Adjustments to exclude specific games from GOTM results

[TC3]

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.

 

[Borealis]

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.

 

[JonathanValjean]

[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.

 

[AlanH]

Originally posted by denyd
I can think of someone who fits your requirements: Matrix

They'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.

 

[Smirk]

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.)

 

[TC3]

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.

 

[Sirp]

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.

 

[Creepster]

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.

 

[Sirp]

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.

 

[Aeson]

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.

 

[ltcoljt]

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.

 

[Sirp]

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.

 

[cracker]

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.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

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.

 

[ControlFreak]

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

 

[Sirp]

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.

 

[Renata]

@ 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

 

[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.

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.

 

[Bamspeedy]

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.

 

[Renata]

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; this particular league is one of the few that bothers to do anything about it. The powers that be within that league never release evidence when a player is accused of cheating, a policy which leads to the sort of concerns expressed in this thread. Their reason is the need to keep their methods of detection secret: most of the games have relatively few means with which to prove even blatant cheating, and those means have to be guarded if they're to be of any use in preserving the integrity of the competitions.

I had some internal struggle with this policy before coming to the conclusion that it was a necessary evil; maybe that's why I have little difficulty accepting the lack of evidence given here, even if it means I can never be 100% sure.

Renata (*whack*)