Titan System Revalation

[Geronus]

As long as the complaints are reworded to summarize the situation, I see no problem with Tom's suggested *experiment*. I agree that the accuser's identity should be protected, and I believe that as much as possible, scenarios should be generalized.

[Tom]

Then why the need for public discussion of things? If the need is to merely make people understand why what they are doing is wrong, I don't see why the Titans cannot provide such information in their Titan decision... the addition of precedent cases being added to the Wiki (and cited in decisions) I think would be great help.

In the vast majority of Titan cases where the decision was reversed later, it was because someone did contribute new information or a new POV that the Titans did not have at the time they made their call.

[Tom]

I think you all have done us a great service in showing on of the worst flaws of the current system.

In a community, in a game with friends, nobody would be afraid to step up and say "I'm not sure that's kosher".

And I refuse to bow down to that false spirits of fear and mistrust. I want to change it back to a spirit of playing a game together. That's what this is all about. Part the entire thing is that it should be ok to bring a case that turns out to require no action. There is "no merit" as in "your complaint was bull!@#$ from the go" and then there's "it turned out that everything is fine, but thanks for pointing out what could have been a problem".

Many board games contain a rule that certain things may be checked if there is doubt. So if my friend asks me from across the table "don't you already have six cards?", there are two outcomes: a) I don't, I show him that I don't, he says "ok, all good" and it is - or b) it turns out I do, I'll say "oops, my bad" and again everything is fine.

Can you even imagine your friend pressing a secret button at which point a hooded, invisible figure will count your cards without you knowing it, and if you made a mistake, will pop up and smack you down? Of course you can't, that's not an atmosphere you'd want to play in.


The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.

I do agree that we do not at this time have the right spirit, and that there would be some witchhunting and general badness. But we have to start somewhere if we want to set the spirit right. So, unless you have a better starting point...

[Anaris]

These are where we have the greatest chances to make something better. Right now, there is a ruling and then - the discussions continue unchanged. Usually, those who got smacked will come up with a bull!@#$ explanation, from "the Titans are out to get us" to "make it less obvious next time". Anything but a simple "ok, we did wrong".

This has convinced me that it's worth it to at least give your idea a try, Tom, because you're absolutely right.

How about we simply test it? It would require only two relatively simple changes:

• post Titans complaints to the accused as an informative message, anonymous of course
• add a "take this complaing public" button available to the complainer and the accused, so either can decide if he wants to try his case in a public forum

In case of 2, a message would be posted into the forum, anonymously, containing the complaint. A note would be added for the Titans so they can easily check the discussion. The judgement would still be made in the current Titan system, but the public discussion may show us whose fears and hopes are right or wrong.

This shouldn't be that difficult to code up.  I'll add it to my Titan Overhaul list.

I do think we should do something about the problems of recognizing people by writing styles, however.

[Geronus]

I do think we should do something about the problems of recognizing people by writing styles, however.

Why not have a Titan simply write a summary of each complaint instead of posting the complaint verbatim? That way you can also whitewash names and places. I grant that you that oftentimes someone is going to drop names in the course of the discussion, but there's no reason not to at least try and keep it generalized so that the case is considered on its merits as much as possible without the politics that come attached to specific realms and characters.

[Vellos]

I think you all have done us a great service in showing on of the worst flaws of the current system.

In a community, in a game with friends, nobody would be afraid to step up and say "I'm not sure that's kosher".

And I refuse to bow down to that false spirits of fear and mistrust. I want to change it back to a spirit of playing a game together. That's what this is all about. Part the entire thing is that it should be ok to bring a case that turns out to require no action. There is "no merit" as in "your complaint was bull!@#$ from the go" and then there's "it turned out that everything is fine, but thanks for pointing out what could have been a problem".

Many board games contain a rule that certain things may be checked if there is doubt. So if my friend asks me from across the table "don't you already have six cards?", there are two outcomes: a) I don't, I show him that I don't, he says "ok, all good" and it is - or b) it turns out I do, I'll say "oops, my bad" and again everything is fine.

Can you even imagine your friend pressing a secret button at which point a hooded, invisible figure will count your cards without you knowing it, and if you made a mistake, will pop up and smack you down? Of course you can't, that's not an atmosphere you'd want to play in.


The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.

I do agree that we do not at this time have the right spirit, and that there would be some witchhunting and general badness. But we have to start somewhere if we want to set the spirit right. So, unless you have a better starting point...

Tom, there is one, and really just one, huge and fundamental problem with what you're saying.

We aren't all friends.

And, when we are, that just might be a problem (see: Averoth).

This is especially obvious in the case of multi-cheating. Almost every Titan report I have ever filed has been about multi-cheaters. I have been wrong several times. I have also been right several times. However, when I report a multi, I'm not asking a friend how many cards are in his hand. I'm asking him IF HE EXISTS. That is, I'm not asking for confirmation on a minor point (do people report "minor" issues to the Titans?).

I simply cannot imagine reporting potential multis to a system that will supply those potential multis with the identity of their accuser. Multi-cheaters have already demonstrated an unwillingness to play by the roles and, provided a target, there is ample reason to believe they will make more multis to "get back" at their accuser.

On a sidenote, regarding language recognition: all the people offering "work-arounds," are you SERIOUS? Do you people live in corrupt countries where you have to hide your accent and slip judges large denomination bills to get a fair decision, and that's why those suggestions sound reasonable to you? To contact the moderators I should have to run my complaint through a translation machine TWICE, in order to produce errors, and therefore probably weakening my argument? That is completely preposterous. Institutionalized deception is not beneficial.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Compromise, maybe? have reports available to the public, but erase any identifying data? That's what some institutions do with released "sensitive" information.

[Bedwyr]

On a sidenote, regarding language recognition: all the people offering "work-arounds," are you SERIOUS?

You point out that multi's would probably get back at people for accusations, and then ask that?  Really?  You can't see the connection between those two ideas?

[Geronus]

Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation. Those accusations might as well remain under the current system. I assume the new system would be more for things like strategic capital moves or violations of the IR where there can be a question as to whether or not a particular action constitutes a violation of the rule.

[Vellos]

You point out that multi's would probably get back at people for accusations, and then ask that?  Really?  You can't see the connection between those two ideas?

Errr... perhaps you could explain?

I think making the names of their accusers available to multi-cheaters is a bad idea. I also think requiring work-arounds like translation machines is foolish, when you could just protect anonymity in the first place, by not revealing the accuser. What is the connection (and I assume contradiction) you are pointing out?

[Vellos]

Though actually, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I do not see the point of including accusations of multi-cheating in this new system. Only Tom and/or maybe the devs have the proper tools to investigate whether or not someone is multi-cheating, and there is no need to discuss those particular infractions. Someone either *is* or *is not* multi-cheating - it is the clearest, most cut and dry case of abuse there is. There's no questions of interpretation. Those accusations might as well remain under the current system. I assume the new system would be more for things like strategic capital moves or violations of the IR where there can be a question as to whether or not a particular action constitutes a violation of the rule.

Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but I don't see the difference. Someone did or did not do a strategic capital move. Now, maybe the distinction is slightly more difficult, but it's still a simple question of whether they did it or not, and discussion may still be necessary (family members sharing a computer might display similar verbal styles, log times, playing locations, and IPs) for either.

[Indirik]

The current system creates fear and uncertainty. Two great demotivators. We can remove or reduce both of them, by being more open. If Titan decisions were public - including the ones that didn't justify any action - then all the fearmongering going on in the game would go away. People could be corrected with links to the evidence if they made the kind of bull!@#$ claims we hear so often.

I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.

I agree with Vellos that reports should still be anonymous. The names of the accusers should be removed before being posted.

[Bedwyr]

Errr... perhaps you could explain?

I think making the names of their accusers available to multi-cheaters is a bad idea. I also think requiring work-arounds like translation machines is foolish, when you could just protect anonymity in the first place, by not revealing the accuser. What is the connection (and I assume contradiction) you are pointing out?

Not revealing the name but leaving a distinctive writing style doesn't protect anonymity.  Translation machines would indeed be silly, but posting the full complaint would be a problem (especially since often the information someone would have would be limited to a small number of people, i.e. I could file a complaint with information that only Jenred or maybe three, four other people on the Far East would have access to all of).  It'd be simple enough to post a simple version of the complaint that has:

1. The person/people involved.
2. The rule that may have been violated in specific (this capital was moved, that order was given, etc).

Person who makes the complaint could write up this basic summary when reporting easily enough.

[Peri]

I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.

Are you sure of this? Isn't there the concrete risk people will just end up saying "yes but in the decision of 24/03/2011 the move of morek's capital was not sanctioned, so that's why I am doing it, as the conditions are the same!" and so on..

I still believe that if someone that plays bm with a spirit such as the one Tom looks forward to find ends up suffering a "questionable" titans decision he will just shrug and move on. Perhaps he would feel bad, but if he likes bm and is playing between friends, sometimes things are just not as you figured they would be. Like planning a nice strategy in a boardgame only to discover rules are blurry about it and the majority thinks it should be not allowed. Disappointing? yes. Destroying your game experience? only if you're a moron.

Yes it would be nicer to have an explanation from the titans, yes it would be nicer to be allowed to explain why, in your opinion, what you did was right and so on. But do we really think that those openly blaming titans would be those contributing to these potential discussion in a civil and respectful manner? To rephrase, isn't this open discussion matter going to truly improve the decisions only on a handful of issues, whereas in the majority the debate on the forum will completely be pointless, with the accused irremovable from his opinions and at the end the decision made by someone higher in hierarchy (tom or whoever)?

I have no idea how many wrong titans decisions there have been during bm history, but I truly have the feeling that whoever is complaining about the inadequacy of the titans system and believes his own game experience to be seriously damaged by unjust titans decisions to be playing without the spirit Tom wants. And it's likely that these people are hardly going to be convinced by the community through a discussion so that at the end they could say "ok then I am wrong". Clearly I am generalizing here, but a turnover of a system like the one proposed here must take in consideration the sheer number of issues that will be modified relevantly.

To summarize, is it a good idea to potentially create a ton of flames, arguments and discussions just to provide the accused with the feeling it was not out of the blue but there are shared reasons behind the decision? Ethically speaking, the answer would be yes, but I really can't possibly see someone accepting the arguments of the community in a civil fashion to be so much disappointed if he had received the titans decision out of the blue. And, actually, perhaps it's less frustrating to live with a single out of the blue titans decision than with the potential blame of an entire army of community members.

[Indirik]

Are you sure of this? Isn't there the concrete risk people will just end up saying "yes but in the decision of 24/03/2011 the move of morek's capital was not sanctioned, so that's why I am doing it, as the conditions are the same!" and so on..

That is true. It does invite a bit of rules lawyering.

But it also provides:
1) An opportunity for people to look and see "If I do this, I'll get in trouble" and "OK, I can do it this way and be OK".
2) It will provide some idea on about how many titan actions there really are.
3) It will remove some of the generalized fear of "OMGZ! The Titans are bolt-happy!"