Players to Police Cheating Players

[Stalingrad V80]

I was going to stop at Stalingrad but now I think I will rape and pillage your countryside awhile, just for kicks.

 

Race Pilsner

 

Yeah , whatever.

[Pharaoh]

Not sure if that answered all the accusations, if not I probably don't care all that much anyway.

 

Race Pilsner

Baltic States 84

 

I suppose if you do not have to worry about your flanks or any form of counter attack, CRuss was actively helping you waltz thru his country by removing all obstacles prior to your arrival, then the perfectly aligned scenario you outlined is statistically possible. In fact, it could even be considered likely, considering that even the computer fights harder than the resistance you encountered.

 

It is also not surprising that you "don't care all that much anyway". Gaming integrity and ethics do not seem to be hindering your choices in any way.

 

I have received a surprising amount of email responses on this topic. For purposes of disclosure of evidence to the jury of players, here is a VERBATIM copy of his offer to another player in Game 83, which was refused.

 

"A commitment that extends so far as to hand our nations over to you and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and your TA xxxxxx who I don't know from previous games, in return for your word that you will do the same for us in 84. That way your team can kick Monk's ass in 83 and we can kick his ass in 84. That is the statement we wish to make to him. We would of course never admit this plan to anyone outside our close knit group. We would ask your team also to never admit it. You would crush us and we would make appropriate bleating noises in 83 before we drop. In 84 you could just join with privacy on if you preferred and we wouldn't lord our success over you on the forums. If you don't want to take this deal, which to be honest would baffle me since it's a good deal, I will hold no animosity. We will still join 84, with more friends now obviously since we see what Monk is up to and several of my friends from work are interested in the game, but we would continue to fight in 83 rather than work for your victory in the game.

This is what could happen in 83 if your team agrees: ..... "

 

and it goes on from there outling in detail how and when various countries would empty cities to allow for rapid take over, etc.

 

"I know you will wonder if I am being honest. I am. I'm not doing this as a vendetta, which it probably sounds like. I'm simply doing it because it would be far more fun to kick Monk's twisted ass that anyone else in Victory I have ever met. I hope you see I am doing it for the fun of it, not due to some dark hateful feelings. This is a game and I play it for fun, not to get hard feelings. I truly want you and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and xxxxxx to not only win game 83 but to freakin set records for the best game ever in those nations. We would like to do the same in 84."

 

Technically, sure this sort of behavior is within the exact ruleset of the game. The fact the someone could recruit in a friend from work then HELP them allow you to absorb their country with ease is also TECHNICALLY within the rules. I do not think your chosen style of play is shared by, nor approved by, the majority of players of this game. Although you may find playing through manipulations of rules, loopholes and grey areas to be FUN, I believe it serves only to confirm the existence of yet another pathetic player.

 

PBEM is a worthwhile hobby, when played with forthright honesty, integrity and within the spirit of the game. If the players in 84 choose not to shut you down through DW's and forced peace, then you will likely have successfully purchased yourself a win.

 

Not sure if that clarified my stance on all the issues, if not I actually DO care all that much anyway.

 

I was going to offer empathy as I have run into suspicious play before also. I was going to add that cheating can't usually be proven, but you can take consolation in that those that bend the rules rarely do well after their initial success. The truly good players relish fighting against multiple opponents throughout the game and winning anyway. Those that prefer a lopsided advantage at the game's start usually can't win that way or any other way. That does not stop them from ruining the first real player's game they meet with an unfair advantage, but they still lose. It seems that you found the smoking gun though in this case. Good job.

[Race Pilsner]

I was going to stop at Stalingrad but now I think I will rape and pillage your countryside awhile, just for kicks.

 

Race Pilsner

 

Yeah , whatever.

 

Amusing, isn't it? A guy plays a really bad game and he gets jumped on. He has no real military options but there is always the propaganda area. You never know, there might be someone fooled into taking up your fight for you. It won't change your fate however Southern, and I will enjoy carving up the corpse of your nation. Mostly I will laugh at how feeble your defenses were. Ready for me indeed.

 

Race Pilsner

[Race Pilsner]

Not sure if that answered all the accusations, if not I probably don't care all that much anyway.

 

Race Pilsner

Baltic States 84

 

I suppose if you do not have to worry about your flanks or any form of counter attack, CRuss was actively helping you waltz thru his country by removing all obstacles prior to your arrival, then the perfectly aligned scenario you outlined is statistically possible. In fact, it could even be considered likely, considering that even the computer fights harder than the resistance you encountered.

 

It is also not surprising that you "don't care all that much anyway". Gaming integrity and ethics do not seem to be hindering your choices in any way.

 

I have received a surprising amount of email responses on this topic. For purposes of disclosure of evidence to the jury of players, here is a VERBATIM copy of his offer to another player in Game 83, which was refused.

 

"A commitment that extends so far as to hand our nations over to you and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and your TA xxxxxx who I don't know from previous games, in return for your word that you will do the same for us in 84. That way your team can kick Monk's ass in 83 and we can kick his ass in 84. That is the statement we wish to make to him. We would of course never admit this plan to anyone outside our close knit group. We would ask your team also to never admit it. You would crush us and we would make appropriate bleating noises in 83 before we drop. In 84 you could just join with privacy on if you preferred and we wouldn't lord our success over you on the forums. If you don't want to take this deal, which to be honest would baffle me since it's a good deal, I will hold no animosity. We will still join 84, with more friends now obviously since we see what Monk is up to and several of my friends from work are interested in the game, but we would continue to fight in 83 rather than work for your victory in the game.

This is what could happen in 83 if your team agrees: ..... "

 

and it goes on from there outling in detail how and when various countries would empty cities to allow for rapid take over, etc.

 

"I know you will wonder if I am being honest. I am. I'm not doing this as a vendetta, which it probably sounds like. I'm simply doing it because it would be far more fun to kick Monk's twisted ass that anyone else in Victory I have ever met. I hope you see I am doing it for the fun of it, not due to some dark hateful feelings. This is a game and I play it for fun, not to get hard feelings. I truly want you and xxxxxx and xxxxxxx and xxxxxx to not only win game 83 but to freakin set records for the best game ever in those nations. We would like to do the same in 84."

 

Technically, sure this sort of behavior is within the exact ruleset of the game. The fact the someone could recruit in a friend from work then HELP them allow you to absorb their country with ease is also TECHNICALLY within the rules. I do not think your chosen style of play is shared by, nor approved by, the majority of players of this game. Although you may find playing through manipulations of rules, loopholes and grey areas to be FUN, I believe it serves only to confirm the existence of yet another pathetic player.

 

PBEM is a worthwhile hobby, when played with forthright honesty, integrity and within the spirit of the game. If the players in 84 choose not to shut you down through DW's and forced peace, then you will likely have successfully purchased yourself a win.

 

Not sure if that clarified my stance on all the issues, if not I actually DO care all that much anyway.

 

I was going to offer empathy as I have run into suspicious play before also. I was going to add that cheating can't usually be proven, but you can take consolation in that those that bend the rules rarely do well after their initial success. The truly good players relish fighting against multiple opponents throughout the game and winning anyway. Those that prefer a lopsided advantage at the game's start usually can't win that way or any other way. That does not stop them from ruining the first real player's game they meet with an unfair advantage, but they still lose. It seems that you found the smoking gun though in this case. Good job.

 

Normally I would think, case in point. Of course the opinion of Libya wouldn't be exactly objective anyway given that Libya is in the same group of players as Southern.

 

I won't be intimidated into stopping my invasion of Southern, and tactics such as this will be repayed with more conviction, not with less.

 

Race Pilsner

[Marklen X]

Stalingrad, you still have not answered my question. Why, when you have a guy you believe to be a cheater, and against whom you are asking the entire game to attack, are you still attacking south, instead of trying to punish him?

 

Race, I think the concept of trying to get one alliance to help you in one game and returning the favor in another is about as cheap a trick as can be pulled, and has no place in this game. I do not neccesarily believe you have pulled a fast one here however.

[Doctor Strangemind]

There is a great unjust irony going on here, fueled by sour grapes. Race and I had been absent from Victory for around 10+ years. I believe game 33 was my last game. This was what I would like to call “the good ole’ days of Victory”. That was a time when the type of game you all claim you would like to play actually happened. There was a BBS but no Forum, and most of the players still submitted their turns and diplomacy through the post office. Players did drop out after upsetting losses back then as well. In fact by turn 30, 2/3 of the original players were done. This left a lot of computer (Borg) controlled territory and unless the computer has gotten a lot smarter since then, they were easy conquests. The only area that the Borg did build a lot of defense was in AIC centers and 50+ cities. Single search and occupy units could be used to gobble up everything else. From what I’ve seen that does not appear to have changed.

 

Anyway, when we decided to get in on another game after our long absence (game 83); we came in with Race, Race’s adult son, and me. Not long into that game there appeared to be a lot of this “collusion” going on. It was upsetting to see what had become of this game “Victory” that we loved, and at the time one of the most effective options to combat the problem seemed to be to help another alliance to strike back with better players. The DW and force peace was thought of and tried but turned out to be a pointless and futile exercise against anyone with enough TA’s and a lot of conquered territory. That’s what the letter you have dissected was all about. As you know, the deal never happened and in hind sight it was for the best. We dropped out of 83 because we felt at the time that it had already been bought and paid for and we hoped game 84 would be different.

 

Now the unjust irony is that Race, because he had a great opening game with the help of Northern Russia is now the poster boy for all accusations of cheating. He explained how he did it and he admitted to the contents of that letter from game 83 before someone felt they needed to be justified in posting it. I guess for some, no explanation will due because the only way you could be defeated is at the hands of a cheater. Pretty arrogant, and we are supposed to feel sorry for the fallen ego.

 

If the players of Victory really feel the need for a code of ethics then the grown up thing to do would be to write one and have every player sign it. I’m not sure it can be enforced but at least some sense of ethics that everyone agrees upon can be established. Dropping positions and who gets the spoils appears to be the biggest bone of contention. Write a Players Constitution and enough of the whining and finger pointing. I would also suggest another string in the Forum to discuss it. Please keep it civil, free of accusations and childish rants.

[chairman lar]

Doc,

 

I, too, miss the 'good ole days' when TA's & ALL's were precious & guarded. Sadly, they're gone; as 'good ole days' should be.

 

Race was kind enough to give me the 'play-by-play' for this scenario and, after plotting it on the map, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say SV80 got snookered.

 

A Code of Ethics won't help nearly as well, however, as RTG posting nations & Avatars when the game opens. Then, at least, we can sort ourselves out and plan accordingly when we see an 'arrangement' that's done evil in the past. Beyond that, it's up to Russ to mind the store.

[Stalingrad V80]

Stalingrad, you still have not answered my question. Why, when you have a guy you believe to be a cheater, and against whom you are asking the entire game to attack, are you still attacking south, instead of trying to punish him?

 

Race, I think the concept of trying to get one alliance to help you in one game and returning the favor in another is about as cheap a trick as can be pulled, and has no place in this game. I do not neccesarily believe you have pulled a fast one here however.

 

Because you were the easier target? Because we all would rather fight in the enemy's country than our own? Because my "ally" CRuss chose not to inform me of his gifting his position to the Baltics and the deliberate undermining of his own defenses?

 

The "fast one" so to speak, is what appears to simply be pre-arranging for the uncontested acquisition of CRuss's capitol and resources. The planned handover of a player position from the beginning. The only data I have ever had has been the world events notifications. The situation seems pretty fishy and Baltics explanation seems far too perfect/convenient. Baltic's plan seems to have been an effortless drive to Stalingrad from the beginning, as soon as CRuss let him know about our Turn 2 Alliance and the southern war declarations.

 

 

In the end, there is no rule indicating that you must effectively defend your nation from a specific enemy or not "cooperate" in ways that could be questionable to others. There is no rule preventing a player from submitting a minimal turn just for the deadline of the computer taking over, in order to prevent defenses from being automatically built. Nothing prevents someone dropping out rather than fight a friend who happened to get set up on his border thus border giving his friend an inactive border. Many other examples are readily available of questionable, yet legal, tactics. There are rules and code in Victory! that are present for no other purpose than to limit abusive situations when it comes to undermining defenses and cooperating in questionable ways. But RTG cannot stop them all.

 

PBM players have always been very good at finding the weak spots in a game design. Some people will do whatever they can in a PBM game to get an edge. Sometimes questionable tactics can be decisive and sometimes it just makes you new enemies and you end up losing regardless.

 

BTW Race, Victory players are far too intelligent to fall for your "there is always the propaganda area" distraction. If a sufficient number of other players choose to sacrifice a few morale points to shut you down then the only policing method available to us will have been used on a very deserving target.

 

An ideal game of Victory! might be one where all 40 nations are played to the bitter end and where all nations have their own best interests at heart all the time but that will never happen. We can just hope that we do not encounter abusers, or that the game becomes one of subtle variations of questionable tactics.

[Race Pilsner]

Doc,

 

We both know that in the absence of military options some people will try to use personal attacks to either cow their opponent, or to get others to gang up on them. The real test is how balanced and consistent the opinions are that they express. Do they simply expound the ends that player wants to see achieved in their game, or are they opinions truly based on a personally held moral code, and applied without prejudice even if it means they are critical of their own TA's.

 

I have brought up Canada several times, but still I am the sole target in this exercise. No explanations have been given and none of the Calamity Jane's who are crying like little french girls here seem at all troubled over that. This shows clearly how hypocritical some people are. We have seen this before, we will likely see it again.

 

C'est la Vie

 

Race Pilsner

[Slicer]

A Code of Ethics won't help nearly as well, however, as RTG posting nations & Avatars when the game opens.

 

Ummm...there are often very good reasons not to let on who is who. For instance, a good player who has won before might be unfairly targetted with propaganda, "Look buddy, this guy is your negihbor. He will eat you up and spit you out. You'd better TA with ME because you and I can take him out together." Hooey. Also, if I was a TA with players A, B, and C last game, everyone will think I am this time too and make alliances against my TA block. DISINFORMATION is definitely part of this game. In fact, that is all that this particular "cheaters, blah, blah, blah" forum string here is: PROPAGANDA. Accusing people of cheating without any proof, just supposition and conjecture, makes the accuser look to me like someone who is compensating for bad play by blaming thier losses on the ubiquitous 'cheater.' I have been accused of cheating (though you may not know it). Well, if conquering my enemies is proof positive of cheating, then look out, because I am going to cheat all over you! (Unless you are my ally or TA in this game).

 

So accuse all you want. Some people feel the need to defend themselves. Gang up on me if you want. I typically fight 3-6 players at any given time, though recently it has been only 1-3. I am going to be increasing that number very soon, I promise you!

 

Tally Ho and a Slice, Slice, Slice!!!

 

[Race Pilsner]

A Code of Ethics won't help nearly as well, however, as RTG posting nations & Avatars when the game opens.

 

Ummm...there are often very good reasons not to let on who is who. For instance, a good player who has won before might be unfairly targetted with propaganda, "Look buddy, this guy is your negihbor. He will eat you up and spit you out. You'd better TA with ME because you and I can take him out together." Hooey. Also, if I was a TA with players A, B, and C last game, everyone will think I am this time too and make alliances against my TA block. DISINFORMATION is definitely part of this game. In fact, that is all that this particular "cheaters, blah, blah, blah" forum string here is: PROPAGANDA. Accusing people of cheating without any proof, just supposition and conjecture, makes the accuser look to me like someone who is compensating for bad play by blaming thier losses on the ubiquitous 'cheater.' I have been accused of cheating (though you may not know it). Well, if conquering my enemies is proof positive of cheating, then look out, because I am going to cheat all over you! (Unless you are my ally or TA in this game).

 

So accuse all you want. Some people feel the need to defend themselves. Gang up on me if you want. I typically fight 3-6 players at any given time, though recently it has been only 1-3. I am going to be increasing that number very soon, I promise you!

 

Tally Ho and a Slice, Slice, Slice!!!

 

 

LOL,

 

Slicer that was awesome.

 

Race Pilsner

[rfouasnon]

I cannot help but to think that Race Pilsner is just as guilty as the person who made that suggestion to him to throw one game to get an advantage in a different game . Why didn't he do the right thing when player X initially made the suggestion to manipulate games and contact game moderation , in this case Russ ? No , he brings it up to defend himself once he starts getting accused of cheating himself . Sorry , but he is not entirely guiltless himself.....

[Harbinger of Death]

I've thought alot about issues such as this, and I feel that a nice option for limiting this type of behavior is to require a 10 turn pre-payment. The setup costs $100 (or so), and includes the first 10 turns. Given the cost of a typical game, I would think that few players would have heartburn with such a charge, and it would limit the number of drops on T1-T3. Still wouldn't solve all of the problems, but it may help minimize them.

 

Unfortunately, PBM and now PBeM has always had these types of issues. I have not found a game that is totally immune, although some are better than others. I agree with many on this list who feel the players need to police their own and make them pay when found guilty. It is unlikely that a moderator will do so.

 

Harbinger of Death

Ireland 84

Czech 85

[Stalingrad V80]

A Code of Ethics won't help nearly as well, however, as RTG posting nations & Avatars when the game opens.

Accusing people of cheating without any proof, just supposition and conjecture, makes the accuser look to me like someone who is compensating for bad play by blaming thier losses on the ubiquitous 'cheater.' Well, if conquering my enemies is proof positive of cheating, then look out, because I am going to cheat all over you! (Unless you are my ally or TA in this game).

 

 

The "fishy activity" was presented to the moderator well before he blitzed into SRuss. As for Canada, perhaps something similar is going on there, just more to support the point.

 

Conquering your enemies - that's what the game is about.

 

Gifting to your friends who are pretending to be your enemies (or even worse, gifting to yourself, but being officially registered as "your friend") - that's what this topic is about.

[Guest Spongebob]

A Code of Ethics won't help nearly as well, however, as RTG posting nations & Avatars when the game opens.

 

Ummm...there are often very good reasons not to let on who is who. For instance, a good player who has won before might be unfairly targetted with propaganda, "Look buddy, this guy is your negihbor. He will eat you up and spit you out. You'd better TA with ME because you and I can take him out together." Hooey. Also, if I was a TA with players A, B, and C last game, everyone will think I am this time too and make alliances against my TA block. DISINFORMATION is definitely part of this game. In fact, that is all that this particular "cheaters, blah, blah, blah" forum string here is: PROPAGANDA. Accusing people of cheating without any proof, just supposition and conjecture, makes the accuser look to me like someone who is compensating for bad play by blaming thier losses on the ubiquitous 'cheater.' I have been accused of cheating (though you may not know it). Well, if conquering my enemies is proof positive of cheating, then look out, because I am going to cheat all over you! (Unless you are my ally or TA in this game).

 

So accuse all you want. Some people feel the need to defend themselves. Gang up on me if you want. I typically fight 3-6 players at any given time, though recently it has been only 1-3. I am going to be increasing that number very soon, I promise you!

 

Tally Ho and a Slice, Slice, Slice!!!

 

 

OMG - All this time I have been picked on by Cheaters See told you I was not as bad as everyone makes out I am. Cheaters have made my life a living hell. DW on all cheaters (not me)