Tsamu
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2016
- Messages
- 724
I would like to suggest a system for accusing players of cheating and having the battles reviewed by judges. It would have a lot of the same elements as the civil justice system. There would be different processes for multi-player and war, but the basics would be the same.
After a battle, the attacked player could file a complaint of cheating against the attacker. The attacked could check how many complaints have been filed against the attacker, and how many were upheld/dismissed.
First a bot would check for obvious cheating, like too many troops deployed, or 1 soldier getting 5 stars. If the cheating is not simple enough to be dealt with by a bot, a human judge would review. Judges would be elected by the community. The attacker would have to provide a screen recording of a replay of the attack, made on the same device as the original attack. If the attacker fails to provide the recording within 2 days, he/she is automatically ruled against and sanctioned. Penalties would be rollbacks, temporary bans and fines (paid in crowns). the judge would get half the crowns and the attacked the other half. If the judge finds for the attacker, the attacked pays "costs" in crowns to the attacker, and court costs to the judge.
Until a case is resolved, neither the attacked nor the attacker can attack. In the case of a war attack, neither alliance can start a new war until the case is resolved, and if the verdict is against the attacker the whole alliance is sanctioned. In the case of multiple complaints of cheating in a single war, all cases will be dealt with by the same judge.
Judges would have access to prior cases involving the attacker. The severity of the penalties would not be decided by the judge, but by an algorithm. The judge would affect the penalty by recording the type and severity of cheating. For war, the number of cheating attacks would affect the severity of the sanctions against the alliance.
BHG would provide the infrastructure for the justice system, and could suspend it at any time if it is being abused.
After a battle, the attacked player could file a complaint of cheating against the attacker. The attacked could check how many complaints have been filed against the attacker, and how many were upheld/dismissed.
First a bot would check for obvious cheating, like too many troops deployed, or 1 soldier getting 5 stars. If the cheating is not simple enough to be dealt with by a bot, a human judge would review. Judges would be elected by the community. The attacker would have to provide a screen recording of a replay of the attack, made on the same device as the original attack. If the attacker fails to provide the recording within 2 days, he/she is automatically ruled against and sanctioned. Penalties would be rollbacks, temporary bans and fines (paid in crowns). the judge would get half the crowns and the attacked the other half. If the judge finds for the attacker, the attacked pays "costs" in crowns to the attacker, and court costs to the judge.
Until a case is resolved, neither the attacked nor the attacker can attack. In the case of a war attack, neither alliance can start a new war until the case is resolved, and if the verdict is against the attacker the whole alliance is sanctioned. In the case of multiple complaints of cheating in a single war, all cases will be dealt with by the same judge.
Judges would have access to prior cases involving the attacker. The severity of the penalties would not be decided by the judge, but by an algorithm. The judge would affect the penalty by recording the type and severity of cheating. For war, the number of cheating attacks would affect the severity of the sanctions against the alliance.
BHG would provide the infrastructure for the justice system, and could suspend it at any time if it is being abused.
Last edited: