[Rules/MED] Cheaters should be stripped of medals [Rejected]

[MegaProphet]

This suggestion is aimed at premium players only, and thus proposing an unbalanced punishment system. It would have to be implemented universally if at all.

I agree with this

This determination will be one of the main points of whether this has a chance to make it through. First thing that must be decided is what infractions specifically this suggestion would apply to. Trying to blanket this type of disciplinary action over all types of infractions would be ridiculous.

I think it should only apply to large scale in-game cheating not any sort of forum, chat, or pm infraction. It should apply to multis and farming mostly

Secondly, you would have to have a fair way to determine what types and how many should be revoked. Once again, this seems like it would be a nightmare and a huge additional load to the C&A team to actually come up with hard numbers on affected victories and types.

All medals should be stripped

There is another issue with the implementation of this type of punishment. The fact that many of the "rules" are subjectively interpreted and standard definitions are avoided would create circumstances that would be unfair to the alleged rulebreaker. I would definitely not support any such measures to be imposed on any infraction that was not properly defined in the rules and the determination not subjective in any way, nor would I support the purely punitive measure as stated previously.

I think this suggestion needs to be more specific to have a true debate on whether to implement the suggestion.
What to punish and how.

There have been way too many cases ended unsatisfactorily to be comfortable with this potentially a blanket punishment.

I think this is more of a problem with the rules in general rather than with this suggestion. If a definitive answer for what gross abuse constitutes can be created for this suggestion I'm all for it, but it might as well be applied to all of the punishments given.

[jghost7]

Players found guilty of cheating should be stripped of their medals

The general opinion so far is that medal stripping should be a punishment, and the discussion currently concerns what category of cheating should be dealt with, and whether certain medals should be excepted.

My thoughts, as a whole, are that all medals regarding standard gameplay should be stripped, and that it should be reserved for cheaters who use multis to manipulate the system.

Agree, except: strip cheaters of all medals, not just those regarding standard gameplay. Don't take time to research, "which medals," take them all away.

Real life comparison: in sports, those who have been found to indulge in "cheating" behavior, be it a competitor taking steroids or other enhancing drugs during some competitions, or a coach ignoring illegal and immoral activities - that someone else was perpetrating - are being stripped of all wins, not just those that can be "proven" to have occurred while these wrong behaviors were going on.

I don't think that this statement is accurate. Please specify which sport or event you are referring to. For example... Ben Johnson, a Canadian sprinter found positive for doping, had his 88 gold medal stripped, but still retains his 2 bronzes from 84, etc...

Thanks,

J

Most recently, Lance Armstrong was stripped of all 7 Tour De France titles for doping charges.

Ahhhh, but it was alleged that "...he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998..." and his first Tour win was 99, so he was stripped of the wins that occurred within the dates of doping. So, this wasn't a 'strip everything' penalty, it was measured to include the Wins that occurred withing the doping dates.


Thanks,

J

[jghost7]

This determination will be one of the main points of whether this has a chance to make it through. First thing that must be decided is what infractions specifically this suggestion would apply to. Trying to blanket this type of disciplinary action over all types of infractions would be ridiculous.

I think it should only apply to large scale in-game cheating not any sort of forum, chat, or pm infraction. It should apply to multis and farming mostly

Like what exactly? This would have to be specific...
Multis and medals? Don't think that will affect much. Farming and its subsequent spawn are the hardest to classify. It is one of the most subjective and controversial rules, and farming is generally for points not medals, so am not sure of the appropriateness of the penalty.

Secondly, you would have to have a fair way to determine what types and how many should be revoked. Once again, this seems like it would be a nightmare and a huge additional load to the C&A team to actually come up with hard numbers on affected victories and types.

All medals should be stripped
I disagree here.
I think worst case scenario, it would have to be only the affected medals. I truly do not think it is wise to fiddle around with the medals at all.

There is another issue with the implementation of this type of punishment. The fact that many of the "rules" are subjectively interpreted and standard definitions are avoided would create circumstances that would be unfair to the alleged rulebreaker. I would definitely not support any such measures to be imposed on any infraction that was not properly defined in the rules and the determination not subjective in any way, nor would I support the purely punitive measure as stated previously.

I think this suggestion needs to be more specific to have a true debate on whether to implement the suggestion.
What to punish and how.

There have been way too many cases ended unsatisfactorily to be comfortable with this potentially a blanket punishment.

I think this is more of a problem with the rules in general rather than with this suggestion. If a definitive answer for what gross abuse constitutes can be created for this suggestion I'm all for it, but it might as well be applied to all of the punishments given.
Even if you say that there is a problem regarding the rules, what do you think they use to determine whats punishable? Yes, the rules. If there is a perceived problem with the rules, then why would you go further and exacerbate the problem by adding a controversial penalty to go with the controversial rules interpretations? Add to that the fact that worst ones that you are trying to target with this change are the least likely to care.

USADA would say this:
....
now, how does this bear up with the op's premise? retroactively changing individual games (or medals or whatever) is just plain a bad idea

I agree.



Thanks,

J

[Doc_Brown]

The idea of a point reset for cheaters has been presented a number of times. It makes sense as a punishment for the cheater, but the problem is that it has the same effect as point dumping and can punish other people on the site that would now be playing with a higher level player that has a low score.

There is a possible solution for this: Introducing a "cheating modifier" in the point calculation equation. This value would be added to the cheater's score during the calculations. The modifier would start at a very high value and decay linearly to zero over some time period (say, 6 months). I'd suggest that the modifier be initially set to the highest score on the site so that cheater initially wins and loses points as if he was the conqueror, but he has a very low score to show for it.

As an example, suppose a player, we'll call him X, was caught cheating. He had a score of 3000 when he was caught and his points were reset to 1000. As of today, the highest score on the site is 5018. X plays two games against a player (named Y) with 3000 points. He wins one and loses the other. Under normal circumstances, X would gain 20x(3000/1000) = 60 points from Y for the game he wins and lose 20x(1000/3000) = 7 points to Y for the game he lost. The net would be a gain for X of 53 points.
Now factor in the point modifier. X gains 20x(3000/(1000+5018)) = 10 points for the game he wins and loses 20x((1000+5018)/3000) = 40 points for the other. He has a net loss of 30 points.

[Woodruff]

The idea of a point reset for cheaters has been presented a number of times. It makes sense as a punishment for the cheater, but the problem is that it has the same effect as point dumping and can punish other people on the site that would now be playing with a higher level player that has a low score.

There is a possible solution for this: Introducing a "cheating modifier" in the point calculation equation. This value would be added to the cheater's score during the calculations. The modifier would start at a very high value and decay linearly to zero over some time period (say, 6 months). I'd suggest that the modifier be initially set to the highest score on the site so that cheater initially wins and loses points as if he was the conqueror, but he has a very low score to show for it.

As an example, suppose a player, we'll call him X, was caught cheating. He had a score of 3000 when he was caught and his points were reset to 1000. As of today, the highest score on the site is 5018. X plays two games against a player (named Y) with 3000 points. He wins one and loses the other. Under normal circumstances, X would gain 20x(3000/1000) = 60 points from Y for the game he wins and lose 20x(1000/3000) = 7 points to Y for the game he lost. The net would be a gain for X of 53 points.
Now factor in the point modifier. X gains 20x(3000/(1000+5018)) = 10 points for the game he wins and loses 20x((1000+5018)/3000) = 40 points for the other. He has a net loss of 30 points.

I like that idea, Doc, and I have previously been against the idea of a point reset for exactly the reasons you mention! I think that would be an excellent addition to the suggestion. Simple, yet effective.

[agentcom]

The idea of a point reset for cheaters has been presented a number of times. It makes sense as a punishment for the cheater, but the problem is that it has the same effect as point dumping and can punish other people on the site that would now be playing with a higher level player that has a low score.

There is a possible solution for this: Introducing a "cheating modifier" in the point calculation equation. This value would be added to the cheater's score during the calculations. The modifier would start at a very high value and decay linearly to zero over some time period (say, 6 months). I'd suggest that the modifier be initially set to the highest score on the site so that cheater initially wins and loses points as if he was the conqueror, but he has a very low score to show for it.

As an example, suppose a player, we'll call him X, was caught cheating. He had a score of 3000 when he was caught and his points were reset to 1000. As of today, the highest score on the site is 5018. X plays two games against a player (named Y) with 3000 points. He wins one and loses the other. Under normal circumstances, X would gain 20x(3000/1000) = 60 points from Y for the game he wins and lose 20x(1000/3000) = 7 points to Y for the game he lost. The net would be a gain for X of 53 points.
Now factor in the point modifier. X gains 20x(3000/(1000+5018)) = 10 points for the game he wins and loses 20x((1000+5018)/3000) = 40 points for the other. He has a net loss of 30 points.

Doc, +1 for the first paragraph of this post. I was about to say the same thing. I think because of this it is safe to say that the point reset is fairly well off the table right now.

That is an interesting fix to the problem, but I highly doubt that the score system will be changed in that way.

[SirSebstar]

mmm.
do i understand this correctly? Do you propose to add the cheater score to the current rank of the cheater? if so, for how long? because in terms of rank, he will lose more points then he can ever gain, so soon he will be in the lower 400.... either this stops him to play, or it will cause agrevation for other players.\please tell me where i am wrong

The idea of a point reset for cheaters has been presented a number of times. It makes sense as a punishment for the cheater, but the problem is that it has the same effect as point dumping and can punish other people on the site that would now be playing with a higher level player that has a low score.

There is a possible solution for this: Introducing a "cheating modifier" in the point calculation equation. This value would be added to the cheater's score during the calculations. The modifier would start at a very high value and decay linearly to zero over some time period (say, 6 months). I'd suggest that the modifier be initially set to the highest score on the site so that cheater initially wins and loses points as if he was the conqueror, but he has a very low score to show for it.

As an example, suppose a player, we'll call him X, was caught cheating. He had a score of 3000 when he was caught and his points were reset to 1000. As of today, the highest score on the site is 5018. X plays two games against a player (named Y) with 3000 points. He wins one and loses the other. Under normal circumstances, X would gain 20x(3000/1000) = 60 points from Y for the game he wins and lose 20x(1000/3000) = 7 points to Y for the game he lost. The net would be a gain for X of 53 points.
Now factor in the point modifier. X gains 20x(3000/(1000+5018)) = 10 points for the game he wins and loses 20x((1000+5018)/3000) = 40 points for the other. He has a net loss of 30 points.

[Woodruff]

mmm.
do i understand this correctly? Do you propose to add the cheater score to the current rank of the cheater? if so, for how long? because in terms of rank, he will lose more points then he can ever gain, so soon he will be in the lower 400.... either this stops him to play, or it will cause agrevation for other players.\please tell me where i am wrong

Makes sense. Some sort of proration would logically need to take place. But that could easily be coded to happen automatically. This really is (combined with your caveat here) an elegant and simple solution.

And then again, I can't help but also think..."f*ck the cheater". <smile>

[chapcrap]

Umm, what do you want discussed if you think there is already a concensus?

Kind of a strange question. I think the suggestion should be moved up a notch, given that there seems to be a consensus and no clear objections. Do you have an objection, or are you prolonging this for some other reason?

Full disclosure Chapcrap- do you have an ulterior motive? Have you ever been caught, warned or noted by the Cheating and Abuse team?

Full disclosure, I think you're a troll. I have no ulterior motive. I actually agree with the suggestion for the most part, so you're just being ridiculous. Let's respond to a few things.

1. Have I been warned? No
2. Have I been caught? No
3. Have I been noted? Yes, but that's pretty irrelevant and doesn't mean I was cheating at all...because I wasn't.

I object to this. Not a cheater. Have no reason to worry. Just think it's going to take a lot of time to research which medals were earned while cheating and which weren't.

Fair enough- i was being a bit sneaky on that and directing the post toward Chappy- ChapCrap got noted for some very sus behaviour, and I was involved in pointing it out. He's currently under notice from the mods, and he's not happy that people are watching his behaviour.

That's me coming clean on that post. I hope ChapCrap is able to talk about what he has to gain or lose, or simply if he's able to come clean about what motivates his posts.

In the report that got noted, all you did was troll there. You didn't initiate the report or add a thing to it. In fact you ignored specific facts and made posts that didn't make sense. So, the only thing you have to take credit for is being absurd. Mods aren't looking into me. They already did, decided I wasn't cheated and noted the report.

Here's what was driving my posts before you decided to bait me in your own thread:

• Cheating is stupid.
• Cheaters should be punished more.
• Thinking about why someone who doesn't play any games cares about medals.

[agentcom]

Chap,

This was already addressed. Please don't fuel the fire. Here it is again in case you missed it.

I object to this. Not a cheater. Have no reason to worry. Just think it's going to take a lot of time to research which medals were earned while cheating and which weren't.

Fair enough- i was being a bit sneaky on that and directing the post toward Chappy- ChapCrap got noted for some very sus behaviour, and I was involved in pointing it out. He's currently under notice from the mods, and he's not happy that people are watching his behaviour.

That's me coming clean on that post. I hope ChapCrap is able to talk about what he has to gain or lose, or simply if he's able to come clean about what motivates his posts.

But cheers, Pat, I disagree, but at least you posted a point that can be discussed.

Why do you think it would take too long?

Symmetry, I don't think anyone here cares to hear your characterization of other people's behavior, your belief on what the mods are doing or your take on chap's emotional state.

[Symmetry]

Umm, what do you want discussed if you think there is already a concensus?

Kind of a strange question. I think the suggestion should be moved up a notch, given that there seems to be a consensus and no clear objections. Do you have an objection, or are you prolonging this for some other reason?

Full disclosure Chapcrap- do you have an ulterior motive? Have you ever been caught, warned or noted by the Cheating and Abuse team?

Full disclosure, I think you're a troll. I have no ulterior motive. I actually agree with the suggestion for the most part, so you're just being ridiculous. Let's respond to a few things.

1. Have I been warned? No
2. Have I been caught? No
3. Have I been noted? Yes, but that's pretty irrelevant and doesn't mean I was cheating at all...because I wasn't.

I object to this. Not a cheater. Have no reason to worry. Just think it's going to take a lot of time to research which medals were earned while cheating and which weren't.

Fair enough- i was being a bit sneaky on that and directing the post toward Chappy- ChapCrap got noted for some very sus behaviour, and I was involved in pointing it out. He's currently under notice from the mods, and he's not happy that people are watching his behaviour.

That's me coming clean on that post. I hope ChapCrap is able to talk about what he has to gain or lose, or simply if he's able to come clean about what motivates his posts.

In the report that got noted, all you did was troll there. You didn't initiate the report or add a thing to it. In fact you ignored specific facts and made posts that didn't make sense. So, the only thing you have to take credit for is being absurd. Mods aren't looking into me. They already did, decided I wasn't cheated and noted the report.

Here's what was driving my posts before you decided to bait me in your own thread:

• Cheating is stupid.
• Cheaters should be punished more.
• Thinking about why someone who doesn't play any games cares about medals.

Fair enough, and I'm not a troll. I kind of suspected that you weren't being totally honest in the thread. At least I'm no more a troll than you, and of course you were noted by the mods for dodgy behaviour (I wasn't the only poster to find your actions sus- obviously the other mods did too).

But, yeah, thanks for at least the full disclosure, after, what 13 pages?

So, anyway, your trolling me, and me being very doubtful of your character... do you have anything to add to the suggestion?

Would it have been a good idea if someone else had posted it?

[jghost7]

Fair enough, and I'm not a troll.

Well, your actions at times suggests otherwise. This was addressed on both ends by Agentcom and could have been dropped there.

I kind of suspected that you weren't being totally honest in the thread. At least I'm no more a troll than you, and of course you were noted by the mods for dodgy behaviour (I wasn't the only poster to find your actions sus- obviously the other mods did too).

Irrelevant and a troll/bait. Also as an aside, noted, is not a guilty verdict.

But, yeah, thanks for at least the full disclosure, after, what 13 pages?

No 'disclosure' is necessary or warranted. Quit acting like he owes you any explanation or that it affects the validity of his thoughts on the suggestion in any way.

So, anyway, your trolling me,

So, you go and troll back? After it was checked by Agentcom...?

and me being very doubtful of your character...

Irrelevant and also trolling/baiting. Who really cares about your thoughts of his character?

do you have anything to add to the suggestion?

A better question, Do you? Lets go and count... You have approximately 38 useless noncontributing posts vs. approximately 8(counting the OP) that could possibly seem remotely like you tried to add something. You have been posting to keep the topic active I think. You rarely add, but want to try to roll over anyone who does not necessarily agree. It really is funny.

Would it have been a good idea if someone else had posted it?

This is a dumb statement.

Thanks,

J

[Symmetry]

Would it have been a good idea if someone else had posted it?

This is a dumb statement.

Thanks,

J

Not really. You've done your best to attack me, rather than offer criticism of the suggestion. Your focus is, as per the above posts, suggests that you don't like me.

That's fair, although I would say that you could vent the bile you have toward me in the off topics forum. So, let's have a hypothetical- you want to post a legitimate criticism of the suggestion as it stands-

What would you say if you had to ignore your anger?

[jghost7]

Would it have been a good idea if someone else had posted it?

This is a dumb statement.

Thanks,

J

Not really. You've done your best to attack me, rather than offer criticism of the suggestion. Your focus is, as per the above posts, suggests that you don't like me.

That's fair, although I would say that you could vent the bile you have toward me in the off topics forum. So, let's have a hypothetical- you want to post a legitimate criticism of the suggestion as it stands-

What would you say if you had to ignore your anger?

LOL, Ah, you purposely misunderstand or ignore the truth. I have no anger or dislike towards you, but I do oppose the suggestion as it stands.

I do harbor though, some minor frustration at your posts. You obviously ignore or use other methods of passing opposing view of the suggestion without offering any substantial debate or reasoning for your posts. You criticize others posts, or ask for others opinions without adding anything constructive yourself. As I stated before, you have posted in here somewhere around 46 posts, yet somehow only 8 including the OP, have made any minor attempt to add to the discussion.
You ask for me to share my legitimate criticisms of the suggestion, but I have and yet refuse to read or address them even after I conveniently repost it or post links to them.

I will not rise to your trolling though. I have to assume that is what it is because no one is really that thick.
I will also not retype my criticisms and objections until you or someone else wishes to actually address them. I could even add more, but there is no need to as long as you continue to post as you do. I have reposted them as well as giving links to them. Go back and look, or not. When you do read them, then we can go from there.

Thanks,

J

[chapcrap]

Umm, what do you want discussed if you think there is already a concensus?

Kind of a strange question. I think the suggestion should be moved up a notch, given that there seems to be a consensus and no clear objections. Do you have an objection, or are you prolonging this for some other reason?

Full disclosure Chapcrap- do you have an ulterior motive? Have you ever been caught, warned or noted by the Cheating and Abuse team?

Full disclosure, I think you're a troll. I have no ulterior motive. I actually agree with the suggestion for the most part, so you're just being ridiculous. Let's respond to a few things.

1. Have I been warned? No
2. Have I been caught? No
3. Have I been noted? Yes, but that's pretty irrelevant and doesn't mean I was cheating at all...because I wasn't.

I object to this. Not a cheater. Have no reason to worry. Just think it's going to take a lot of time to research which medals were earned while cheating and which weren't.

Fair enough- i was being a bit sneaky on that and directing the post toward Chappy- ChapCrap got noted for some very sus behaviour, and I was involved in pointing it out. He's currently under notice from the mods, and he's not happy that people are watching his behaviour.

That's me coming clean on that post. I hope ChapCrap is able to talk about what he has to gain or lose, or simply if he's able to come clean about what motivates his posts.

In the report that got noted, all you did was troll there. You didn't initiate the report or add a thing to it. In fact you ignored specific facts and made posts that didn't make sense. So, the only thing you have to take credit for is being absurd. Mods aren't looking into me. They already did, decided I wasn't cheated and noted the report.

Here's what was driving my posts before you decided to bait me in your own thread:

• Cheating is stupid.
• Cheaters should be punished more.
• Thinking about why someone who doesn't play any games cares about medals.

Fair enough, and I'm not a troll. I kind of suspected that you weren't being totally honest in the thread. At least I'm no more a troll than you, and of course you were noted by the mods for dodgy behaviour (I wasn't the only poster to find your actions sus- obviously the other mods did too).

But, yeah, thanks for at least the full disclosure, after, what 13 pages?

So, anyway, your trolling me, and me being very doubtful of your character... do you have anything to add to the suggestion?

Would it have been a good idea if someone else had posted it?

I already said I agreed with the suggestion, dummy. And you can't say after 13 pages anyway. The C&A report that you trolled was in the middle of this suggestion. This thread started on May 2. That report was on August 2, 3 months later. That means it happened in the middle of page 10 when you couldn't figure out what jghost was saying. Grow a brain.

How about this, respond to things about this thread and quit trying to say I'm a cheater when I'm not?

[The Voice]

This isn't going anywhere good

[chapcrap]

This isn't going anywhere good

Yeah...

Bottom line, I'm not a cheater. I'm in favor of punishing cheaters by stripping medals. I'm done here.

[agentcom]

This isn't going anywhere good

Yep. Locked for a bit.

[agentcom]

This isn't going anywhere good

Yep. Locked for a bit.

In fact, I don't think this is going anywhere at all. At least not with the current flag bearer. Symmetry, this is the second time that you've gotten this post locked. I don't see anything else to do but move this to rejected.

There are people who agree with you and this suggestion. If any of those people wish to repost this suggestion AND comb through this thread and fairly (giving weight to both sides of the argument) quote and post a summary of the meaningful contributions, then feel free and I will sticky it.

I realize this is an unorthodox solution, but I think the current situation is rather unique and, more importantly, not working.

In the meantime, I will leave this stickied and locked for a period of time to give anyone who wants to repost it time to gather their thoughts.

I would recommend that any such user post the suggestion in the first post and summarize/quote the commentary in a second post.

Anyone who wants to PM me about this, feel free to do so. Especially anyone who wants to salvage this suggestion. If more than one person wants to do it, I'll put you guys in touch with each other.

[agentcom]

I believe that I have given ample opportunity for someone to come forward, and no one has. This was a fair opportunity for someone who is either for or against the suggestion to take charge of the suggestion and facilitate debate. Not one user besides Symmetry has shown that sort of interest.

This being the case, I have a hard time believing that there are strong proponents of either side of the debate (except Symmetry). In theory, this means that it should be easy for those involved to participate dispassionately in any further debate. So, keep it civil and on-topic.

UNLOCKED.

[Symmetry]

I'm going to leave this thread alone now. I think that the general support for the idea got drowned out due to my presence. Hopefully leaving the thread thread to develop on its own will evoke rational criticism of the idea without the ad homs and slanging matches that I have too readily engaged in.

I hope this idea gets discussed on its own merits as a legitimate suggestion, and that those who disliked me personally having suggested it will engage more dispassionately and with greater reason.

Sym

[Evil Semp]

Is stripping of medals going to stop people from creating additional accounts? Will it be a deterrent?

My opinion is no it will not be a deterrent. Many multi's are created to get around the 4 game limit.

I personally don't concern myself with medals. I have medals and points but I don't play for them. It doesn't matter to me if stripping medals would be an added punishment.

[Funkyterrance]

I think this would be particularly important regarding Conqueror medals, if it were instated. I think that proven cheaters should get a perma-ban with no option to start another account. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure how this stands with the mods at the mo, but it kind of looks like most folks have said what they want to say. My take is, of course, that it seems like a good idea. I'm not sure if anyone else has input to give, but do so if you have.

[Funkyterrance]

Is stripping of medals going to stop people from creating additional accounts? Will it be a deterrent?

My opinion is no it will not be a deterrent. Many multi's are created to get around the 4 game limit.

I personally don't concern myself with medals. I have medals and points but I don't play for them. It doesn't matter to me if stripping medals would be an added punishment.

I don't know if this will stop people from making more accounts but I also think this is beside the point. What's fair is fair and what's right is right. If you are caught cheating it's safe to assume that you didn't earn your medals in the first place.