Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Discussion about fairness-stuff. Advices of breach of rules and so on.

Moderators: systemmods, fairplaymods

User avatar
NoPikouze
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by NoPikouze » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:06 am

Ok...

First a couple of reasons for having "ingame moderators" :
- Relieve bugmann from some work (even if he has to implement it :P )
- Game will be "managed" even in his absence
- Stuff will happen at short term, as said before, it's not really helpful for the players to "know that there is a discussion" when something is clearly wrong and fucking up their race.

My proposal would be to have a couple of guys around with buttons like
- "kick a team of the race" in case of a big teammatack
- "replace the riders" after a smaller teamattack or a bad following
- "ban a team" if it's a confirmed multi.

The idea would be to have, for example, 2 to 5 of those moderators in the game. They will not be able to solve everything the whole time, but at least they will solve some, people will have the "hope", can ask for it, whatever... But right now, or even with a discussing-only comittee, it seems still really hopeless and lawless to me.
Even if the discussing part is allright for other stuff!
Qui sème le vent récolte le tempo...

User avatar
flockmastoR
Posts: 3112
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by flockmastoR » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:09 am

fully agree with the button thing NoPik mentioned in the cases he mentioned. In addition these members should start a forum thread for the action too where he/she explaines the situation and his action.

Not involved should be:

1) Put riders out of tempo because of : "stupid tempo" or "riding against team xy" or "riding for team xy", "banning teams for having same IP"
because here are further discussions necessary.

2) Doing actions involving a team in the same race. IMO only someone out of the spectator chat can do actions in the race.
Boaz Trakhtenbrot:
  • Winner Giro 2022
  • 10 GC wins
  • 16.609 Eternal Points
__________________
Schrödinger's Dogs: Alive & Dead

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by team fl » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:17 am

The cases, when such a ingame flic acts should be CRYSTAL CLEAR! Not just: "yeah that looks like xy, let's kick him out, whatever."

I just see a lot of situation where it looks like an easy decision but it's not. It's a lot of power and a lot of responsibility.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

User avatar
NoPikouze
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by NoPikouze » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:35 am

I agree with both of your posts!

Still, I think it is something people want and need and expect. I really cannot say if it should be implemented or not, even if i'd like it, at first sight.

Relying on buhmann and especially his presence is so random... ;)
Qui sème le vent récolte le tempo...

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:37 pm

Great post that was deleted
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by team fl » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:04 pm

WHERE: No clue what a GUI is. so let's cut that. Instead: Another password demanded to get into the FC part. Then the sitting problem is gone, and even if I have no clue what a GUI is, putting a password in seems easier.
-> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafische_ ... l%C3%A4che

A special log-in was what I meant with it, something that is outside the usual User-Account, incl. all the buttons and things that are needed.

I especially like the part about the logs of the FC Members.

About clear cases: So If I admit that Petit Singe is my second account, it will be closed?
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:06 pm

second account doesn't work...:) need to be the first one!

FL says Petit Singe first account?
Petit Singe confirms it?
Temporary ban possible, if 3 guys vote for it. Then parallel of course a discussion, recommendation to Buhmann... he looks at it. IP check etc... Turns out we lied. Well, we beat the system, we managed to get banned for being multis without being one, congrats!

FL says Petit Singe first account.
Petit Singe denies?
No. And that's why I wrote in one of my thousand edits that it wouldn't happen often. Basically only in cases of confessions.. if they are false, well

Only one account in the forum? AVC case, mentioning it himself. In the forum. Ban all accounts temporarily until Buh shows up to sort it out. Parallel then again the internal discussion, with a recommendation to Buhmann, who then decides.

And I'm aware that mistakes still can happen, and will. But, NoPik does have a point too. Sometimes a bit faster action would be nice. AVC is a year.....

Long term the IP-email-password-time of log ins etc thing can be added, should maybe be added. And a anti multi screen when first signing up. Where you have to inform the game master of other accounts that always or often play from the same IP/location.
But... can Buh do that all at once? Thought keep it a bit simpler, and logically more restricted.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

User avatar
NoPikouze
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by NoPikouze » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:21 pm

Robyklebt wrote:And I'm aware that mistakes still can happen, and will. But, NoPik does have a point too. Sometimes a bit faster action would be nice. AVC is a year.....
Yep and one of the main questions is: do you want to protect the "doubtable people who are in the end innocent" more than the "correct people who pay for the game, who spend their time, and whose race is fucked up without possibility to correct the shit".

Of course the stuff has to be balanced (temporary sounds ok ?) and not used at every "xy is annoying me"...
Qui sème le vent récolte le tempo...

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Ok, it give up my destroying of FLs idea and deleted the post above.

But what about this:

1) Buhmann programs the extra password area, can be GUI for all I care, although I don't see what it has to do with Graphics.

Entrance to the FC only with an extra password.
While we happily continue discussing here!
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:57 pm

Ok, continue dissecting FLs proposal:

But first: Still think the first thing to do for Buhmann would be the GUI thing... Nr 1, add a password.
team fl wrote:Case Management

Creating a case

Usually, a case is created by a user when open a fairness thread. A fairness thread may also be opened by a FC members, if there is a spotted violation of the fairness rules.

Assignment of a case

A case dealer of the FC may answer the opening posting independently. Immediately afterwards, he or she has to contact a case coordinator. The case coordinator finally assigns the case to 2 case dealers that lead the main discussion in forum and internally.

If a case dealer is biased in any way, he must not deal with this case. The case dealer must not participate in the discussion and in the decision making process of the FC. Furthermore He or she stays out of public discussion.

If a case dealer is not able anymore to deal with a case - for whatever reason - , he contacts one of the case coordinators, who assigns it to another case dealer.

Decision making

The FC makes decisions about cases and penalties internally. The discussion is leaded by the affected 2 case dealers. Every other member is allowed to share its opinion (besides the mentioned exceptions. Best case, every member – according to the guideline – proposes his opinion about the case and the final decision. In the end, the 2 case dealers make a final decision. If there is no severe doubt by another member or a Veto by Buhmann, the decision is carried out.

NEW: Fields of activity

There are four fields of activity, each case dealer has to work in periodically with a cycle of about two weeks in every field, for example.

- General rules (Multi accounting, hacking, etc.)
- Fairness rules (Team attacks, illicit race fixing, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Chat (Insults, etc.)
- Behaviour in the Forum (Moderation rules -> Moderators?)

Of course, case dealers can also be asked for statements in other fields of activities assigned to them. The field of activity just shows their current responsibility in the FC.

Appeal

Every user has the right to appeal the decision that affects him or her. He may write his position with his arguments to one of the case dealers with a personal message. The appeal has to be presented in the FC. If the appeal is justified, the decision will be lifted. If the appeal is not justified the decision will stay. In any case, the user has to be informed about the final decision.

Penalty Guideline (or similar)

The penalty guideline is added as Excel file. Sorry, it is in German, but hopefully understandable to the most of you. Of course, the mentioned penalties are randomly chosen an may be adapted by the FC. This guideline of course is open for discussion. The final guideline should not be made public!

NEW: The guideline itself is only a recommendation. If the a FC member feels a case deserves a harder or softer penalty, it's within his rights to propose that to Buhmann. The same of course is true for Buhmann; if he feels an offense that fits this category deserves a harder or softer penalty, it’s in his rights to hand out a harsher or more lenient penalty!

NEW: Publication of Punishments:

- All FC members should be informed about the outcome of a case
- In cases of insults the victim should be informed too. But, he/she shouldn't publicize it.
- Multiaccounts: Action taken at least will be posted in the resp. fairness thread. That can be done by the case officer or Buhmann himself.
- Racism etc.: The outcome may be posted in the thread.
- Acc.-Hacking: Will be decided for each case separately.

These are only recommendations. For any case, if needed, the penalty may be published or held off in accordance with Buhmann.
Instead of going through it one by one just write what I think:

Internal case management:
A case is created internally as soon as a thread is opened.
Case coordinator assigns the case.
Discussion ideally by all members internally.
Time limit? Like a "decision" has to be made within x days, once the information is there? Changes from case to case... so not really a fix time limit. But the FC should strive to
"Voting/decision making" by everybody together.
Buh then is the executor and final decision maker. The FC stays advisory. I suspect very often Buh will just do what the advice is, so the decision will de facto be theirs very often. But the "blame" for wrong decisions goes to Buh!

Externally, forum:
As soon as the internal case is posted, a post by the "case opener" is posted in the thread. Case opened.
The case dealer (s) "lead" the discussion. Ask questions, asks for explanations, clarifications etc.
Try to keep order in the thread. That doesn't mean that uninvolved users shouldn't post there. Everybody can. But should make sure it stays on topic. Ah, thread closings IMO a bad idea.
After the recommendation has been sent to Buhmann the case dealer(s) post that a recommendation has been sent to Buhmann. So if nothing happens later... everybody knows, Buh is to blame
After Buh exectuted FL or, if we are unlucky, just the verdict, the case dealer posts: Case closed, Buh acted.(weirdly as usual) more on that later.

Private communication, PN etc. with the victim, the accuser.

To be avoided. Whenever possible. All statements by those 2 should be visible to everybody directly, everybody in the FC, but all users as well. IMO. There can be cases where maybe it's necessary? Bug using to avoid having others using the bug while Buhmann looks for a way to correct it. Maybe others. So no general PN ban. But for your usual insult case.. no PNs. Multi cases.. a multi hunter that discovers a nice way to track some multis (like the ape in the case of ornyorny) can give that info to the FC in private... since giving that info to the guilty guy (unlikely orny reads, but still) might lead him to try to avoid that thing. But generally, PN contact (later when Buh has more time to program ingame messages) with the involved parties: Avoid it whenever possible. If the FC member is contacted, he will have to share the full PN with his FC colleagues. And maybe the public? Ah, maybe a standard signature in the forum for FC members "PNs that I receive in relation with my FC membership, can be fully posted in the internal FC chat (and in the forum thread). Something like that.

Buhmanns Job

Requirement to visit the FC once a week. Make it a fix part of your week, 30 minutes of less FC reading a weak, if there's too much, ok leave it for next week, but do a bit every week
After the act of making love, (ie fucking poor users that just mildly insulted some assholes) post in the FC: DONE, with the verdict (from nothing to suit brought in court or whatever the max is (I propose not to hire assassins, if it's really bad stuff like misspelling peloton, go to court, let's not go further than that)

FC duties after the verdict

Forum:

In cases of multis, write the verdict including the banned teams, the surviving team (if there is one) etc. in the forum thread.
In cases of insults: case closed, IMO without disclosing the amount of the fine. (to easy to buy insults)
In case of team attacks etc. Case closed, see insults. Or maybe the fine too? Not sure.

Protests by uninvolved users, questions by uninvolved users. Example: Team FL, Allagen, Petit Singe have been discoverd to belong to the same user. Allagen and Petit Singe banned, FL banned for 2 months with a 10 million fine.

Bergwerk says "But I don't understand this, doesn't "don't make unrealistic agreements" allow multis? This guy, Allaflinge fought himself a lot, then it's ok no???"
Try to explain it to him calmly. It's hard, I know
NoPikouze "Why did you leave him the best team???" He should have kept Petit Singe, that one sucks.
Explain the thinking of the FC, even if you don't agree with the decision. No backstabbing in public.

Anyway, what I mean here is: Don't just ignore further questions, try to explain. Of course depends on the way the question is asked too, if Robyklebt asks "you fucking assholes, why didn't you ban that idiotic pedophile serial killer xyz?"... well, no need to answer to politely either, or to go into deep explanations. But, try to answer most enquiries, even if they are maybe a bit polemic, a bit impolite. And stuff like NoPik above, explain Buhmanns decision (which often will be based on the FCs recommendation). And don't be afraid to ask the normal user for his opinion either. You yourself are not sure what to do? Why not ask guys that are active in said thread what they would propose. The normal user is not your ennemy (as he seem to be seen by another committee, the nc) but the a guy who might even be some help. Discuss with users, no problem, but use common sense. (no backstabbing of other members etc)

Direct contact with the accused and/or victim (if there is one, so mostly insults)

verdict "not guilty" for insults and other non public verdicts: Send a PN to the accused and the wanna be victim and inform them of the result. Both are forbidden to mention the verdict? (although in case of appeals it would become obvious... maybe not guilty openly in the thread? Not sure.
Fines etc: Contact the victim and inform him of the fine. Later hopefully Buh will programm it so that the victim gets informed directly ingame at the same time as the guilty moron, but let's try to keep the programming at a minimum for the moment. Here the victim is NOT allowed to inform disclose the amount of the fine, length of ban or whatever it is. UNLESS the fined/banned does it himself of course.

Appeals/retrials
If there is an appeal by the guitly, the case is automatically reopened. Case reopened.. same deal procedure as the first time. No need for a new thread in the forum though, just thread reopened. No need to give reasons. An appeal can be demanded py PN by the victim IMO but the arguments will have to be put forward in the thread again. Ape calls FL moron, 2 credits fine, since Buh agrees, FL lodges an appeal per PN, he then can write in the forum: I know the amound of the fine, IMO it's just too low" without mentioning the amount.... Opposite, I get 50 millions fine since FL is Buhmann's darling, same deal "ok, I insulted him, I know that, I won't apologize, I accept a fine, but IMO it's way too high. It was one word, not more. bla lba

A re-trial can be started without an appeal by the victim/accused too. If a question like NoPiks convinces FC members that maybe the punishment was wrong... ok, rediscuss it internally. Here some guidelines should be there... .but not sure about what exactly.
And even if a FC member comes to the conclusion that it was the wrong decision on his own, he can ask for a retrial internally. Again, guidelines. And if the retrial starts, the info goes into the forum too. No need to mention the reason, just "reopened"

Mmh, probably there's more on this topic, but that's it for the moment...
What does FL think? Others too, but my impression is that the majority is happy with "NOTHING IS DONE" but unable to come up with something contructive... or unwilling to try, since my comments aren't necessarily constructive, but at least I try :D
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

User avatar
flockmastoR
Posts: 3112
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by flockmastoR » Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:12 pm

its just too much to read all this stuff
Boaz Trakhtenbrot:
  • Winner Giro 2022
  • 10 GC wins
  • 16.609 Eternal Points
__________________
Schrödinger's Dogs: Alive & Dead

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:21 pm

No, it really isn't.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by team fl » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:13 pm

Robyklebt wrote: But first: Still think the first thing to do for Buhmann would be the GUI thing... Nr 1, add a password.


Si, first things first, si.
Internal case management:
A case is created internally as soon as a thread is opened.
Case coordinator assigns the case.
Discussion ideally by all members internally.
Time limit? Like a "decision" has to be made within x days, once the information is there? Changes from case to case... so not really a fix time limit. But the FC should strive to
"Voting/decision making" by everybody together.
Buh then is the executor and final decision maker. The FC stays advisory. I suspect very often Buh will just do what the advice is, so the decision will de facto be theirs very often. But the "blame" for wrong decisions goes to Buh!
The sooner a case is dealt with the better. The "voting/decision" making should not take longer than 3 days, imo, having the structure proposed.

The decision itself by Buhmann should take no longer than 5 days (2 days to think about it, clear open questions, etc.)
Externally, forum:
As soon as the internal case is posted, a post by the "case opener" is posted in the thread. Case opened.
The case dealer (s) "lead" the discussion. Ask questions, asks for explanations, clarifications etc.
Try to keep order in the thread. That doesn't mean that uninvolved users shouldn't post there. Everybody can. But should make sure it stays on topic. Ah, thread closings IMO a bad idea.
After the recommendation has been sent to Buhmann the case dealer(s) post that a recommendation has been sent to Buhmann. So if nothing happens later... everybody knows, Buh is to blame
After Buh exectuted FL or, if we are unlucky, just the verdict, the case dealer posts: Case closed, Buh acted.(weirdly as usual) more on that later.
All FC members should have moderation rights in the fairness section. Rest sounds good.
Private communication, PN etc. with the victim, the accuser.

To be avoided. Whenever possible. All statements by those 2 should be visible to everybody directly, everybody in the FC, but all users as well. IMO. There can be cases where maybe it's necessary? Bug using to avoid having others using the bug while Buhmann looks for a way to correct it. Maybe others. So no general PN ban. But for your usual insult case.. no PNs. Multi cases.. a multi hunter that discovers a nice way to track some multis (like the ape in the case of ornyorny) can give that info to the FC in private... since giving that info to the guilty guy (unlikely orny reads, but still) might lead him to try to avoid that thing. But generally, PN contact (later when Buh has more time to program ingame messages) with the involved parties: Avoid it whenever possible. If the FC member is contacted, he will have to share the full PN with his FC colleagues. And maybe the public? Ah, maybe a standard signature in the forum for FC members "PNs that I receive in relation with my FC membership, can be fully posted in the internal FC chat (and in the forum thread). Something like that.
Yes, there should not be a discussion between the accused person an an FC member about the case via PM or in private generally.
Buhmanns Job

Requirement to visit the FC once a week. Make it a fix part of your week, 30 minutes of less FC reading a weak, if there's too much, ok leave it for next week, but do a bit every week
After the act of making love, (ie fucking poor users that just mildly insulted some assholes) post in the FC: DONE, with the verdict (from nothing to suit brought in court or whatever the max is (I propose not to hire assassins, if it's really bad stuff like misspelling peloton, go to court, let's not go further than that)
He's the Punisher. Once a week AT LEAST. Don't matter if he wears the black shirt with the skull when doing this though...
FC duties after the verdict

Forum:

In cases of multis, write the verdict including the banned teams, the surviving team (if there is one) etc. in the forum thread.
In cases of insults: case closed, IMO without disclosing the amount of the fine. (to easy to buy insults)
In case of team attacks etc. Case closed, see insults. Or maybe the fine too? Not sure.
yes.
whatever.
yes, no fine posted
Protests by uninvolved users, questions by uninvolved users. Example: Team FL, Allagen, Petit Singe have been discoverd to belong to the same user. Allagen and Petit Singe banned, FL banned for 2 months with a 10 million fine.

Bergwerk says "But I don't understand this, doesn't "don't make unrealistic agreements" allow multis? This guy, Allaflinge fought himself a lot, then it's ok no???"
Try to explain it to him calmly. It's hard, I know
NoPikouze "Why did you leave him the best team???" He should have kept Petit Singe, that one sucks.
Explain the thinking of the FC, even if you don't agree with the decision. No backstabbing in public.

Anyway, what I mean here is: Don't just ignore further questions, try to explain. Of course depends on the way the question is asked too, if Robyklebt asks "you fucking assholes, why didn't you ban that idiotic pedophile serial killer xyz?"... well, no need to answer to politely either, or to go into deep explanations. But, try to answer most enquiries, even if they are maybe a bit polemic, a bit impolite. And stuff like NoPik above, explain Buhmanns decision (which often will be based on the FCs recommendation). And don't be afraid to ask the normal user for his opinion either. You yourself are not sure what to do? Why not ask guys that are active in said thread what they would propose. The normal user is not your ennemy (as he seem to be seen by another committee, the nc) but the a guy who might even be some help. Discuss with users, no problem, but use common sense. (no backstabbing of other members etc)
Some fun should be there too, of course. Common sense sounds good. But mainly depends who's common sense it is...
Direct contact with the accused and/or victim (if there is one, so mostly insults)

verdict "not guilty" for insults and other non public verdicts: Send a PN to the accused and the wanna be victim and inform them of the result. Both are forbidden to mention the verdict? (although in case of appeals it would become obvious... maybe not guilty openly in the thread? Not sure.
Fines etc: Contact the victim and inform him of the fine. Later hopefully Buh will programm it so that the victim gets informed directly ingame at the same time as the guilty moron, but let's try to keep the programming at a minimum for the moment. Here the victim is NOT allowed to inform disclose the amount of the fine, length of ban or whatever it is. UNLESS the fined/banned does it himself of course.
Yes, but this should be done ingame, not over PM in the forum. I would say they are free what they want to do with that information. Anyway, I would not inform the victim about the fine. Just if or if not fined.
Appeals/retrials
If there is an appeal by the guitly, the case is automatically reopened. Case reopened.. same deal procedure as the first time. No need for a new thread in the forum though, just thread reopened. No need to give reasons. An appeal can be demanded py PN by the victim IMO but the arguments will have to be put forward in the thread again. Ape calls FL moron, 2 credits fine, since Buh agrees, FL lodges an appeal per PN, he then can write in the forum: I know the amound of the fine, IMO it's just too low" without mentioning the amount.... Opposite, I get 50 millions fine since FL is Buhmann's darling, same deal "ok, I insulted him, I know that, I won't apologize, I accept a fine, but IMO it's way too high. It was one word, not more. bla lba
bla lba? -> http://www.lba.li?

Important: you can appeal ONCE. Everybody gets a second chance. But that's it.
A re-trial can be started without an appeal by the victim/accused too. If a question like NoPiks convinces FC members that maybe the punishment was wrong... ok, rediscuss it internally. Here some guidelines should be there... .but not sure about what exactly.
And even if a FC member comes to the conclusion that it was the wrong decision on his own, he can ask for a retrial internally. Again, guidelines. And if the retrial starts, the info goes into the forum too. No need to mention the reason, just "reopened"
Same here: Can be done ONCE.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:11 pm

Voting decision making shouldn't take longer than 3 days: Ok... starting from when? Opening of the thread? What if a guy answers late? Stuff like that? But if you think it's doable. I just wouldn't want to rush it, let them have enough time to discuss things. Or in case a translation is needed, or is disputed like it happened a long time ago once? Or once a "vote" is opened ingame? But yeah, if it's doable a time limit is ok.

FC Members with moderation rights in the Fairness part:
Why not...? But why exactly? What for?

Who's common sense
Yeah, that's the problem.


Victim information:
Long term it should be done automatically when Buhmann pushes a button... Like now, the guilty guy (in future the not guilty too, no fine) gets a ingamemessage... FINE. With the same button the victim should get it too. You say just "fine", not the exact number, ok too.
Second best: Ingame message sent by FC members to the victim. Problem: Another thing for Buhmann to design.
That's why I propose that until nr 1 or 2 is implemented, the FC members do it by PN. Not ideal, but...

lba
High quality public transportation

One appeal
Agreed

One retrial
Mmh.. .ok... although... mmh.. not sure, if new stuff comes up? But ok in principle.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by team fl » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:57 pm

I think we can discuss about this via PM. Perhaps show the results to NoPik and Deuse, leave flocke the possiblity to write a sentence too and that's it. Would have the same effect as the thread here.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:10 pm

I continue here... my suggestions/criticism are almost over anyway.
team fl wrote:Duties



NEW: Things that are very important in the work of the FC members: communication, transparency, accountability and traceability.
Nothing to complain here really.. don't know why I copied it and read through 5 times, thought there was a detail, coudn't find it.
But like the slogan, so good.


team fl wrote:NEW: Possible Instruments for FC Members:

In general, the FC part should be external. That means that it is accessible via an own web-based GUI with it’s own access details. Of course Buhmann would have to develop such a thing, but I am sure it would be very helpful and it would solve the sitting problem for FC members. A question is, if the FC-members should be able to write ingame messages. I would recommend that. Furthermore, the messages should be logged.

Buhmann:

- penalties
- close and delete accounts
- all about the races
- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages

Case coordinators:

- Labelling cases
- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages
- moderation rights in the fairness section of the forum

Case dealers:

- IP check (log in times of which accounts on a certain IP)
- Account check (log in times of a certain account incl. IP used)
- PW check (log in times, log in IP and accounts for a certain PW)
- live chat interaction
- ingame messages
- moderation rights in the fairness section of the forum

NEW: Account logs:

For a better tracebility, all decisions made be the FC/Buhmann in a certain case should be logged in the account of the user(s) concerned (f.e. penalties, ingame messages, warnings, etc.). This logs should be only visible for FC Members and Buhmann.
Here is more a long term project, like my whole superlogging of every move by the FC members, this needs programming time for Buhmann.
And here we go into the NoPik territory too... fast powers for the FC.
Because some of the instruments make no sense without the power for at least temporary bans.
- IP check. What for if the power is not there (although right now I believe it is there). Here ok, BUT, important, we then need guidelines for when they can be banned.
- Account check, same thing
- PW check, same thing.

We need clear guidelines on when to use and how to use those instruments... PW check. Somehow I'm not too happy if every FC member can check my password. It's "ILoveFL", kind of embarrassing....
Or would it only be something like: Petit Singe, click on a password button next to it, and it shows you if there are any teams with the same password. Or very similar password, just 1-2 letters different? Then ok, sounds good.
The problem in the end though with all those instruments remains the same: what can the FC do with them?
There too I think we need clear procedures on how to proceed. Not just, same IP, same PW=immediate ban.
Open a forum thread? Send ingame messages? What amount of proof is necessary so that the FC can act?

So here in the case dealer and case coordinators thing we need to add

- temporarily ban accounts ?
With the :?:
Because, I know I repeat myself, probably for the first itime in my life, somehow the other tools seems kind of useless without the banning button.
Right now, I repeat myself again, the tool seems to be there, 100x different Buh messages lead me to believe that there is a tool, where the FC can ban a team, if 3 of its members agree.
What to do with this tool? How to proceed. What is necessary? Which team to ban in case of new players? In case of old players? What is temporary exactly, temporary in name only, that means the account stays closed unless Buh reopens it? Or does it mean that if Buh doesn't confirm it, it reopons after x days? And the ban button of course could be used in other cases too, if it's there: So when? Repeated teamattacks without answers in the chat? IMO no. But what about the suspected multi that seems to be riding in the evenings sometimes... a guy that is accused of having a few teams, comes on, rides tempo, then goes off his only goal seems to be to destroy the races for other guys. Seems banneble to me, but what exactly is the proceedure. Can't just ban them like this, but not really sure about how it should go... clear that the guy needs to be contacted. IM. There is a fairness thread about you, please explain.. .then? If he doesn't answer? What happens... power for the FC to write personalized IMs? And giving the suspected multi or "game destroyer" the possibility for an answer? And a ban if it doesn't come after x log ins by this guy?

Proceedings, proceedings, FL, please proceed with writing some stuff :D

For the rest... the penalty guideline, remains open, ok, we talked about that a bit per PM once, nothing really more to add (in case my last PM said something like "ok ok, probably you're right", if it didn't I say that now, ok ok, probably you're right! (It hurts a bit to say this))
But, since the final guideline should not be made public, I propose that you and Buhmann discuss this per PM, Skype, ICQ or something else together. And that later when there is a new FC, the members go over it again and make further proposals, criticisms to Buhmann, who then finalizes it. But important IMO again: Guideline, harsher and more lenient penalties can be proposed at any time by the FC (even if I believe most of the time many members will do the easy thing and just stay within the proposed range, not after coming to this conclusion, but because it requires less thinking, but ok)

No need for a public discussion of the details for the catalog anymore. The possibilty was there when you posted it once, some people downloaded it most didn't, no need to give us a second possibility to discuss it. Since probably the final version will be secret... having us here talk about it would make it only "half secret", I doubt it will change a lot.. so..

Anyway, for the moment I think I don't have more to add.... If anything of this was helpful, good, rephrase it, include it, if nothing was worth the time you spent reading it, ignore it.

Ah, my big love here is "communication, transparency, accountability and traceability", and add sometihng about.. proceedings? There must be a better word... anyway, how to proceed in standard cases, step 1+2+3+4+5+ etc, who does what, stuff that I tried to talk about in my last posts basically.

Ok, enough bla bla lba :D from me for the moment.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

AlmavivaItalia
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:06 am

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by AlmavivaItalia » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:01 pm

We need clear guidelines on when to use and how to use those instruments... PW check. Somehow I'm not too happy if every FC member can check my password. It's "ILoveFL", kind of embarrassing....
Or would it only be something like: Petit Singe, click on a password button next to it, and it shows you if there are any teams with the same password. Or very similar password, just 1-2 letters different? Then ok, sounds good.
The problem in the end though with all those instruments remains the same: what can the FC do with them?
There too I think we need clear procedures on how to proceed. Not just, same IP, same PW=immediate ban.
Open a forum thread? Send ingame messages? What amount of proof is necessary so that the FC can act?

what about German laws in password storage?
here (italy), if the password is stored wrong, or is public, or someothers than the authorized (and we can discuss about it) people read it, there is a law against the storer.... and there is a big big fine...

lesossies
Site Admin
Posts: 1945
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:49 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by lesossies » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:00 pm

AlmavivaItalia wrote:what about German laws in password storage?
here (italy), if the password is stored wrong, or is public, or someothers than the authorized (and we can discuss about it) people read it, there is a law against the storer.... and there is a big big fine...
There is no problem with your password, nobody can see it. It is coded in the database and I self cannot see it.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:34 pm

Leso.. he was talking about the FL proposal.
Where there would/could/should be some instrument to see if teams have the same password.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Buhmann
Posts: 3215
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Buhmann » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:30 pm

Same passwords can be located, but of course not similar passwords. The passwords are encrypted and nobody is able to see it.

Fairplay seems still to be a big problem.

So i would try solve some points technically. This means simple teamattacks are not possible, reached with the program.

Furthermore we could implement that teams with same IP are able to ride togehter, by kicking them automatically. Therefor teams can submit a formular exceptions. Writing a short reason for same IP should avoid many multiaccounts (especially of the new users).

To avoid farm-teams a script can check suspect teams. If they login again, the have to submit a formular, too. Again write down the raison or they can click "sorry, i thought multiaccouints are allowd, please delete my team xy".

Aim of this is, that the committee has not much work to do. But for this, we could use the fairplay committe we already have, but with new members and the given catalog.

Is it this what most users would like?

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Robyklebt » Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:43 pm

Buhmann wrote:Same passwords can be located, but of course not similar passwords. The passwords are encrypted and nobody is able to see it.
Good, do it.

Fairplay seems still to be a big problem.
Not really, we were just going through a regular bout of paranoia.


Formulars, yes yes


Aim of this is, that the committee has not much work to do. But for this, we could use the fairplay committe we already have, but with new members and the given catalog.
Talk with FL.
Is it this what most users would like?
Most users give a shit. Bitching is what is in, not solutions. Ask FL if he's ok with all that and ignore the rest.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Lizard
Posts: 1325
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:20 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Lizard » Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:03 pm

Good concept, do it.
Wizards Cycling: De toenemende Ster van Amsterdam

Hall of Fame:
Adam Wollfinger (73-82-80-47-57, 64 Reg)
Herbert Königsbauer (87-60-66-54-53, 57 Reg)
Manuel Clausen (76-83-63-46-64, 57 Reg)
Tom van Amstel (74-80-74-50-65, 35 Reg)

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by team fl » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:32 pm

Buhmann wrote:Same passwords can be located, but of course not similar passwords. The passwords are encrypted and nobody is able to see it.
Meant it exactly that way. But I know instruments that can show you at least the similarity of passwords (compare length, letters, numbers, etc. and give a percentage). Of course NOT showing the real passwords. Just a number, e.g. 97%
Fairplay seems still to be a big problem.
see Roby's post.
So i would try solve some points technically. This means simple teamattacks are not possible, reached with the program.


With team attacks you are writing about Rule 1? If yes, good.
Furthermore we could implement that teams with same IP are able to ride togehter, by kicking them automatically. Therefor teams can submit a formular exceptions. Writing a short reason for same IP should avoid many multiaccounts (especially of the new users).
you mean: teams with the same IP are NOT able to ride together? except your formular thingy. -> good.
To avoid farm-teams a script can check suspect teams. If they login again, the have to submit a formular, too. Again write down the raison or they can click "sorry, i thought multiaccouints are allowd, please delete my team xy".
good
Aim of this is, that the committee has not much work to do. But for this, we could use the fairplay committe we already have, but with new members and the given catalog.
good
Is it this what most users would like?
See Roby's post again.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Rake
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Rake » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:46 pm

@ Team FL oder auch dem Rest des Committee

Ist es Wirklich die zuviel verlangt in einem Spiel das Namen wie Don Quijote, Filip Faksen oder Stephané Morel zulässt, einem Fahrer Namens Acos Szufti seine Nation zu lassen?

Ich meine da haben wir eine Romanfigur, einen wohl ebenso Zweifelhaften Nachnahmen und einen Vornamen, den es so auch nirgends auf der Welt zu geben scheint. Alle drei Fahrer haben ihre Nation, Faksen ist sogar norwegischer Meister . Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen wie man sich durch meine Namensschöpfung gestörter fühlen kann, als durch die hier Beispielhaft genannten.

Zum Thema "decent family name" bin ich ja gern bereit mir Vorschläge anzuhören, aber solange ein argentinischer "Kistenmacher" eine norwegische "Oma" oder ein estischer "Kümmel" durchs Spiel fahren, weiß ich leider nicht wie meine Wortschöpfungen wirklich eine größere Zumutung für andere sein können.

Würde mich über eine Kurze Stellungnahme freuen und natürlich über den Wiedererhalt der Nation.

Rockstar Inc
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Norimberga
Contact:

Re: Fairplay Committee Reform Concept (FCRC)

Post by Rockstar Inc » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:53 pm

wrong thread...has nothing to do with fairness..

this thread is way much better: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=112
"I'm an old-school sprinter. I can't climb a mountain but if I am in front with 200 metres to go then there's nobody who can beat me.” Mark Cavendish, at the 2007 Eneco Tour

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests