The Dustbin

[CONSTANTINIX]

Division B

ConstantinIX - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD defeated nyczar - Frankish 751-887 AD with Croatian 625-849 AD allies : 43-7

Arab spearmen took the upper lead on their counterpart whereas enemy cavalry won their fight against my own cavalry but too late to help the infantry.
Thanks for the match.

[IainMcNeil]

There will be warnings before a sanction. I'm not willing to discuss the details of this as it could be used to try and manipulate things. The aim is to find a balance between preventing cheating and false positives. We agree it was too far one way, we just want to be careful we don't go too far the other. The system will involve black marks being allocated, which will fade over time, but we wont be discussing details of either aspect.

[stockwellpete]

There will be warnings before a sanction. I'm not willing to discuss the details of this as it could be used to try and manipulate things. The aim is to find a balance between preventing cheating and false positives. We agree it was too far one way, we just want to be careful we don't go too far the other. The system will involve black marks being allocated, which will fade over time, but we wont be discussing details of either aspect.

Iain, will you be making a formal statement at all about the new monitoring approach? Perhaps on the main forum? I have written a Player's Guide for the FOG2DL, which has been in use now for nearly 3 years, and I could include your formal statement in it, or I could write a general guidance for players of my own. Given that we are not going to be told the fine details, a more general statement from yourself would be very helpful.

The basic season of the FOG2DL is at least 10 weeks long finishing on a Sunday. In an earlier post you wrote,

"However having said this we do feel like the system needs an overhaul. It is going to be a lot less tolerant in future so you will get a lot more warnings a lot earlier, and automatic temporary bans will be enforced if you are a repeat offender."

So this refers to players who may have made excess downloads, but it has not been proven that they are cheating (otherwise they would be gone). It may be that they have a poor internet connection, or whatever, but their re-load count is now being flagged. And if that situation persists then that player will eventually get their first suspension. Are you able to tell me how long that first temporary suspension will be for? Are you also able to tell me how many temporary suspensions a player may receive before they are permanently suspended? Presumably the details of these sanctions will become fairly common knowledge once the system has been in operation for a while so I am not sure if they need to be kept secret.

Or have you decided that we have just got to wait and see how it all develops over the next few months? Because there may be things that happen that require an adjustment here and there? It would be very helpful for me, as a tournament organiser, to know, for example, whether a player suspended in week 6 will be re-instated in time to finish off their matches by the end of week 10. If we are not to be told that information then fine, but it means we will have to deal with any such suspensions under provisions of Rule 1, "Any eventuality not covered by these rules will be subject to adjudication by the organisers."

[Questar17]

Division C

Questar17 - Norman 923-1040 AD beat SpeedyCM - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies 41:7

Thx for the game

[IainMcNeil]

We will make an announcement once everything is finalised but it will be about general systems and not details. Partly as these could help people to game the system and partly as they are going to be subject to change without notice. The issue is as we're reviewing different games there are different patterns of behaviour. For example, in a game that last 200 turns you need more tolerance for missing uploads than one that lasts 10-20. So we're still working out the exact mechanics as we have to take the entire system in to account.

[stockwellpete]

We will make an announcement once everything is finalised but it will be about general systems and not details. Partly as these could help people to game the system and partly as they are going to be subject to change without notice. The issue is as we're reviewing different games there are different patterns of behaviour. For example, in a game that last 200 turns you need more tolerance for missing uploads than one that lasts 10-20. So we're still working out the exact mechanics as we have to take the entire system in to account.

OK thanks.

[desertedfox]

Hi Pete, assuming it all goes well nest season with the trial. Istead of then rolling out all periods deafult 1200 pts (if I am reading it correctly) with player option for 1600, why not split it with 2 periods at 1200 default and 2 periods at 1600?

The way you currently have it, and I could be wrong. every player who prefers 1200 pts will play every game at that level, and the 1600 pointers will be ucky if they get 50%.

Am I reading what you are saying incorrectly?

Cheers,

Mark

[devoncop]

There will be warnings before a sanction. I'm not willing to discuss the details of this as it could be used to try and manipulate things. The aim is to find a balance between preventing cheating and false positives. We agree it was too far one way, we just want to be careful we don't go too far the other. The system will involve black marks being allocated, which will fade over time, but we wont be discussing details of either aspect.

And there we have it.

I hoped the zero tolerance policy towards cheats was now established.

Apparently not.

[stockwellpete]

There will be warnings before a sanction. I'm not willing to discuss the details of this as it could be used to try and manipulate things. The aim is to find a balance between preventing cheating and false positives. We agree it was too far one way, we just want to be careful we don't go too far the other. The system will involve black marks being allocated, which will fade over time, but we wont be discussing details of either aspect.

And there we have it.

I hoped the zero tolerance policy towards cheats was now established.

Apparently not.

Give it a rest.

It has been explained to you already. Zero tolerance for cheating, incremental sanctions for excess downloads where a player is not cheating.

[MikeC_81]

There will be warnings before a sanction. I'm not willing to discuss the details of this as it could be used to try and manipulate things. The aim is to find a balance between preventing cheating and false positives. We agree it was too far one way, we just want to be careful we don't go too far the other. The system will involve black marks being allocated, which will fade over time, but we wont be discussing details of either aspect.

And there we have it.

I hoped the zero tolerance policy towards cheats was now established.

Apparently not.

Without rewriting how their games work, this will always be the case devoncop. This is the best they can do without releasing data or instantly banningon the first attempt. Even with full transparency that you and I want, the only difference would be the player base deciding what threshold is acceptable.

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete, assuming it all goes well nest season with the trial. Istead of then rolling out all periods deafult 1200 pts (if I am reading it correctly) with player option for 1600, why not split it with 2 periods at 1200 default and 2 periods at 1600?

The way you currently have it, and I could be wrong. every player who prefers 1200 pts will play every game at that level, and the 1600 pointers will be ucky if they get 50%.

Am I reading what you are saying incorrectly?

Cheers,

Mark

No, you are not reading it incorrectly. One of the things that I am not sure about at the moment is if players will mix their preferences between 1200 and 1600pts. I think it is likely to be wrong to assume that everyone will choose either just 1200pts or just 1600pts. One possibility is to split the default preferences as you say, 2 sections and the Themed Event at default 1600pts, 2 sections at default 1200pts and that would be in line with the poll. Some people have quite correctly pointed out that the battles in Classical and Late Antiquity were often very large scale whereas those in Early Middle Ages could be smaller. Biblical could switch to 1200pts too. So maybe the smart move for Season 10 would be to split it that way. I am loathe to make too many changes because some people do not read the instructions and will get muddled up, but maybe judicious use of LARGE FONT in the invitation PM will help.

[desertedfox]

Thx for clarification Pete.

[stockwellpete]

Without rewriting how their games work, this will always be the case devoncop. This is the best they can do without releasing data or instantly banningon the first attempt. Even with full transparency that you and I want, the only difference would be the player base deciding what threshold is acceptable.

Bye-bye then. Please take your gripes somewhere else. Slitherine has provided a prompt and perfectly good response to an awkward situation. Cheating is minimal across the FOG2 multi-player community as a whole and we seem to have had just one serious offender in the FOG2DL. I trust the players in the FOG2DL, you obviously don't, nor does devoncop. It is not the right place for you in future, is it?

To everyone else, we are in a new phase now as Slitherine rolls out the new monitoring system over the next few months. I am already talking to Anders and Ian about we handle the issue of any player suspensions for excess downloads next season. Once we have had a chat (it will be next week now), and then talked to Richard about it as well, I will post something on the forum to show our basic approach for Season 9. The forthcoming statement from Slitherine will be very helpful and I will incorporate it in the Player's Guide and "sticky" it on the forum so players can discuss it.

[devoncop]

Fair point Pete.

Thanks to all my opponents. It's been great fun.

Thanks also to Pete who whatever our differences has done an amazing job with the League.

[MikeC_81]

You crack me up Pete. I was just explaining the technical limitations of the implementation of the PBEM system and you react like I went and shot your dog something.

[stockwellpete]

Fair point Pete.

Thanks to all my opponents. It's been great fun.

Thanks also to Pete who whatever our differences has done an amazing job with the League.

Cheers. All the best.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Bye-bye then. Please take your gripes somewhere else.

Uhm... it seems to me that Mike was basically saying this is the best case scenario, given that rewriting the code isn't feasible and full per turn transparency us off the table? I don't think he was griping in that post...

[stockwellpete]

Bye-bye then. Please take your gripes somewhere else.

Uhm... it seems to me that Mike was basically saying this is the best case scenario, given that rewriting the code isn't feasible and full per turn transparency us off the table? I don't think he was griping in that post...

I made it clear yesterday that I was not going to allow this forum space to be used to attack Slitherine.

The way I interpret what he wrote, " This is the best they can do without releasing data or instantly banning on the first attempt." is another attack on their competence in dealing with this issue and their overall commitment to deal with cheating. You cannot separate this post from what he has written before. He also continues to suggest that cheating is a bigger problem than it is (why else keep asking for the data?) and he seems to be suggesting that banning people for just one excess download would be a preferable approach.

It should also be remembered that Slitherine sponsor this tournament and have done since the beginning. Total sponsorship now is in the region of $1500. So they are due a bit of respect, and our support, particularly when they are addressing a difficult problem very quickly and with good liaison with their playing community. Mike has his own tournament space now and he can use that if he must continue his unwarranted attacks on Slitherine.

[GDod]

Division B

GDod - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320 BC allies beat ulysisgrunt - Lysimachid 320-281 BC 64-46% in an epic struggle.

[SnuggleBunnies]

*Shrug* okay. Well getting back to the topic at hand, I think this is a reasonable response from Slitherine. While I personally would prefer to see reloads logged every turn, I can see the arguments against it. I'm also glad to have my feeling that cheating was extremely rare seem to be confirmed by Slitherine. Hopefully, it will now become vanishingly rare, and we can all get back to enjoying raging at actual bad luck.