Sucks to be you.

Situations are not always so black and white. It would not necessarily be the best course of action to force cancel every game affected by a cheater. We handle things on a case by case basis, but we generally let the remaining players decide how to let the game play out (be it a cancel, draw, or playing on) after cheaters have been removed.

Situations are simply black my friend when the games are anonymous and players cannot talk with each other... So What I say is, you have to interfere the anonymous games...

If cheaters have defeated even a single player that is unfair to that player to continue the game. But mods give the decisions to the majority.

If 2 players are effected by the cheating, what is the point of letting other 5 players (2 of which took the place of banned players) to decide the game? If it was thought to be 'democratic', that is clearly wrong. This is clearly tyranny of majority =o

What is the message that the policy and mods give to us? We dont want cheaters but we dont care about what they do to you? What is the aim? Increasing the number of finished games in the statistics below the page? I thought people who make these policy and people who apply it are more responsible and care truly about players. But it seems like they are either indifferent to fairness to players, or they seriously lack common sense, at least in seeing the message they give to players.

@Neb - only play passworded games especially on gunboats, then Joe Dickupasshole and Jane Cockinmouth can't just come along and snag these positions.

I am always hearing the same things, but these are not solutions to the unfairness.

Besides,What if that happens in a passworded games? Should I not invite strangers? If someone is determined to cheat you cannot stop them. You cannot prevent the cheaters in a such open web-game. We all know and accept this.

I do appreciate that in web-diplomacy the cheaters are not many compared to many other online games. That is not my point. My point is cheaters and cheating happens, but the mods are suppose to correct the harm the cheaters did.

When we start a public anonymous game, we take the risk of cheaters coming to our games. But if there is a cheating going on, what we expect is everyone is put back to their place before the game, as if the game has never started...

What we get is, cheaters get kicked. But nothing else happens. They get away with what they do...

Initially this does not deter cheaters. They know that in the worst case they will annoy some players and perhaps make them stop playing.

If the games were cancelled then all they do would be futile and remaining players, if they wish, can start a new game...

What I do not understand is why mods are so scared of cancelling a game that involved cheats...

Passworded games require the replacement to be invited to. So don't invite anyone to the game if positions are banned.

Are the mods supposed to trump the wishes of the majority of the players to satisfy a minority?

The mods should look at all active games in which about to be banned players are playing and consider whether someone got a raw deal and compensate accordingly. If it is clear the cheats destroyed the game for one or more players, then cancel. It should be part of their due diligence. At a minimum, they should be forcible paused and the mods query the remaining active players if they are all willing to continue whent ehy (the mods) feel the game has been seriously altered by the cheating.

Most cheats are useless anyhow unless they have more than half the nations as their multis, so this isn't *that* common an occurence, but it isn't fair to the players who played by the rules and got taken down by the cheater or is left ravaged with no hope.

And yes, the wishes of the majority can be trumped in this case. Last I checked, this isn't a democracy and even in a democracy, the majority can be overruled in the name of justice. It only takes one juror to prevent an innocent man from going to jail or worse even if the other 11 want him to rot.

That is exactly what I mean draugnar. But that does not happen... Players who suffered are completely deserted by mods...

Agreed. Which is why I only play passworded non-live, non-gunboat games. Non-live means less likelyhood of a cheat as they go for the quick fix. Non-gunoat means it can be talked out if one does make it in. And passworded means if a cheat does make it in, he won't be replaced once he is banned

So when the mods fail to provide a fair solution, the players have to limit and change their playing habits... This also disrepute the game server... Lets be honest here cheaters do get away with what they have done and fair players left to suffer...

I think it is time to hear from a mod or someone higher about this issue as well...

I wouldn't say cheaters get away with it. they get banned and the mods have tools that prevent them from returning (or catxch them quickly when they try). That would be like saying the murderer got away with it when he was put to death. No, he didn't get away with it, but his victims are still dead just the same. But the mods have the ability to undo the damage done to some extent and need to look further into what they can and should do to undo it.

Well, only for making a better example, it is more like it is a robbery and the thief might be in the jail, but the goods he stole are not returned to the owners but given to someone else :P

Btw, when I experience a game involved cheating years ago, the points were given back, but according to the new changes in the policy (regarding the conversation I had with a mod) they do not do it anymore. They do not undo the damage done. That is what i am criticising...

What happens to those points that have been robbed from you by cheaters?
To be fair I've been topped back up to 100 so many times I must be minus a couple of thousand, but that is still no justice for players who have been mugged of their points by dirty rotten cheaters !!

@Nigee - Your top ups are where the points go. :-)

But seriously, points are virtual things. The syste, creates them and drops them at will. There is no bank they get returned to. They just get deleted from a banned players account and more created when a new player joins the site or an existing player gets a refill.

Draug
Is there a waiting list to be a Mod and if so are you on that list?
If Romney can stand for President of the US, why not Draugnar for President of Webdip

No thanks. I've said often enough I wouldn't take it if offered to me. I don't want the headache or the responsibility of having to stay sane and not rant like I'm want to do oft enough.

OK, swap then. Romney becomes a Mod and you stand for the White House. This could be the greatest coup ever, millions of dollars invested in software designed to root out meta-gamers and Obama being called a Fucktard.....pure genius !!

Um, I reserve the right to use fucktard for people I generally could like but may disagree with at the moment. Obama is the much worse asswipe or as I like to call him Obamination and his policies Obaminations.

@OP

So, what you are suggesting is that any game which has more than one account banned be cancelled? That could be considered.

What about finished games? It's unfortunate, but the reality is we can't always get to a case before the game is finished. Do you have thoughts on that?

Re Points: We do not reimburse points. It is too much of a hassle. Not a good reason, but that's the way of it.

abgemacht
webDip Admin

Yes, if an on-going game has more than one player banned, then it must be cancelled immediately because some players will be in disadvantage and the players who suffered may not create a majority to cancel the game themselves. If you also consider that some new players will take the advantageous conditions of the banned player, it is impossible to cancel a such game actually. That is unfair to those who suffered (especially those who got defeated or got in an impossible situation to survive). For that reason, on-going games with more than one banned players must be cancelled and mods' policy of "non-inference to games unless they have to" should not be applied here as they have to cancel the game for players who suffered. That is my main concern

Naturally, this should also be valid for games where the cheaters are found after the game. But if it not possible or too much trouble to cancel a game and rectify the points after it is finished, then I cannot find a solution but, I suppose, programmers can.

I thought if the games remain "cancelable" (at least by mods) even after they are finished this might be a solution. As you need everyone's vote to cancel, no one who wins the game would cancel their game, but if mods can force them to cancel in games with cheaters.

But I really do not know how the programming/system works and whether my suggestion is practically possible or makes sense at all...

@Neb:
I'm also a moderator on this site. I posted a point earlier that a rigid policy mandating a force cancel in all cases where one or more cheater has been banned in an ongoing game is simply too rigid. However, we do try our best to handle things on a case-by-case basis to keep things fair.

Imagine the following cases:
1) a game that was not directly affected by cheating but with one player that was banned for cheating in another game.
2) an ineffective multi in a game that had minimal impact on the game, perhaps already having been eliminated or marginalized.
3) a player that chooses to cheat in order to get the game derailed with a cancel.

I understand that you are referring to the scenarios on the other end of the spectrum, where perhaps the most fair thing to do would be a force cancel, but there are many other scenarios in between where it's a bit of a gray area.

I do think it is a good idea to minimize the impact of cheaters and keep games as fair as possible. However, there is a lot of gray area that requires careful, judgment calls.

@yebellz -
1) refers to a situation not being discussed here. Only mutliple banhammers in a game warrant the cancellation.
2) Who is to be the judge of what is minimal. Even if the banned accounts scavanged off each other, one of them got a distinct advatnage. However, I would see saying the ban count must be of two or more *active* accounts (i.e. not eliminated already) should be auto cancelled and any account with two or more where at least one is active should be looked at to see if the active remaining player was justy using the defeated accounts/nations to build his SC count up.

Finalyy, abge (who has, I believe, been a mod longer than you) has already gotten behind cancelling games with multiple banned accounts. There is no telling just what the damage is if one or more of the multiple accounts' nations is still in play.

@yebellz You were just telling the same thing : "The computer says no!" You did not give the reasons before... Besides, you clearly misunderstood me...

my criticism is NOT AGAINST USING A DISCRETION (im not yelling but emphasising, I wish I could just write in italics :D). you do not automatically kick players or cancel games like robots. if it were the way it is Im sure a programme could be written to take the job of the moderators. you are moderators because it is your responsibility to use that discretion to cancel games.

So I say, USE your discretion, DO NOT APPLY the cancellation RIGIDLY like robots. Check if there is an unfairness to players, or whether the cheating in the game have harmed a player...

But what is going on is completely different.

My criticism is that you DO NOT USE YOUR POWERS or DISCRETIONS at all. When players are banned you DO NOT CONSIDER whether someone is harmed, you just say "it is our policy not to interfere sorry we wont cancel your game" without checking whether I was harmed by the cheating!

If you would like to know which game I am talking about I can send it, jsut tell me.

So i am not talking about "other end of the spectrum". Right now, according to the policy in this game and according to the enforcements of Mods, tehre is NO GRAY AREA.

MODS adopted a RIGID RULE: Not to cancel any game even if there is a cheater.
I am telling you that YOU ARE the ones who apply it RIGIDLY WITHOUT LOOKING at whether someone is HARMED.

I have sent a long email to mods address stating why it is UNFAIR not to CANCEL the game I mentioned before. All I got is that is "no cancellation, against the policy, the computer says no!"...

If you have a policy to cancel the games, then APPLY IT! and in cases like you mentioned where you should not apply it, then DO NOT apply it. I am not gonna teach you your jobs, but as mods you have a responsiblity to players and you are the ones who are applying the rules rigidly.

You are talking about gray areas, and I totaly agree with you. But you say because there are gray areas we always have to apply it WHITE.

To clarify this issue I had to tell you that there are also BLACK issues. So that you see that there are GRAY AREAS where you should use your DISCRETION to CANCEL GAMES.

Sorry for the long message but Is there anything I am not clear right now?

"Finalyy, abge (who has, I believe, been a mod longer than you) has already gotten behind cancelling games with multiple banned accounts."

Um...no...I said, very clearly, that it would be considered.

Right. Considered is in essence getting behind it, at least compared to the blatant outright "no" yebellz issued.

I didn't say no. The ironic thing is that I'm actually in favor of cancelling such games. Was that unclear when I said "I do think it is a good idea to minimize the impact of cheaters and keep games as fair as possible"?

I'm just not in favor of us applying such a policy rigidly in either direction, and that judgment and discretion is needed.

We're actually currently discussing the issue amongst the mods.

That is great to hear. As I said, (if you read my message) to be honest you are ALREADY RIGIDLY applying a policy NOT TO cancel any games.

That is what I criticise in a nutshell. Cancel the games if there is an obvious unfairness, even to a single player.

Because, when you leave the decision to players it automatically leads to a tyranny of majority and those who suffered being in minority leaves the game empty handed whereas the remaining players take advantage of the opportunities created by the cheaters.

And if you think you are not rigidly applying the rule not to cancel (or more accurately "not to interfere with a game unless you have to") then I have a proof: a game where 2 players left to suffer while three players (2 who took over the cheaters and one who take advantage of the conditions left by the cheaters) are taking advantage of the cheating.
Since the game is anonymous I am not giving its address in public but I can send it to mods or you can find it in the report I have submitted to the mods email.

We are looking forward to hear the conclusions of your discussions...