This is additional information for all players, which refers to the information previously published in this forum thread here:
In prior years, we have generally had one or two organisers, but this year we have a team of eight organisers (@JannLee, @okei, @LegionDestroyer, @grogers, @googa, @littleplotkin, @FischyVishy, @marlonc), many of which are long term members of the crazyhouse community.
In the past there has also been feedback from participants requesting a panel of crazyhouse players to hear a case as the line of final appeal in the event of a dispute related to cheating.
We have previously relied on lichess moderators for additional resources to support just one or two organisers, but this year we have such a panel of crazyhouse players available within the CWC organiser team. While we certainly continue to respect the lichess moderators, this year, to save any potential workload from them and also allow for insight on crazyhouse matches from community members, the final decisions will go to the CWC organiser team instead of lichess moderators.
This comes with the following conditions:
- a player involved with a cheating dispute cannot also participate as a organiser making a decision on the same case
- organisers making decisions should honorably perform a duty as an organiser first and should not be influenced by their position as a player in the tournament
Penalties associated with offences will be determined in accordance with the impact on the tournament. Where possible, there will be leniency provided in penalties or consequences for cases where a player is willing to admit to offences and make a voluntary withdrawal from the event. While cheating is heavily discouraged, voluntary admission of past offences is certainly encouraged by easing consequences, as this saves considerable time for both players and organisers. As a CWC organiser team, we can exercise some flexibility within our community event around the conditions above, but this is not permitted by lichess moderators who are required to penalise directly on evidence.
As always, we're seeking to improve this process. We'll monitor this change and take on community feedback to inform us for the future.
So basically if you cheat, then please own up and CWC organisers won't throw the book on you if you admit it. If it goes to lichess, this will be a strain on resources of time and energy of lichess variants mods but also they will be far less forgiving and could ban from the site.
I will suggest streaming should be a requirement to qualify to play in the CWC!
There was a famous crazyhouse streamer once who cheated though in standard chess. We could all see his board and his face but he was cheating and later admitted it after lichess caught him.
@BayorMiller some people don't have that type of technology or Internet connection, but good idea!
@okei if its so difficult to detect one when you can see his stream, what should we then rely on? If lichess doesn't detect it, and we don't in the steeam, can we boldly say such person didn't cheat?
@chessmessi14 i understand this, but we can't rely on the decisions of the organisers concerning cheating, we'll need more stringent methods!
"what should we then rely on?"
Screensharing with an arbiter instead of streaming? Camera from behind?
Not everybody has the technology, but at some point a line must be drawn in the balance stringent/accessible.
I personally would lean towards the accessibility to promote the game as much as possible, but cheaters should be treated with a zero tolerance policy (my personal opinion). In any case, I fully trust the CWC organisers team and their decisions on this matter. Keep up your great work 👍
"not as many people would join the CWC" ... which could be a bad or a good thing 😅
It's a tough balance. If we had to pick between clean of cheaters and popular, I would go with clean.
The only reason I lean towards making it accessible is that I currently see it clean already, but I'm sure I'm missing part of the picture as I'm not aware of any cheating cases. And ofc one might also argue that just "being clean" is not as reliable as "having measures that force it to be clean".
I'm glad the organisers are addressing this important topic and they have all my support for whatever anticheating rules they decide to introduce.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.