Posted by digitalv on 11/15/2021 1:59:00 PM (view original):
I alerted them to a user that has 3 teams in one world the other day (2 D1 and a D3). They even went on to say they thought it was overkill to have that many teams in the same world. Now I want to see what they end up doing with all those IDs

Just an update-not sure if this was caused by CS or not, but this user is now down to 1 team. He did not return as coach to one of his D1 teams and his D3 team is now vacant as well.

Posted by gillispie on 11/18/2021 4:02:00 AM (view original):
"they'll start threads calling out folks with multiple teams who are in compliance" - well, there was definitely a specific one i was referring to... but folks bring up the 1000 mile rule and not liking it sort of all the time, i guess that is more relevant.

not really important though. i don't want it to be lost in my post that i support the 1 team / world rule, and have much longer than i actually wanted it on a personal basis, which is a fairly recent development. and the reason came across more spiteful than intended! the reason i support it is this... i am glad there are folks like dogg and benis who are passionate about the game, to the point that it deeply offenses their sensibilities to have fairness issues dealt with poorly. to the point where it makes it hard to enjoy the game in spite of even relatively minor fairness issues. i would rather meet them where they stand on this issue and have them content than to argue about it forever, basically.

i used to approach this stuff pretty similarly myself. it was sort of crushing to me when i was new to d1 and started getting regular collusion sitemails. i viewed those folks really harshly, too. it took a lot of time and conversations with those same folks to realize, although it honestly still half way baffles me... that what i thought was common sense fairness, really wasn't that common. a substantial number of folks i semi-confronted after a collusive sitemail saw nothing wrong with those actions. how, i thought... just take it to its logical conclusion and the absurdity is self-evident! but apparently it isn't. and therefore what i took as blatant disregard for fair play (in the general sense, not specifically the FPGs), was often more of a difference of opinion on how things should be. anyway, i guess i have sort of accepted a lot of folks just don't think like me on this stuff, that what i thought was obvious or universal, isn't, and that my view isn't really more valid than anyone else's, even if those views seem bat **** crazy from where i'm standing.

so yeah, i'm glad we have the doggs of the world, even on this issue... even if i'm not glad about the stink raised on this kind of stuff, on what i consider sort of fringe FPG issues, and i do think those issues are over-elevated on the forums and that it sets a bad vibe. perhaps i only consider them fringe because in my time, recruiting collusion was rampant, and the state of fair play now is vastly better. but anyway, the bottom line is, i'd rather have the doggs of the world as content (well content enough i suppose) community members, than to fight over where to draw the line on multiple teams, or have them quit or stop being so involved. dogg himself is a great member of the community, that's kinda why he's my example here, virtually everyone seems to think that? but i do hope that over time those folks will soften their opinions a bit, as they recognize that there are a lot of people who just genuinely, with no bad intentions, disagree with their position on what is fair.

The key here, is that you and I both know that my intentions are good. I'm less irritated with foul play itself. And more irritated by foul play that is known about, being allowed to continue! That is my gripe. That's usually when it becomes more public.

There's a coach or three out there that I see in violation, we discuss it, it gets fixed (without CS being involved), and that's that. Anything I'm griping about here, 99% of the time, CS has been involved already in some way. And/or that coach and I have already discussed it, and only THEN does it make it here.

To be completely honest, if the guilty party coach was no longer here, you probably wouldn't hear much out of me at all regarding fairplay stuff. This particular case just has me so irritated by it, that I'm feasting on it and can't let it go. I admit. Which is why I haven't even commented on any other things brought up (like what digitaltv is referring to). My issue is one now. Period. The rest I can pretty much let go

By the way, is it even possible to ban a player? I mean, he can just get another free e-mail, and more logins.

Posted by skinndogg on 11/18/2021 4:55:00 PM (view original):

By the way, is it even possible to ban a player? I mean, he can just get another free e-mail, and more logins.

Nope. And they make it even more pointless by banning their alt account but not their main account. What a deterrent from cheating.

Posted by Benis on 11/18/2021 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 11/18/2021 4:55:00 PM (view original):

By the way, is it even possible to ban a player? I mean, he can just get another free e-mail, and more logins.

Nope. And they make it even more pointless by banning their alt account but not their main account. What a deterrent from cheating.

I don't even think the alt was banned. More teams were registered under it which started Topdoggs CS tickets.

If the FBI were run by WiS and they caught a bank robber, the sole penalty would be returning the money.

Posted by skinndogg on 11/18/2021 4:55:00 PM (view original):

By the way, is it even possible to ban a player? I mean, he can just get another free e-mail, and more logins.

an important point, at the crux of the whole thing.

this is a casual, for-fun game, not the world series of poker, and its a small community. we should expect a fairly small amount of resources to be devoted to anti-cheat efforts, just from that 10,000 foot view.

but then the technical realities come into play, like skinndogg brings up. sure, some guy with two well-known IDs in a world might abuse those to get an advantage. but its more likely some guy with a secret alt is using that ID to get an advantage. the 1000 mile rule does nothing to address that. meanwhile, the advantage from multiple teams is dwarfed by the impact of recruiting collusion between local power schools, so we are basically worrying about the small part of the small part of the problem here.

i'm not saying we shouldn't address cheating, only that we should be clear-eyed about the realities. the REAL cheaters, none of this stuff we are talking about here does anything to touch them.

the problem with the public multiple IDs in a world is really all perception. its the visible 5% if the ice berg, so folks latch on to it. but i hope y'all know deep down that going after that 5% isn't really all that productive. it might make you feel better, but that's about it.

Posted by skinndogg on 11/18/2021 4:55:00 PM (view original):

By the way, is it even possible to ban a player? I mean, he can just get another free e-mail, and more logins.

Correct. But it's better for them to start sneaking around with 5 credits than 50 that they've built up the wrong way

"This is a casual, for-fun game, not the world series of poker."

This is no different than a video game to me and I pay way more for WIS than I do Call of Duty, Valorant, Overwatch, etc. Those are also casual, for-fun games for 99% of the player base. Those games' publishers spend a lot of money and resources on anti-cheat software and personnel to deal with public reporting. Is it perfect? No. But it is nice when publishers are taking an active approach to protect paying customers. Hell, Valorant is free to play and has an entire team dedicated to their anti-cheat technology. I've paid hundreds of dollars to WIS in the last couple years.

We bring up the 1,000 mile FPG rule because it is the only thing we as customers who have no access to IP server logs can report. I agree with you that one team per world would make more sense. But this is what we have now and if CS is taking a reactive and soft approach to blatant FPG rules violations, then its not a good sign for a proactive approach to catch those who are far more crafty about it.

Look, I know the CS team is tiny. I know they don't have the resources that other publishers do. But at the very least, IP verification for user accounts is not too difficult to implement. Software can make it at least more difficult for users to have multiple teams in a world. And setting an example when its more than one offense can go a long way to deter others. I don't think this is very strict at all. Steam stamps a permanent VAC Ban notice on public profiles of users on the first offense of cheating. We certainly don't need to go that far, but its nice to feel protected as a paying customer.

IP identification? I have used my phone, my home computer, my work computer, and my wife's phone when needed to access WIS. I don't think IP is going to stop anything either.

"meanwhile, the advantage from multiple teams is dwarfed by the impact ofrecruiting collusion between local power schools, so we are basically worrying about the small part of the small part of the problem here"

Can you share some examples of this happening recently? I realize this may have been an issue 10 years ago but has anyone called this out recently? In the 7 years I've been playing HD, I can't think of any controversies like this.

I could be mistaken so please correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like you're either remembering things that USED to happen or youre calling out things that COULD happen while downplaying the issues that actually are happening.

Posted by hypnotoad on 11/19/2021 7:33:00 AM (view original):
If the FBI were run by WiS and they caught a bank robber, the sole penalty would be returning the money.

Also, this one made me LOL. Nice.

Posted by Basketts on 11/19/2021 12:51:00 PM (view original):
"This is a casual, for-fun game, not the world series of poker."

This is no different than a video game to me and I pay way more for WIS than I do Call of Duty, Valorant, Overwatch, etc. Those are also casual, for-fun games for 99% of the player base. Those games' publishers spend a lot of money and resources on anti-cheat software and personnel to deal with public reporting. Is it perfect? No. But it is nice when publishers are taking an active approach to protect paying customers. Hell, Valorant is free to play and has an entire team dedicated to their anti-cheat technology. I've paid hundreds of dollars to WIS in the last couple years.

We bring up the 1,000 mile FPG rule because it is the only thing we as customers who have no access to IP server logs can report. I agree with you that one team per world would make more sense. But this is what we have now and if CS is taking a reactive and soft approach to blatant FPG rules violations, then its not a good sign for a proactive approach to catch those who are far more crafty about it.

Look, I know the CS team is tiny. I know they don't have the resources that other publishers do. But at the very least, IP verification for user accounts is not too difficult to implement. Software can make it at least more difficult for users to have multiple teams in a world. And setting an example when its more than one offense can go a long way to deter others. I don't think this is very strict at all. Steam stamps a permanent VAC Ban notice on public profiles of users on the first offense of cheating. We certainly don't need to go that far, but its nice to feel protected as a paying customer.

Setting an example CAN go a long way! It's HUGE! It would change a lot in my opinion.

Well said basketts

Posted by skinndogg on 11/19/2021 1:58:00 PM (view original):

IP identification? I have used my phone, my home computer, my work computer, and my wife's phone when needed to access WIS. I don't think IP is going to stop anything either.

Not device IP, but network IP. All your devices would have the same. Of course, your work network would be different. It can be used to identify multiple users per network IP. Cookies can aid in this too. This is used in the same way you might get a notice when you log in to a website from a new network that requires an additional step to verify your account.

We use heap.io for behavioral data. These kind of diagnostic tools are accessible to small teams and can be used for auto-flagging certain criteria to make it easier for CS to review. The more automation/active monitoring, the less need for users to report/witch hunt on the forums, which is what I think rubs Gil the wrong way.

Posted by Basketts on 11/19/2021 12:51:00 PM (view original):
"This is a casual, for-fun game, not the world series of poker."

This is no different than a video game to me and I pay way more for WIS than I do Call of Duty, Valorant, Overwatch, etc. Those are also casual, for-fun games for 99% of the player base. Those games' publishers spend a lot of money and resources on anti-cheat software and personnel to deal with public reporting. Is it perfect? No. But it is nice when publishers are taking an active approach to protect paying customers. Hell, Valorant is free to play and has an entire team dedicated to their anti-cheat technology. I've paid hundreds of dollars to WIS in the last couple years.

We bring up the 1,000 mile FPG rule because it is the only thing we as customers who have no access to IP server logs can report. I agree with you that one team per world would make more sense. But this is what we have now and if CS is taking a reactive and soft approach to blatant FPG rules violations, then its not a good sign for a proactive approach to catch those who are far more crafty about it.

Look, I know the CS team is tiny. I know they don't have the resources that other publishers do. But at the very least, IP verification for user accounts is not too difficult to implement. Software can make it at least more difficult for users to have multiple teams in a world. And setting an example when its more than one offense can go a long way to deter others. I don't think this is very strict at all. Steam stamps a permanent VAC Ban notice on public profiles of users on the first offense of cheating. We certainly don't need to go that far, but its nice to feel protected as a paying customer.

i agree this game is similar enough to all those, and if this game had anywhere near the revenue stream of those games, i would expect a similar investment in anti-cheating. and i do agree its important for CS in these communities to take a stand where they are able to, to set the tone for everything else. most folks value community and want to be on the right side of things, so CS making it clear what the right side is, there's a lot of value in that.

i do think there's somewhat more of a gray area, more of a subjective nature in HD, due to all the human interaction. there's gray area in those games you mentioned, like how exploiting a game glitch is frowned upon if 5 people do it but considered necessary if its widespread. but those things tend to be less sticky than things like, the conference gentleman's rule collusion, is it fair play or not (where conference mates either avoid, or are less inclined, to battle conference mates)?

i wouldn't be against them doing IP verification or that sort of thing. there are weeds there, like different humans in the same household playing, which is generally allowed - and an important part of community building - in games like this or those you mentioned. i guess i don't really disagree with anything you said, but perhaps put more weight on the smallness of the community, and the experiences i had talking with other HD coaches who had much different views than me on what fair play should be, which made me appreciate the subjective nature of fair play in HD more than i used to.