The line that mods can't cross in Gameplay involvement

[Ambroscus Koth]

About an hour ago, yet another gameplay event was affected by the involvement of the DoS player commonly known as Frak. From what I can tell, he used at least 3 WA multis to endorse The Flaming Astronaut in the region of SPACE, resulting in a failed liberation attempt by an incredibly slim margin. Discussion of this can be found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=330972&start=25

On Reppy's request, I am formally asking the admin team here: Where do you draw the line in getting involved with the R/D game? This is not the first, nor will it be the last time, that this individual has bypassed his DoS status to affect delegacy changes. The mod team is evidently not fast or alert enough to stop him when it counts, and it's getting to the point where he can make or break any important event in gameplay. We the players need to know what the official ruling on this is.

[Cormac Stark]

About an hour ago, yet another gameplay event was affected by the involvement of the DoS player commonly known as Frak. From what I can tell, he used at least 3 WA multis to endorse The Flaming Astronaut in the region of SPACE, resulting in a failed liberation attempt by an incredibly slim margin. Discussion of this can be found here: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=330972&start=25

On Reppy's request, I am formally asking the admin team here: Where do you draw the line in getting involved with the R/D game? This is not the first, nor will it be the last time, that this individual has bypassed his DoS status to affect delegacy changes. The mod team is evidently not fast or alert enough to stop him when it counts, and it's getting to the point where he can make or break any important event in gameplay. We the players need to know what the official ruling on this is.

Just to expand on this, without Frak's three endorsements the liberation would have been successful. We tied at update, 30-30. Would have been 30-27 without Frak.

It's unacceptable for him to be able to impact the game in any way -- to make liberations succeed, to make them fail, to stop tag raids, whatever. Letting him impact the game only encourages his behavior. He will do this again and again if he sees that he's going to get away with it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Not sure I understand what's being asked here. Frak is DoS, and it seems like he was able to do this just because the mods didn't find him and delete his account in time. Rep said there was an issue with the DoS interface.

Are you asking for the devs to create something that allows admins to "fix" things when they go wrong because of mod/admin/system error? Or are you issuing a complaint about Frak not being deleted with enough speed?

[Tim Stark]

As a suggestion that I know has been brought up by many others, and one I doubt most Gamplayers could find objection to, but would it be possible to just run a blanket policy on any and all DoS Player influenced Gameplay changes, one way or another, in which the Moderator Team simply makes the choice that would have happened without the DoS player's interference happen? It seems to me that it's both the best way to make him go away and the best way to mitigate the influence he is still having on the game.

It's clear from his continuous incursions into the game that he's craving attention, and wants to cause issues such as the one caused tonight with the three multi-WA nations he used within the operation. If the Moderation Team were to simply make the game happen as if he wasn't there, treating it as a "Game Glitch" where it's recognizing DoS players when it shouldn't be, it would remove any influence he's having on the game, and mean that Gameplay is able to continue being at least somewhat enjoyable for both sides still, without the hours put into our operations, which are tough enough to plan already, being wasted permanently due to one sad troll who gets off on coming back to this game again and again.

tl;dr - simply reverse, affect the game, in those situations into a situation that follows the scenario in which he simply never existed.

I know this breaks the precedent that the Moderation team has been on-and-off abiding to, but it also means that Gameplay is still fair, and isn't becoming ruined by a DoS players actions, especially given the fact that it is very rare for Moderators to be on and able to catch him during update itself, or at least before he does whatever actions happen that affect GP. As said before, I doubt many could object to a status quo in which GP things are reversed to avoid impact of a DoS player.

[Consular]

My thoughts on this from another thread:

While I personally find what I'm about to say uncomfortable, because of the various other complications it presents, I do feel like the only sensible policy is for admins to set the situation to what it would have been if the DoS player had not been involved. Doing anything else is allowing someone banned from this game to directly affect it, in a meaningful way, and that is frankly unacceptable.

It seems the majority of people, and on various sides of the spectrum, actually agree on this one.

[Reploid Productions]

Honestly, given the often contentious history between moderation and gameplay, I think this is one best left in the hands of the techies rather than the mods. The techies have access to information that the mods don't, and can thus determine more accurately what got screwed up and what needs to be done to "erase" the DOS user's impact.

Speaking as a fellow player, I agree that it would be best to have any interference from a DOS erased or fixed. It's not fair to the gameplayers who are following the site rules to get dicked over by some banned idiot who obviously is not going to have any respect for those rules. But from an official standpoint, I honestly believe it would be better and fairer to all involved (and minimal drama or shitstorms) if the mods are kept out of it in favor of the techies.

[Tim Stark]

But from an official standpoint, I honestly believe it would be better and fairer to all involved (and minimal drama or shitstorms) if the mods are kept out of it in favor of the techies.

Just as a note, from general GP Forum and IRC reactions to the situation, I think Gameplay Factions are more or less unanimous in our belief that Frak-actions should just be removed and the situation should proceed as if they hadn't happened. So, if a policy is adopted in which the actions of DoS players are simply erased, the drama and shitstorms will likely be significantly less than if those actions are allowed to continue without any intervention.

[Ambroscus Koth]

I trust that you have our best interests in mind, Reppy. The issue is that if whatever the tech administrators come up with isn't enough to stop Frak completely (e.g. the throttle that temporarily refrains you from accessing the website), then the mods are going to have to be faced with decisions and rulings on a case-by-case basis. And even if they choose not to intervene, that's still a choice that gameplayers have to live with. I made this thread so that we could both attempt to conjure a technical solution but also establish a solid moderation ruling on this sort of case for the future. Because as you know, Frak is NOT going to stop unless his actions become meaningless.

[Land filled with People]

Speaking as a fellow player, I agree that it would be best to have any interference from a DOS erased or fixed. It's not fair to the gameplayers who are following the site rules to get dicked over by some banned idiot who obviously is not going to have any respect for those rules. But from an official standpoint, I honestly believe it would be better and fairer to all involved (and minimal drama or shitstorms) if the mods are kept out of it in favor of the techies.

Fairer, perhaps, given the information available to admins and not mods (is there much difference that would affect outcomes here?), but certainly not better. With the team of Game Mods deletions can already be slow in coming. Reducing who can fix this issue from a dozen or so mods to 3 and expanding what those 3 would have to do won't yield timely results.

[Corvus Corax]

@Land. Is it enough good that things are fixed before next update (minor Update 18th Feb 2015 UTC/GMT), as this is next time any further changes will happen in a regional status?

It was success for defenders and all serious raiders agree with that.

[Ballotonia]

I investigated what happened and confirmed that indeed a DOS player's endorsement made the difference here. note this requires server log examination and cannot be proven with 100% certainty without doing so. The moderation team is hence correct in not interfering but bumping this question up to Admins instead.

We do not want DOS players going into some sort of bizarre 'cat and mouse' game against the Moderation team, to see whether they can affect the game before getting caught and DEATed. DOS players are unwanted on this site. They have gravely broken site rules and have been uninvited. Their involvement constitutes cheating.

The delegacy of Space has been altered to reflect what should have been the actual outcome of that battle without the interference from a DOS player.

Ballotonia

[Ambroscus Koth]

So are we going to have to go through this process every time Frak causes something similar to SPACE? I very much appreciate the precedent being set here, and this is an excellent first step, but I don't want to have to bug the admins every time a DoS player gets through and multis

[Corvus Corax]

...or by endorsing random WA-nation in a random region inflicting a 'natural' process of delegate elections.

[Nephmir]

A simple solution would be to make the world happenings unavailable to the public and newly founded nations. Then no one could participate in Gameplay until a day or two after their nation is created- assuming they aren't in an organization's chat to receive orders.

[Alustrian]

Many thanks, Ballo. Honestly, even if we don't get a permanent/automatic fix right now, I'm more than satisfied with the precedent set (I wasn't sure we would even get this much )

[Unibot III]

I think defenders should be very concerned about this precedent - it isn't a good one at all. In fact, it fucks all of us over. The only reason why defenders are cheering about this precedent is because it was used in SPACE against invaders - but what happens when the next ITALIA liberation is reversed because Frak happened to be endorsing us? Bullshit - that's what this is: bullshit.

After working for days on a big liberation - which might only have a sliver of a chance of success even with all of the stars aligning - the last thing I want to see is the mission's results reversed because Frak was hiding amongst the liberators (he might not even have been on IRC with us).

There's no way to ascertain our willingness to let Frak in the group or ascertain the level of which involvement is consented. It's not like we can remove him from a liberation or an invasion - if he spots a liberation or invasion forming, he often joins the mission and supports them in endorsements with or without our consent.

[Rifty]

-Unibot's angry grumble-

I think...if i've gotten this right...if they would have won without the support of Frak than his endorsements would be removed however they'd stay in power. The reason the delegacy switched over is because without Frak's backing they wouldn't have made the update.

In the context of a lib against another region where frak was with us - the only time it'd have an affect on us is if we wouldn't have made the numbers without his support.

[Karputsk]

Ballo specifically mentioned that they were intervening as Frak's endorsements had resulted in the failure of the liberation. In the case that a Frak endorsement resulted in the success of a liberation, I completely agree that the liberation should be reversed. It seems to me that the Admin team would not intervene beyond deletion should his endorsement not turn the tide for one side or another. At least that's what I took from Ballo's post.

[Kohlandia]

I think defenders should be very concerned about this precedent - it isn't a good one at all.

Of course this precedent is a good thing. It gives a very clear statement about what will happen in the event of a DOS'd player entering into an event, with or without consent. Clarity is something that can be planned for. This precedent is an excellent outcome from this farce and it doesn't matter at all whether the result in SPACE was a Def or Raid victory.

After working for days on a big liberation - which might only have a sliver of a chance of success even with all of the stars aligning - the last thing I want to see is the mission's results reversed because Frak was hiding amongst the liberators (he might not even have been on IRC with us).

How long you worked is irrelevant. Whether a DOS'd player was hiding amongst your numbers is irrelevant. If you have the numbers in terms of legitimate players, you will win. If you don't have the numbers, you will lose. Nothing has changed here.

There's no way to ascertain our willingness to let Frak in the group or ascertain the level of which involvement is consented. It's not like we can remove him from a liberation or an invasion - if he spots a liberation or invasion forming, he often joins the mission and supports them in endorsements with or without our consent.

If he's there without your knowledge and without your consent, you should be cheering this decision - the admin are saying they will deal with the DOS'd player and not blame anyone else for him being there. You're not going to be tarred by the same brush just because he's there.

As for him turning up without consent, so what? This decision changes nothing - if you still had the numbers without him, you win. Nothing has changed for the R/D game. The only thing that is new is that we now know that if a DOS'd player screws things up, there is a quick and relatively painless remedy.

Thank you, Admin and moderator teams. This is a great decision and it should be applauded.

[Cormac Stark]

Thank you to the admins for a relatively quick and fair decision.

[Todd McCloud]

Aye, I heard about this thing and I'm very glad the situation was resolved the way it was.

[Ambroscus Koth]

After working for days on a big liberation - which might only have a sliver of a chance of success even with all of the stars aligning - the last thing I want to see is the mission's results reversed because Frak was hiding amongst the liberators (he might not even have been on IRC with us)

You realize that's not the precedent that's just been set, right? The only way the results would be reversed is if Frak's involvement was THE factor that tipped the scales -- in which case you wouldn't have won anyway and you have no room to bitch.

In any case, I look forward to seeing what sort of technical remedies the team comes up with to prevent DoS players from having an involvement in gameplay BEFORE it's too late.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

While on one hand, I certainly agree that this is a fair outcome, I also thing this is going to be a pain in the buttocks going into the future.

Kind of going off what Unibot said, it is going to be a pain when he helps with libs or other actions. Yes, it only need be reversed if his actions changed things. Here, it was quite obvious they did. But what about a larger lib jump, that wins by one, and maybe he's got puppets in three browsers jumping in, and there's no easy way to tell if he made he little difference or not? Is Admin going to go dig through the logs every time he's involved in a close call to see if he turned the tide? And on another note, tags, mostly from TBR as the org who tags the most are regularly lost, if in small numbers, to Frak interfering by endorsing the native delegate. Those will be reported now, and by this precedent, deserve reversal as well. So every update he comes in, and takes a tag or two from TBR, is Admin going to go through and put *those* proper delegates in place? That's a lot of work. Cora, as the resident log-keeper, estimates that over time at least 100 tags have been lost to him, and therefore just left out of reports like any other miss, even though the puppet causing the loss was sooner or later deleted. And while it's certainly *fair,* I don't know that it's really that much more fair than "tough luck, nothing we can do about it, it'll all even out in the grand scheme of things when he feels like helping the other side."

If anything, I feel this just gave him *more* influence on the game from afar - now he knows how to make Admin change delegates, outside of update, perfectly legally. That's more power than any other player, legal or illegal, has in R/D.

[Unibot III]

After working for days on a big liberation - which might only have a sliver of a chance of success even with all of the stars aligning - the last thing I want to see is the mission's results reversed because Frak was hiding amongst the liberators (he might not even have been on IRC with us)

You realize that's not the precedent that's just been set, right? The only way the results would be reversed is if Frak's involvement was THE factor that tipped the scales -- in which case you wouldn't have won anyway and you have no room to bitch.

In any case, I look forward to seeing what sort of technical remedies the team comes up with to prevent DoS players from having an involvement in gameplay BEFORE it's too late.

MOST big liberations are extremely close. Knowing Frak and how he likes to involve himself, he very well could be a deciding factor in a lot of our big liberations.

Take for example, Anne Frank - recent big mission - it was won 59-58. Now how would everyone feel if that massive orchestration of cooperation was reversed because Frak had had an endorsement in there in the pile and we didn't know-?

---

This is the wrong way to go about this; the admins have made a massive error of judgement. They think it's encouraging Frak to stop playing a game of cat and mouse - but it's going to do the opposite: now Frak knows he has way more influence over the game. Now Frak, by merely participating, can bring down an entire regime! For example, if he sits in a pile and a liberator force ties with the pile, that pile would have lost if he hadn't been there. Same goes the reverse in the case of defenses. Frak now knows that by merely participating, he creates opportunities to fuck with NS and to fuck with players - bring down whole liberations and occupations for fun and mischief. I dunno, I'm not an invader, or someone who enjoys mischief for mischief's sake - but I reckon that what the admins have decided, sounds like a lot more fun than just participating as a wallflower - now you're giving him to power to frigg over entire missions. All he has to do is participated more and opportunities for situations like SPACE will arise - they often do.

[Alustrian]

You realize that's not the precedent that's just been set, right? The only way the results would be reversed is if Frak's involvement was THE factor that tipped the scales -- in which case you wouldn't have won anyway and you have no room to bitch.

In any case, I look forward to seeing what sort of technical remedies the team comes up with to prevent DoS players from having an involvement in gameplay BEFORE it's too late.

MOST big liberations are extremely close. Knowing Frak and how he likes to involve himself, he very well could be a deciding factor in a lot of our big liberations.

Take for example, Anne Frank - recent big mission - it was won 59-58. Now how would everyone feel if that massive orchestration of cooperation was reversed because Frak had had an endorsement in there in the pile and we didn't know-?

Certainly disappointed, but it is the fair result. Although it isn't the technical reality atm, DoS should mean that the player /should not be in the game/. If we didn't win without a Frak endo, then we didn't win.