5 ms·

Well if he's cheated in one game, I think it's perfectly reasonable to issue a full ban, and I'm sure TG's TOS gives them full discretion to do so.

pessimizer 6y ago
> I'm sure TG's TOS gives them full discretion to do so. I think Twin Galaxies and those records predate this sort of privately issued internet law.
Aerroon 6y ago
I don't really agree. Ban him from further games, because he's a known cheater? Sure/maybe. But unless his record in Pac-Man itself seems suspect I don't think it should be taken away.
- TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
  Many of Twin Galaxies' old records have no surviving evidence allowing them to be verified.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    If they want to keep those runs, seems like this could be solved with an Archive/Legacy tab or even better a checkbox for "Show unverifiable runs" that's unchecked by default. That way a game isn't killed forever because an unverifiable run got a perfect score.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > unless his record in Pac-Man itself seems suspect Are there good records to determine that it isn't suspect?
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  The damage for removing a valid score from a known cheater is that they may be robbed of a legitimate score. The damage of not removing an invalid score is that that score may be impossible or require superhuman skills (i.e. TAS) to attain, thus forever removing that category from competition. This lopsidedness - and don't get me wrong, a healthy dose of schadenfreude too - makes me strongly believe proven cheaters should be stripped of all records.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  This happens all the time in real sports. If you get caught cheating you often forfeit your legacy because everything you've done professionally is suspect, especially if you show a longer-running history of cheating or are caught multiple times. I'm not sure how you can differentiate the punative nature of banning someone from all future tries because they had cheated indeterminately in the past, but not invalidating all their historical record outside of individiaul cases...
  - MilnerRoute 6y ago
    I'm trying to say this in a way that doesn't come across as snarky. Last year the Houston Astro's admitted they'd been cheating. They did not forfeit their legacy, and in fact the very next year came within one game of competing in the World Series.
  - tsherr 6y ago
    New England Patriots?
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Actually, I would tend to lean the opposite direction. Our ability to detect cheating tends to go up over time [1], so we can provide more stringent defenses against cheating for future events, in particular by requiring more/better evidence of scores. However, our ability to reanalyze older records for evidence of cheating is often more lacking, and so we have to enter in a default judgement. If you're dishonest enough to cheat once, why should we expect your other records (both past and future) to be more honest? Once you have been caught cheating, that knowledge colors all of the other records, and you have a stronger burden of proof to demonstrate that those records are indeed valid. If that means that we are stripping you of legitimate records, well, maybe you shouldn't have broken the rules if you didn't want to suffer the punishment. [1] In absolute terms. Of course, cheaters also get more ways to cheat over time, so the relative capability of cheaters versus anticheat detection will fluctuate over time.

pessimizer 6y ago

> I'm sure TG's TOS gives them full discretion to do so. I think Twin Galaxies and those records predate this sort of privately issued internet law.

Aerroon 6y ago

I don't really agree. Ban him from further games, because he's a known cheater? Sure/maybe. But unless his record in Pac-Man itself seems suspect I don't think it should be taken away.

TazeTSchnitzel 6y ago
Many of Twin Galaxies' old records have no surviving evidence allowing them to be verified.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  If they want to keep those runs, seems like this could be solved with an Archive/Legacy tab or even better a checkbox for "Show unverifiable runs" that's unchecked by default. That way a game isn't killed forever because an unverifiable run got a perfect score.
Chris2048 6y ago
> unless his record in Pac-Man itself seems suspect Are there good records to determine that it isn't suspect?
reitzensteinm 6y ago
The damage for removing a valid score from a known cheater is that they may be robbed of a legitimate score. The damage of not removing an invalid score is that that score may be impossible or require superhuman skills (i.e. TAS) to attain, thus forever removing that category from competition. This lopsidedness - and don't get me wrong, a healthy dose of schadenfreude too - makes me strongly believe proven cheaters should be stripped of all records.
nogabebop23 6y ago
This happens all the time in real sports. If you get caught cheating you often forfeit your legacy because everything you've done professionally is suspect, especially if you show a longer-running history of cheating or are caught multiple times. I'm not sure how you can differentiate the punative nature of banning someone from all future tries because they had cheated indeterminately in the past, but not invalidating all their historical record outside of individiaul cases...
- MilnerRoute 6y ago
  I'm trying to say this in a way that doesn't come across as snarky. Last year the Houston Astro's admitted they'd been cheating. They did not forfeit their legacy, and in fact the very next year came within one game of competing in the World Series.
- tsherr 6y ago
  New England Patriots?
jcranmer 6y ago
Actually, I would tend to lean the opposite direction. Our ability to detect cheating tends to go up over time [1], so we can provide more stringent defenses against cheating for future events, in particular by requiring more/better evidence of scores. However, our ability to reanalyze older records for evidence of cheating is often more lacking, and so we have to enter in a default judgement. If you're dishonest enough to cheat once, why should we expect your other records (both past and future) to be more honest? Once you have been caught cheating, that knowledge colors all of the other records, and you have a stronger burden of proof to demonstrate that those records are indeed valid. If that means that we are stripping you of legitimate records, well, maybe you shouldn't have broken the rules if you didn't want to suffer the punishment. [1] In absolute terms. Of course, cheaters also get more ways to cheat over time, so the relative capability of cheaters versus anticheat detection will fluctuate over time.