The Dustbin

[MikeMarchant]

I have to say that over this and past season I have played games that could fit this pattern of behaviour. Games that have rattled along at a decent pace and then when I have worked a significant advantage my opponent doesn't respond for some days and then when that reponse does occur my opponent has enjoyed outrageous luck. In one such game I had a 20 point lead and when my opponent's turn came back I had a 10 point deficit. I lost that game.

My objections to the outragoeus RNG in this game, I only now realise, seem largely to be rooted in the luck enjoyed by opponents in their turn, although that isn't exclusively the case. If this save-scummng business really is the cause of these apparent RNG anomolies, then I apologise to RBS and others for takin issue with them over the RNG question.


Best Wishes

Mike

But (just to deliberately stir up another massive argument) in that case, what we were saying was correct, the RNG was working massively wrong, because it was being frigged, the theory obviously didn't fit the reality.

Yes, that's true, Paul.

I don't think this answers the question entirely, though. There are outliers in my turns too. I don't concede the RNG argument entirely, but suspect it is not as bad as I had imgined.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Athos1660]

I have to say that over this and past season I have played games that could fit this pattern of behaviour. Games that have rattled along at a decent pace and then when I have worked a significant advantage my opponent doesn't respond for some days and then when that reponse does occur my opponent has enjoyed outrageous luck. In one such game I had a 20 point lead and when my opponent's turn came back I had a 10 point deficit. I lost that game.

My objections to the outragoeus RNG in this game, I only now realise, seem largely to be rooted in the luck enjoyed by opponents in their turn, although that isn't exclusively the case. If this save-scummng business really is the cause of these apparent RNG anomolies, then I apologise to RBS and others for takin issue with them over the RNG question.


Best Wishes

Mike

But (just to deliberately stir up another massive argument) in that case, what we were saying was correct, the RNG was working massively wrong, because it was being frigged, the theory obviously didn't fit the reality.

Do you mean that an ordinary dice with 6 sides, each marked with a different number from 1 to 6, the sum of the opposite sides making 7, works massively wrong if a trickster succeeds in making you watch elsewhere while he re-roll the dice and believe he does not cheat ? Is the fault of the dice ?

[SimonLancaster]

In my opinion.. people are overreacting regarding cheating because I doubt many players cheat. We need to be a little careful about projecting ideas of cheating on to cases of good fortune (of which there could be many). I would only start worrying if I played a certain player on a number of occasions and the pattern emerged!

RNG is also fine for me, never had any problems with it, and I accept the random bad luck.

[harveylh]

I believe dkalenda only cheated when he needed it so he mainly cheated against the top players and not every turn and not every game. After all, I am sure he had runs of good luck without cheating. He cheated only when he had bad luck or needed to manipulate a sequence of events involving a charge or pursuit/evade. In my games with him, he always seemed to know in advance how a charge or pursuit/evade would turn out. At the time I thought he understand charges, pursuits, and evades better than anyone I have ever played. I now think he was a good player who cheated to become an elite player.

Harvey

[stockwellpete]

Also understand that Pete will be making it optional so that a large battle will be contingent on both players desiring one otherwise it will be medium sized.

I think what I could do once I have formed up the divisions for Classical Antiquity next season is to straight away calculate the number of matches that would be played at 1600pts if either 1200pts or 1600pts was used as the default size of the battle. If we take the 4 main league sections at the moment we have a 50/50 balance between 1200 and 1600pts - and the poll was 56/44 in favour of increasing the proportion of larger sized matches. So now I am looking to arrange it so around 60% of tournament matches are played at 1600pts. So if I do these two calculations (default at 1200pts and default at 1600pts) before next season starts I will be able to see which comes nearer to the desired 60% figure and then we can use that. I certainly do not want the proportion of matches to be played at 1600pts to fall below 50% because in Season 10 (starting February 2021) I hope to be able to use this new system right across the tournament so that all sections will, in future, be a mixture of 1200pt and 1600pt matches.

[CONSTANTINIX]

ConstantinIX - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD
challenges
Macedonczyk - Byzantine 963-987 AD with Arab, North Africa 789-999 AD allies
PW : LASTSTAND

[pompeytheflatulent]

How long ago were the games with 225 and 99 reloads? Was it something that just happened this tournament or was it something that's been going on since a while back?

[rbodleyscott]

How long ago were the games with 225 and 99 reloads?

Those games were both in June during the current FOG2DL season.

Was it something that just happened this tournament or was it something that's been going on since a while back?

Probably the latter.

[harveylh]

How long ago were the games with 225 and 99 reloads? Was it something that just happened this tournament or was it something that's been going on since a while back?

Based on what Pete has said in two different postings earlier in this thread, there were occurences all this season of 225, 99, 18 and 5 in four different games. There may have been more. Since the Slitherine server only saves multiplayer games for a limited time after completion, there might not be existing data for previous seasons.

Harvey

[paulmcneil]

I have to say that over this and past season I have played games that could fit this pattern of behaviour. Games that have rattled along at a decent pace and then when I have worked a significant advantage my opponent doesn't respond for some days and then when that reponse does occur my opponent has enjoyed outrageous luck. In one such game I had a 20 point lead and when my opponent's turn came back I had a 10 point deficit. I lost that game.

My objections to the outragoeus RNG in this game, I only now realise, seem largely to be rooted in the luck enjoyed by opponents in their turn, although that isn't exclusively the case. If this save-scummng business really is the cause of these apparent RNG anomolies, then I apologise to RBS and others for takin issue with them over the RNG question.


Best Wishes

Mike

But (just to deliberately stir up another massive argument) in that case, what we were saying was correct, the RNG was working massively wrong, because it was being frigged, the theory obviously didn't fit the reality.

Do you mean that an ordinary dice with 6 sides, each marked with a different number from 1 to 6, the sum of the opposite sides making 7, works massively wrong if a trickster succeeds in making you watch elsewhere while he re-roll the dice and believe he does not cheat ? Is the fault of the dice ?

From the point of view of the game, yes it was, from the point of view of the algorithm no it was fine. But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

[harveylh]

But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

Paul, I completely agree with you.

Harvey

[pantherboy]

The system works as I tried it out when I was running the Caracole tournaments in Pike & Shot. I allowed players to opt for their preferred battle size and there were no complaints or arguments.

[MikeC_81]

The way I have understood Slitherine's PBEM system, I have always known that it would be possible to save scum with little to no retaliation as long as one was judicial about using it (a key point of attack etc, etc) since an automated system must be programmed in with a fair degree of offsets to prevent a flood of false positives. But to find out that a match was reloaded 99 and 225 times. It begs the question of what if any automated safeguards are in place? And if there an automated safeguard system which spits out a report, how often does Sliterthine staff check it? Quite honestly it is absurd.

I guess I have been fortunate enough to not have played with many cheaters as there have only been a few instances where I raised my eyebrows where successful rolls were going exactly where they needed to be.

To be fair the automated system did pick up the issue, during the games in question, and Slitherine did suspend him, but they decided to reinstate him giving him the benefit of the doubt on the basis of his stated explanation.

I will draw this thread to the attention of the movers and shakers at Slitherine.

The core issue is the number of reloads he was allowed to do before the system kicked in and that he was reinstated despite such obvious evidence of cheating. How can someone be allowed to reload 225 times? How can someone reload 99 times? In a single game no less! And I would like to question the employee who somehow swallowed the line of a problematic internet connection with those kinds of numbers. How is it that his opponents were not automatically notified? You (Slitherine and friends) clearly have the account names of his opponents and no one knew until a player asked Pete to specifically look into it. If that player didn't specifically ask, dKalenda would STILL be cheating.

I mean anyone reloading 20 times in a game would be enough evidence for me to permaban the account. I would suspect foul play at 20 reloads during the course of a 9 game tournament. The numbers here are just incredulous and the fact that he was reinstated despite these numbers is fairly clear evidence Slitherine does not care about cheating. Once again, just basic logic dictates that it is obvious that some cheating can and probably does go for reasons stated before. But given that you personally have given us assurances that massive cheating could not happen due to the automatic check. It clearly has happened and we were just lucky that two non-employees running a private tournament chose to dig deeper and you as a developer for Slitherine once again chose to pursue it. Otherwise, dkalenda would still be here and no one would be the wiser.

The current system obviously doesn't work and given that a moderator removed my post in the general forum where I directly asked for a Slitherine response as you said we should do, it seems clear that they also don't really care.

I guess I have been fortunate enough to not have played with many cheaters as there have only been a few instances where I raised my eyebrows where successful rolls were going exactly where they needed to be.

I think THAT is the point, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you playing in the DL very often, and I'm guessing that people who are serious about cheating would tend to do it in the games where there is "a prize" albeit bragging rights, at stake, i.e. in league and tournament matches, not necessarily in "friendly" matches, so the apparent lopsidedness of the RNG that some of us noticed but others didn't may be an artefact of the number of dl and tournament games played by the players, where professional cheats would be more likely to have practiced their trade?

I have played consistently at Div A/B level since the league started and I have not noted any significant anomaly, including my own games against dkalenda. While I have stepped away from the DL due to the passive play issue, I have more than enough games under my belt at that level to make a fair comment. I have always qualified my comments that the RNG code isn't broken and at multiple times stated that if the RNG code isn't broken then the only possiblities are that people are cheating (which we now have confirmation that one individual was cheating at a massive level) or those experiencing it are incredibly unlucky (which the laws of probability dictate that someone people must be actively unlucky) and thus are vocal about it since those who experience good luck are fare more likely to chalk it up as "skill".

[nyczar]

Plainly put, there are 3 significant consequences of this debacle.

1. You can cheat.
2. You can get away with doing it repeatedly.
3. Everyone is going to be more suspicious of the unlikely events which in the normal course of this game occur very often anyway.

I saw a post when I started playing not that long ago where RBS assured someone that (paraphrased) they don’t need to worry - Slitherine monitors this sort of thing and cheaters will be caught. I’m not putting this on Richard as I understand he is not with Slitherine but clearly assurances were made to him and subsequently everyone else. If those reassurances were and are in the future taking care of, then then no one needs to consider cheating or suspect their opponent of it. At this time, we can’t say that’s the case.

I know others have already said what I’m saying but it will be important that we all lobby Slitherine to look after this. If they get an email from 80 of us I would like to think it would be taken seriously.

What DanZanzibar says in bullet 3 is a the key physiological fallout of this event. Once a thought cancer starts, it can spread to infect many and it can kill this community. I applaud Pete swift action to reinforce the integrity that is fundamental to the Digital league. I fear that even if it goes too far to say everyone, there will indeed be a core of players that will raise alarms whenever they see a outlier results from the RNG. I would urge caution when it comes to using this egregious instance of cheating as a reason to challenge or raise alarms when one sees an outlier. If this starts and spreads, this community will suffer. That would be tragic for me as this community is what makes this game fun and compelling.

It would be a sad day indeed if the echo of dkalanda actions hangs around us permanently like the big bang. Pete took the first step. Better tech accountability is the next. In the absence of a tech fix, what more can we do to reinforce the codes that make this game such fun?

Signing a pledge? Establishing guidelines on when to suspect and how to report suspected cheating? This feels burdensome but I want to say that i will do what this community wants to reestablish the trust that is so essential for making anything worth perusing in life viable.

I am a businessman too. So lets forget ideals, If this community and the competitive play it promotes withers, so will sales. Single player has a very short interest life. Community dies, so will sales. That reality ought to get some attention from the business people with the resources to implement a change. If word of inaction in the face of cheating spreads to other forums, that could impact sales across the board. Inaction is tantamount to endorsement. This is a serious business issue that should get a business response.

Tangent...I am curious as to what the reporting player saw that triggered this investigation. something truly far out as an outlier...a pattern? I dont expect an answer here but I am curious as it could form the basis of guidelines.

[paulmcneil]

But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

Paul, I completely agree with you.

Harvey

Thank you Harvey. Now as we're playing each other in the final of the themed event, shall we agree upfront on the number of restarts we'll each do? I think 200+ is excessive, shall we limit it to 199 each and call it a draw?

[MikeC_81]

From the point of view of the game, yes it was, from the point of view of the algorithm no it was fine. But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

The difference that you still don't understand that when you bring zero data to the table other than "feeling" something is wrong, and we test the RNG machine and find nothing wrong, there is no further discussion to be had. No one at the time came up and said that they were exceptionally unlucky against xyz player to stir up investigations against specific players for cheating.

[Athos1660]

But (just to deliberately stir up another massive argument) in that case, what we were saying was correct, the RNG was working massively wrong, because it was being frigged, the theory obviously didn't fit the reality.

Do you mean that an ordinary dice with 6 sides, each marked with a different number from 1 to 6, the sum of the opposite sides making 7, works massively wrong if a trickster succeeds in making you watch elsewhere while he re-roll the dice and believe he does not cheat ? Is the fault of the dice ?

From the point of view of the game, yes it was, from the point of view of the algorithm no it was fine. But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

The answer was no. In the case of our dice players, the problem was not the dice, but the absence of a referee or his inattention.

[Morbio]

Congratulations!

[paulmcneil]

From the point of view of the game, yes it was, from the point of view of the algorithm no it was fine. But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

The difference that you still don't understand that when you bring zero data to the table other than "feeling" something is wrong, and we test the RNG machine and find nothing wrong, there is no further discussion to be had. No one at the time came up and said that they were exceptionally unlucky against xyz player to stir up investigations against specific players for cheating.

"There is no further discussion to be had" I think you''ll find that in this forum there is always further discussion to be had, much as some people would prefer to close it down, and this this case fully justified. And actually, as you yourself have said, the problem is a disconnect in process between Slitherine seeing anomalous behaviour and them not providing that information to the organiser of what I assume is the biggest competition using their product. THAT is the ultimate solution, not closing down debate.

[MikeC_81]

From the point of view of the game, yes it was, from the point of view of the algorithm no it was fine. But that's my point, if a reasonable number of experienced players all start to throw their hands in the air to say that something is amiss, then most likely something is amiss. Just saying "nothing is wrong" is just as wrong as saying that the CODE in the algorithm is wrong. But the pertinent fact was that there was SOMETHING wrong with the way the algorithm was working in individual games. In fact this was dismissed as delusional at the time.

The difference that you still don't understand that when you bring zero data to the table other than "feeling" something is wrong, and we test the RNG machine and find nothing wrong, there is no further discussion to be had. No one at the time came up and said that they were exceptionally unlucky against xyz player to stir up investigations against specific players for cheating.

"There is no further discussion to be had" I think you''ll find that in this forum there is always further discussion to be had, much as some people would prefer to close it down, and this this case fully justified. And actually, as you yourself have said, the problem is a disconnect in process between Slitherine seeing anomalous behaviour and them not providing that information to the organiser of what I assume is the biggest competition using their product. THAT is the ultimate solution, not closing down debate.

You can go back and check my post. I gave 3 possibilities in which cheating was one of them and ask you (and everyone else) to pick the answer that fancied them. You yourself were not willing to state the case. So in this situation, you chose not to discuss it further, not me.