Transparent Hunting

[Coltaine]

Ok, that other thread was unfortunately overrun by offtopic fetishists and spamming retards, but i think this is worth a shot to be discussed.
So heres a repost, which is basically suggesting to make the whole hunting process more transparent via the boards, to the benefit of all (?).




If you think about the whole "make things more public and transparent" thing from a different perspective...
Wheres the disadvantage of doing so and if theres any, for whom would it be a disadvantage?

While i do see only one group of people having a disadvantage from that ('cheaters'), i see several advantages for all other groups of involved people.

• First of, that one disadvantage for those being convicted - being publicly branded - would be an advantage to all others again.
• It would continuously show, remind and give practical examples/cases of what is allowed and expected and what is forbidden and not tolerated.
• It would make the actions of multihunters more transparent and give less room to rumours, conspiracy theories, hate spirals and such, but also to abuse and bias, which again is good for both, the authority of multihunters and players.
• It would give constant occasion to discuss cases, get and give feedback on the rules, how they are and how they should maybe change.
• It could be combined with workflows, presenting an investigated case on the boards, before any deletion or even closure happens.

I think transparency and communication is what the whole community benefits from, be it player or staff.
Theres so much potential in this. So as long as I don’t see any grave disadvantages, I’d say lets go for it.

[Mzyxptlk]

We should be very careful not to brand everyone a cheater without due process. This is my main concern with this idea. I am however willing to keep an open mind, to give the system a chance to see if my fear comes true. If it does, it can (keyword) always be reverted.

[Tomkat]

I think the main reason that it isn't public (how they/their tools work) is that it means cheats have less idea of how to avoid them and get around them.

[Gerbie2]

Originally Posted by Coltaine

Ok, that other thread was unfortunately overrun by offtopic fetishists and spamming retards, but i think this is worth a shot to be discussed.

I think the way things are being discussed on these forums is a clear example of how open discussion doesn't work. (Which is why I don't like the idea of public discussion of cheating.)

[Talin]

The discussion does work. It does result in well-argumented points being filtered from not so well-argumented ones. It's only normal that some people get upset along the way and start ranting randomly (though not as fanatically as the most recent example).

I'm vaguely supporting the closure evidence being public, though my thoughts are actually best reflected by mz's first reply.

I'm not supporting people being referred to as "cheaters" anywhere though, at least not as long as we have rules where you can get closed over anything.

[Achilles]

I think this could only work as part of a full review of how the entire Multihunter system fuctions.

Starting with a new set of rules, which would fully clarify all offences to the maximum extent possible, it should also detail a list of applicable punishments (not just closure) for each offence and include sentencing guidelines and examples.

A new set of guidelines should be issued to the Multihunter team detailing the procedures to be followed in any given case. I would envision something like:

Only acts which are in provable violation of the rewritten EULA will be acted upon. The planet will be mailed, regardless of the severity of the alleged offence, informing them of the charges and giving them 48 hours to contact a multihunter. This can any multihunter, not just the one who closed them.

The multihunter will then detail the case to the accused, providing all relevant evidence before allowing for counter argument. They should then note all salient points from the accused in the case file and ask any follow-up questions as necessary. The multihunter will then weigh the evidence in light of the responses given before deciding on a verdict and, if appropriate, a penalty. This will be entered in the case file and then sent for verification.

Verification can be carried out by any other multihunter and consists of opening the file, reading the case and deciding if they are in agreement with the verdict and penalty. If so the appropriate penalty should be enacted without further delay.

....

This would obviously need to be fleshed out into a formal document and so on but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with it. I don't think this type of system would be any more time consuming than the one that is there already and it would help ensure that all cases are treated fairly and consistently.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I think the main reason that it isn't public (how they/their tools work) is that it means cheats have less idea of how to avoid them and get around them.

I think you got the reason why this won't happend right there. By making public the routines of the MH's, the cheaters will gain advantages when it comes to fooling the MH's. The idea is good but it would require a flawless set of rules and MH-tools, and as we all know that is impossible.

[Coltaine]

Originally Posted by Gerbie2

I think the way things are being discussed on these forums is a clear example of how open discussion doesn't work. (Which is why I don't like the idea of public discussion of cheating.)

Discussing cases cannot be meant in a sense like "having a public vote if somebody gets closed or not". That would be plain ridiculous.
And ofc, on some cases, some people will disagree.
However, the multihunter would have the opportunity and duty to present and justify his case. Dont you think that would change a lot?
Again, the question is which major downsides this would have.
As compared to now, i dont see any?
Especially if there are unclear cases, things can openly be discussed, people can give their opinions to it and after having heard those opinions a decision can be made. I think real life has plenty of examples for something like that.
People may disagree with each others on several occasions, but still theres people who can give arguments justifying their opinion and those who can not. In the end, things can be weighed and judged upon.
Basically what Talin said:

Originally Posted by Talin

The discussion does work. It does result in well-argumented points being filtered from not so well-argumented ones. It's only normal that some people get upset along the way and start ranting randomly.

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I think the main reason that it isn't public (how they/their tools work) is that it means cheats have less idea of how to avoid them and get around them.

If that was the case, seriously, what effect do you think this had in the past?

Originally Posted by Talin

]I'm not supporting people being referred to as "cheaters" anywhere though, at least not as long as we have rules where you can get closed over anything.

That would be exactly what people can decide upon themselves then.

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

I think you got the reason why this won't happend right there. By making public the routines of the MH's, the cheaters will gain advantages when it comes to fooling the MH's. The idea is good but it would require a flawless set of rules and MH-tools, and as we all know that is impossible.

Tbh, i think any halfway skilled guy can anticipate those "routines" anyway, since this is basically about how you leave traces on the internet.
Not a big secret to many ppl and those who dont know or understand these things, cant make use of it anyway.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Coltaine

Especially if there are unclear cases, things can openly be discussed, people can give their opinions to it and after having heard those opinions a decision can be made. I think real life has plenty of examples for something like that.
People may disagree with each others on several occasions, but still theres people who can give arguments justifying their opinion and those who can not. In the end, things can be weighed and judged upon.

Now that is something I am against. Closures are done by the multihunters, and not by the community. Last thing we need is public lynchings of suspected cheaters.

You analogy with real life also doesn't fit. Judges decide whether or not to convict the suspects in individual cases. The government decides the rules by which the judges work. We should strife for a system that is much like this, in which the people who make the rules and people who apply the rules are not the same people.

[Coltaine]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Now that is something I am against. Closures are done by the multihunters, and not by the community. Last thing we need is public lynchings of suspected cheaters.

Thats exactly what i said. (while i was with that paragraph rather referring to unclear cases that are as recently on the edge of current rules and facing possible rule amendments.)
Also i dont see where the analogy doesnt fit. In a german court, lawyers give their point of view to the case, the judge judges. I didnt say any different.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

I think you got the reason why this won't happend right there. By making public the routines of the MH's, the cheaters will gain advantages when it comes to fooling the MH's. The idea is good but it would require a flawless set of rules and MH-tools, and as we all know that is impossible.

Fooling the MHs?
Excuse me, but, The multi-Hunters have a tool set. This toolset either shows someone cheating, or it doesn't. Either someone does 90% of their scans out of tag or they don't. Someone farms or they don't. Someone is cheating or they are not.

It is exactly WHY it should be transparent, and open. It means that players would SEE in public, cases of the actions of players doing something illegal, a due and public record of the monitoring supporting MHs who can no longer on whim kick out players, but have to be solid in their base of evidence (as its scrutinised).

To take the sort of current fixation on the Achillies case from this round.
1. The player would know why the decision was made.
2. The evidence would be public.
3. Remy could stand by his decision.
4. The other multihunters can verify in private that the decision is right, before going public and having to stand by their choices. Implicitly, this would mean anyone kicked out is a choice by the whole MH team.
5. In cases where the MHs are not happy enough evidence and groud for closure exists, they will hold off, and either work on the case, or advise the player to knock it off.

Or is it a case that the tools are iffy, and its all coming down to a single persons interpretation. If so, thats not good.

[Smudge]

since the closure / deletion of planets does cost people money the MH's should be held to accountability to show WHY they did it. in the case of achi (using as its fore mentioned), the MH has to document WHY they did it, why particular actions were taken etc. these documents are then shown to the closed planet and the accused planet is given the oppurtunity to give there side of what they think has happened. once the MH and the planet in question have both said there pieces, another MH puts what the MH said and what the planets said into ONE document which is then released to the community.

[The Wanderer]

I played during rounds, in were Multihunters by there new definition did not exist.
But it startet with posts on one of these forums, were a really few players with big score and courage, declared war on newbiebashers.

After a short time more and more people were "whinning" at the forums about unfairness. The reaction was, that those people got flamed to death in a way Tijetije (or however this is spelled) uses it today.
"You are weak, this is so hostile, go back to your mom"-style.

The "anti-reaction" was, that more players found the courage to unit against bashers, multis, farms and cheaters.
People like Coltain were such people.
If there is proof, which should be decided by more then one hunter, this should be done again, I agree.
But you see, the above contains disatvantages.
When such a "private huntergroup" is formed again, I am in.
At the forums in can cause terrible insultings.

Btw, I followed the Achilles affair very closely, but I name only #transcendancy here. Well Achi, I thank you very well for your entry in my profile and no offense but, bad luck. Shit happens. Dont "cheat" again.

[Kargool]

I think that a few things should be revealed about the multihunting.

What happens _when_ a planet gets closed.

How many planets get closed during a round.

And how many planets have the various multihunters closed.

[lokken]

Almost certainly, a multihunter should keep records of his actions and reveal them to those on PA team for scrutiny.