To what extend should this subforum be anonymous?

[Massman]

As the title states ... to what extend should this be anonymous?

 

Non-visible threads, non-visible user accounts, anonymous users (but visible threads) ... ?

[DrSwizz]

Perhaps you could make it possible for this to be selected when each individual thread is created?

That would allow both an open "general discussion" as well as anonymous reports of cheating.

(or is that difficult to implement without modification of the forum software?)

[K404]

Maybe non-visible threads would be the best way? If someone IS cheating, no point giving them a headsup that they're submissions are about to get extra scrutiny.

 

 

Also, if its public, maybe out of spite, the reporting member is going to be accused of something just to "even things up"

[Hondacity]

i think we should be always logged in...

 

i don't mind...

 

 

good topic...

[Chiller]

cheating needs to be punished, as clear as that.

 

Cheating doesn't belong in this world.

 

Unanomous or not, this is a very good idea, but also need there be very concreet proof of cheating.

 

i think doesn't have to be unanomous, otherwise you get funny posters who cannot stand somebodsy's face and raport him in matter of speaking.

that we also don't whant offcourse.

 

But yes, this is good, cheating needs lifetime ban.

[Antinomy]

Since the first reason to report is suspicion, sometimes you can't be 100% sure. So it's about one user claiming another cheating which is quite serious. If the reporter was wrong it gives bad reputation to both sides.

 

Can you explain what does non-visible threads mean? The won't be visible to anyone except the reporter and moderators?

 

And is this a "forget the old stuff and start from a blank page" or will you return to cases reported to you, RB and Maxi via PM and here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1787 but left without any attention?

Or is it about politics when someone is uncomfortable to be punished so the punishment shrinks to a silent clean-up?

 

Thank you in advance

I sincerely do not understand starting a new level in processing such cases without closing the old ones.

[T_M]

I think visible threads and visible names.

If someone wants anonymity they can always PM you

[knopflerbruce]

Invisible threads is a good idea, we need to protect both sides here. Non visible user names won't help much, any link to a result includes a nickname - which will damage the reputation of the person being accused, even if it turns out that he is innocent. The only way I can think of to avoid this problem is to make the threads non-visible as well.

[Bobnova]

I like the invisible threads option, personally. I'm assuming that you mean visible only to the creator and the moderators.

Visible threads will almost certainly lead to pissing matches between the accused (and their friends) vs the accuser (and their friends) with nothing useful being done.

[Antinomy]

Yeah, it's always like that - about 3-4 messages from the accused and accuser and ten pages of posts made by yelling friends from each side

 

So I agree about invisible threads if I understand it correctly.

[Massman]

And is this a "forget the old stuff and start from a blank page" or will you return to cases reported to you, RB and Maxi via PM and here: http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1787 but left without any attention?

Or is it about politics when someone is uncomfortable to be punished so the punishment shrinks to a silent clean-up?

 

That thread is actually not about cheating, but it's about validated scores that are not correct. Perhaps due to wrong score, perhaps due to wrong cpu.

 

This subforum is dedicated to the 'bigger' problems: hardware sharing schemes, score selling evidence etc. It's meant to be an outway for people who prefer not to speak up in public but do want to share evidence or anything like that.

 

I don't really want this place to be use regularly

[Antinomy]

That's only half of the answer

[Massman]

I thought it was a given that anything I do is because I'm politically corrupt

[Antinomy]

Some might think so. I don't - I prefer to ask whether it is so

[Massman]

Well, this all depends on whether I am corrupt for real or not. I mean; if I were corrupt, would I say I'm corrupt? No. In both scenarios (either corrupt or not), I'd say I'm not.

 

Obviously I'm not corrupt. I don't even understand how people would get the idea that I am corrupt to begin with. Perhaps due to a general distrust of people with authority?

[Antinomy]

Looks like you definitely aren't familiar with Jack Sparrow's words from Pirates of the Caribbean when he was "lending" a ship

He went a bit more far in similar thoughts.

 

And no, I think you don't (hey, you started talking about you, not me, OK?) understand the reasons. It's not about authority. It's about what people expect others to do and what those others do actually. And if it's up to my words I wasn't speaking of you personal. I don't want to make biting jokes cause you take it too close to your heart.

[chew*]

No need to be anonymous.

 

I was scanning recent events and I found this guy, can't tell who he is but he is clearly taking bribes to influence the outcome of a competition.

 

 

[|ron]

I posted yesterday in the occrime area but I can't see my thread unless I'm anonymous, not logged in.

This is quite strange.

So, for me, the options are:

1- invisible threads for the public, in which only the topic opener and the staff could discuss

2- public threads in which everybody can post (not a good idea, already explained some posts before)

 

The solution may be to let someone choose when he's posting, to have the topic invisible or public so that one could evaluate this based on the topic he's opening... if it's an hw sharing report, maybe it's better to keep it invisible because it's a difficult issue to be discovered... if it's a "photoshop submission", there's no need to make it invisible, the solution is quite simple there.

 

p.s. LOL for the pic above