Ask Slitherine. I have just suggested that the security of their system, and discussion about it, might be a consideration for them.
Some of us find your approach far too aggressive and unreasonable. And pompous. You made your mind up about Slitherine's response right from the outset. Iain wrote, "We have a zero tolerance for cheating and anyone we know is doing it would be banned. Determining whether someone is cheating beyond a reasonable level of doubt is the issue." This is a perfectly acceptable response for most people, but not you. Slitherine are moving quickly and they are not avoiding the issue. Hopefully we will have the new system before we start Season 9 on October 1st.My tone is negative because of Ian's response to my very first post in which he declared reloads as "normal behaviour" and came just short of saying transparency on player reloads was out of the question due to a fear of false accusation of unpopular players. His followup post also indicated that transparency was not the preferred route. A review of the data is not required in my opinion. We just want it for ourselves. A majority of respondents are in favour of this approach.
Whatever new system is brought in there will be a range of behavioural responses to it, most of them completely unproblematic, but there will be some issues where players are falsely accused of cheating, which will lead to some tournament disruption. You may not care about this. I do. You keep using the word "we" as if everything you say has overwhelming support. Not everyone thinks turn-by-turn excess download counts are without their problems, some of us would prefer a summary at the end of a match which could then be investigated if one of the players was unhappy about the numbers.That that many people whom I have had rather pointed philosophical differences over the approach of the game, like camping, would support my call for transparency would indicate that this is a mature community that would not stoop to the "worst-case" scenario that you and Ian are afraid of. We might differ on individual issues but they are just that - differences of opinion that don't spill over into unrelated matters. We just want to see transparency on a turn by turn basis.
You are just twisting and turning now. What you wrote was very clearly about cheating . . . “those people are free to not play in the DL or any other tournament where the organiser doesn't have a 0 tolerance policy.” I am not going to get into semantic arguments with you.I was referring to 0 tolerance on reloads that some players (not me) would prefer. Once again you know this though but you misrepresent me to try and score points. Why?
Again, take this up with Slitherine. The issue emanated from the FOG2DL and is being discussed here. I do not have a problem with that. It is an awkward moment for Slitherine so perhaps they want to conduct their review first before addressing the wider community? That's fine with me. If our discussions here are helpful in any way to Slitherine then that is a good thing. My main point remains though that I am not going to allow this space to be used as a platform for you to attack Slitherine, particularly when they are acting reasonably and promptly to address player concerns.I am "in your house" because this is where Slitherine chooses to keep its communications on the issue. Several times, players have raised suggestions that you have dismissed because of the fact that you run the DL and these changes would potentially pose a headache for you (ie your fear of having to adjudicate these matters which Pantherboy -a player in favour of turn by turn transparency - succinctly pointed out would not be an issue because you would not be required to). My point is that the logistical organisation of the DL should not be the primary lens by which we evaluate our options.
I actually think Steve (pantherboy) is mistaken on this. No problem. I think our differences are probably rooted in the different ways that we have run our own tournaments. When Steve used to run League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (LOEG) back in the day with FOG1, his main organisational inputs were at the beginning and end of the tournament. Someone new observing LOEG in its middle weeks may not have realised that there was an organiser at all. It still worked very well because Steve was very clear about what he was, and was not, prepared to do.
But I run the FOG2DL in a very different way where I am available right the way through, and I try to create an ongoing "magazine" feel to the forum. There are often new threads and debating points for players to talk about. And during the course of the season I get hundreds and hundreds of PM's and sometimes I do have to resolve disputes. What you are asking for with the turn-by-turn excess download count will inevitably lead to accusations of cheating against players who will turn out to be completely innocent. This will only be a small number of cases, but I definitely will be called on to sort things out. That you do not recognise this potential for conflict suggests to me that you still have quite a bit to learn about running tournaments, particularly larger ones. It sometimes is quite a demanding job.
The argument has moved on now to how the issue of "transparency" might best be handled. Some of us are saying at the end of the match, others favour turn-by-turn. We will just have to wait and see what Slitherine decides.If most players are ok with Slitherine continuing to monitor privately why are most respondents positive over transparency? Also, feel free to quote me where I said it was a major problem. Where am I attacking the DL in any way shape or form? Once again it looks like you are building a straw man to score points. My stance has consistently been that Slitherine failed big time with dkalenda. Slitherine has said it doesn't have the manpower to solve the issue. Technical solutions without transparency must have a degree of tolerance that a cheater like dkalenda can exploit. Ergo, rather than Slitherine set the tolerances for us and leave us in the dark, have the reload information publicly available so the community can set its own tolerances.
I said that your attacks on Slitherine, suggesting that they were soft (and incompetent) on cheating can indirectly be construed as an attack the FOG2DL because you are saying that cheating is a serious issue across the FOG2 multi-player community. Some players may feel that the FOG2DL is tainted as a result. I do not accept that view.
Yes, there were problems with Slitherine’s dealings with dkalenda, but it remains the case that he was flagged and warned, and his season was completely disrupted by the current Slitherine system. A more thorough check by the member of staff would undoubtedly seen him disqualified a week or two earlier this season. We can only speculate that if he was flagged before this season then more thorough checks then may also have seen him removed from the tournament.
More slippery evasion. It seems to me that the things you write don’t actually mean what they appear to mean. Very convenient. Sorry, but I cannot be arsed to deconstruct it all. The thing that will inimidate a cheating player is getting a warning PM from Slitherine telling them they have been flagged for excess downloads. It certainly intimidated dkalenda and completely disrupted his season leading to his eventual demise. We have not seen anything like that with any other player in our tournament. My own view is that the current monitoring system just needs an upgrade, not complete replacement, because it does do some of the important things required of it.Where did I equate reloading to cheating? Certainly not where you quoted me. Strawman #3. My point was to illustrate the limitations of a non-transparent solution. Someone raised concerns with dkalenda. The answer was insufficient proof when Slitherine could have delivered a blunt 0 reload answer. Maybe this is one of the things that you know that I don't. In any case, this was a demonstration where if the information was public, perhaps dkalenda would have been intimidated by the transparency to never have gone on the cheating spree he did, to begin with since he would know he would be under increased scrutiny from the rest of the players. Instead, since it was handled behind the scenes, and then we get the 225 reload situation.
Seriously? Is that what you think? That I am taking this personally? Stop being being so bloody ridiculous! How can it be an attack on me? I am not responsible for dkalenda’s behaviour, or Slitherine’s response to it. As soon as I received the evidence I shared it with Ian and Anders and we came to a unanimous decision and the prompt action we took was widely supported on here.Stop taking this so personally. This is not an attack on you.