Accused of cheating

[Atorrante]

@badoing

I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve tweaked your edits further and included stone.defender’s suggestion:

No problem, my attempt was actually also aiming at provoking a reaction, anything that makes that text better is okay with me.
In the spirit of “yes, together we can”.

[siimphh]

I tried to soften the slightly accusatory language without being too apologetic and in general just focus on of the objective observations and clearly note the consequences.

@Eugene

Our records show that you incorrectly handled scoring at the end of game #{{game_id}}. Purposefully scoring games incorrectly is a form of cheating and is prohibited by the OGS Terms of Service.

https://online-go.com/docs/terms-of-service

We ask that you ensure you promptly indicate and accept the correct score at the end of your games, immediately after passing. Further instances of incorrect scoring (whether recurring mistakes or deliberate score cheating) will result in suspension of your account.

[GreenAsJade]

I’ve submitted badoing’s words for review:

Nicer score cheat message, composed by the forum. by GreenAsJade · Pull Request #2658 · online-go/online-go.com · GitHub

If you’re interested in the other canned messages that folk might get, they are here:

online-go.com/src/components/AccountWarning/CannedMessages.ts at devel · online-go/online-go.com · GitHub

[Samraku]

@Eugene

Further instances of score cheating will result
in suspension of your account.

@Atorrante

Unfortunately, further instances of score cheating will result in suspension of your account.

Is this true? if so, that seems harsh, but I suspect it is not true. I read both these wordings as unambiguously asserting that you’ve used up your second chances, and any further violations will result in suspension, but I suspect the actual rule is much more amenable to circumstance such as genuine mistakes

Perhaps:

Unfortunately, continued instances of score cheating will ultimately result in suspension of one's account.?

further → continued: puts the emphasis on not changing behavior and leaving open how many chances are left (it’s a semi-automated message after all), instead of strongly implying that there are no second chances left
will → will ultimately: clarifies that it’s not necessarily immediate (though it could be), but it is the path you are headed down if you continue
your → one’s: makes it feel not so much like an attack, especially if one had made a genuine mistake, while still communicating the rule and expected behavior

[Samraku]

@badoing

We noticed that you incorrectly changed the score at the end of game #{{game_id}}. While this might be a genuine mistake, please review the game and be sure you understand the final score.

In future, we hope that you will end your games properly by first closing all the borders of your territory and secondly by accepting the correct score immediately after passing. (In case of a disagreement over what the correct score is, we ask you to contact a moderator).

Unfortunately, some users use this form of score manipulation to cheat, if this happens repeatedly we’ll have no alternative than to suspend your account.

I like this; very similar treatment of the last paragraph to what I came up with

[stone.defender]

[saxmaam]

I’m glad to see this discussion and a path to softening the language. In a long life, I’ve rarely been falsely accused of cheating or prematurely threatened with severe penalties if I don’t do some right thing. It always prompts a feeling of outrage. I think I probably remember every single time it’s happened in my life.

It’s fantastic that OGS addresses the issue of score manipulation, though. It’s maddening to win a game and have your opponent try to take it away.

[shinuito]

@Eugene

We’re open to revising these message to meet community needs.

I can see that in your case it in all likelihood was “actually, I really thought this score needed to be fixed”.

In the fullness of time, we may have a different message for when it’s the first time you’re getting this, that would be kinder. It’s “on the list”.

Possibly an alternate message for when the game is misscored, suggesting to take care to score the game correctly?

[Groin]

So charming

[Regenwasser]

@Eugene

Our records show that you attempted to illegally change the score at the end of
game #{{game_id}}. This is a form of cheating and is prohibited by the
OGS Terms of Service.

https://online-go.com/docs/terms-of-service

That might sound “legalistic and formal” at first but what is this based on? You claim that OP attempted to “illegally” change the score. Where exactly in the Japanese rules of Go or in the ToS is that behavior declared as “illegal”?

[fuseki3]

@GreenAsJade

I’ve submitted badoing’s words for review:

I like the new wording by badoing a lot more, I had always thought that was a bit harsh sounding after seeing the canned messages, too.

@GreenAsJade

If you’re interested in the other canned messages that folk might get, they are here:

I notice that there are some notes like this in some automated responses, but I feel that it might help the “impersonal tone/method” and harshness too, to add to each/all messages (for both the reporter or the warned player) something to the effect of :

“If you’re confused about this or want clarification, please contact an OGS moderator (or refile the report with more details – this parenthetical part if for the reporter so that they will be able to follow up if needed).”

I recall seeing in the help chat a fair bit of confusion over these “system”-generated automatic messages, and that many didn’t know how to follow up further on them if needed.

( a player wondering why or confused about the results of a certain report, etc, for example)

I think that that would also help soften the tone and how it is received and make it less impersonal seeming, as some of the automated messages can be.

(although rewriting some to have a softer tone, similar to how this one was rewritten, would probably also help with how I think many of these automated messages can be received.

(including possibly seeming as if no-one put much personal consideration or work into it, as they can seem as if they may have been generated/handled automatically by a bot, even if mod work or thought was put into the decision to send those messages.)

[xela]

…we hope that you will end your games properly by first closing all the borders of your territory and secondly by accepting the correct score immediately after passing.

This wording seems confusing to me. If there’s an expectation that you will always accept the score immediately, then why does the option of changing it exist at all?

[GreenAsJade]

Actually, that word should be “promptly” I suspect - we use “promptly” elsewhere.

I’ll see about updating it, but…

…the intent it’s trying to convey is “without making your opponent wait unduly”. I think we can’t put the whole “user manual” for how to do scoring in this dialog, although I do see the wrong interpretation is possible.

I will also say that at some point there will be some words chosen that someone can interpret wrongly or doesn’t like. Adding more words usually makes it worse, not better. At that point we need to live with the fact that score cheating is an ongoing grievance that is so ongoing that we need a semi-automated response to it, and that will not be perfect for each individual case.

[GreenAsJade]

@shinuito

Possibly an alternate message for when the game is misscored, suggesting to take care to score the game correctly?

I’m not sure what you mean by “when the game is misscored”.

If you mean “the outcome is that the score is wrong”, I think that’s the exact scenario this message targets: the actual winner gave up after a long exchange of correcting the cheater’s score claim.

In considering options for improvement, there are two kinds of suggestions:

1. How to make the current warning best cover all scenarios, while optimally targeting the worst one.

If we can come up with wording here, it’s easy to put in.

2. Changing the warning scenarios, different messages for different outcomes.

This goes “in the list”. Score cheating is the most problematic for the semi-automated system, so actually good suggestions could get to the top of the list IF they will improve the rate at which correct messages can easily be identified.

[GreenAsJade]

@Regenwasser

You claim that OP attempted to…

Actually, it’s “we”. The “you” that you are talking about is “us”. The moderators are part of us, you know… right now “we” have agreed we’re sending messages that are a bit harsh. By the time you typed your message “we” had even fixed that and announced that the fix was in progress, above your post.

And it’s even more true now that we can all see the messages used in this circumstance, and provide feedback on them, as also mentioned earlier in this thread. How’s that for continuous improvement

[trohde]

Moderator Note for Transparency

I have moved that other—off-topic—discussion about the semantics of “legal”/“illegal” to a place where the participants can continue their argument if they so wish, away from the ever-curious eyes of the public
Peace, out,
Tom

[Groin]

Oops, @trohde

The links provided by the system (see after answer 22 and after answer 28) up aren’t working, not that I care much to read again these moved parts of the thread, just as a mention toward future other reorganization.

[trohde]

Yup, as I wrote, it’s all still there, just in some private place.

We can move back to the topic now