Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

by **Kotaro** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:13 pm

Option D, unless backed up by use of force by the moderators, would never work. Have you met JefJef or Colton24?

by **AndyDufresne** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:15 pm

clapper011 wrote:possibly, if there were a way to limit reports by for example severity, or a minimum requirement? or information needed , before it will even allow a report to be posted and approved by a c&a moderator?

Sometimes hunches are all people have to go on, and we investigate them as we would someone with loads of evidence. I think the current requirements of filling out the form, probably fits the minimum requirement for information needed.

--Andy

by **Woodruff** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:13 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
clapper011 wrote:possibly, if there were a way to limit reports by for example severity, or a minimum requirement? or information needed , before it will even allow a report to be posted and approved by a c&a moderator?

Sometimes hunches are all people have to go on, and we investigate them as we would someone with loads of evidence. I think the current requirements of filling out the form, probably fits the minimum requirement for information needed.

This sort of goes back to the idea of a form being forced on those submitting a C&A complaint. I think that would, if nothing else, help the multi-hunters get through the information in an easier fashion.

by **lancehoch** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:44 pm

Kotaro wrote:Option A.

Less work for the moderators. Less spam from people simply posting to get their counts up, or just doing the old bullshit reply of "yup, he's busted", which adds nothing to the accusation. If people want to add something that they believe is relevant, they simply PM one of the hunters, and offer up their information.

Or you could PM the person who created the thread and have them edit their post.

by **Kotaro** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:51 pm

lancehoch wrote:Or you could PM the person who created the thread and have them edit their post.

That to. The point is, if anything relevent needs to be added, there are mh's and the original poster can add to it. This will exclude all that other BS posting that has turned C&A into a cesspool for vengeful little kids to spam and troll others they don't like, and post irrelevant mentions of other threads or happenings that need not be added and only waste the readers time, as well as TeamCC's

by **Night Strike** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:53 pm

AAFitz wrote:Option D. Ask everyone to use better judgment in their posts.

And give forum vacations to those who post complaints about 1 bad rating or 1 f-bomb in game chat.

by **jefjef** on Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:16 pm

Kotaro wrote:Option A.

Less work for the moderators. Less spam from people simply posting to get their counts up, or just doing the old bullshit reply of "yup, he's busted", which adds nothing to the accusation. If people want to add something that they believe is relevant, they simply PM one of the hunters, and offer up their information.

Option B is too much time and effort. And Option C allows for the crap that C&A has turned into.

I find myself in agreement with option A & Kotaro. I would add that once a post is made that a hunter/MOD posts soon with it to inform who is handling it so they may be contacted with relevant information.

by **colton24** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:06 am

jefjef make a poll for this

by **owenshooter** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:22 am

Night Strike wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Option D. Ask everyone to use better judgment in their posts.

And give forum vacations to those who post complaints about 1 bad rating or 1 f-bomb in game chat.

anyone seeing a pattern developing here? member gives a great suggestion/sage advice. mod jumps in with "BAN THEM!!"... the new resolution around here is to toss people for anything... why not extend it to a perma-ban, NS? some people wander into the C&A and have limited knowledge of the forums or that specific forum. sure, you have people that abuse the forum, but that isn't a majority. and to some people, when they are wronged with all 1 ratings, it is abuse to them. why? they don't know that a pattern of abuse is required for a judgement. so, why not try to help people instead of ban people? oh, i forgot, that is the simplest solution around here... king and lance do a great job in C&A, i am sure they have a clearer understanding of what would make that forum run smoother, so i defer to them out of respect...-0

p.s.-nice post AAFitz

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:12 pm

Additional thoughts on procedure, and the options presented?

--Andy

by **Kotaro** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:36 pm

One last additional thought;

If you're going to do this, do it damn soon.

by **Night Strike** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:01 pm

owenshooter wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Option D. Ask everyone to use better judgment in their posts.

And give forum vacations to those who post complaints about 1 bad rating or 1 f-bomb in game chat.

anyone seeing a pattern developing here? member gives a great suggestion/sage advice. mod jumps in with "BAN THEM!!"... the new resolution around here is to toss people for anything... why not extend it to a perma-ban, NS? some people wander into the C&A and have limited knowledge of the forums or that specific forum. sure, you have people that abuse the forum, but that isn't a majority. and to some people, when they are wronged with all 1 ratings, it is abuse to them. why? they don't know that a pattern of abuse is required for a judgement. so, why not try to help people instead of ban people? oh, i forgot, that is the simplest solution around here... king and lance do a great job in C&A, i am sure they have a clearer understanding of what would make that forum run smoother, so i defer to them out of respect...-0

p.s.-nice post AAFitz

owen.......it was sarcasm.

by **owenshooter** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:15 pm

Night Strike wrote:owen.......it was sarcasm.

damn you!!!! you got me!!!! then i rescind my above statement, but shall leave it so i can look like the total ass that i was... however, NS, you could have given me this little nugget in a "p.s.", since we both know how much you love those... damn you!!!!-0

p.s.- *shaking my head*

by **owenshooter** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:16 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Additional thoughts on procedure, and the options presented?

i would be most interested in what king and lance think about this subject before anything is changed...-0

by **Woodruff** on Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:27 pm

owenshooter wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Additional thoughts on procedure, and the options presented?

i would be most interested in what king and lance think about this subject before anything is changed...-0

I would definitely agree with that.

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:48 pm

owenshooter wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Additional thoughts on procedure, and the options presented?

i would be most interested in what king and lance think about this subject before anything is changed...-0

Mmhm, I've notified them of this public topic last week, and they have been keeping up with it.

--Andy

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:50 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
owenshooter wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Additional thoughts on procedure, and the options presented?

i would be most interested in what king and lance think about this subject before anything is changed...-0

Mmhm, I've notified them of this public topic last week, and they have been keeping up with it.

--Andy

i just think of all the areas on CC, the C&A truly seems to be dialed in and functions great. if they don't have any ideas about how to improve it or don't find any of the suggestions realistic, shouldn't we listen to them? i am sure they have to have some ideas. doesn't everyone that works somewhere have an idea on how to make things even a little better? anyway, i am just very hesitant to suggest anything as i have no knowledge of the inner-workings of what they do, etc... still following this closely, because it is interesting...-0

by **AAFitz** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:27 pm

Night Strike wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Option D. Ask everyone to use better judgment in their posts.

And give forum vacations to those who post complaints about 1 bad rating or 1 f-bomb in game chat.

well personally, Id rather see the vacations for those who knowingly make bad complaints, than those who truly think its worthy of a cheating claim.

I realize the vast chasm between those, and how impossible it is to detect, but it wouldnt take more warnings, before people started taking it more seriously, I would think.

I think its unrealistic to hope no one ever makes another cheating thread that is frivolous, but it would be nice to stop the ones that are purposefully frivolous.

by **jpcloet** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:41 pm

I'd rather see a C&A helper that classifies the level, like a pre-screener. They could handle the foe, ignore ones and highlight the bigger issues.

by **lancehoch** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:36 pm

I am not sure that the system as it is could be classified as completely broken, but it could use some tweaks. That being said, I also don't think any of the suggestions here are absolutely perfect. I personally lean toward using the system where anyone can create a thread, but only hunters/admin/global moderators can respond to those threads (at least until they are closed).

My reasoning behind this:
I do read every post in every thread in C&A, for better or for worse. Some of the time, people who are responding do come up with some great insight. However, most of the time all of the information that I actually use is contained in the first post. With this option, the person who created the thread can still edit their post to add new information or to close a report that they have decided wasn't really valid. Outside parties can PM the hunters or the person who created the thread with information that they think is relevant.

by **Bruceswar** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:12 pm

lancehoch wrote:I am not sure that the system as it is could be classified as completely broken, but it could use some tweaks. That being said, I also don't think any of the suggestions here are absolutely perfect. I personally lean toward using the system where anyone can create a thread, but only hunters/admin/global moderators can respond to those threads (at least until they are closed).

Sorry I do not agree. In many cases new information comes from post after the first. Sometimes the person being accused makes their own grave or other times good info is posted. If it was made like the recruitment threads for clans where only post if you wish to join. In this case it would be only post if you have something meaningful to post.

by **king achilles** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Option A: Users can create new topics, pending approval by C&A Moderator, but no users can further reply to topics.

What happens to those that are not approved?

by **Kotaro** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:20 pm

This is a general thing in another forum I frequent for a game. There, it's Suggestions and complaints all in one. If a suggestion is approved, it will allow them to become a public thread and posted in by all. If it's not, it can just be deleted, or it can be posted and locked with a "denied". It's a simple adaptation: delete the threads that look like they're just spam or complete bullshit, and let through ones that seem like they have merit. Then, they could either be open to public posts, or simply locked and looked into by Multi-hunters.

by **AAFitz** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:35 pm

Bruceswar wrote:
lancehoch wrote:I am not sure that the system as it is could be classified as completely broken, but it could use some tweaks. That being said, I also don't think any of the suggestions here are absolutely perfect. I personally lean toward using the system where anyone can create a thread, but only hunters/admin/global moderators can respond to those threads (at least until they are closed).

Sorry I do not agree. In many cases new information comes from post after the first. Sometimes the person being accused makes their own grave or other times good info is posted. If it was made like the recruitment threads for clans where only post if you wish to join. In this case it would be only post if you have something meaningful to post.

This really is the best way. The problem is... its damn hard to regulate. The key I think is that by enforcing it a little, the spam may be cut down a lot. Its really just a matter of getting people to actually respect the rules.

At least it is obvious how many really do want the C&A to become more fact based, and less spam based. I do hope this will result in support, when the inevitable complaints start coming about nazi mods that wont allow posting.

This one may be a good example of a tough C&A. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=93047&start=0

You have two brothers, and someone who definitely thinks the other brother was playing for the other. Personally, since I saw it, and I had to guess, Id actually say it was...but the thing is, even as I post that, I know its possible it was just the other brother...who somehow got really quick, really quick.

So, I imagine some will complain about the accusation saying they are brothers. Certainly the brothers will deny it, and some might even say he had no right to post it. These things can be slippery as all hell, but if I was not able to post in there, after just happening to see the game in question, some vital info may have been left out. But, does the kid that lives down the street have the right to say, "I know these guys, i know they dont cheat"... Its very hard to draw the line on relevance, and to be honest, given the problems that cheaters cause, Id probably suggest leaning towards allowing more to be posted not less...especially since I draw my own conclusions usually in addition to the ruling itself, as do most Im sure.

So, be sure to block only the real spam, and the obvious malicious complaints, the ones that are in jest, and even the ones that are honest mistakes, where the player genuinely thinks rules are being broken, but just happens to be wrong.

Hmm.. that sounds pretty easy...sorry. :oops:

by **Strife** on Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:38 pm

Well, the thing with approval from the hunters is, if they're on and looking at the case why not just solve it right there? Why wait for it to be posted in. Seems like a waste. And lance, if it's made so other players besides the OP and mods can't post in it, you will either never get PM'd or your will have way too many to go through. I honestly think the current is the best way, it can be improved, but it's the most logical in my opinion. Other players can continue to help out with cases, or even solve them(if it's not a real case i.e. "foe and rate"). Just make a punishment for multiple frivolous reports and massive amounts of spam, obviously flaming too. I have seen several cases in which the OP does not include any evidence and just says "too good for a newb! and look at his friends!!!" and they end up all being from different countries and taking turns at the same time(which may or may not have been presented by a player, usually is). Changing the whole way the C&A forums works would completely ruin it. If it's changed to "approval" and for some reason, as soon as it's presented it's not checked, and posted in the new C&A what would be the difference? And if the current is such a problem, just delete the forum and leave e-tix, because that's all the other option really is.

Edit: Maybe for, excessive C&A abuse just ban them from that forum. So, if they hi-jack the thread or over-spam or flame, just kick them from C&A.

Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Re: Cheat & Abuse complaint approval

Who is online