If a game's worth playing, it's worth playing to win. And if a game's worth playing to win, it's going to involve cheats.
I really don't get it in Diplomacy. There are no prizes, other than honorary ones. Yes, there are titles, maybe a cheap trophy or two, but nothing more. So why cheat?
Well, often, simply because it's possible. There isn't really much of a challenge to cheating in online Diplomacy... except the "getting away with it" aspect. But, with sites using more sophisticated methods of detecting cheating, the chances of getting away with it are small.
It's clear that having one player controlling multiple powers in a game isn't fair. Those powers are never going to be competing against each other and other players are at a disadvantage. If you want to get yourself banned from a Dip site, try this.
If you've been removed from a game, whether because you've exhausted the number of turns you can fail to submit orders or because a moderator has removed you (because you've broken site rules) you usually can't get back into the game using the same account. This means you need another account to access the game again. Why would any of the other players want you back?
Occasionally, when I've seen cheating, a player will deliberately quit the game as one power and re-enter it as another, again having to use a second account. This is unfair because she can see the messages other players have sent the second power, allowing her to compare these with the messages that were sent to her. But it is also a ridiculous way to acknowledge you were being beaten and so you want to try a power that has been left in civil disorder that might have a better chance.
For me, this should probably see players banned from a Dip site permanently. If they've done it once, then they're likely to do it again. But I can also understand that a site would want to give a second chance to someone who may have been unaware of the rules... I just don't think anyone can be unaware of how illegal this action could be.
The problem is that players often use mobile connections to play Diplomacy online. This means that the same IP address could be registered for accounts that are in no way connected. It isn't as simple as banning on this criterion therefore.
The other problem is that, simply because the accounts have been created from the same IP address, it doesn't mean they are owned by the same person. It might be people from the same place of work or study joining the site at the same time. It might be family members. IP address bans are simply too broad a brush on their own.
Again, to me, this should be specifically banned. Not only is it a way to allow metagaming, it's a way to cheat in games with limited communication techniques, such as Gunboat or Public Press only. In Gunboat, for instance, communication of any sort isn't allowed. How easy it is to circumvent this using out-of-game communication.
If I can see one part of the board, and another player can't see this, it is possible to screenshot the part I can see and send it to the other player so she has additional information, above what is allowed by the rules of the variant.
Now, those who say this isn't cheating would say that screenshots can be changed. I could take my screenshot, say, and drop an extra army from a third power into it, making that power seem more threatening or powerful than she actually is.
In reality, however, this isn't likely to be expected of a screenshot. While it may be no different from forwarding another player's messages, players are aware of how easy it is to manipulate forwarded messages.
But the obvious reason remains the same: No matter how much a screenshot is manipulated to deliberately pass on false information, in a variant such as FoW the recipient is still seeing more of the board than she should.
It should also be that new members are forced to read the rules before being allowed to play. This isn't always something that's in place and it probably should be.
Wait, though, people don't always read those terms and conditions, do they? No, they don't - I'm often guilty of simply clicking "I AGREE". But then, if I break the rules, who's at fault? Me.
Ignorance is never a defence provided the information is available.
I really don't get it in Diplomacy. There are no prizes, other than honorary ones. Yes, there are titles, maybe a cheap trophy or two, but nothing more. So why cheat?
Well, often, simply because it's possible. There isn't really much of a challenge to cheating in online Diplomacy... except the "getting away with it" aspect. But, with sites using more sophisticated methods of detecting cheating, the chances of getting away with it are small.
Multi-accounting
This is when a player uses more than one online account in a game. This might be at the start of the game, or it may be to get back into a game a player's been removed from. It's usually not allowed.It's clear that having one player controlling multiple powers in a game isn't fair. Those powers are never going to be competing against each other and other players are at a disadvantage. If you want to get yourself banned from a Dip site, try this.
If you've been removed from a game, whether because you've exhausted the number of turns you can fail to submit orders or because a moderator has removed you (because you've broken site rules) you usually can't get back into the game using the same account. This means you need another account to access the game again. Why would any of the other players want you back?
Occasionally, when I've seen cheating, a player will deliberately quit the game as one power and re-enter it as another, again having to use a second account. This is unfair because she can see the messages other players have sent the second power, allowing her to compare these with the messages that were sent to her. But it is also a ridiculous way to acknowledge you were being beaten and so you want to try a power that has been left in civil disorder that might have a better chance.
For me, this should probably see players banned from a Dip site permanently. If they've done it once, then they're likely to do it again. But I can also understand that a site would want to give a second chance to someone who may have been unaware of the rules... I just don't think anyone can be unaware of how illegal this action could be.
Banning players with the same IP address
For those people not in the know, this seems to be the simplest way to prevent multi-accounting. If multiple accounts are created from the same IP address, simply ban them... or prevent them accessing the site from the same address.The problem is that players often use mobile connections to play Diplomacy online. This means that the same IP address could be registered for accounts that are in no way connected. It isn't as simple as banning on this criterion therefore.
The other problem is that, simply because the accounts have been created from the same IP address, it doesn't mean they are owned by the same person. It might be people from the same place of work or study joining the site at the same time. It might be family members. IP address bans are simply too broad a brush on their own.
Communicating outside of the game
The problem with this is that it means that players can cheat in other ways. Let's say I want to play as part of a team with another player. I don't want to give this away by building a series of messages in the game, so we're going to communicate outside the game. This might be in person, over the phone, or by any of the myriad of ways people can communicate these days.Again, to me, this should be specifically banned. Not only is it a way to allow metagaming, it's a way to cheat in games with limited communication techniques, such as Gunboat or Public Press only. In Gunboat, for instance, communication of any sort isn't allowed. How easy it is to circumvent this using out-of-game communication.
Sharing screenshots
This is a borderline case. It becomes important in variants such as Fog of War, when players should only be able to see certain parts of the board.If I can see one part of the board, and another player can't see this, it is possible to screenshot the part I can see and send it to the other player so she has additional information, above what is allowed by the rules of the variant.
Now, those who say this isn't cheating would say that screenshots can be changed. I could take my screenshot, say, and drop an extra army from a third power into it, making that power seem more threatening or powerful than she actually is.
In reality, however, this isn't likely to be expected of a screenshot. While it may be no different from forwarding another player's messages, players are aware of how easy it is to manipulate forwarded messages.
But the obvious reason remains the same: No matter how much a screenshot is manipulated to deliberately pass on false information, in a variant such as FoW the recipient is still seeing more of the board than she should.
House Rules
Many sites and organisationshave their own rules defining cheating. If they don't, they should. These things often couldn't have been foreseen in the rules of the game because the internet was barely an imaginary thing in the 1950s when the great and good ABC (Allan B Calhamer) was creating Diplomacy. They're not mentioned in the rules.It should also be that new members are forced to read the rules before being allowed to play. This isn't always something that's in place and it probably should be.
Wait, though, people don't always read those terms and conditions, do they? No, they don't - I'm often guilty of simply clicking "I AGREE". But then, if I break the rules, who's at fault? Me.
Ignorance is never a defence provided the information is available.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?