Accusations of cheating

[Geronus]

All I know is that I see now a twisting of the very contract I am to adhere while playing the game. It is unfair that I brought my grievance to you and I see now new rules invented on the spot.

According to the social contract the player of Valdimelde was breaking rule 2.5.

I can't see how it is difficult to see it. Regardless I am in favour of needing the player's input on the matter, for it would only be fair. His input will only justify my accusation in this court, for he has no evidence whatsoever and his only intention was to upset players all over the server as well as spread ic discord.

His words had a tremendous effect both ic and ooc, lessening the trust of some players toward my character and the new realm I created and also initiating spammable ooc conversations. If this is not disruption of the game then I can't see what else is.

Those that can check my character's letters, will see that there was no ooc planning, instead the characters of James Harker, Jenred Bedwyr, Selene Octavius, Claude Finsternis, Guy de Bas Tyra and Taylin Indirik can provide evidence of the ic planning. Those were the players with whom I cooperated and I don't think that any of those had anything to do with ooc planning. I don't even know the players behind the characters and should it was ooc planning then the tons of ic letters and missives would a rather good pretention, wouldn't it?

The consensus here seems to be that you are correct. If Vanimedle' doesn't have anything to add, we'll issue a ruling in a couple days.

[Anatole]

Thank you, I expect no more.

[Fury]

Sometimes I skip town for the rest of the day while the inevitable hail of bullets goes flying through the air and can't help but smile how far off the mark it is. Come on, read carefully:

This is the equivelant of plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "I can't hear you! Na na na!" There is a very clear accusation of violation of the Fair Play clause here. Made in public, possibly without evidence, which if true is undeniably a violation. I quote §2.5 of the Social Contract (emphasis mine): "Do not publicly accuse anyone of cheating, abuses or violations of this contract without proof or evidence."

Which, un-coincidentally, is also against the Social Contract.

I never said there wasn't, right? I'm saying it sounds more like an (indirect) accusation of abuse or fair play. It's not cheating. Not from a game play point of view. Which means the "Summary: Accusations of cheating" should simply be amended to "Summary: Public accusations without proof" and perhaps (below it) "Violation: Social Contract §2 Fair Play". It's not numbered as §2.5 but if it would it would be §2.4 but I think simply leaving it out would be easier.

There is little relevant context to this, and no excuse. There was active and intentional exploitation of bugs in the game to further specific goals. As one of the people who investigated the issue, I can speak on this with authority.

As to the family gold issue (now "fixed"), come on Joe, you can't call game code that actually lets you do something a 'bug' just because it wasn't intended to let you do it. The game code wouldn't know it. And neither would the players. Unlss we're expected to be mind readers. To quote:

There is a certain viewpoint (not one that I agree with, mind you) that holds that if the game lets you do it, then it can't be an abuse of the game. I mean, if the game didn't want you to be able to use your family gold as an endless fountain of wealth, it wouldn't let you do it, right?

Irrelevant. As Magistrates it is our job to judge according to the current rules and policies: not to create our own.

Not create. Clarify. See here:

I am happy to have one. If the rules are not clear or not good, and someone points that out, then we can improve the rules and/or their wording.

As the rulers on the island, the players on the ruler channel have a responsibility to report violations and enforce the rules as well they can. To say that these players, who are already given this responbility, cannot discuss current situations amongst themselves is absurd.

I never said we couldn't discuss. Discuss all you like. Rulers' channel, in the whole realm, wherever. Just be sure it's worded as a discussion and be careful it doesn't cross over into accusations (which will be pretty easy to get into once the discussions heats up). However, the letters provided by the complainant from the accuser doesn't sound like a discussion. It was a letter sent to his own realm. If his letter is taken by itself it would definitely sound like an indirect accusation. But what if he was merely responding to someone else? Was it a small part of something else? (this could be extenuating circumstances) Of course if David D. isn't inclined to defend himself then we'll have to take his letter (and the accuracy of it) as standing by itself.

We are not judging past action. We are judging only the one at hand. No extenuating circumstances ever validate violation of either the Inalienable Rights or the Social Contract. Please stop encouraging derailment of the thread.

Sure it can. But on the degree of the punishment.

Which, un-coincidentally, is also against the Social Contract.
Irrelevant. You are not allowed to make public accusations without proof/evidence. The Social Contract doesn't say "Don't make public accusations without proof, unless that proof is impossible to obtain, in which case you are free to make all the baseless, unsubstantiated claims you want." It says "No accusations without proof".

No proof/evidence? Then don't make accusations. Pretty simple, eh?

Right. But the proof could come later. As long as it's done before judgement is done. But my point was: any evidence would be almost impossible to produce. How are you going to provide the out-of-game communication that they supposedly used to plan? Or how would a player prove that no IC letters were sent? Unless someone bragged about it somewhere...

Coincidentally, what if it were the other way around? David . D makes a Magistrate report that George Dion created Toupellon through OOC means. How would we decide? By examining the amount of IC in-game letters used to plan? Would we have to cross-check all letters for ALL appointments to ensure that its IC LEGIT? I'm not up for it. Magistrates can't. But if Devs want to, then sure  Bottom line, it's best not to publicly accuse at all - with or without proof.

All I know is that I see now a twisting of the very contract I am to adhere while playing the game. It is unfair that I brought my grievance to you and I see now new rules invented on the spot.

There are no new rules being invented on the spot. What you are seeing is discussion from both sides. This is needed to hash things out that we may all see things from ALL angles. It is said that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

I don't even know the players behind the characters and should it was ooc planning then the tons of ic letters and missives would a rather good pretention, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would but you DON'T need to provide it nor does anyone else (even though 2 Devs have said there are) and David D. can't call on you to provide it. It is he that needs to provide the proof of what he says.

The consensus here seems to be that you [Anatole] are correct. If Vanimedle' doesn't have anything to add, we'll issue a ruling in a couple days.

Sounds like it and agreed. Also, we can only take action on the accused in question and not anyone else like Don Smith, player of Optimus McGahee. His letter was only provided by Anatole as evidence to show how his reputation has been effected and secondly he is not the one being accused nor would he have been informed of the game to provide a defence. We're not going on a with-hunt here.

[Indirik]

But my point was: any evidence would be almost impossible to produce.

I know that was your point. It's a completely irrelevant point. The Social Contract very clearly says no accusations without proof. No proof? Then don't accuse. Full stop.

How are you going to provide the out-of-game communication that they supposedly used to plan?

That's the accuser's problem, not mine. The difficulty of proving the accusations does not provide an exemption from the rules.

Or how would a player prove that no IC letters were sent? Unless someone bragged about it somewhere...

Proof that no IC letters were sent is not required. All that is required is proof that things were decided OOC. For example, a forum post/IRC log/MSN log/etc. from 6 months before the realm was formed that outlines exactly how the realm would be set up, and then when it is formed, it turns out exactly that way, then does it really matter how much was sent IC?

Is this hard stuff to get? Of course it is. It pretty much requires that the people doing it were sloppy. But if you don't have OOG logs of some discussion, then you cannot have conclusive proof. You may have suspicions, but you can't have proof. For all you know, it could have been decided by private message. (Which it was.)

This thread is not for discussions about changing the rules. It's a thread about judging the validity (or lack thereof) of George Dion's complaint. I think everyone, especially George, would appreciate it if you stop trying to derail this thread with tangential issues, irrelevancies, and unrelated hypotheticals, and stick to the actual case itself. If you want to make a proposal to change the rules, which may or may not be a good idea, then go here.

[Anatole]

Thank you, Robert, it would really be most helpful to resolve this case as soon as possible without other cases derailing it. The ic and ooc damage to my reputation and that of others has already been done. If anything else, it shows the temerity of another player who completely disregards the basic rules of Bm's social contract just because he feels he was left out of the events taking place in the game.

To clarify something else; Don Smith's missive was presented as the cause that prompted me to report this idle accusation towards my person. It was the first of a series ooc messages, accusing a variety of players. I presented it as a proof of the ooc chaos that ensured. I am not accusing Don Smith.

[Chenier]

If you've got suspicions, you should contact the titans to have them investigate, not spread allegations publicly. In theory, they have the capacity to verify and should do so. My personal experiences have left me rather disappointed, but you should still favor this venue.

[^ban^]

The topic at hand involves the issue of public accusations of abuse and/or cheating. As I warned previously, I have removed off-topic discussion from this thread.

[Anatole]

Are there any news of this case? 7 days have passed and yet it still remains open.

I think since the accused has not even deigned to reply the case is pretty much straight forward. The social contract has been violated and this case stall is only aiding in the replication of that action.

[Vellos]

A verdict is being developed in the Backroom.

Consensus doesn't happen overnight.

[^ban^]

Erm, I think you mean matters of procedure are being discussed.

For what it's worth, I believe the defendant has had ample time to contribute to his defense. As the case against him appears to be damning I'm fairly sure a consensus has already been found.

[Bedwyr]

Agreed that it's been over a week, and we basically agreed that without any change in situation, the case was pretty straightforward.

Given that: What punishment is appropriate?  Temporary account lock?

[Chenier]

Agreed that it's been over a week, and we basically agreed that without any change in situation, the case was pretty straightforward.

Given that: What punishment is appropriate?  Temporary account lock?

Indeed, I believe it was pretty much unanimous that 7 days was ample enough.

In the last case, the person admitted his guilt and recognized his errors, a reprimand (warning) was enough. The punition doesn't seem as clear-cut here. On what should we base ourselves to decide sanction? Should the fact that he didn't defend himself be ignored or counted against him? Should the number of such accusations made be weighted it (I think I read he sent more accusations than the single one reported?)?

[Geronus]

Indeed, I believe it was pretty much anonymous that 7 days was ample enough.

"Damn you auto-correct!" 

[Nathan]

Should the fact that he didn't defend himself be ignored or counted against him?

If he was told that he had to answer his case on the forum, then not ignored. If he would have had to check the forum to realise he was in trouble, ignored.

Should the number of such accusations made be weighted it (I think I read he sent more accusations than the single one reported?)?

I think so, yes. If I steal two items from a shop, they don't decide to only charge me for one because I "didn't know" stealing was a crime.

[Vellos]

He has not acknowledged any guilt, taken any responsibility, or even made a response, despite havign a query on his log-in page. Absolutely that should be held against him.

Moreover, the last case had no "real damages." It was quickly corrected and all players involved set it right. This case has real defamation of a realm that the complainant believes are causing real harm to reputation; I believe that claim to be credible. I am all for a harsher sentence.