| Summary: | OOC Accusations of cheating on the Forum |
| Violation: | Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating |
| World: | Beluaterra |
| Complainer: | Matthew G (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=33953) |
| About: | Aaron Champion (http://battlemaster.org/UserDetails.php?ID=31496) |
Full Complaint Text:
Solari accused a group of nobles publicly of cheating on the forum. Rather than using the correct channels of titans / magistrates he chose to publicly declare the players cheating on the forum.
Forum post: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3352.0.html
A precident has been set for OOC accusations of cheating IG:
http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,1389.msg29619.html#msg29619 p>
Â
For Magistrates reading this– let's see if we can't expedite it a wee bit. Seems to me the primary issues at hand for the public thread are questions of fact.
Can we get clarity on what actually happened? Could Solari, or the accuser, or someone else, please give us a synopsis of the events?
As I understand it, Solari OOC banned several characters from Solaria for some kind of multi-accounting or clanning or something, and they migrated to D'Hara, and remain there– D'Hara is not aware of their status apparently? Meanwhile, Solari has made public statements to the effect that they are cheaters.
Is the above correct? I would appreciate either side firming up the details.
Also:
This thread WILL be moderated. I shall take delight in deleting extraneous posts. We're trying to expedite the Magistrate case process, and we fully intend to accomplish that goal.
My reaction to what Solari said about the D'haran refugees occurred after the second time he spat out an accusation. For me, the reason I was angered by this was not only by the fact that he made a blanketed accusation that fell upon myself and 4 other people (That I know of) of cheating. But also for his downplaying of it and continued provocation after the first accusation. In his response to me asking if I was done embarrassing myself, he stated, after the blanketed accusations, that it was only one person he was accusing. Yet the first accusation directed at the D'haran refugees was "You mean the OOC friends and cheaters?" If it were one person he was accusing it would have been written like this "You mean the multi-account cheater?" The second accusation was "They're buying what they're selling." The second accusation was vague but still implies that we were cheating and that there were multiple cheaters. So it was many at first and then one after he was called out? Clearly he is downplaying his accusations because he was trying to sway OOC and IC opinion of D'hara and its players for his IC gains. Just read the threads, it's very obvious because there could be no other motivation behind the accusations, unless its stupidity, and one thing Aaron is not, is stupid. We've all seen his propaganda on the forums, but this time he stepped it up. Regardless of his response to me, he threw out a blanketed comment that accused many people of cheating, twice. Then he responded like he was above the rules and in an extremely smug way. It should be noted the first accusation was in response to a discussion about the D'haran refugees.
As for the multicheater, I was unaware of it and according to him it makes me wrong for being angry with him but his accusations were blanketed and targeted many. I had every right to be angry with him, even if I was wrong after the fact, he still accused me and others of cheating, even if he worded it wrong.
I've said my piece, I will let you come to your own conclusions. Thank you for hearing me out.
Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on October 19, 2012, 06:32:56 AM
My reaction to what Solari said about the D'haran refugees occurred after the second time he spat out an accusation. For me, the reason I was angered by this was not only by the fact that he made a blanketed accusation that fell upon myself and 4 other people (That I know of) of cheating. But also for his downplaying of it and continued provocation after the first accusation. In his response to me asking if I was done embarrassing myself, he stated, after the blanketed accusations, that it was only one person he was accusing. Yet the first accusation directed at the D'haran refugees was "You mean the OOC friends and cheaters?" If it were one person he was accusing it would have been written like this "You mean the multi-account cheater?" The second accusation was "They're buying what they're selling." The second accusation was vague but still implies that we were cheating and that there were multiple cheaters. So it was many at first and then one after he was called out?
This is useful information.
---
My follow up question, then, is this– you state that you and 4 others are accused of cheating. I do not know the background here– are you the nobles that, as I understand it, were OOC banned from Solaria? Or were you IC banned?
Quote from: T-Rex Messiah on October 19, 2012, 06:32:56 AM
Clearly he is downplaying his accusations because he was trying to sway OOC and IC opinion of D'hara and its players for his IC gains. Just read the threads, it's very obvious because there could be no other motivation behind the accusations, unless its stupidity, and one thing Aaron is not, is stupid. We've all seen his propaganda on the forums, but this time he stepped it up. Regardless of his response to me, he threw out a blanketed comment that accused many people of cheating, twice. Then he responded like he was above the rules and in an extremely smug way. It should be noted the first accusation was in response to a discussion about the D'haran refugees.
As for the multicheater, I was unaware of it and according to him it makes me wrong for being angry with him but his accusations were blanketed and targeted many. I had every right to be angry with him, even if I was wrong after the fact, he still accused me and others of cheating, even if he worded it wrong.
I've said my piece, I will let you come to your own conclusions. Thank you for hearing me out.
This is an example of useless information. I have opted not to moderate it away in the interest of leaving a "case study" of useless and provocative material which should not have been posted.
Magistrates don't ask questions because we want lawyers to represent the arguments; we have some pretty significant difference of opinion within the Magistrates. We ask questions because we want facts. Please, all commenters, stick to the facts– the Magistrates will debate questions about jurisdiction and precedent and such internally, as we always do; and imputations of intent, positive or negative, are practically irrelevant.
Quote from: Vellos on October 19, 2012, 06:42:15 AM
This is useful information.
---
My follow up question, then, is this– you state that you and 4 others are accused of cheating. I do not know the background here– are you the nobles that, as I understand it, were OOC banned from Solaria? Or were you IC banned?
This is an example of useless information. I have opted not to moderate it away in the interest of leaving a "case study" of useless and provocative material which should not have been posted.
Magistrates don't ask questions because we want lawyers to represent the arguments; we have some pretty significant difference of opinion within the Magistrates. We ask questions because we want facts. Please, all commenters, stick to the facts– the Magistrates will debate questions about jurisdiction and precedent and such internally, as we always do; and imputations of intent, positive or negative, are practically irrelevant.
I was IC banned, along with one other, I believe one switched his region over before he was banned, and I know there was another that left later on, if he was banned or not I am unsure because I lost contact with the group all together. The last one was a name I saw in Solaria that is now in D'hara, I have no idea what caused his leave but he was a Solarian that went to D'hara and someone from D'hara reading the forum with the accusation could look at the background of this character and assume that this person was one of the D'haran refugees. Anyone in D'hara that came from Solaria could be grouped into this accusation.
I do remember an ooc ban way before all of this, if that's what Solari is talking about, it was a long time ago and I have no idea where this person left to, nor do I remember his name or family name. This was the only ooc ban I can remember from my time there, if there was another ooc ban after I left, I am unaware of it. The IC and OOC bans were legit, I don't think anyone would argue that, but you read the first half of my statement so I hope this helps.
Rule possibly violated:
§2 "Fair Play"
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Social_Contract
Quote
Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violations of this contract without proof or evidence.
This should be a really simple and straighforward case. Questions to answer:
- was a public accusation of cheating (etc) made?
- was it made without proof or evidence?
If both answers are "yes", it is a violation of the social contract. If one of them is not, it is not.
I would also like to point out that strictly speaking, it would have been the responsibility of the original poster to specify this rule, as the Magistrate screen explicitly says that the complainer needs to specify which rule he thinks was violated.
That is not just nitpicking. This is one of the things that would speed up Magistrate cases. Quite frankly, any case that is not fully formed should be flat-out rejected. What's the point of having players complain that Magistrates take forever when part of the time is needed to get cleaned up what the case should be about?
Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2012, 10:21:23 AM
Rule possibly violated:
§2 "Fair Play"
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Social_Contract
This should be a really simple and straighforward case. Questions to answer:
- was a public accusation of cheating (etc) made?
- was it made without proof or evidence?
If both answers are "yes", it is a violation of the social contract. If one of them is not, it is not.
Solari isn't being very clear on this, though. He didn't provide proof along with the accusation, but apparently it was a titan case that we are all blissfully unaware of over here. Though I consider it against the spirit of the social contract, calling someone who was convicted by the titans for cheating a "cheater" is not defamatory, it's just reality.
However, I doubt that all of those who joined D'Hara from the Lurias cheated in this manner: they came from various realms at various times. A single case was referred to concerning the titans. This generalization is defamatory to these people.
I also don't really see anything dirty on the family histories of our most recent additions, either.
I think it is important to provide Solari's original remark, in context:
Quote from: Solari
Quote from: Chénier
Civilized isn't what all of those Solarian exiles would describe the Lurias as.
You mean the cheaters and OOC buddies? I can't imagine why they'd have a poor opinion of us. :'(
As Chénier says, this statement is not clear. However, from the wording of both posts, it seems something of a stretch to claim that Solari was referring to
all Solarian exiles as cheaters. For one thing, his post makes a distinction between "cheaters" and "OOC buddies". For another, by the wording of Chénier's post that he was replying to, the strong implication was that
some of the Solarian exiles would not describe the Lurias as civilized, and thus only some would be among those that Solari was referring to.
I do not see what Chénier describes as a "generalization...defamatory to these people"—at least, not unless someone deliberately chooses to see themselves as being among the group described by Solari.
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 01:03:24 PM
I think it is important to provide Solari's original remark, in context:
You mean the cheaters and OOC buddies? I can't imagine why they'd have a poor opinion of us. :'(
As Chénier says, this statement is not clear. However, from the wording of both posts, it seems something of a stretch to claim that Solari was referring to all Solarian exiles as cheaters. For one thing, his post makes a distinction between "cheaters" and "OOC buddies". For another, by the wording of Chénier's post that he was replying to, the strong implication was that some of the Solarian exiles would not describe the Lurias as civilized, and thus only some would be among those that Solari was referring to.
I do not see what Chénier describes as a "generalization...defamatory to these people"—at least, not unless someone deliberately chooses to see themselves as being among the group described by Solari.
Many exiles came from the Lurias at various times, from various realms (though having passed through Solaria at some point or another). ALL of them have spread a dark image of the Lurias and particularily of Solaria.
I find it doubtful that they are all OOC buddies. Should it be the case, that's not really cheating it itself. However, he said "cheaterS". Plural. Suggesting they are all both cheaters and OOC conspirators. I find that the wording tends to leave one to believe that all of those who joined D'Hara and once resided in Solaria are cheaters.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 01:16:21 PM
Many exiles came from the Lurias at various times, from various realms (though having passed through Solaria at some point or another). ALL of them have spread a dark image of the Lurias and particularily of Solaria.
I find it doubtful that they are all OOC buddies. Should it be the case, that's not really cheating it itself. However, he said "cheaterS". Plural. Suggesting they are all both cheaters and OOC conspirators. I find that the wording tends to leave one to believe that all of those who joined D'Hara and once resided in Solaria are cheaters.
...Did I, or did I not, just say that based on the context, his remarks
do not indicate that he was talking about all those who came from the Lurias to D'Hara, but only about a subset?
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 01:21:45 PM
...Did I, or did I not, just say that based on the context, his remarks do not indicate that he was talking about all those who came from the Lurias to D'Hara, but only about a subset?
You claimed that. But I hardly come to the same conclusion from the quotes you presented. I said "the Lurian exiles", to which he retorted "those cheaters and abusers?"
Unless you assume "exile" only referred to people punished by a ruler's exiled button? 'cause I certainly don't. Exiles can be self-imposed.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 01:24:52 PM
You claimed that. But I hardly come to the same conclusion from the quotes you presented. I said "the Lurian exiles", to which he retorted "those cheaters and abusers?"
Unless you assume "exile" only referred to people punished by a ruler's exiled button? 'cause I certainly don't. Exiles can be self-imposed.
OK, here's how I read the exchange.
You: "Some of the Lurian exiles would not describe Luria as a civilized place."
Solari: "Well, I would hardly expect those of them who are cheaters and/or OOC buddies to do so. Were they who you meant?"
Quote from: Anaris on October 19, 2012, 01:28:53 PM
OK, here's how I read the exchange.
You: "Some of the Lurian exiles would not describe Luria as a civilized place."
Solari: "Well, I would hardly expect those of them who are cheaters and/or OOC buddies to do so. Were they who you meant?"
I did not meant "some". I did not write any nuance in that comment (mind you, I rarely nuance my words). In this case, I really did mean "all of the lurian exiles don't consider the Lurias to be a civilized place". All of those that I heard of, at least, and I think I heard them all speak. In any case, I really was referring to all of them.
Is any of that exchange between you two pertinent to the case? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing to clarify either of the two issues Tom highlighted.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 01:30:36 PM
I did not meant "some". I did not write any nuance in that comment (mind you, I rarely nuance my words). In this case, I really did mean "all of the lurian exiles don't consider the Lurias to be a civilized place". All of those that I heard of, at least, and I think I heard them all speak. In any case, I really was referring to all of them.
Oh!
I see; I honestly thought that you meant "
Not all the Solarian exiles would call you civilized."
And if I could make that mistake, couldn't Solari have done the same?
Quote from: Indirik on October 19, 2012, 01:38:45 PM
Is any of that exchange between you two pertinent to the case? As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing to clarify either of the two issues Tom highlighted.
Well, I think it is pertinent to the case whether Solari was calling all Solarian exiles who fled to D'Hara cheaters, or only those of whom he had personal knowledge and actual confessions of cheating.
At no point did I accuse T-Rex Messiah of cheating. I didn't reference him, even vaguely. He wrongly assumed that I was referring to him. That's his own problem, and I won't take responsibility for his persecution complex.
Here's the sticky wicket: of the two people I was referring to (not every Solarian exile—that's an astounding leap of logic to make when I was clearly talking only about a subset of a group), those who need to know are aware of the evidence. It's clear to them how I arrived at my conclusions. How much of that can be relayed here? All of it? Some of it? None of it? Otherwise, what we have is someone grinding an axe against me based on a faulty assumption that they were the target of my comments.
Quote from: Solari on October 19, 2012, 02:16:11 PM
At no point did I accuse T-Rex Messiah of cheating. I didn't reference him, even vaguely. He wrongly assumed that I was referring to him. That's his own problem, and I won't take responsibility for his persecution complex.
Here's the sticky wicket: of the two people I was referring to (not every Solarian exile—that's an astounding leap of logic to make when I was clearly talking only about a subset of a group), those who need to know are aware of the evidence. It's clear to them how I arrived at my conclusions. How much of that can be relayed here? All of it? Some of it? None of it? Otherwise, what we have is someone grinding an axe against me based on a faulty assumption that they were the target of my comments.
Actually, this is my case, not his.
Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2012, 10:21:23 AM
- was a public accusation of cheating (etc) made?
In response to Chénier's comment about Solarian exiles, I made a reference to "cheaters".
Quote from: Tom on October 19, 2012, 10:21:23 AM
- was it made without proof or evidence?
The evidence is not, strictly speaking, public knowledge. The exchange between me and the player could be used, but that's long since been lost to the message buffer monster. The technical details are known, however, including what's in the two Titan reports, and do not really appear to be disputed. Given this, I probably shouldn't have said anything, because the inability to readily tie a public comment to private information is a mess of my own making. That said, I don't believe my mistake meets this second criterion. I just should have had the good sense to censor myself.
Quote from: DamnTaffer on October 19, 2012, 02:21:27 PM
Actually, this is my case, not his.
That's great. He's still the only person offering his opinions in this thread, so unless you want him to co-opt your grievance, we would all benefit from your thoughts.
Quote from: Solari on October 19, 2012, 02:23:39 PM
That's great. He's still the only person offering his opinions in this thread, so unless you want him to co-opt your grievance, we would all benefit from your thoughts.
You publicly accused a vague number of players of cheating, something that is against the rules and detrimental to how much people can enjoy the game. You claim to have enough evidence to form two titan complaints, then let that run its course and if you feel the need then cite it on the forums.
Definately don't ever accuse players of cheating if you can't provide proof immediately to back up your claims. We have both seen how battlemaster reacts to accusations of cheating and yet you still feel the need to publicly bring that topic up again... It was a poorly thought out course of action and you should have known better
What needs to be done is to decide if the BM Forums is regarded as public and is part of the playing experience (Social Contract: When playing, you agree to these terms...)
YES
Forum is an extension of BM
BM players frequent the forum
NO
The game is not played in the forum
The forum has looser standards, ex. cussing
As for the second part of providing proof of cheating, apparently it is not possible due to the passage of time.
Thirdly, the context of which it was said and the fact that the 'accusation' was moderated away.
Quote from: Fury on October 19, 2012, 03:26:21 PM
As for the second part of providing proof of cheating, apparently it is not possible due to the passage of time.
This is only partially true. There's information available to devs that's been referenced here, and that's the problem. Nobody's really disputing that the technical evidence backs up the accusation, so even absent the player's confession, the evidence exists. I made a public reference to private information. Because this information wasn't available to everyone, it created unnecessary confusion and allowed for all sorts of speculation. I just shouldn't have made the comment, because now we're trying to prove a case with evidence that is effectively sealed.
Quote from: Solari on October 19, 2012, 03:32:40 PM
This is only partially true. There's information available to devs that's been referenced here, and that's the problem. Nobody's really disputing that the technical evidence backs up the accusation, so even absent the player's confession, the evidence exists. I made a public reference to private information. Because this information wasn't available to everyone, it created unnecessary confusion and allowed for all sorts of speculation. I just shouldn't have made the comment, because now we're trying to prove a case with evidence that is effectively sealed.
What do you mean, "sealed"? Is there no record of the findings and outcomes of titan cases? I would expect Tom to have an email from the Titans at least.
In my view, the evidence doesn't have to be made public. As long as Tom can look at the "information available to devs", and testify that there were at least two cheaters who moved from Solaria to D'Hara, then Solari is off the hook.
Two cheaters, then? There are more solarian exiles than that. I therefore consider the accusation to thereby be injurious to innocent players, because it causes players to unduly suspect these players of being cheaters for the mere fact that they have played in Solaria before.
If you want to call people cheaters, then name them and provide evidence. If you can't name them, don't bring accusations. Is it acceptable to claim that thulsomans are cheaters? No. Some of them (perhaps many) did, but they didn't all do so. And as a result of this behavior, we see people persecuted for having been part of that realm, even if they had been playing the game in their respective realms since far earlier. The same applies here. "Solarian exiles" is a vague reference to an undetermined number of people. There are more than two D'Harans who come from the Lurias. 4 have joined us in the last two months. More are likely to follow.
2 D'Haran players are, right now, being suspected of cheating because of Salari's comments, despite not having been found guilty of doing anything wrong.
Quote from: Solari on October 19, 2012, 02:16:11 PM
At no point did I accuse T-Rex Messiah of cheating. I didn't reference him, even vaguely. He wrongly assumed that I was referring to him. That's his own problem, and I won't take responsibility for his persecution complex.
Here's the sticky wicket: of the two people I was referring to (not every Solarian exile—that's an astounding leap of logic to make when I was clearly talking only about a subset of a group), those who need to know are aware of the evidence. It's clear to them how I arrived at my conclusions. How much of that can be relayed here? All of it? Some of it? None of it? Otherwise, what we have is someone grinding an axe against me based on a faulty assumption that they were the target of my comments.
There is no persecution complex. You threw out a blanketed accusation that was in response to D'haran refugees being mentioned. Whether you choose to accept the fact that I was one of those refugees or not is up to you, you got yourself into this and you have nobody to blame but yourself. Moderator removed--offtopic The issue is no longer about if you accused people of cheating, we already came to the conclusion that you did this. Whether you meant it towards me or others is no longer relevant, what is relevant is that you made an accusation that could be interpreted by others as an attack against them. additional removal--see rules below
Removed several quotes. +1 is not a comment.
To review the rules (http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,819.0.html):
remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only.
This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.add new information.
Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.
T-Rex, you need to stop being so vindictive. It's borderline harassment.
The case will probably be decided soon, I think we are getting pretty much all of what we need.
Quote from: Chénier on October 19, 2012, 06:40:11 PM
T-Rex, you need to stop being so vindictive. It's borderline harassment.
The case will probably be decided soon, I think we are getting pretty much all of what we need.
I don't see myself as being vindictive, but I've said all I need to say so I'll chill.
A verdict has been reached, and no IG enforcement actions are necessary. For anyone who desires to cite this case in the future, the final verdict was:
"The Magistrates hold that they have jurisdiction in cases arising from the forum, provided that three conditions hold: first, that a connection between a forum account and a user ID exists; second, that forum moderators have already attempted to redress the issue by comment deletion or thread control as necessary; third, that such means have failed to resolve or end the dispute, and it is of such a nature as to arouse general concern or interest."
"In this case, we find that, while Aaron has privately confirmed to the Magistrates details of his accusations and has submitted all information to the Titans, he violated the social contract in making a public accusation of cheating without evidence. We note that he has confessed his error multiple times, and attempted to clarify the issue. He has also attempted to rectify the issue with regards to players who may have been unjustly or injuriously accused, either implicitly or explicitly, of being cheaters. Even so, his accusation was inappropriate. We thus find him guilty, but, given moderator actions which have occurred and his own behavior since the incident, believe a warning to be sufficient, on the expectation that the behavior will not repeat itself."
"Furthermore, the Magistrates wish to offer guidance with regards to discussions of cheating cases on the forum: namely, any case involving the Social Contract, and especially cheating of any kind, which may be ongoing, should not be discussed in any manner outside of the deliberations of the Magistrates or Titans themselves, except insofar as may be necessary for Magistrates or Titans to gather necessary information. If you have accused someone of cheating to the Titans, keep it to yourself. It is especially imprudent and damaging to the community to issue accusations against groups or group labels, which may include entirely innocent or unrelated players. "
Magistrates voted 2-4-1 in favor of the verdict (2 not guilty, 4 guilty with warning, 1 guilty with 1-day lock).
This thread will remain open for a brief time to allow for any questions for clarification regarding the verdict.
Moderator note: Inappropriate comment removed.
This thread will remain open for a brief time to allow for any questions for clarification regarding the verdict.
Additional inappropriate posts will result in the thread being locked.
I feel that Anaris should have recused himself in this case, because (as far as I can tell) this matter originated from Malus Solari's defection to Luria Nova. This presents a clear conflict of interest for Anaris.
Edit: Just my two cents. :(
That would be difficult, as Anaris isn't a Magistrate.
Quote from: GoldPanda on October 24, 2012, 08:56:51 AM
because (as far as I can tell) this matter originated from Malus Solari's defection to Luria Nova.
That would also be difficult, as this matter originated days before that happened.
Indeed, to clarify:
Anaris is NOT a Magistrate. He is a Dev. To my knowledge he doesn't even have access to the Backroom.
Quote from: Vellos on October 24, 2012, 05:21:44 PM
Indeed, to clarify:
Anaris is NOT a Magistrate. He is a Dev. To my knowledge he doesn't even have access to the Backroom.
I do not. I am also not a Titan, though I do have access to their sub-board for assisting in cheater identification and similar endeavours.
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. ;D
Thread locked, see verdict above for citation.