So what about these SG-approved blacklists that I've seen a few times?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you can always add people for any reason to your blacklist, it's your blacklist. You don't have to be any reason. You're giving the game, so you choose who are not able to win. So there's no legitimate reason, you add people because you can.
Did I say it's your decision to who you can add to your blacklist?
Comment has been collapsed.
A blacklist with only names, without mentioning the reason these users are blacklisted, and approved by Support.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder what would happen if someone thought they were really intelligent, created a "difficult" puzzle and had numerous people solved it quickly. Would they start accusing people of sharing answers?
How do you prove someone is sharing answers without one of them taking a screenshot and narking on the other?
Comment has been collapsed.
"Checking your own questions often reveals people asking for the solutions" is not sharing the url. Often people ask portals like yahoo,twitter etc. to get answers.
Sure,if ppl share the answers private there is not much you can do,except checking how they found the answers. If a puzzle is really hard that usually never happens though,since the cheaters/leakers fail to solve it.
Comment has been collapsed.
"more entries than solvers is usually a good way to see if it was leaked" is sharing the URL.
My question was "How do you prove someone is sharing answers without one of them taking a screenshot and narking on the other?" not, "how do you find them?". If they use the same username on the other places then it would be pretty obvious, otherwise the question remains, how do you prove it?
Not meaning to be rude, but you're trying to prove something that I never asked about or even mentioned.
Comment has been collapsed.
my answer was partly to you and partly for the op so I dont have to make 2 posts,you just jump on the part that was not meant for you.
You know as well as me that you cannot gather 100% if its done in private,but you can have circumstantial evidence,and that was given to you.
If you are really just after the "Did they share the answers in private,not a public accessable room?" you know as everyone else that you cannot proof anything here. Best you can do is checking if suddenly a bunch of guys all got it on the same time and oops they know each other,or you ask them how they found their answers,which sometimes can be a solution. Nothing of that is proof.
Not meaning to be rude,but you are creating a situation that simply is beyond proofable,yet you demand pure proof for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, my physic abilities must have been messing up as I wasn't able to read your mind and know you were addressing multiple people while replying to me.
This reply leads to my other question of "if someone thought they were really intelligent, created a "difficult" puzzle and had numerous people solved it quickly. Would they start accusing people of sharing answers?" which the answer seems to be yes, they would start accusing people of sharing answers. It would also be safe to assume that if you happen to solve it while a group of people are "cheating", they could easily be marked as one. Maybe we could even start looking to see if people who answer happen to be friends on Steam, if so they clearly cheated.
You're right, I'm well aware of the fact that there is no way to prove it and more often than not, you'll be making accusations with no actual evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
On one of my puzzles I had three seperate questions with random pictures that the answer to all was "42". After 1 day of putting it out, two people entered the giveaway less than a minute apart. They were also friends on steam. You can't prove it, but circumstantial evidence can be enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know, maybe when a puzzle giveaway is only getting 1-2 new entries a day and then all of a sudden 4-5 people enter/solve at the same time (within 60 seconds of one another). Even if the giveaway is getting lots of entries every day, if two people who are friends with each other enter/solve within a minute of each other that's a good sign for suspicion.
Comment has been collapsed.
That wouldn't be exactly a "recent event" only, unfortunately.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wats the point? By giving out / leaking the puzzle answers - they are reducing their own chances of winning and simply increasing others. So, who to blacklist? The hander outter or the actual cheater using that handout? It's not possible, but since it's statistically the same chance of winning, it's just hurting themselves. Even if you blacklist - it doesn't stop them from leaking it now does it?
Comment has been collapsed.
22 Comments - Last post 13 seconds ago by Mayanaise
11 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
9 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by JHartmann
13 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by FranckCastle
567 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by duville
20 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CelticBatman
1,447 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Alfhar
862 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by M7MXD
246 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Icepick87
18 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by simrafael
2 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by duville
140 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by RGVS
45 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by ZungBang
7,969 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by Aradiel
In light of recent events, and because I'm preparing a puzzle giveaway, does anyone know of an existing puzzle-griefer blacklist I can use?
Comment has been collapsed.