… but this is distraction from the main discussion: that’s not an accusation, it’s jest.
The setting of a public bathroom was incidental to my metaphor
Just for being accused of botting? I could understand if someone went on the forums and posted something like “Avoid this player! he used AI against me!”, but that’s crossing a line into attempting to cause harm via the accusation itself, rather than accusing and waiting for due process (in this case moderation) to make a decision
I agree that it’s jocular, but it is also clearly an accusation: it’s both
That’s true - and it served well to make TPR’s point that it’s good to allow for some nuance like that.
Yeah 
Couldn’t resist.
In all seriousness, there is a grey line about what is OK and what is harassment, in any statement made in chat.
So a blanket rule like “Accusation of AI is harassment” is wrong, and I don’t support it any more than you do.
This statement is true though:
" Accusations of AI use feel like harassment, which (harrasment) is not allowed. "
This allows for “yeah, but my Monty Python joke took the sting out of it, surely”.
1 Like
Apologies for the confusion! I was looking for a strong accusation with negativity but thought an additional insult would be helpful in making the point. It’s unfortunate that that was the first one that came to mind.
More on topic, I’m trying to work though the exact thing we’re trying to say and I wonder if it’s less about phrasing the rebuke differently and more about showing empathy.
“We know it’s frustrating if you feel your opponent is cheating. The right thing to do in this case is to report and allow the mods to deal with it. Please don’t take it up directly with your opponent as this can be interpreted as harassing them”
4 Likes
“which” has an ambiguous antecedent here, at best, hence the requirement to add the parenthetical
I love this phrasing, with the emphasis on some potentially unfortunate unintended consequences of direct engagement, rather than out and out saying it’s all tantamount to harassment
4 Likes
I agree with the disagreement. So wording like:
Makes me immediately recoil with “no it’s not (necessarily), you silly bossy OGS message writer who doesn’t understand then English language” and creates aggravation and defensiveness and reduces chance of an amicable outcome. If this is the position OGS takes, it should at least be softened like:
Firstly, accusing someone of AI use in chat is considered by OGS policies as harassment, …
1 Like
Does this mean you prefer the revised version?
I asked Gemini (tried to explain our constraints) and it suggested:
Just a heads-up: It’s never a good idea to accuse someone directly of cheating. If you suspect AI use, let the moderators handle it - they’re the best ones to investigate and keep things fair for everyone.
I don’t think that’s my favourite phrasing but I might like starting with the request (never accuse someone of cheating) and suggesting the alternative. The direct warning against harassment isn’t there, but there is a quite weak implication.
Or how about:
Please do not directly accuse another player of cheating. If you suspect AI use, finish the game normally and report it to the moderators - this avoids potential conflicts and our moderators will be able to quietly investigate and keep things fair for everyone.
1 Like
Coming back to this after 10 hours is so frustrating, because the discussion, earnest though it is, is all over the place. Discussions of several intertwined issues are going on: (1) OGS policy regarding harassment, (2) the proper tone for the message (what it should be needs to be decided before arguing about how to achieve it, whatever “it” is), (3) whether explanations should or shouldn’t be given, (4) the order of importance for the points OGS wants to communicate, and (5) the appropriate words and phrasing to achieve the foregoing. The first four issues need to be resolved before the fifth can be reasonably addressed.
Miscellaneous observations:
Eugene’s original first sentence is still the best IMHO. It communicates the most important point first in a short, clear manner.
Whatever the outcome, let’s avoid “Firstly…Secondly.” If this kind of enumeration is desired, “first” and “second” are just fine.
@teapoweredrobot’s distinction between “abusive accusation” and “indirect suggestion” vanishes upon close examination, I think. The first formulation is what a dumbass would say, and the second is what a smartass would say. I would find the second more obnoxious and infuriating than the first, because it is condescending and, most important, hypocritical, insincere subterfuge. Both are harassment.
Chat communication with the accused, whatever its nature, may be satisfying for the reporter, but it is counterproductive to OGS’s goal of deconfliction.
1 Like
What about “You’re clearly using AI!” or “It very much looks like you’re using AI!” as examples for accusations? Should the “Don’t hassle your opponent”-message fit those too?
We have already established that my examples are poor. What I was trying to get at but failing was the distinction between a comment that was clearly abusive and one that is light hearted, maybe even made as a genuine compliment without any thought that AI cheating is going on.
Should the rule be that AI can’t be mentioned at all in chat? I don’t think that can be right. But what kind of reference to AI is acceptable?
I think it is clear that these would be harassment.
Isn’t the point that the apparently aggrieved party can’t actually know that AI is being used and such an accusation is often made by sore losers.
Not in the way that I analyzed them. I disagree with the proposed idea in principle, not only in particular. However it is phrased, it is still hypocritical, insincere subterfuge. To repeat, chat communication with the accused is counterproductive to OGS’s goal of deconfliction.
1 Like
Welcome to OGF. Are you new here? 
3 Likes