Adjustments to exclude specific games from GOTM results

[Sirp]

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.

 

[Darkness]

@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....

 

[RufRydyr]

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.]

 

[mad-bax]

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.

 

[Sirp]

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.

 

[mad-bax]

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.

 

[Renata]

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

 

[Karasu]

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...

 

[Capt Buttkick]

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.

 

[ControlFreak]

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.

 

[mad-bax]

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.

 

[donsig]

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.

 

[ltcoljt]

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.

 

[forged]

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.

 

[Bamspeedy]

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?

 

[alamo]

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.

 

[ltcoljt]

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.

 

[col]

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.

 

[AlanH]

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?

 

[Qitai]

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!!