Deciding On Fair Play

[Silene]

I think the initial objective of OP (independently from the "case") has some nice ideas.

I can imagine how this might actually work:

1. It should be possible to report someone for cheating (additional option when reporting. Giving proof including details would be necessary). Moderators will handle these cases in addition to other reasons like insults BUT in reduced priority because often those are not time-sensitive - so they could wait and maybe - if only a single report is there for one person, that wouldn't be handled so soon, maybe not at all until reports add up.

2. Handling cheating reports would require consultation of experts in the game as OP suggested.

3. In addition to volunteering as moderator, people could volunteer as expert in a specific game. Similar to the guru-system but voluntarily. You won't just be added, but if you reach a certain rank (top 5% percentile of players or something like that) you'd get an invitation to sign up as an expert. But it should also be possible for not-high-ranking-players to set themselves to volunteer and give a reason why they feel qualified.

4. Moderators, when they chose to handle a cheating-case, can pick an expert among the list of volunteers to discuss the case with them.

I don't know if this process is possible to add to the actual moderation-system because I don't know how it is decided now which cases they get or how the decision-process actually works and how high the workload is already. But maybe it's worth thinking about it for by now unhandled cheating-cases that are until now impossible to report as well as for possible unjust mod-decision in cases like the one presented here.
(under the assumption this one was indeed an unjust case, which I don't know but to me as someone who also played with a fixed partner only (but only a few games so far), I find it very possible because we have already been accused of cheating in chat despite we never cheated and I can very well imagine people might report us if we had played more).

In addition I want to say that I highly appreciate the work moderators are doing in general and I believe that in the majority of cases, the decisions are good and just. Also I am sure that it is impossible to get it right every time, and if someone is wrongfully accused, you should keep calm and not go full aggro about it . So I believe in general the system is working, but I would really like to see an additional cheating-handling, that isn't being done so far. Maybe it's not realistic to handle the workload that comes with it, but it would be great if it was possible.

[Silene]

...but maybe they should be called "consultant" or something like that to not confuse it with "expert" as in ELO 500-700

[Teddy_Winn]

I want to start off by saying that there are probably many cases where mods have done a great job. I’ll keep my tone as objective as possible.

Just like I’m prone to making a mistake from time to time, so are the mods. I want the mods to walk in the shoes of those who played fair and square.

Imagine if you will...that you (an honorable player) were subjected to unjust punishment based on numerous false reports sent to mods by others claiming you used multiple accounts to ‘cheat’. How would you feel if this happened to you?

Also, imagine, that you (as the wrongfully accused and wrongfully punished) receive a report claiming you boosted ELO with multiple accounts. This report has insufficient evidence or proof to back the claims it is making...It just says you are guilty of using multiple accounts to boost ELO...case closed.

What would be your response?

[FSKFSK]

It isn't like you're playing for money, just rating points on a website. At some point you have to accept the limitations of an Internet-based system.

If you want to make sure it's a fair game, the only way is to play in-person for money with an impartial referee monitoring the game.

[Teddy_Winn]

Before I continue with my response, I want to again thank the moderators for the job they do on this website. They have and I definitely no doubt believe that they do a great job for the most part.

“It isn't like you're playing for money, just rating points on a website.”

Cheaters could use the statement above to justify continuing to cheat and victimize others. Those who moderate and unintentionally/accidentally punish people who are actually innocent and don’t deserve punishment could also say the same thing above any time to gloss over potentially incorrect decisions.

“At some point you have to accept the limitations of an Internet-based system.”

Of course...but if moderators completely follow and absolutely take the above statement to heart, they will be less serious about stopping cheating if it is taking place...they might also not be as serious about taking back potential mistakes they make saying that after all internet based systems can’t be perfect and are limited in effectiveness.

“If you want to make sure it's a fair game, the only way is to play in-person for money with an impartial referee monitoring the game.”

It’s not the only way. See the fair play policy for chess.com along with the measures it takes to ensure that people play ethically. Its fair play system has even received endorsement by grandmasters (Source: https://www.chess.com/article/view/ches ... -detection)

Any time there’s a complicated game, I suggest one reliable method of finding out whether cheating exists involves having skillful players evaluate the players and the game along with the cheat detection methods applied for that game.

This idea of using skillful players in a game to detect cheating within that specific game is not new, original, or untested.

Quote:

“Chess.com's fair-play team employs industry-leading statisticians, computer scientists and chess experts:

Roland Walker | Director of Research
Gerard Le-Marechal | Head of Cheat-Detection and Chief of Data Analysis and Statistics
Richmond Holdren | Assistant of Cheat-Detection and Abuse Monitoring
Shaun McCoy | Director of Member Support
Erik Allebest | Chief Executive Officer
International Master Daniel Rensch | Chief Chess Officer
Grandmaster Robert Hess | Special Consultant and Professional Relations
Numerous international and grandmaster chess consultants”

[FSKFSK]

Chess has a lot more expert knowledge than most of the games here, so that really isn't a valid comparison. The #1 method for cheating at chess is to use a computer engine, which is very easy to police since the moderators also have the same software.

A lot of the cheating here would involve multi-accounting. That's harder to police. You'd also need an engine for each game that plays as well as chess computers to do any sort of automatic filtering.

There just isn't consensus for expert play on most of the games played here, nowhere close to what there is for chess. A lot of multiplayer games have the opportunity for kingmaking, but that can look like normal play a lot of the time.

[Häller Halle]

I'm intrigued on which games have cheaters and how are players cheating. I'm aware there was an issue with Letter Tycoon, and possibly other games, but this has been long solved by the platform by making those games not competitive.

[Teddy_Winn]

“Chess has a lot more expert knowledge than most of the games here, so that really isn't a valid comparison.”

The point of the comparison is to point out that there are strong players for almost all games. They are able to more easily detect cheating within those games than novices of the same game. If I’m moderator and the novice of a game, then I have no business trying to decide whether people are cheating in that specific game because I don’t even know it that well. I’m thus more prone to making mistakes.

“The #1 method for cheating at chess is to use a computer engine, which is very easy to police since the moderators also have the same software.”

Cheating does not have to always involve use of an engine. Strong players in a game would be able to see/detect it more easily.

“A lot of the cheating here would involve multi-accounting. That's harder to police. You'd also need an engine for each game that plays as well as chess computers to do any sort of automatic filtering.”

So how does a moderator even know multi accounting was involved in a game? That’s the first question to consider. Have these methods been vetted and approved by other knowledgeable/strong players in that specificgame? If yes, how? And, if not, why not? These are important, hard questions to look at closely. Why not consider them? [I had been privately speaking to other players the other day and they think, (to put it in as light terms as possible), BGA action against cheaters could use some improvement].

The gaming community deserves complete, comprehensive answers (with full transparency) for the questions above if and only if we strongly value fair, clean play.

That way, moderators feel good about the decisions they are making and players on the other end don’t have to worry about falsely/incorrectly being accused of cheating and/or using multiple accounts when they actually played fair. Engines are not always absolute requirements to detect cheating in a game.

“There just isn't consensus for expert play on most of the games played here, nowhere close to what there is for chess. A lot of multiplayer games have the opportunity for kingmaking, but that can look like normal play a lot of the time.”

It’s easy to find strong/expert players for a game. Just look at their ELO and the number of games they’ve played....not rocket science...Again...Strong players/experts in a game would find it easier to detect subtle kingmaking than novices/beginners of the same game. If I’m moderator and complete novice for a game in question, personally I would keep my ego in check, and defer to masters/experts/strong players of a specific game before deciding to punish someone for suspected cheating.

Even I as a decent player in games, will discuss a game with other strong players, experts, or even masters before throwing accusations of cheating around because I know how much it hurts when you are actually innocent but are accused of cheating. On the other end, I know it also hurts when I know I could have won if the other side had played fair and not cheated.

Always, always get a second or even third pair of strong eyes to look at games closely...especially when investigating possible complicated issues like cheating or other matters related to the game, like strategy/skill. It not only keeps your ego in check but it might also help to improve your skill in that game as you see it from more than one perspective...And benefit from input of other great players.

[FSKFSK]

The only way to seriously discuss your proposal more is to get some game replay logs where there is suspected cheating, anonymize the usernames, and then discuss them.

[NeanderthalMan]

The only way to seriously discuss your proposal more is to get some game replay logs where there is suspected cheating, anonymize the usernames, and then discuss them.

Some replay logs where there is suspected cheating