Jump to content


Naming & Shaming


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Spurtung #1 Posted 27 September 2017 - 09:59 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61080 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

Not wanting to debate forum moderation, but something's a bit off.

 

We can't name and shame because those are forum rules.

When we send tickets to support, the reply is that there's an automatic system and therefore nobody's gonna even look at it.

 

Meanwhile, some players that can be seen in their own replays having very shady actions keep on playing.

 

So, what can the community actually do about it? Simply sit still and wait for the anti-cheat policy's tools to finally catch up? Is that really it?

 

 

This thread was prompted by the reasoning behind closing another thread, here.



Kozzy #2 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:21 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38794 battles
  • 2,683
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

The whole 'naming and shaming' rule is one I have always found to be ridiculous.  Never have I seen an instance where someone was being negatively affected by naming and shaming.  If you are an exploiting/greifing/cheating douchebag then you do no deserve to rename hidden/free to continue.  In the early days of WoT I was even tempted to create an unofficial forum where people could talk more candidly about WoT, WG and the players but didn't think it would be popular enough to warrent the effort.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 27 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

So, what can the community actually do about it? Simply sit still and wait for the anti-cheat policy's tools to finally catch up? Is that really it?

 

 

In answer to your question: Nothing, except to trust WG and their systems/employees. ;)



UrQuan #3 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19183 battles
  • 6,032
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

Naming & shaming is forbidden because it would be too easily abused.

 

Reporting people works on the other hand, if a replay is provided, along with timestamp(s) & a clear & good explanation. Teamdamage/Teamkills are handled by the automatic system. However, abuse of the automatic system can still be reported this way.

 

Just make sure the reported issue is a legitimate issue & not a rage of the moment thing. Sometimes, someone really just is lucky. Or people are just that bad.



Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #4 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:23 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15134 battles
  • 3,134
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012
I guess it's to prevent witch-hunting in the forum.

Spurtung #5 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:28 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61080 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostZe_HOFF_fverhoef, on 27 September 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

I guess it's to prevent witch-hunting in the forum.

 

Which represents a really small percentage of users when compared to players. Still, shouldn't a cheater be known as such, regardless? If cheating is their choice, shaming those players should be other's prerogative.

 

 

View PostUrQuan, on 27 September 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

Naming & shaming is forbidden because it would be too easily abused.

(...)

Just make sure the reported issue is a legitimate issue & not a rage of the moment thing.

Exactly how can that be abused?

 

You have CCs getting replays that they themselves see as shady, and when they (who are chosen by and supposedly work in partnership with WG) report them, they also get the "automatic system" BS reply.


Edited by Spurtung, 27 September 2017 - 10:31 AM.


jack_timber #6 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31930 battles
  • 1,784
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

I think the biggest problem is actually proving that someone is using an illegal mod, for instance.

You may have an inkling that something isn't quite right but being 100% sure is a different matter.

 



Pvt_Duffer #7 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 16648 battles
  • 3,141
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 27 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

 

So, what can the community actually do about it? Simply sit still and wait for the anti-cheat policy's tools to finally catch up? Is that really it?

 

 

This thread was prompted by the reasoning behind closing another thread, here.

Start a youtube channel, show the evidence, supply that evidence to WG.

 

Name and shame only applies to this forum. There's nothing in the rules about posting links to videos where names are shamed.

If there is, then  someone needs to give Claus a heads up before his biggest a*holes series get slapped down.

 



UrQuan #8 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:39 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19183 battles
  • 6,032
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 27 September 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

 

Exactly how can that be abused?

 

 

'Spartung is a cheater' 

 

Please prove you didn't cheat. Until then, you are a known cheater to me.

 

If i repeat above statement enough, in enough threads, people will start pondering 'Maybe there is something to this? No smoke without fire right?' For the record, i won't, but above stuff is exactly why i don't endorse naming & shaming on official forums, as they're bound by too much rules. Unofficial forums, be my guest, you can enjoy the Name & Shame thread in wotlabs, where people like you end up named & shamed, because *lulz, 50K battles & can barely go above 50%!*  Also for the record, i'm fine with your stats, you just have to keep in mind that people have different bars to name & shame & it won't always be cheating or hating.

 

I find people like you refreshingly naieve. Believing naming & shaming would only harm the guilty. Here's a tidbit: cheaters don't play nice, else they wouldn't be cheating in the first place. Haters don't play nice either, else they wouldn't be haters. Elitists don't play nice either, they are better then everyone else after all.


Edited by UrQuan, 27 September 2017 - 10:46 AM.


Spurtung #9 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61080 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postjack_timber, on 27 September 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem is actually proving that someone is using an illegal mod, for instance.

You may have an inkling that something isn't quite right but being 100% sure is a different matter.

 

Obviously WG is the ultimate judge to that, but they seem to just shrug it off and put all their chips on the anti-cheat system.

Not wanting to use this as some sort of proof, but have a look at this video. If he had reported that player using that replay, support would simply reply there's an anti-cheat system in place and they won't do anything about it themselves.

 

 

View PostUrQuan, on 27 September 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

 

'Spartung is a cheater' 

 

Please prove you didn't cheat. Until then, you are a known cheater to me.

I can live with that :B

The burden of proof is on you, though.


Edited by Spurtung, 27 September 2017 - 10:48 AM.


250swb #10 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:42 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21423 battles
  • 4,780
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015
I suppose the moderators are only following the rules as laid down, which is fair enough. But I don't see how, given their unique position of interacting on the forums, it would hurt if they do see something like the recently closed down cheat thread to say to themselves 'hey these guys are onto something', and pass it on directly to Support under their recommendation for review. These naming and shaming incidents only come about because nobody believes WG Support do anything with reports.

xtrem3x #11 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:43 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31404 battles
  • 1,330
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

I think naming and shaming should be allowed.

 

Cheaters and teamkillers deserved to be named and shamed. They need to be ridiculed and shunned by the community, maybe that would help reduce the problem



jabster #12 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12526 battles
  • 22,494
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostKozzy, on 27 September 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

The whole 'naming and shaming' rule is one I have always found to be ridiculous.  Never have I seen an instance where someone was being negatively affected by naming and shaming.  If you are an exploiting/greifing/cheating douchebag then you do no deserve to rename hidden/free to continue.  In the early days of WoT I was even tempted to create an unofficial forum where people could talk more candidly about WoT, WG and the players but didn't think it would be popular enough to warrent the effort.

 

 

The problem I see is that with no filter on 'legitimate' replays combined with the number of players who see cheats everywhere what you'll end up with hoards of worthless threads. Even acting like a bit of a knob replays are problematic as I'm sure that their are many players, myself included, that have had less than proud moments in-game. That doesn't mean you act like a knob every game though.



Kozzy #13 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:47 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38794 battles
  • 2,683
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostUrQuan, on 27 September 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

 

'Spartung is a cheater' 

 

Please prove you didn't cheat. Until then, you are a known cheater to me.

 

I was kind of assuming people were on the same level when it came to the kind of 'naming and shaming' that would be expected.  I guess I should learn not to assume such things when it comes to the population of this forum.

 

For clarity; What I mean (and I believe Spurtung probably meant too) was more along the lines of:

 

"Here is some evidence of what I believe shows xXx_insertcoolnamehere_xXx to be cheating" + 'link to youtube.com/coolcheatingvideo'

 

I don't think anyone would want baseless accusations to be thrown around, again I assumed we were talking about posting evidence that could be discussed.

 

I, for one, wouldn't mind if someone posted up game play containing me being 1337 and them claiming I was cheating as the video would clearly show me not cheating, just being 1337.  Someone saying "Kozzy is a cheating bozo" would not be accepted.



jabster #14 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:47 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12526 battles
  • 22,494
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostUrQuan, on 27 September 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

 

Reporting people works on the other hand, if a replay is provided, along with timestamp(s) & a clear & good explanation.

 

My understanding is that the current policy is everything is handled by automated/reporting mechanisms so CS will not consider replays.



Kozzy #15 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:51 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38794 battles
  • 2,683
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View Postjabster, on 27 September 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

The problem I see is that with no filter on 'legitimate' replays combined with the number of players who see cheats everywhere what you'll end up with hoards of worthless threads. Even acting like a bit of a knob replays are problematic as I'm sure that their are many players, myself included, that have had less than proud moments in-game. That doesn't mean you act like a knob every game though.

 

We may have another case of Jabster and Kozzy having to accept to agree to disagree again ;)

 

I have no problem with people posting stuff up as long as it shows the truth.  Video evidence of me being a douche bag or a noob is fine (both do happen a fair bit) someone saying something without any kind of evidence is not fine.

 

I do take on board the frequency of posting these kinds of things may require a sub-forum of it's own.



Spurtung #16 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:51 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61080 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostKozzy, on 27 September 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

For clarity; What I mean (and I believe Spurtung probably meant too) was more along the lines of:

 

"Here is some evidence of what I believe shows xXx_insertcoolnamehere_xXx to be cheating" + 'link to youtube.com/coolcheatingvideo'

 

I don't think anyone would want baseless accusations to be thrown around, again I assumed we were talking about posting evidence that could be discussed.

Precisely this.



Jigabachi #17 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:53 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17852 battles
  • 18,196
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 27 September 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Exactly how can that be abused?

"Spurtung is a huge pancake. He killed me ingame and then called me a half-size midget with a beaver fetish. He also eats kittens and ugly children. Please, when you see him ingame, teamkill him and his entire family."

 

And now about what to do:

What exactly are the options besides trying to report things to the support? They are the only ones who are able to get people banned. Sharing the names of offenders doesn't get them magically banned.



UrQuan #18 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:53 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19183 battles
  • 6,032
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostKozzy, on 27 September 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

 

I was kind of assuming people were on the same level when it came to the kind of 'naming and shaming' that would be expected.  I guess I should learn not to assume such things when it comes to the population of this forum.

 

For clarity; What I mean (and I believe Spurtung probably meant too) was more along the lines of:

 

"Here is some evidence of what I believe shows xXx_insertcoolnamehere_xXx to be cheating" + 'link to youtube.com/coolcheatingvideo'

 

I don't think anyone would want baseless accusations to be thrown around, again I assumed we were talking about posting evidence that could be discussed.

 

I, for one, wouldn't mind if someone posted up game play containing me being 1337 and them claiming I was cheating as the video would clearly show me not cheating, just being 1337.  Someone saying "Kozzy is a cheating bozo" would not be accepted.

 

I'll level, if it was possible, I'll enjoy a nice name & shame on cheaters & the like. We all enjoyed the hilarious threads of cheaters exposing themselves when they accused someone else of cheating. But considering how people are, the safer side is just not to allow it.

Also considering how the knowledge of some folks is & you end up with how some folks will see your 1337 replay as proof of cheating, because no human can play that good.

 

Just check the sometimes really dumb threads popping up, realize many almost all are written by people & they actually believe it. Then give these people the power to name & shame. Sure, you & me won't believe them, but many others will.


Edited by UrQuan, 27 September 2017 - 10:54 AM.


jabster #19 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:55 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12526 battles
  • 22,494
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostKozzy, on 27 September 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

We may have another case of Jabster and Kozzy having to accept to agree to disagree again ;)

 

I have no problem with people posting stuff up as long as it shows the truth.  Video evidence of me being a douche bag or a noob is fine (both do happen a fair bit) someone saying something without any kind of evidence is not fine.

 

I do take on board the frequency of posting these kinds of things may require a sub-forum of it's own.

 

Have a read of Jon Ronson's book Shamed to see what I think the problem is.



Spurtung #20 Posted 27 September 2017 - 10:56 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61080 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 27 September 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

What exactly are the options besides trying to report things to the support? They are the only ones who are able to get people banned.

That is indeed the question, what can be done if the support just shrugs it off onto an automated system?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users