense attorney, it would be very tough for me to prove your innocent. I'm really trying very hard to defend you, but you don't leave me much to work with; therefore, your case seems hopeless.:( If you are truely innocent, I hope that you learn something from this incident and try to relax more. Go decorate the country home or something and try not to take things so seriously, especially in a computer game. I wish you well in life. You will be missed!:cry:

Once again the most excellent moderators have bent over backwards to be fair and have put forth tremedous effort to communicate to the forum.

I applaud their efforts and commend them for their hard work.

As for people way outside the norms, take a step back and put it into perspective. It may be just a game, but keeping everyone on the same set of rules is tremendously important. People will loose their faith and stop putting many hours into the game and the forum if integrity is lost.

Just look at other games that have failed to check the hacks/ cheats/ exploits, like Diablo2. Nobody plays the game as it was originally intended, and the discourse is generally crude and vulgar. Kids go buy hacked items and use exploits to kill other players just because they can and without regard for how much time someone might have spent building that character.

Similarly, who will spend the time to complete in GOTM if you know a reloader will be out there doing the 1 archer rush?

Thanks for all the hard work to all the moderators.

Semper Fidelis

This is a sad thread and probably the less said the better, we should focus on the awesome fun in GOTM as it just keeps getting better and better. But I want to say one thing. I'm sure I say this on behalf of many GOTM members and no one needs to post an agreement, I trust the staff will know how many of us feel the following:

We thank you Cracker and all the GOTM staff. You are volunteers and are here to have fun. This is clearly the most unpleasant of tasks, something you have not done lightly, something you tried your best to handle without it coming to this. That you undertake this unpleasant but necessary work on our behalf as well as all the positive aspects of GOTM deserves our sincerest appreciation and thanks.

The GOTM club ain't a democracy and CivFanatics ain't either. Participants have no rights, no redress. The GOTM staff acts as judge, jury, and executioner. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Irregardless of the motives of the staff now, which I believe to be honorable and squarely behind the best interests of all, it is an undeniable fact that over time persons will be trampled for lesser and lesser offenses. And the GOTM staff will not realize that they are being heavy handed, from their perception, they will always be right.

Conviction of the accused without a presentment of proof, bannishment of the convicted, with no right to respond to the accusations, no due process, no open process, no neutral and objective third party review.

In other words this place is starting to resemble a fundamental southern Baptist church. :D

What happened today is probably good and yet fortells a dark future. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Edit: Cracker I posted this here rather than using the pm or email because I believe thinks pertaining to individuals rights should debated openly, even if it is just a private gaming forum.

It would be harder but better to ensure that persons accused of cheating have access to due process in an open environment.

(sneaks away aware that I have just painted a big target on my back).

Originally posted by whb
I understand (from other threads) that the player in question has also been banned from posting on these forums, and so has no "right of reply". Given that his/her identity has not been kept secret, and most of the community is aware of who it was, I wonder if this is a bit of a draconian thing for us as a community to have done?

Please let me assure you that this was not quick thoughtless decision taken lightly. All the staff has suffered some angst over this. Other options available were considered but even the most liberal minded of us came to the same conclusion.

Remember this was a decision arrived at over many months. Due process IMHO has been followed and a “right of reply” had been sought in all previous cases.

As an aside: A big welcome back to the GOTM, I hope you are well rested after your 14 game break.

I hope no one takes offense to this. Meant to be humorous, to break up the seriousness of this post. But, Here goes.

So, someone was using a corked bat. I didn't know Sammy Sosa was here too?!

This is a hard thread to read, as I'm sure it was a very hard thread to post. I'm certain that Cracker and the GOTM Staff conducted their investigation in this matter in as thorough and meticulous a manner as they conduct the GOTM process itself. This is very unfortunate, I wish there were another way but I do trust Cracker and the Staff in making this decision, and I appreciate the effort (and sometimes, the angst) put into the GOTM and in making it a fair and fun event.

I wish there was another way...


There is another way: post all the evidence against someone in the forum for all to read, and allow the person to respond openly. This will give assurances to all that the process is fair.

That's the way Matrix did it, no?

-Sirp.

Originally posted by Phillip_martin

As an aside: A big welcome back to the GOTM, I hope you are well rested after your 14 game break.

(off-topic)
Thanks .. it was a 14 game break without a home internet connection, and about a 12 game break without home pc at all (That's what moving continents can do to you!) I had been following the new-souped-up-even-more-fabulous GOTMs with considerably envy on the website. But now :) I can play them with glee :D
So very many thanks for all the great work you guys do!
(/off-topic)

In a token attempt to give this post an on-topic reason to exist:

You guys have done an great job explaining how the banned player's TPS was well out of the statistical norm. And I understand there was a fair amount of other damning evidence. (Good job, guys).

Can I, however, ask you to reassure everyone that Turns-Per-Session will never be used as the sole measure for assessing a game's validity -- since it isn't actually a good candidate for "likelihood" tests.

In other words, can I express my hope that we're not going to be rooting out all coffee-break gamers as suspected felons any time soon?

Can I, however, ask you to reassure everyone that Turns-Per-Session will never be used as the sole measure for assessing a game's validity -- since it isn't actually a good candidate for "likelihood" tests.

In taking the disciplinary measures as far as this case had to go, it had more than just the 'turns-per-session counter' to reach this decision.

I also know that this decision was not based on any one or few "questionable real miracles".

IMO, It is when everything falls into place perfectly in EVERY aspect of the game, and is perfectly played game after game after game, it becomes suspicious. By 'perfectly played', I don't mean using good strategies/tactics/city placement/good diplomacy,trades and planning etc., but every move whether it seems logical or not (based on what map knowledge you have at that time, and other factors), ends up being the 'best move'.

And after 101 battles you lose only 4 units (ancient units vs. ancient units), seems fishy. Sure, that kill ratio may be possible, but when other things like suicide galleys, hut results and most other things that depend on the random number generator also have nearly as high success ratio.....

Originally posted by ltcoljt
The GOTM club ain't a democracy and CivFanatics ain't either. Participants have no rights, no redress. The GOTM staff acts as judge, jury, and executioner. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Irregardless of the motives of the staff now, which I believe to be honorable and squarely behind the best interests of all, it is an undeniable fact that over time persons will be trampled for lesser and lesser offenses. And the GOTM staff will not realize that they are being heavy handed, from their perception, they will always be right.


Just one line.

I trust GOTM Staff.

The reason Ribannah is currently banned is because we will not have any selfserving diatribes related to this issue. Posting her messages by proxy will not be tolerated.

You are welcome to choose not to participate in the games but that will be your loss because you are welcome here with your new persona. Tou have made greta strides to be a part of this community and we do not want to lose you as part of the fallout from this issue. This is an unnecessary choice to make.

You may not choose to alter the game submission, discussion, and reporting processes or develop alternative posting or scoring methods (just as Ribannah has done in the past). We can use her past conduct as a 100% certain behavior model and so far every person who has engaged in this disruptive conduct is no longer with us.

Also, do not 100% quote yourself as a means of propogating aggressive posts. They have no place here and you see no other examples where this is tolerated. -cracker

Originally posted by whb
Can I, however, ask you to reassure everyone that Turns-Per-Session will never be used as the sole measure for assessing a game's validity -- since it isn't actually a good candidate for "likelihood" tests.
I can easily say this for you because it reflects the general operating philosophy.

"Turns-Per-Session numbers are not and will be the sole criteria for determining if a game is valid, with the exception that some games that have TPS numbers in the range 0.4 to less than 2.0 may be excluded without further review on the general principals of just being too far out the expected range of normal player sanity."

In this specific example, we could use at least 5 different measurement criteria to support the final decison. All with either equal or stronger indications than have presented her for the TPS numbers.

Originally posted by Qitai


Just one line.

I trust GOTM Staff.

On what basis. I mean I trust them to, in absence of a reason not to. We have however no reason to believe the accused is a cheater. So n what basis do you trust the staff sufficiently to brand on of our own a cheater without any evidence? Faith?

On what basis do you not believe them, yet believe someone else? Lots of people don't play the GOTM because of the cheating that goes on, yet when someone is caught .....

Oh never mind, its not worth fighting about.

email me at gotm@civfanatics.net with these issues and we will get you to a more informed position without compromising the public and private processes.

We will not be conducting any portion of a media trial here.- cracker

Originally posted by serttech2003
Lots of people don't play the GOTM because of the cheating that goes on...
In all fairness, I do not think this assertion is even remotely true. The internal data that we have compiled on the GOTM games is available nowhere else in the entire Civ3 world and it paints a picture that the games are solidly presented on a fair and representative basis.

Your chances of encountering artificial play enhancement in a PBEM or Multiplayer game as at least several orders of magnitude higher than encountering similar behavior in the GOTM.

The power to overlay 250 games and timelines that are played on the same essential map setup is an almost unbeatable tool. This is why we can detect unfair play advantages with a higher level of certainty and also why we can detect bugs in the software and gaps in the AI decision algorithms that go totally undetected for years, even by direct test efforts of the software manufacturer.

The fact that our processes include direct contact with the players who may move into grey areas of performance when those areas are detected early should even be a greater assurance to you that the validation processes work reliably and that we are working with the community and player interests held at a very high level of importance.

We need to tolerate some flexiblity here to let people express their concerns and get answers to questions that they may have. There is no need to have posts that turn a calm but concerned and rational discussion into a sequence of heated venting episodes.

If you feel you need to say something aggressive that might not really be appropriate, and if that will make you feel better, then email me with your issues and I will try to address your concerns. If you raise a point that a detailed response with information that may be useful to others, we will make sure that the information gets posted here if it is appropriate.

On the basis that they are working on this voluntarily and it does not benefit them to brand anyone as a cheater if it is not for the greater good. On the basis of the hardwork they have put in to transform GOTM to what it is now. On the basis of reading their post and from it, their personality and values. On the basis that we have indeed seen Ribannah getting extreme luck on doubtful strategies. Is that enough?

Originally posted by Qitai

Just one line.

I trust GOTM Staff.

Originally posted by ltcoljt

On what basis. I mean I trust them to, in absence of a reason not to. We have however no reason to believe the accused is a cheater. So on what basis do you trust the staff sufficiently to brand one of our own a cheater without any evidence? Faith?

ltcoljt, you seem to see no basis for trusting the GOTM staff to impose a ban, and ask what evidence does Qitai, or anyone else for that matter, have for trusting this decision?

I would reply that those involved in the decision have 1) proven their dedication to giving us an unparallelled gaming experience, 2) put up with periodic annoying posts without being vindictive, 3) devoted a staggering amount of time to the issue, 4) have a much better understanding of the game's mechanics than most of us, 5) have software tools which allow them to apply that understanding to investigating a series of games, and 6) have had a series of ultimately unsatisfactory discussions with Ribannah in the past. That's reason enough for me to have faith in this action, without knowing a single fact.

Sirp has a question similar to yours: why doesn't the GOTM "post all the evidence against someone in the forum for all to read, and allow the person to respond openly. This will give assurances to all that the process is fair."

I see this differently. First, posting all the facts would almost certainly not give assurances to all that the process was fair. With any group as large as ours, some are bound to find it unfair, for good reasons or bad. This would then generate a divisive and depressing debate, which would counter whatever benefits would be gained by posting all the facts - and be somewhat pointless in light of the fact that the decision to ban has already been made.

Now perhaps there are some who feel that the GOTM staff shouldn't have made this decision on their own; that the facts as seen by both parties should have been presented in one thread, and then the community could have decided via a poll. This makes philosophical sense to me, but breaks down in light of the fact that all of the GOTM participants have implicitly agreed to play according to the rules as established and administered by the GOTM, in exchange for benefiting from the experience that the GOTM staff provides. It's a trade-off, similar to representative democracy. In my opinion, the benefits skew greatly in favor of the community. Given this, I think it would be best if the community would acknowledge the power they have implicitly given the GOTM staff, appreciate what they receive in return, accept that life isn't perfect and group action even less so, and move on from what is a difficult and unhappy experience for all of us.

Am I the only one here who is uneasy that the one person who so loudly lobbied for the GotM to be governed by the rule of law is the person now being denied due process?

ltcoljt,

I do not think that you are the only person who is uneasy. This is a natural feeling that some people may have.

I just urge you to look at the larger pieces of information that you already have and then to recognize even with all of the information that we as the staff have had to review we can only be certain that Ribannah's pattern of games reflect something that should not be considered a valid set of results when we look across 6 seperate game events and comapre specific details of those games to the games of a total of 200 to 300 other players.

When we look at all of this information from the bigger picture perspective we cannot support a conclusion that these games should be considered valid events.

If you would like more specific details using some comparative examples from your own games, just email me a gotm@civfanatics.net and we will get you the information that you need.

Your chances of encountering artificial play enhancement in a PBEM or Multiplayer game is at least several orders of magnitude higher than encountering similiar behavior in the GOTM

So we've just had six GOTMs in a row where according to you, "artificial play enhancement" has occurred, and yet you're telling us that it's thousands of times more likely to happen in a multiplayer game? That's barely even possible, since it is actually pretty hard to cheat in a multiplayer network game (not that it's not possible, but it'd be beyond the capabilities of many players). In a PBEM it'd be more likely, but I tend to doubt one would play 6,000 PBEM games and have cheating involved in all of them.

In fact, I would assert that cheating has likely occurred in some form or another in each and every GOTM.

According to you, Ribannah's cheating was flagrant and continuous - across six consecutive games. So if it had only occurred across five or four games, the result would have stood? If it had gone on for six or more games, but was a little less flagrant, then the results would have stood? So why shouldn't we assume that there are other players who have cheated and have simply been less flagrant about it?

After all, there are numerous methods of cheating which are incredibly difficult to detect. One can read the spoiler threads before they qualify to do so for instance. Or likewise, one can simply reload the game on occasion, when something particularly adverse happens. For example, one could play an incredibly aggressive "farmer's gambit" strategy, which is rather risky in the case of AI aggression, but where the game is reloaded in the event that the AI declares war.

As such, cheating is a big reason why I have been dubious about the GOTM in the past, although it is not as big a reason as a similiar issue: exploits. Many players use tactics that intend to exploit bugs in the game, or inadequacies in the game's design, rather than play the game the way it is intended to be played.

That Ribannah was one of the more outspoken players concerning this, it is of some concern to me also that she is now banned.

-Sirp.

Sirp,

I think you have to recognize that in an environement where we have literally hundreds of comparative examples for any given game we can begin to develop a better understanding of what the statistical impact of various potential exploits/cheating events might be.

The undetectable preknowledge events become detectable in the fact that they alter player behavior in the immediate game and then again in other games over time. You cannot know something that you are not supposed to know and then expect your eye not to twitch in that direction at least once and a while.

We can use an example for the recent Gotm18 game results to make sure that this process is slighty better understood even though it will still contain some uncertainty. In the Gotm18 game, the start position was specifically designed to encourage settling right on the starting position without moving. While at the same time potetially providing one peice of information to help in the detection of players who might use foreknowledge of the map gained from any number of sources to alter the outcome of their game.

The image below shows these opening move positions for 87 games that were analysed in detail.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/qsc/qsc18/images/First_two_cities_QSC18_sm.jpg
(thanks to RufRydyr for the graphic as well as the opening city placement analysis)

We expect that from any position a certain number of players can randomly make any move based on a variety of basically random choices. So seeing players move to any of the surronding squares is not unexpected. The 1's and 2's provide a basic background signature that statistically means we could expect any where between 0 and 4 players to move into any of the given swaures with no statistical inference. The 70 players who started at setteled at the starting position would have behaved exactly as expected and then the 2+1 and 2+1 plus up to 4 of the 11 would be totally within expectations. So a total of 70+2+1+2+1+4=80 out of the 87 games behaved just as expected without considering the impact of any opening worker moves.

Moving the only worker to the 11 square would reveal the fish square and following this reveal we would expect many players to make the additional move to the 11 square in a non random way. Moving the worker to the 11 square would not be a rimary startegic move because we would actually expect most players to move the worker to the hill or to one of the four bonus grassland squares surrounding the start position. Again the actual player moves confirmed these expected moves and only 5 players in the 87 game sample made opening worker moves onto the 11 square.

This process of elimination left us with a numeric expectation that 85 out of the 87 opening move sequences would be within normal exectations while 2 of those 87 games could be considered to perhaps be suspect (less than 2.3%). The unknown question at that point was which of the 4 random move games and with of the 2 suspect games would belong to which of the 11 players that actually did move to the 11 square.

Essentially on its own we could identfy no bad games by thes one move sequence alone but we could confirm that at least 97.7% of all the games would be making valid opening moves and we could also identify a list of 11 games that could potentially be used as dat points to compare across other similar situations where we could identify one specific move where know ing some hidden feature of the map in advance could have influnced the player move decisions.

All of this information set to the side, no other comparative game play event in the Civ3 world has access to the same volume and the same quality of data that we can use in the GOTM games to perform quality control and game performance analysis. These tools of comparing game events to similar events that are independently produced by players in total separate game playe experiences can tell us a great deal about how the game works and how the players respond to the game environment. As we get more and more data we can extend or ability to predict what players might be expected to do and also to determine the likelihood that players would repeatedly do the one good but unexpected thing in a series of multiple events.

This actual example was used to analyze games that were submitted to the Qsc19 event and then several games that were not included in the qsc were validated against the expected 97.7% confidence level for moves that did not fall onto the 11 count position.

I really like cracker's analysis of the first city position. During the last GOTMs, I really had the felling that in EACH game I settle exactly 1 square away from the optimal position while doing what I consider logical moves (with other units), which is something that almost never happen in my private (random) games.

Having 'normal' ressources pictures (when there was still a choice) and not being able to see well under the fog (and some more advanced analyses in this particular case) were the explainantions I accepted when I started a small hot discussion during GOTM19 spoiler#1, but a few people were obviously, according to your analysis, either lucky in their weedy moves or knew better...

Jabah

I think it's a very sad thing that once again a player is found to be a cheater....
On the basis of the facts laid out for us by cracker I can only say I think the staff made the correct decision. I know this is not a democracy and what I say won't change a thing, but I wanted to say it anyway.

Now I only hope cracker won't do the same as matrix and resign because he's desillusioned by finding a cheater, 'cause I really like the GOTM as it is right now...

Enough said about this. I gotta get back to work... ;)

Originally posted by cracker
The image below shows these opening move positions for 87 games that were analysed in detail.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/qsc/qsc18/images/First_two_cities_QSC18_sm.jpg


This image is very informative, thanks :goodjob:

Could we perhaps get this kind of image available from the future QSC's, its very interesting to see how people built their first 2 cities.

Ban 'em Cracker. I have NEVER reloaded, even from stupid mistakes, and it makes it unfair for the countless people like myself.

Edit: I know it's a cliche, but it isn't their right to play GOTM's, it's a priviledge. (sp?) If they insist on abusing it then why don't you put the foot down?

Cracker,

So on one hand you insist that Ribannah's cheating is flagrant, perpetuated, and obvious, and on the other you insist that you can detect a cheater's eye twitching once in a while.

This doesn't add up to me. If Ribannah's cheating was as flagrant as you're saying, then surely there are those who cheat far less flagrantly and yet who are never caught.

Sailorstick, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the sanction taken against someone proven to be cheating should be anything other than a ban; the measure of proof is that which is in question.

-Sirp.

@Sirp: I disagree! I think the facts stated by cracker are proof enough.... The staff monitored Ribannah for 6 games, and very carefully analyzed his games, before they came to this very difficult decision....

I would prefer that when someone is banned that their name is stated. I was comparing data and trying to figure out who it was and picked the wrong person. I'm glad that their name was finally stated so that I wasn' thinking bad of the wrong person.

I've seen Cracker in action and he is very thorough. I agree 100% with his decision to ban someone and to say that if you have a problem with it to PM/email him. I'm sure that if you have a concern he will be happy to answer it.

map:
I liked it too. It was a LOT of work and it does have a couple of mistakes on it (which are all my fault), but it's pretty cool. I'm a very visual person and whenever you can compare data in such a graphical way it is easier to understand. Plus it's nice to be able to contribute Something while my game play goes to hell in a handbasket! [Proud to Honestly finish QSC19 dead last.]

Slightly off topic...

Is there any fair way of finding out which civilizations you are playing against on turn 1? I don't think there is, but I am usually wrong.

I read and try to replicate all the top QSC timelines but I have only had time to go through one so far this month.

mad-bax: you can go to the spacerace screen, and click 'view spacerace' and it will show you the names of all the civs you are competing with.

Some consider this cheating, others don't.

On turn two you can tell another way: try renaming your capital to 'Moscow'. If the Russians are in the game it won't let you, because there's already a city called Moscow. Try renaming your capital to 'London'. If the English are in the game it won't let you, because there's already a city called London. Repeat, and you can work out which civs are in the game.

Personally I'd definitely say the latter is exploitive, but is really a non-issue, since the former is much easier, and is a less-clearly-exploitive way of doing it.

-Sirp.

Sirp: Thanks for that. I thought that the Space screen only showed Civs that had the Apollo small wonder built. I've never used it before. I knew I would be wrong.

So why is the list of opponents witheld from the pre-game discussion? Don't answer that, I'll get a slap for threadjacking.

I'll take the slap instead. :) I'm guessing that it's to let the players who don't like that foreknowledge retain the fun of discovery.

Renata

I always forget to check the Space Race screen, so normally am the last one in the forum to discover who the other civs are.

Not that I care too much.
Besides, with Cracker making the maps, one already knows what civs lie in the immediate neighbourhood: Greece, Carthage, Ottomans (who of course have Military Tradition as a bonus starting free tech) and Alien Nation with their special 99.99.99 UU available with Beer Making... ;)

f10 crystal ball is allowed
I've seen several top players mention it and the gotm staff hasn't specifically disallowed it . I think ppl should quit calling everything an exploit like Firaxis haven't thought about it (I'm not accusing anyone in particular here). Disallowing access to a screen untill, for example space flight, is prob a very simple programming matter and the ppl behind the game ought to have thought about it in the number of patches they issued if it were such a big loophole.

On the issue at hand: I think the gotm staff has handled this most profesionally up till it was announced. After that I have minor issues with their handling of the matter. All in all, I'd like to say that I stand by their work in this case. Not the least because untill I joined this community I hadn't yet played a whole game without replaying due to a silly mistake I made. And the whole experience of civ3 was lifted when I gradually tried to avoid reloads. I didn't submit a gotm untill I could play a game without reloading after those small incidents the game throw at you (gotm 18, although I was lurking since prob gotm 14 and submitted qsc for gotm 17, in which I later tried to attack Egypt with a few catapults and spartan hoplites = reload lol).

What I find problematic with the initial msg of this thread, is that (at least some of) the gotm players will find out the identity of the individual (cheater) in question regardless of any (in this case rather pathectic) attempts to keep it secret.
If the staff wanted to keep this a secret from the word go, cracker could have stated that noone were to divulge information on what member had been removed, regardless of how that knowledge was obtained. Not that I think it would work very much. I and many others solved that 'mystery' long before anyone posted the solution in the forums so I think most members would eventually wind up with the truth. At best it is naive of the gotm staff to think that the community won't register the disappearance of a high-profile member.
The other option is to divulge the information straight away. However, this would warrant an explanation or apology from the cheater to accompany the initial post. I'd like to have seen this last option to be chosen. Not because I think the debate thus issued would be all that fruitful (cracker is most probably right in that it wouldn't be).
I just think that when an individual (it's real people in here, if you haven't noticed :-) finds it necessary to cheat in gotms, the game or the status therefrom derived has reached such a level of importance to said individual, that an attempt to cut off that particular source of recognition should not be passed without an opportunity for the cheater to speak his or her mind. It's got nothing to do with democracy and it shouldn't be an issue of what is efficient or not. Imo it's about respect for the individual behind the nick, and in this case, the crystal ball.

Well said Capt Buttkick. I agree with your sentiments, all of them; and you said them so well.

I do feel sorry for Ribannah. Primarily, if she is innocent, she must feel like a witch in a witch trial. Even if she's not, I would feel a great loss in being exiled from a community I spend so much time with. Even if it were her own actions that got her to this point, I'm sure there is a sense of loss.

Regarding anonymity, there was no way to keep it a secret and the situation could have had a more professional demeanor if all the evidience/names were flatly presented in the beginning rather than in a backpeddling, defensive manner. I know Cracker was trying to head off a volitile explosion and hindsight is 20/20. Hopefully there will not be another case, but if there is, I think the upfront, "Here's what we know" approach may assuage the fears of many more gamers.

I respect the GOTM staff for their management and decision making abilities. This was obviously not an easy choice and will probably not be the last.

Now that Ribannah has gone (temporarily?) I am sure someone else will pick up her cause of fighting for more clearly defined rules, but I think her discipline has gone a long way to help deliniate the very boundaries she was always advocating.

I have no intention of commenting on this case specifically, but I would like to comment generally on what I see as the staff position, which is unenviable to say the least.

What could the staff do differently?

They could tolerate rules violations and include scores in game results.

They could ban an offending player and leave historical results in tact without making an announcement of any kind.

They could choose not to ban the player and just not include suspect games from the results, again with no announcement.

They could ban the player and remove all results from historical tables, without any announcement.

They could publicly chastise the player and warn against future conduct.

Other than what has already been done what else?

I can think of no way of protecting a banned players identity without compromising one of the primary aims of GOTM which is to provide a competition. It is analogous to a sports star taking drugs. Once caught there is no way to protect the individuals identity. And if the staff feel an obligation to our community (which they probably do without having to) then they will act to protect us. Long may that continue.

In the end we have to decide as a community if rules are necessary. If they are then we need a judge, jury and executioner.

Which of us would like the job? Not me, thats for sure.

Some random thoughts. I have confidence that the GOTM staff have acted in the best interests of the GOTM. I am glad that the person's name has come out so that doubt is not cast on others. As an old poli sci major I tend to think that all evidence should be presented and the accused should be able to defend him or herself but this is not a crimial trial. Cracker has indicated his willingness to explain things further to anyone who contacts him privately. That seems to be a good way to handle this.
As for reloading, I used to reload when playing computer games. I'd hate to have a good game going only to have some piece of bad luck ruin my work. Then a couple years ago I found Civfanatics and the Civ2 GOTM. It was a neat idea to play a game against others in this fashion and those early Civ2 GOTMs were the first games I played without reloading. I learned then that many of the disasters that had caused me to reload in the past weren't disasters at all. By living with the results and moving on my play became a bit better and my games more enjoyable. I don't reload now even when I'm playing non-GOTM or non-tournament games. :)
While the GOTM is a competition against other players it is also acompetition against ourselves. Can we improve our play and do better than we did before? I've played and submitted every Civ3 GOTM - more often than not I actually lose to the AI. I feel no shame in submitting my losing games. I've never won a medal or award. But I'm improving and having fun. A good deal of my improved play is due to the QSC and the other developements cracker and his staff have instituted in the GOTM. We all owe the GOTM staff a big thanks and we owe them our support in this very trying issue.

It is a good thing that Cracker and staff are working to curb cheating. This is good for the community as a whole. But its not enough that cheaters be punished, the examination and prosecution of cheaters must be done in such a way to ensure all of the community that fair and just methods are being used.

I believe that the staff has inadvertently allowed Ribannah a lot of ammunition to use in muddying the waters. The process, as far as I can tell, had no neutral third party entity to judge the accusation. There is no evidence that Ribannah had the right to respond to the accusations other than directly to his/her accusers, which is of course irrelevant to the issue of fairness. There has to be a judge.

The absence of a fair and neutral judge gives immediate credence to the accused claims that they are being treated unfairly because of personal bias. I have no choice but to throw out any assertions or evidences presented without some impartial judge, jury or council participation.

Regardless of the many reasons that might be given for silencing the accused, that very fact can only beg the question, "what have they to say that the staff doesn't want us to know?" It creates the strong impression that Ribannah is not being treated fairly, which may or may not be true, since no presentation of the evidence is forthcoming.

Now we already have serious concerns over the fact that Cracker has clearly avoided formalizing rules for the GotM. The obvious, but perhaps erroneous, conclusion that springs to mind is that in the absence of rules Cracker has the absolute power of a despot should he choose to exercise it. That Ribannah pushed for rule standardization casts Cracker and this process in a bad light. But it is clearly a self-inflicted wound as Cracker can fix this very easily.

An individual or small group of individuals can be formed to review the results of investigations. The staff can make presentments. The accused can respond. A ruling can be made. Transcripts can be kept private per request of the accused (the least we can do, it's just a game), or if the accused wants the record published it may be made available for download after an appropriate cooling off period. A temporary gag on the forums would be appropriate as long as there is eventual disclosure.

When a person's reputation is at stake we must have more than staff assurances, we must have some semblance of due process.

I am sure that there are tools and procedures being used to monitor games that the staff would like to keep out of the public eye. But since staff with knowledge and access to said tools and methods are playing the GotM, this information should not be withheld and if so, there is no way to conclude that the GotM is on the up and up.

Which brings me back to an old compliant, relevant here because it is a fairness issue. The best dates are still not being issued with the .sav file. Aeson of course is privy to this information, his games therefore should be removed from the rankings. Sometimes I feel like the staff is speaking out of both sides of their respective mouths. They want to say that the best dates are not relevant but at the same time they can't be released. It doesn't take a genius to see through that one.

I have heard the argument that the GotM is not a competition. That we should all play to enjoy it and not focus on the competitive aspects of it. But if that is true, why invest such resources to prosecute an alleged cheater.

No, there are real problems here in GotMland. The heavy hand of the staff may actually be doing more harm than the conduct of a particular player.

From Cracker's starting post in this thread...

Originally posted by cracker
By the time we reach this point, the individual players responsible for these submissions have usually received multiple private warning and counseling contacts as well as consuming literally hundreds of extra volunteer staff hours plus usually delaying the publication of game results by one or two days each month.

This is the condition that we currently find ourselves in with reaching a decision that one of our regular players who has been disciplined the past for reloading and cheating but has continued to do this on an ongoing basis during the last four GOTM and QSC games.


There are a lot of valid points to the various sides of this discussion. I just want to pipe in that if the person was truly contacted about it, then that person would have had the opportunity to defend themselves offline with the GOTM staff.

This is truly an unfortunate situation :(, but it is stated clearly what the rules of participation are for the GOTM.

An individual or small group of individuals can be formed to review the results of investigations.

There already is a small group of individuals reviewing the results. Cracker did NOT make this decision on his own. I don't believe any of the other staff members have anything personal against this person that would make their decisions biased in any way. Believe me, they would challenge Cracker if they felt he was doing an injustice to someone just because of a personal vandetta.

Cracker and I used to argue all the time in the general discussions forum, and sometimes it got personal (I'll admit that). But in this forum, he has not treated me any better or any worse than any other player. I'm not a staff member, but then, I never asked to be one (or want to be).

If you do feel that the staff would be biased to just follow what Cracker says, just because they are part of the 'staff', then I have to ask you, wouldn't this new 'judge' that you are asking for then be considered 'staff'? If the judge is part of the process of the GOTM, then he is part of the staff, no?

Whew! I didn't expect such a level of protest.

This is a Free and Voluntary forum. If you can't abide by the rules then just move on. That includes the simple rule that Mods are alway right!

I can't stand it when I take my lumps then a crybaby gets away with murder.

I would much rather have faith that people are participating honestly than to allow the rules to slip for the sake of a few people who try to walk into a wall and get their nose out of joint.

No, Bamspeedy, the judge or council would not be staff by definition, if so they could not be considered an impartial third party.

I am arguing for due process. I am not taking any position on this particular case, nor am I casting doubts on any individual.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


There already is a small group of individuals reviewing the results. Cracker did NOT make this decision on his own. I don't believe any of the other staff members have anything personal against this person that would make their decisions biased in any way. Believe me, they would challenge Cracker if they felt he was doing an injustice to someone just because of a personal vandetta.


Evidence has been made available to all the CFC mods as well as all the GOTM team. It is, in every way, a collective staff decision and very far from being a personal decision by Cracker.

Originally posted by ltcoljt
No, Bamspeedy, the judge or council would not be staff by definition, if so they could not be considered an impartial third party.On a purely practical note, neither could any current or recent GOTM competitors, whose rankings could be affected by their decision. So where would we find an impartial third party, who also knows enough about GOTM and Civ3 to be able to judge such a case? The attributes required would only seem to fit an experienced Civ3 player who enjoys the respect of the GOTM community, but who hasn't competed for a while, for whatever reason. Do they exist and would they be prepared to act as ombudsman in such a case?

Originally posted by ltcoljt
Which brings me back to an old compliant, relevant here because it is a fairness issue. The best dates are still not being issued with the .sav file. Aeson of course is privy to this information, his games therefore should be removed from the rankings. Sometimes I feel like the staff is speaking out of both sides of their respective mouths. They want to say that the best dates are not relevant but at the same time they can't be released. It doesn't take a genius to see through that one.

I WANT Aeson to be playing just as I WANT Sir Pleb to be playing. These two players are among the players I have great respect for and without them, the entertainment and competition value of playing the GOTM will be much reduced! Please do not make any further such suggestion. And if my opinion is of any value, then this negates your opinion that he shouldn't be ranked. So, the choice is still his!!

Originally posted by Qitai


I WANT Aeson to be playing just as I WANT Sir Pleb to be playing. These two players are among the players I have great respect for and without them, the entertainment and competition value of playing the GOTM will be much reduced! Please do not make any further such suggestion. And if my opinion is of any value, then this negates your opinion that he shouldn't be ranked. So, the choice is still his!!

:D

I want them to play as well, I just think that if they have the best dates then it is only fair for us all to have them.

IMHO the best dates in themselves are not spoiler info. But the map parameters used to generate the date is spoiler info. Maybe in the future, the best date could be given but without the modifier details. (Or is it too easy to back calculate to determine what type of map was used?)

Yes, it would be easier to guess if there is a galley crossing or not, because some 'best dates' would be +-500 years or so, depending if you need to get to navigation or not.

So, how is it fair for some people to have the info and others not? If I am incorrect in assuming that Aeson has this info prior to playing I humbly apologize.

Originally posted by ltcoljt
Which brings me back to an old compliant, relevant here because it is a fairness issue. The best dates are still not being issued with the .sav file. Aeson of course is privy to this information, his games therefore should be removed from the rankings. Sometimes I feel like the staff is speaking out of both sides of their respective mouths. They want to say that the best dates are not relevant but at the same time they can't be released. It doesn't take a genius to see through that one.
It might take more genius than would be evident in a first pass assessment of the situation without the facts.

I can assure you beyond all reasonable doubt that when staff members play the GOTM at my active request and with my encouragement, they have absolutely no knowledge of game content or best dates that all the other players may not have.

Their only advantage in the games is that they are being whipped by me to focus on the big picture multigame issues and in some ways this may lead them to a better perception of what MY next move might be. I am however seeing that the bright minds among the regular player pool are right on track with figuring out some of the key issues that will present in the next GOTM games even before they see the first pixel or byte of the games announcemnts or save files. It is no small coincidence that the brightest minds among the player pool as well as many of the mid level players are picking up on significant issues like trading, expansion, and upgrade planning even before these issue become apparent as key game content elements.

Adjustments that Aeson is required to make to the scoring system are based on comparative curve fitting of results across literally hundreds of games. His one game number in that data could not possibly influence the outcome of any decision in any way that is more or less significant that the influence of all the other games in the pool.

The best dates are also set based on a formula that is based on past player performance in games of that victory type under map conditions that are similar to the current game.

There are a number of people in this world that are beyond reproach and I can tell you that Aeson is one of those. If he told you that the sky was going to fall tomorrow at 11.33AM your local time then you can bet you should buy a hard hat and stay indoors right at that time.

Even with this confidence that I have in the staff and many, many of our players, their games are still subject to the same stringent statistical tests as all the other player's games. Plus they get the specific honor of knowing that I check every one of their games personally.

All of this is balanced by knowing that the staff members need to play the games to maintain a valid "player's perspective". They have to use the same download processes and the same QSC timeline and/or submissions processes that all the other players use. They have the added pressures of needing to complete their personal game commitments and still complete their real life task commitments plus the GOTM volunteer staff roles.

We have real life engineers, accountants, parents, managers, lawyers, statisticians, professors, and other professionals on the GOTM staff. The average age of the staff is between 35 and 40 years of age and for the most part these individual represent the cream of the crop in terms of people you would ask to pick up your kids from school or to make sure that an important bank deposit got to your bank before closing time on this specific date. You should have absolutely no question about their skills, motives, or abilities to represent the best interests of the entire GOTM community while always paying attention to specific personal needs of every individual GOTM player.

In many ways I am the only weak link in the process but with their help we are working on my performance every week.

Gee, cracker, all you had to say was that he didn't have the dates.

I stand corrected.

I think its good that Cracker had the opportunity to talk a bit about his staff. They are doing a great job and deserve to be commended. They may also be feeling the collective pressure resulting from the decisions made about Ribannah and it was a nice move from Cracker to comment on their ethics as well.

I want to stress that my comments may have been a tad on the edge, but reflect my concerns with processes rather than people.

I apologize in advance for a slightly off topic post...

Civ3 is a great game, and the GOTM adds tremendous amount of enjoyment for me, even though I just play along and lurk here without submitting my monthly results. The problem, from my lurker's perspective, is that the single player game is not designed for a side-by-side comparative competition format. The software doesn't support it, and the game mechanics don't either. Yes, we all play the same maps, and yes the better players and better strategies will always perform better, but that doesn't mean that we're all on equal footing each month.

Ignore the RNG's role in things like battles and suicide galleys, and just think about things like the first 20 moves by each AI. Without the ability to script AI moves to the letter, we end up playing against slightly different opponents even though the maps are the same. Which direction they explore, who they meet and when they meet them, has a large impact on the game at higher levels.

Anyways, I enjoy this place and the GOTM because of the strategy discussions and the community of great players. Who gets the best score means little to me. If you want to have a true competition then why not do a multiplayer ladder tournament? Human against human seems to be a far better test of skill than to see who can exploit the AI weaknesses the best.

AlanH,

I can think of someone who fits your requirements: Matrix

However, I also believe in the current staff and trust there judgement in matters where they have the facts and I don't.

It's also pretty obvious that this could have been avoided if the offending party had just changed their methods. This wasn't a one shot offense and they had ample warning (so we are informed), so why continue with those tactics when you've been already been caught.

That's enough time and thought...back to the task of purging the unbelievers from 'my' continent!!!

:hammer:

This is a truly unfortunate thing, indeed. I guess it can all be related back to civ, though: no matter how productive, populous, and full of Wonders you make your capital, you're still going to probably have that one little shield of corruption sneak in somehow.

So where would we find an impartial third party, who also knows enough about GOTM and Civ3 to be able to judge such a case? The attributes required would only seem to fit an experienced Civ3 player who enjoys the respect of the GOTM community, but who hasn't competed for a while, for whatever reason. Do they exist and would they be prepared to act as ombudsman in such a case?

Cracker fits. The assumption here seems to be that for some reason the GOTM staff as a whole would want to ban anyone, which is as far from the truth as you can get. Of course we have a vested interest in running the GOTM, which in court of law would disqualify us as a judge.

This is not a public court though. It is a privately owned forum, with rules and regulations set down for participation. Thunderfall has given us the ability to administer and oversee the competition, and we try to do so to the best of our abilities. Cracker was chosen to be the administrative head, and his decision is final in these matters as long as Thunderfall wishes it to be administered that way.

The GOTM Staff's loyalty is to the GOTM though. To try and help make sure it's the most enjoyable competition/community it can be. We are just players volunteering to do some of the less fun tasks that need to be done. There really isn't any other reason to be involved in the Staff (and plenty of reasons not to be involved in the Staff). No pay at all... ;)

---------------------

This type of action is far and away the least fun of all. Much better to sort through 60k entries in a spreadsheet than to have to deal with the subject of cheating IMO. If one of the Staff brought up such a thing just for the heck of it... they'd probably get shot (eh... or the digital equivalent of it). Even if one of us had a vendetta against a player, there are 19 (?) people with access to the GOTM Staff forum (and CivFanatics Staff forum where this subject was also brought up), several of whom aren't involved in the GOTM or even Civ3 at all. A 'retribution' or unsupported decision just wouldn't stand without a mass falling out (which would definitely end up public) between us.

Yes, you'll just have to trust us on that. We have access to discussions and information that aren't public, and aren't made public to protect the players of the community in general. Until every GOTM participant is willing to spend 10-15 hours a month going over these discussions, looking at saves, looking at replays, corresponding with the player(s) in question (and try to do so as impartially as possible) it would just lead to far too many misunderstandings and false accusations.

Most of the players here would be able to handle it, but as shown in previous public hearings on similar matters, some just point fingers and call names (and do worse in PM's). In short, it would lead to a dying GOTM community where even the people who enjoy the competition and the interaction with the other players, would get sickened by the constant discussions on who's cheating or not. It's the reason Matrix resigned and no longer plays, and it's probably no coincidence that GOTM participation in general took a nose dive when the first public discussions on who's cheating and who isn't were going on.

It's not the point of the GOTM to have to worry about those things IMO. I really wish it wasn't part of the Staff's responsibility either.

It appears from the details Cracker gave about the investigation that the individual caught cheating would have been able to get away with it if they had not been a regular participant in the GOTM. This is where I think peoples performance in the global ranking as opposed to their performance in individual GoTMs should be seen as the standard of excellence for the GoTM.
So say when the results of a GoTM come out, rather than focus on the scores for that GotM instead focus on the changes at the top of the global rankings incurred by the new results.
It will still be possible for someone to cheat on an individual GoTM and then leave thinking that they have conned us. But if they want the ultimate accolade of being number 1 on the Global ranking then they are going to have to hang around and risk being caught by Cracker and the team.
Cracker has already stated in another thread that he will be emphassing the Global rankings more in future, perhaps he is thinking along these lines.

Well thats my 2 cents.. Oh and congratulations moonsinger on being ranked No.1 :goodjob: but look down towards No.107 he's
closing fast;) (actually I think you might have to look on the next page :rolleyes: )

I have read through all of this, and as a newcomer to GOTM, I miss some of the details and history of all that has transpired here, so forgive me if my comments reflect too much ignorance of the GOTM legacy, and forgive me if I am venturing too far off the topic of the thread.

I did not see what TC3 pointed out in earlier discussions--which I think is an absolutely essential point to keep in mind when we all look at the "standings" and this competition. Having been in a few comparison games--there are immense differences in game results that come about from things outside of the players' hands. Different AIs becoming dominent because one roll of the RNG gave them a leader--which tipped the balance in an AI-vs-AI war, or games where the number of leaders generated in an always war game goes from an extreme of about five leaders for the first 50 or so elite victories to ONE for 55 elite victories (52 victories for attacking units).

Yes, the top players generally produce the top scores. There have been numerous praises and questions about the scoring system for GOTM--I do not want to discredit the enormous amount of work that has gone into improving the comparative metric used for GOTM games. Is it perfect. No. Is it a fair comparative tool--mostly. What is misses is how much games are affected by how things change, and it still carries a whole lot of the high-population--lots of territory--happy people paradigm from Civ basic scoring. So be it. A medium like this needs some metric, so it has one.

"What is he getting at?", you might ask. Ok--what I have seen, and I strongly encourage, is increased emphasis on the details of what happens during the game. I think the discussion forums (spoiler threads) are great for this purpose--put the focus on the game, not on the end results. I care more about how players made their way through the games--i.e., their stories, their legends and epics--rather than how many points they have gotten. I think the community recognizes this--the QSC--even though it is about the numbers, does put the detail to the game history--not just the end. There are many instances of "variantish" type play and storytelling getting a whole lot of support and praise in these games, even if the games were nowhere near the medals. To me, that level of participation and interest in the "mighty struggles" is more indicative of the success of the GOTM than sheer numbers or numbers of winners.

Yeah--everyone has opinions. I have very strong ones about avoiding spoiler information for my games--though I am participating, I will not discuss the game with others until I am complete, even though I hope to post reports. This is my choice for my game to be judged on what I do in the game without specific assistance. That may or may not be the norm for most players, and I have no particular feelings about that. It does not make me a better or worse player or person--just is a choice I make. Whenever you make comparisons or have competitions--someone may not fare as well in the competition or comparison. And some may value the false glory of high score enough to take shortcuts that cheapens the comparison. I applaud the effort the staff takes to make sure the comparisons stay relatively clean. I am sure it is a whole lot of work.

Last point--I am hoping, when I finish this, to more of the depth of the tales from others' games like I have seen in the more recent games. Second to the pure enjoyment of the game itself, I find the telling and retelling of our wartales at the proverbial pub to make all of this worthwhile. Sorry for the long post--and potential threadjack, but TC3's post hit a nerve.

Bam-Bam

What do you think of this as a possible easy improvement to the game to help prevent cheats:
(Feel free to pass this idea on to Firaxis, but do credit me as the source -- unless of course someone else had this idea before it occurred to me)

Internal RNG player-roll likelihood checking:

At the moment, the RNG preserves its seed with the idea that a save-and-reload cannot alter the outcome. This fails because the player can change his behaviour slightly to "use up" a bad roll on an inconsequential action, and then get a new roll on the action that really mattered.

A better idea might be to deliberately throw away the seed (thus allowing save-and-reload to change the roll) -- but to record the player's (but not the AI's) dice score distribution throughout the game.

So long as "high" rolls for the player are always good, and "low" rolls are always bad, a simple likelihood check on the roll-distribution tally recorded in the .SAV should highlight chronic reloaders very easily. (Of course, this check would only be made when submitting to a GOTM or other tournament)

cheers,
whb

---
Will Billingsley
Cambridge University Computer Laboratory

@whb: Very appealing idea, but I doubt it would work, as there are just so *many* dice rolls in any given game that ten or twenty or even probably fifty manipulated ones might get lost in the noise. It also doesn't address the other main types of cheating that I'm aware of: map preknowledge/ re-playing to change strategy.

Renata

whb-the problem I see with that would be that the rolls that are saved would need to be kept track of for what the situation called for when making the roll.

If someone gets very good rolls on combats and leader generation, who cares if they get bad rolls on worker automation, diplomacy, what the advisor suggests you build/research next, etc.

And there are varying degrees of how 'bad' or 'good' a number is. Rolls for culture flips may look bad, but if the odds are so low of the city actually flipping, you would need an extremely low roll, but in a battle a bad roll, might be a much higher number.

Lets say it rolls for numbers 1-1000 (I don't want to nitpick the exact numbers, which have been studied/posted before on how the RNG works exactly). For a city with low probability of culture flipping, lets say it needs a number of 10 or lower to end up being a 'bad' roll. For combats where you have say, a 50/50 shot of winning, the number would need to be lower than 500 to be a 'bad roll'. So just getting a list of numbers wouldn't help, unless you knew what each roll was used for.

Turns can sometimes take long enough as it is, and save files can get big. I can't imagine how long turns would take and save files would be if the game had to record every roll of the RNG when there are dozens made every turn, and if you play 540 turns.:eek:

Cracker, thanks for sharing those thoughts with us about your staff in your most recent post. I know that this must be a very difficult time for you, and I want you to know that, although I will miss Ribannah, I support you and your staff. It takes courage to do what you think is right, despite the dissension that invariably rears its ugly head in such a complicated matter as this one. Knowing that you and your staff have agonized about this decision for such an extensive period of time has consoled me and has increased my respect for you and your fellow GOTM co-laborers. As if you all didn't already do enough, for absolutely no pay, but strictly on account of the altruistic goodness in your hearts.

Originally posted by cracker
In many ways I am the only weak link in the process but with their help we are working on my performance every week.

It really takes a lot of courage to make a self-deprecating statement like that, and if you are partly talking about your relations with others, I really have noticed that you have made great strides in the public relations department. Sometimes, that's not so easy to do for an engineer! (I have two uncles who are engineers for the Redstone Arsenal and for NASA, and public relations experts they are not...) :goodjob: (Please don't take this offensively, for I certainly did not mean it as such.) Thanks for all your efforts to keep everything together behind the scenes. The GOTM truly is the greatest event in all of Civilization, and we owe it largely to you, Cracker.

@Bamspeedy

Certainly you would only record rolls for interesting events (like battles, not like Advisors or Autoworkers).

I don't think the size or speed would be limiting because I doubt you would have to store all the raw numbers -- at the simplest level, you could just store the sum-to-date of the difference between a player's raw rolls and his opponent's raw rolls in battles, along with the total number of battles, and use that as a very basic check for chronic battle-outcome reloading.
Similarly, you could produce a score for the suicide galley survival-at-sea scores. There won't be enough data points in the one game, but when summed across a player's multiple entries in the GOTM, things get statistically significant very quickly.

I am sure there are more complex and more useful algorithms that could be applied too. One could also conceive of building a map-square scoring system into the game itself, to automatically evaluate the value of opening exploring moves against expected best-play. (Although Cracker seems to be doing a fine job of that one without in-game help).

Simply put, keying these metrics into the game itself would lessen the load on the mods, and make the evidence for cheating harder to refute.

There would be workarounds (eg: have more meaningless battles to cover up the cheating meaningful ones) but I still think it might be an interesting avenue for Firaxis to pursue.

whb

Originally posted by whb
Internal RNG player-roll likelihood checking:

Firaxis may be interested implementing something like this for the PBEM community. I don't think they would do it for single player though. What would be the point? Does Firaxis even know the GoTM exists?

If there's a way to mod the game so that great leaders can only build armies (and not rush any improvements) then I think that would go a long way towards diminishing the RNG abuses.

If I have 5 or so elite units it doesn't take all that many reloads to guarantee getting a leader to appear (if I'm unlucky enough to not get one 'legitimately'). I don't see how this type of cheating could be ever be reliably detected.

Firaxis could also possibly implement a new optional save/reload system where saving your game and picking up at that point later on would be allowed, but going back in time wouldn't (basically just a single save file per game). There'd be a heavy price to pay for "fat finger" mistakes, but it might be worth trying. Programming this and making it bulletproof is also a lot harder than it sounds at first glance.

One issue that you may find with recording RNG rolls is that during some periods of the game and at certain high levels, you will find players who invoke the RNG every single turn legitimately using diplomacy, especially in this month's GOTM due to the Deity Paranoia Factor. ;) I know that any 'RNG roll count' would only be applied to certain games, but as I'm not the only one who talks to the diplomatic advisor every turn, this has to be considered. If there's a way to separate battle rolls from diplomatic rolls, that would help a great deal, as during the old GOTM, that seems to have caused the most complaints, and was a cited factor in this specific case.

I'd like to see a roll counter not only to possibly catch cheating, but to compare how people play with diplomacy after the early QSC-pre middle ages period, once worldwide or at least continent-wide contact is made.

@TC3: Your leader alteration would fundamentally change game balance, and I think a majority of GOTM players would oppose it as a result. The 'fat finger' idea would doom players whose machines crash, and also negate the ability to go back later and take screenshots for reporting. Implementing an 'archive system' to 'unlock' saves after victory might be a good idea, but then the QSC wouldn't be possible.

[Originally posted by samildanach -- Does Firaxis even know the GoTM exists?

I definitely think so. Several Firaxians, at least, frequent this site and its boards.

Originally posted by denyd
I can think of someone who fits your requirements: MatrixThey're actually not "my requirements". I was simply trying to short circuit theoretical discussion about an independent judicial process by pointing out the improbability of being able to implement it.

The attributes I listed did include willingness to be the judge'n'jury. Being new around here I have no idea whether Matrix would fill that bill. Personally I'd be surprised if such a person could be found outside the current GOTM playing and administration community.

However, I also believe in the current staff and trust there judgement in matters where they have the facts and I don't.[/B]
I couldn't agree more. Cracker and his team have taken on the onerous responsibilities of managing the GOTM process, and management's role includes maintaining discipline.

Now, as you said, back to the game in hand.

My only concern on this subject was the absense of the person's name. I'm glad this came out in another thread and quickly spread to this one as the unknown guessing most people do in their head could only create more problems. I would have also liked to see a statement from Ribannah, even if it was just something she sent to cracker and then cracker posted. It doesn't feel right to not hear anything from her, guilty or not.


On the other topic, the main problem with the RNG is that there are a lot of "useless" uses of the RNG stream that shouldn't have an effect. If its as easy as asking any AI what they will offer for such and such, then the RNG-metagame is cake and makes reloading very useful and exploitive. This compromises the entire intention of saving the game seed, but as cracker said this sort of problem shows up only when you have a large group of people playing the same game.
But as a comparison with what I know of RNG use in general, you could in the beginning of your game when you first meet another civ, ask them what they will offer for something 50 to 100 times just to reset your RNG sequence 50 to 100 steps further along. Your game will then greatly depart from most other games and most assurdily look suspect, except that all your choices will not work out perfectly. (Actually even a few steps could make a big difference, and also 1000 steps could end up the same, so this isn't absolute.)

Originally posted by Borealis

@TC3: Your leader alteration would fundamentally change game balance, and I think a majority of GOTM players would oppose it as a result.

I'm sure it wouldn't be warmly received, but it would certainly remove the single biggest variable that makes it difficult to compare one person's game to another's. Others have argued here and elsewhere that Great Leaders are totally over-powered and they have a negative impact on game balance. I tend to agree, but then again their unpredicatable nature is part of what makes Civ3 so replayable.

I think that one of the biggest concerns is that as cracker says, he does possess an impressive array of statistics related to the GotM.


"with statistics, you can prove anything" -- George Orwell

If Ribannah doesn't get to defend herself, then is it likely very easy for cracker to convince the staff that she has been cheating.

Many people seem rather convinced by the evidence cracker has presented, and perhaps rightly so. However Ribannah sent me a private message containing (in my opinion) very convincing reasons why this evidence didn't show any wrongdoing on her part. Perhaps if others heard Ribannah's apologia, they would not be so convinced either. Perhaps if the staff had been addressed by Ribannah on the issue, they would not be so convinced either.

And now, apparently the suppression of Ribannah saying anything has gone one step further, with her account being frozen altogether, so she can't even send or receive private messages. This suppression makes me, and probably others, rather uncomfortable.

To those who point out that this is a private site and not a democracy, and that people who aren't happy with it should go elsewhere: indeed it is a private site. However in this thread, we are apparently invited to post comments on the subject, which is Ribannah being banned. Nowhere does it say that dissenting opinions may not be voiced, or only those who agree may post. Cracker or one of the other moderators is welcome to close the thread at any time. If they choose not to, I see no problem with anyone posting their opinion on the matter.

@TC3: Personally I think that the whole way Great Leaders work is one of the worst aspects of the game; it just feels ridiculous and unbalanced. If they want GLs, a better option would be to make their function purely militaristic: perhaps troops stacked with the great leader get some kind of bonus.

-Sirp.

Perhaps if the staff had been addressed by Ribannah on the issue, they would not be so convinced either.

We have been included in every aspect of the conversations between them. I personally feel that several attempts were made to try to solve this situation another way. This decision was not made easily, nor with a light heart. This is an aspect of my function here that I do not like, but I understand the reason and nessecity of. Cracker tends to speak for all of us as a group, but that is only after we have debated the issue and tried to come up with a consensus of the best approach possible. This issue as it has been pointed out has been discussed and debated for a considerable amount of time. We have tried to make every concession, and to believe the face value of what people have to say as much as possible.

Creepster,

Was this discussion done in such a way that Ribannah was given access to post her response directly to all the staff members?

If not, then it could be engineered just as easilly as anything else.

Also, was any discussion with Ribannah about her GOTM19 result engaged in before the decision was made to disqualify all her results?

-Sirp.

If Ribannah doesn't get to defend herself, then is it likely very easy for cracker to convince the staff that she has been cheating.

This really isn't about cracker convincing anyone on the Staff. Most of the incriminating data was produced by my analysis of games, the various utilities we use, and things Ribannah freely posted in spoiler threads. Cracker spent a lot of time analyzing the games again before making a decision, but it was the same conclusion many of the staff had come to before he did so. (in some cases, several months before) If there was 'convincing' going on, it was the other way around.

Was this discussion done in such a way that Ribannah was given access to post her response directly to all the staff members?

Not about GOTM19, but about the problem in whole, yes. She contacted me a few times, and a few others on the staff at various times as well (mainly after the first time a game of her's was excluded). The correspondence has been ongoing for a least a few months.

Well, at the end of the day what was done to Ribannah can't be right, even if she cheated her heart out. Supression of speech is a far greater crime than cheating on a computer game. She wasn't guilty of spam or hacking so there is absolutely no grounds that I am aware of for banning her. Even Cracker admits that there is a 5-10% chance she is innocent when he says that there is a 90-95% probability that her games were rigged.

I will continue to be part of the community and try to place this in the proper perspective but it was done wrong.

Yes, I concur with ltcoljt: it's fine to say that this is a private forum and free speech doesn't apply here, but when the forum is used to accuse someone of something so abhorrent, and they are given no chance to respond at all, (and the suppression is extended to all forums, and private messages) then I feel that that is wrong. (And let us remember that Ribannah hasn't violated any forum rules).

-Sirp.

Ribannah has actively violated Forum rules on at least eleven different occasions in the past 48 hours and even if she had not been initially banned to protect the normal playing population from her deliberate missuse of her membership privileges, she certainly would have been banned for a minimum of two weeks and perhaps a month at this point.

There are certain system privilege abuses that she clearly knows how to use to cause disruption. Most adults would not choose to do these things.

Her access privileges to the internal PM and email privileges were only suspended after numerous abusive contacts with other members of the site and basically for trolling through the message threads and sending messages to people that she virtually did not even know in an effort to cause further harm to the community.

Do not be deceived by what may appear to you at first to be a very severe action. In this case it is totally warranted and is the only option available short of permanently and totally banning Ribannah from the site.

Other members who have behaved in precisely the same inappropriate manner in the past have been permanently banned in other areas of the site by groups of moderators totally unrelated to the GOTM. Again, you have to consider the multiple prior events and documented patterns of misconduct when determining if the individual has a strong enough understanding of what may or may not be considered a violation of the site rules.

Use of the site assets (PM, Email, Forums) to post messages that are openly insulting and disrespectful of any moderator is a clear violation of the site rules. Using the PM or email system to send larges volumes of unsolicited messages to many different users is a violation of the site rules. Openly urging members to violate site rules and.or deliberately disrupt procedures in the various game forums is a violation of the site rules. Abusing the Report Post functions to post random comments and to spam the inbox of the moderators is a violation of the site rules.

These behaviors were outlined and anticipated from Ribannah based on her aggressive patterns of past conduct. Thunderfall elected to take a moderate "wait and see" approach to see if Ribannah would actively choose to engage in the misconduct as she has done in the past. After each of the predicted abuses was independently observed and reported by moderators and site members in multiple forums there really was no option left but to further restrict her access to the privileges that she has chosen to abuse.

Even at this stage, the gas chamber rule has not yet been invoked and at some point the majority of her access privileges may be restored. The ultimate decision in these matters will be based on an evaluation of her patterns of conduct and the expected risks that the conduct might be repeated or continued and based on a review of the past three sets of deliberate choices to abuse the privileges of membership on this site.

Like I said in my first post, I agree with cheaters being removed. I think it's great that the gotm staff has had a thorough investigation and reviewing process. I'm not argueing that the gotm community needs to know more about this matter. I trust in the staff to make the decision in these cases as long as it doesn't evolve into dictator-like behaviour (and let me make it clear that I think the staff seems to be far from that in this case).

However, the recent spamming, multiple PMs and other irregularities (and, may I add, a bit over-zealous behaviour that ISN'T irregular) from Ribannah confirms my notion that the gotm has become too big an issue for her. To rephrase my point from my last post: it's not about whether the gotm should work as a democracy, nor whether it should be a judicially sound system. Those just take to much time and effort to implement on a satisfactory level.
But I think we, as a community, need to listen to her case. Not because we want the gory details and we certainly don't need the obviously futile debate, but because we should take the big picture, do the right thing: allow a person whose game(s) got out of hand to make her case or say her apologies. Sometimes people rise to such a challenge and do the right thing themselves.
If you think all that sounds like a cliché, it probably is. Compassion is probably one of the most wornout and to a certain degree despised aspects of human entity in this postmodern world.

Is it possible to give Ribannah access to one thread? (This one.)

If Ribannah was given access to the site, I doubt that she would do much other than post to this thread. It is specifically desired, according to Cracker, for her not to be able to post anything in this thread.

I, and I'm sure some others who are interested in the right of accused to reply, would be happy to post in a response from Ribannah, but Cracker has already indicated that this would not be allowed behavior. So even if it were technically possible, it would not be done, since it is the intent to suppress anything Ribannah wants to say.

Of course, although I do respectfully disagree with Cracker in some regards, I intend to attempt to comply with all of the site rules, and thus although Ribannah has sent me some material which she would very much like to become known, since she thinks there are some notable innaccuracies in certain posts in this thread, (and I'm sure that if any of us had things said about them that they felt were untrue, they would vigorously want to be able to post a response) I have declined to post any of it.

-Sirp.

@ Sirp: I also got PMs and an email from Ribannah, and I have to say that after thinking about it a bit, I wasn't impressed. It was one part an appeal to pity on the argument of persecution, which I don't believe is supported; and one part distraction, bringing up the fairly irrelevent issue of the number of reloads in GOTM19. Of course she might have said something else to you.

I can't say I agree with every aspect of how this has been handled either. And I'm not wholly convinced of Ribannah's guilt; I'd have to see the evidence myself to be certain on that one way or the other. This is what I told her in my response to her email, and she hasn't contacted me since then.

That said, I find it a lot easier to believe that one person is lying than that a dozen are, most of whom have no conceivable axe to grind in this matter.

Renata, done kicking the dead horse

I think that one of the imain ssues here is that staff are reluctant to reveal the full extent of the kind of analyses that GOTM games are subject to. This would make it easier for unscrupulous players to exploit the mechanisms and avoid showing up on the radar. I fully understand why the GOTM staff do not wish to place such evidence in an open forum.

Equally players have no means to judge for themselves the guilt or otherwise of the accused and therefore cries of persecution and vindictiveness can be difficult to reject.

In the end, I guess it comes down to - do you trust the GOTM staff to be fair and objective about this or not. Players of the stature of Cracker , Aeson, Creepster, Tzurce, Phil Martin, Borealis, Zagnut, Rufryder and others have not reached their conclusions without a lot of discussion, a heavy heart and much sadness.

Ribannah sent me a PM questioning me where I got the battle numbers in a previous post I made. I sent her a PM, but she spent half the day on-line and sending PMs to other people, never taking a look at my PM, until she no longer had that priviledge.

It was information I compiled through my own individual investigation after this disqualification decision was already made.

Sirp, if you want, I can send you that information to you, if you would like. I don't feel comfortable just to send you a PM unless you want it, or are expecting it.

Ok, the horse needs a few more good whallops ...

Originally posted by col
I think that one of the imain ssues here is that staff are reluctant to reveal the full extent of the kind of analyses that GOTM games are subject to. This would make it easier for unscrupulous players to exploit the mechanisms and avoid showing up on the radar. I fully understand why the GOTM staff do not wish to place such evidence in an open forum.


I was actually going to post a speculation along these lines yesterday, then decided not to hit send, since it would have been just a speculation.

I used to be a tournament director for a league that has ladders and tournaments for most of the games on Yahoo (card games, word games, etc). Cheating on Yahoo is rampant;