ValhallaDrizzt is essentially a NG+ category. The time saves are diminishing after that, though I suppose they could be better with slightly better boss fights. I think the issue is determining how to establish the rules for such a category. Do we allow max level characters or no? Maybe a premade level 20 character using the level 20 cheat? I think the former makes the most sense, but it also calls difficulty choice into question as well.
I'd encourage you to make a proof of concept run either way, as it's the best way to generate interest.
And yet he should be. I can't think of a more important issue than a cheater being allowed to continue submitting runs. It damages the integrity of the entire site. Plugging your ears up and ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away. If people are fine with elo protecting cheaters then so be it I guess lol.
His most recent run was two days ago and his account isn't displayed as being banned, like other accounts with gray names and a tooltip that says "banned".
I think it should be stickied so people can easily find it in the future on how to avoid getting banned for cheating. (Unless jaypin88 didn't cheat, but that's a lot of pages and text to read)
So do you guys want a $19™ Amazon™ Gift Card™ or not?
Theoretically you could probably do some boss fights faster with her, but she loses time over the run, much like the archer, to the fighter's bull rush.
But more importantly, view this thread, elo: https://www.speedrun.com/the_site/thread/3jdqo
Christ, you guys are going about this the wrong way, but I can't really blame you. One of the few instances where elo/src staff should actually step in or own up to their decisions and they're completely fucking useless.
Every cheater I've encountered just deletes their account anyways. It's the edge cases like these where that doesn't happen. Scenarios like this are one of the few benefits of having a platform like src to protect all communities from cheaters. If you don't see the issue with allowing them to cheat again or allowing their previous potentially cheated runs to remain on leaderboards then I don't know what to say. I'm all for communities running themselves, but I don't see why you would even use src if not for the reason of cross community protection from cheaters, but then again I advocate communities handling themselves off src anyways, so whatever.
[quote]I think the question here is aimed more towards to "exactly how will we give this information to game moderators so that they can decide what to do with their runs?[/quote]
You remove all runs associated with that banned account. Simple. Solves the "naming and shaming" issue. Solves the thousands of games/moderators potentially affected. If you think removing all runs associated with a cheater is a bad idea see my first post. This really is one of the few instances where site staff should intervene, when they should normally just let communities handle themselves. Instead cheaters are unbanned and I still get ads for a game that a staff member wanted to promote.
I really don't understand all the nonsense about public shaming that you guys are going on about. As far as giving moderators access to this information instead of just banning the cheater, what if moderators change? What if new ones get added, old ones leave, etc. Part of why cheaters should just be banned from submitting runs across the site is because moderation can be abused as well. How many mods could be protecting cheaters right now? We have no idea, cause once again it's all based on trust.
It's a simple solution. If you cheat, you can't submit runs anymore. I'm not sure what's so hard about that. For individuals with a large audience external to the site, I could see the issue with banning them. People that don't understand how LBs work, or simply want to go to bat for their favorite eceleb could flood the site. Unfortunately the integrity of all leaderboards should be more important than "we don't want to upset people on youtube :(" Since it clearly isn't, I personally won't submit runs in the future lol.
The person that cheated is at fault for cheating, not those calling them out on it. I agree we shouldn't dog pile on someone or shame them or some stupid shit like that, but they are the one's that cheated. If you have any semblance of care for the integrity of all leaderboards on this site you'd want those that cheat to either be banned or labeled as such.
I don't know much about dream but was he not banned for cheating? More to add to the list I guess, though I suggest just not using src at this point.
I think having a forum ban and a game ban separate of one another is fine. If someone gets banned from the forums they should be allowed to continue submitting runs, and vice versa. I'm assuming we're strictly talking about cheaters here though, and how they shouldn't be allowed to submit to leaderboards after being caught out.
Leaderboards operate primarily on trust. Cheating breaks that trust. A cheater left to continue submitting runs is invalidating all leaderboards they get accepted to. Even if someone cheated ONCE. YEARS AGO. THEY WERE REEEEEEEEALLY SORRY, and were never "caught" again, it's still not enough. Too many runs can be cheated with no one ever knowing. This is why verification is more a formality for checking that rules are being followed. Sure sometimes a mod will catch a cheated run, but the fact that WRs have stood for years in the past and never got caught shows that it's easy to get away with. Break that trust, you shouldn't be allowed to submit runs.
If they're just really passionate about speedrunning, and doing so legitimately and competitively, they can still do so without ruining a leaderboard for everyone else. Or they could submit under a different account (not that I condone this, but it's an option). They would never take that route because just like they cheated in the past for clout, they would feel the need to run "legit" for clout as well. Unfortunately there's no way around it. If you want to submit to leaderboards as yourself, don't cheat. I've been saying this for years now. I'll just refer to this post in the future should it ever come up again.
