[Rules] Inform defendant of C&A allegation automatically

by **clangfield** on Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:50 am

Concise description:

Inform anyone accused in the Cheating and Abuse forum that they have been reported

Specifics/Details:

There is currently a reliance on the accuser or a friend to inform the accused. PM should be sent from the mod dealing with the case

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

Will allow people to defend themselves before a verdict is passed

I admit there is a possible downside in that it may result in evidence being removed, but the onus is on the accuser to take screenshots as necessary before submitting the accusation.

by **_sabotage_** on Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:38 am

I thought the onus was on the cheater to watch their back when cheating.

by **clangfield** on Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:43 am

_sabotage_ wrote:I thought the onus was on the cheater to watch their back when cheating.

That presumes guilt...not all accusations of cheating or abuse are upheld O:)

by **_sabotage_** on Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:08 am

If there is no evidence, then they will not be punished and should not be bothered by being informed. O:)

by **Dukasaur** on Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:07 pm

The right to confront one's accusers is a fundamental tenet of pretty much ever reasonable legal system ever devised.

by **Lord Arioch** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:14 am

I totally support this!

by **Kaskavel** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:50 am

Or perhaps the mods notify the accused only if they start thinking during the process that he is guilty.

by **_sabotage_** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:18 am

Or when their input may affect the decision, which is not too often.

by **owenshooter** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:48 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Or when their input may affect the decision, which is not too often.

this is not a factual statement...-Jésus noir

by **clangfield** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:58 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Or when their input may affect the decision, which is not too often.

"When it may affect the decision" is too vague and subjective to put into a protocol, in my view.
Do you actually have any objection to this happening? If so, please state what your objection is.
I'm perfectly open to something being pointed out that would torpedo this, but I haven't yet heard a counter-argument.

by **_sabotage_** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:14 pm

Let's say that when Doctor Spin got busted after he started an investigation on others, the multi-hunters had to inform him and allow him to justify it. He has no justification. But he could stall and profit from the fact that he is allowed input before the decision is final. Since the points can't be restored, they are just offering him a chance to make use of the time to further his cheating.

Intentionally deadbeating is hard to prove unless someone comes out and admits it. Even if they write in game chat during the period, it can be convincingly argued that they were just popping in and hadn't the time. Doesn't make much difference. If the deadbeat is considered egregious, then no comment from the player could make it go away.

Secret diplomacy, either there is evidence or there isn't.

From my perspective, C&A is a waste of site resources and if there is a case, it should be dealt with as quickly and fairly as possible. In very few cases will anything the accused or accuser have to say change the outcome.

Instead, you will see C&A's that Owen likes, people bickering over trivialities for days like in some of the bigotry threads or in the Betiko thread.

The less fair the outcomes are, the more disenchanted all players on the site will be. And I can't think of a cheating case that could be made more fair by the input of any player involved.

by **clangfield** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:55 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:Let's say that when Doctor Spin got busted after he started an investigation on others, the multi-hunters had to inform him and allow him to justify it. He has no justification. But he could stall and profit from the fact that he is allowed input before the decision is final. Since the points can't be restored, they are just offering him a chance to make use of the time to further his cheating.

Intentionally deadbeating is hard to prove unless someone comes out and admits it. Even if they write in game chat during the period, it can be convincingly argued that they were just popping in and hadn't the time. Doesn't make much difference. If the deadbeat is considered egregious, then no comment from the player could make it go away.

Secret diplomacy, either there is evidence or there isn't.

From my perspective, C&A is a waste of site resources and if there is a case, it should be dealt with as quickly and fairly as possible. In very few cases will anything the accused or accuser have to say change the outcome.

Instead, you will see C&A's that Owen likes, people bickering over trivialities for days like in some of the bigotry threads or in the Betiko thread.

The less fair the outcomes are, the more disenchanted all players on the site will be. And I can't think of a cheating case that could be made more fair by the input of any player involved.

Thank you for the detail.
I would not say that mods have to pause to allow someone to justify anything; if the evidence is clear then they can deal with it as they do now. I don't see that alerting someone that they are being investigated would allow anyone to "make use of the time to further his cheating" - I'm more inclined to feel that they would at least pause lest they provide further evidence. Maybe that's a bad thing, maybe not.
There are instances where family and friends are involved in a way that might be unknown to an investigator - I recall a recent case of a parent teaching their children. That was cleared after explanation.
I agree that there are cases where no comment could change things - so how would this change in protocol affect that? I can't see that it would make the guilty any less likely to be found out. This idea is simply to assist the cases where a comment could change things.
To be honest I think Owen, betiko, magnus, edric and the other regulars (including me) will have their say anyway; I despair of keeping them on topic whatever is done, short of only allowing the accuser, accused and mod to post :idea:

If it gets off topic then the mods can still lock the thread.
I was alerted to the C&A forum when someone accused me; I was glad of the opportunity to expose the ridiculousness of the accusation. I doubt that my statements affected the outcome: but I would have been "more disenchanted" to have been erroneously convicted without having had a chance to put my side of the case.

by **_sabotage_** on Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:33 pm

Most of the time people aren't unwittingly cheating.

This thread was opened in response to Joroki. He claims he didn't know deadbeating was against the rules. I find that very hard to believe due to the length he's been here and number of games. It was posted in game chat that his actions were against the rules. He still failed to come to check C&A.

Well, when he didn't know about it, he was cleared and when he did, he got warned. Nothing to do with his input in the thread.

Again, 99 out of a hundred cases, the only thing a mod would be informing the player of is, as you are already aware, you are breaking the rules, we have the evidence, would you like to join in the discussion for the last few minutes before you are punished?

I suggested the player be informed if their input was necessary. Most of the time, they will already know and rarely will it come to pass that a mother is teaching her kids, and when it may be the case, asking them isn't that hard.

by **Donelladan** on Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:16 am

Let's say that when Doctor Spin got busted after he started an investigation on others, the multi-hunters had to inform him and allow him to justify it. He has no justification. But he could stall and profit from the fact that he is allowed input before the decision is final. Since the points can't be restored, they are just offering him a chance to make use of the time to further his cheating.

We could say that accused have 24 hours only to give an answer. That way they can't do further cheating. They have to give one answer and then mods can reply.

Anyway very often C et A case stay open for more than 24 hours so I don't think it would hurt.

by **owenshooter** on Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:03 am

i just got a guy busted... put the accusation up and it was dealt with..

Subject: korben dallas / multiple accounts [BG]

had he been clean, he would have been cleared... no need to inform him of the actions taken... did i? of course i did, on his wall.. but that is just because that is the kind of mensch i am...-Jésus noir

by **JamesKer1** on Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:20 pm

owenshooter wrote:i just got a guy busted... put the accusation up and it was dealt with..

Subject: korben dallas / multiple accounts [BG]

had he been clean, he would have been cleared... no need to inform him of the actions taken... did i? of course i did, on his wall.. but that is just because that is the kind of mensch i am...-Jésus noir

Not every Bust is clean cut. Sometimes a defendant does need to come and explain. Sometimes they are relatives, classmates at a school, etc. Lots of that kind of thing floating around, and if there is a bust without warning, it may take some time to get everything sorted out- plus, it goes on your permanent CC record.

+5000 to this idea.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:20 am

Kaskavel wrote:Or perhaps the mods notify the accused only if they start thinking during the process that he is guilty.

This is not a great idea. Creates a huge potential for bias. Since the C&A mods are right most of the time, it'll look like we are wasting time: if you get a PM, it's because the C&A mod already thinks you're guilty, so why bother defending yourself?

I would rather have something like an indictment system. If a case has the potential to be subjective (so not usually multi investigations, but things like verbal abuse and inappropriate language), then the mod takes a cursory look at the evidence and decides if there's enough to do a full investigation. If so, the mod automatically PMs the accused and invites them to respond to the case, and only after doing so does the mod begin the full investigation.

by **Donelladan** on Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:26 am

If a case has the potential to be subjective (so not usually multi investigations, but things like verbal abuse and inappropriate language), then the mod takes a cursory look at the evidence and decides if there's enough to do a full investigation.

I think that sometimes multi get busted while they shouldn't have been. I have seen a guy busted in a clan war. Looks like respectable guy, he came afterward to apologize saying he didn't do any multi but it was his brother playing CC as well.

Guy was premium so definitely didn't do multi to have more games. And he only played 3 games with this multi/brother, 2 of which were doubles so he didn't do it to gain points either. Just saying, the guy probably was saying the truth when he said it was his brother.

Now this guy bought premium back and is still on CC.
2 things - in this particular case it will make them lost all clan war games in which the player was, even though he was probably innocent. This is quite terrible in my opinion.
2nd thing, if those 2 brothers were not so much in CC that the guy in my story, being busted for having done nothing wrong would probably send them away of CC. Losing 2 players for nothing is imo quite annoying.

NB: I, of course, don't have all the element to judge the case I am presenting here, but if I am right - similar case probably have happened and could happen again - then multi case aren't are obvious as you think they are.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:34 pm

Donelladan wrote:NB: I, of course, don't have all the element to judge the case I am presenting here, but if I am right - similar case probably have happened and could happen again - then multi case aren't are obvious as you think they are.

I said "not usually," not "never."

by **Evil Semp** on Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:18 pm

I think an automated notification would be best, but what type of notification should the defendant receive? Would a PM be enough? Many people don't read their PM's. I have sent many PM's asking the accused questions and never received a response. Should it be an e-mail? How much time should be given waiting for a response? What about point dumping? Give them more time to create games.

How many times do you think the excuse "I was just teaching my kid how to play" or "It was a class project?"

by **Evil Semp** on Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:24 pm

Donelladan wrote:NB: I, of course, don't have all the element to judge the case I am presenting here, but if I am right - similar case probably have happened and could happen again - then multi case aren't are obvious as you think they are.

Of course no system is 100% accurate. My rule of thumb was if I wasn't 100% positive they were a multi I didn't make the bust and would ask for assistance and/or contact the accused. Did I make mistakes? I am sure I did.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:03 am

Evil Semp wrote:I think an automated notification would be best, but what type of notification should the defendant receive? Would a PM be enough?

I think so. Their problem if they choose not to pay attention to the main way the site communicates with you. But if the MHs have the ability to e-mail, that seems like a reasonable time to use that ability.

How much time should be given waiting for a response?

48-72 hours seems fine to me.

What about point dumping? Give them more time to create games.

Well you could always pre-emptively block them from joining more games (I think this can be done, yes?) until the investigation is over, if the issue is seen as time-sensitive.

by **clangfield** on Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:03 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:I think an automated notification would be best, but what type of notification should the defendant receive? Would a PM be enough?

I think so. Their problem if they choose not to pay attention to the main way the site communicates with you. But if the MHs have the ability to e-mail, that seems like a reasonable time to use that ability.

How much time should be given waiting for a response?

48-72 hours seems fine to me.

What about point dumping? Give them more time to create games.

Well you could always pre-emptively block them from joining more games (I think this can be done, yes?) until the investigation is over, if the issue is seen as time-sensitive.

I agree, I think anything where a block would normally be put in place (playing with certain players, chat abuse, ratings etc) pending investigation should still be blocked. As everything is based on 24 hours on CC I'd limit the response time to that; and a PM is more than adequate. I wouldn't want to overcomplicate life for the mods; this is merely a courtesy gesture.

by **Fewnix** on Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:25 am

Dukasaur wrote:The right to confront one's accusers is a fundamental tenet of pretty much ever reasonable legal system ever devised.

Absolutely correct. Well said. BRAVO!!!

=D>

To make it work, how about something like this

1/Some people have the right and responsibility to declare a C & A allegation as either
- meeting a bare minimum test as something at least worth looking into--

___ OR-

- very infrequently, something obviously not worth looking into, calling it frivolous , vexatious or obviously without foundation,whatever .If that is the finding the accuser shuld be notified and have some right of appeal.

2/ IF a C & A allegation is deemed at least worth looking into, it should be looked into ,by appropriate means, respectful of rights - screen shots of the wall taken, multi - hunters on the prowl, cool, tapping
phone lines, not cool - to collect and preserve evidence) AND
THEN the"accused" is informed of the allegation AND the evidence and given a right to reply.

3. Following the look into and a reasonable consideration of the reply,a report is made in the C & A forum giving a fair account of the allegation, look into and the reply followed by:

-the matter can be dismissed, the "accused" "cleared "or whatever

---OR__
a verdict of guilty pronounced on whatever counts and the sentence announced

with both the accused and accuser informed of what happened AND both accused and accuser having a reasonable right of appeal.

something like that? :!: