dbmb has been removed from OCF

The reason behind the blitzkrieg ban of dbmb was to ensure he did not have time to prepare a new account and hide it in order to enter and have the organisers risk him maphacking to victory. This decision, I must point out, was not made privvy to staff at green level, I would be surprised if it was shared at blue level, so it's not a staff wide conspiracy against him that some make it out to be.

The faster the ban, the more effective. Sadly, he had put effort into practicising, but in his case you have to wonder, you've been under scrutiny for maphacks before, people know who you are, so when's the big old banhammer going to fall? Chances are, when it most matters.

You can debate the ethics of this all you like, but in the end this was the biggest Coh 2 event ever, do not assume we would get down on our knees to cheaters and let them cheat their two and a half grand.

That's a pretty harsh strategy but I understand the logic behind it.
The weird thing about Dbmb is that to me he appears like an extremely nice and classy guy. He's one of the very few people who uploads losses and he's the best 1v1 sparring partner I could imagine. Obviously it's extremely easy to fake your own personality on the internet and there's plenty of evidence about his cheating past but still I want to believe that he has only tried maphacking in coh2 because he found it interesting to trick the game or something and that most of his wins are legit.

You don't have to be an asshole to be a cheater. especially when being nice will naturally make people want to believe you're innocent. People are gullible and want to see the best in each other. Sure he might act like a nice guy, but he's still a cheater and therefore shouldn't be allowed in any future tournaments.

Unnecessary flame post invised and two follow-ons citing said post.

I am going to set this out as briefly as I can. There are parts missing - bcs I do not want to encourage silly behaviour from those outside these forums who may wish to educate htemselves on how we try to nail down the problems we faced here. Most IT professionals here probably have a very good idea anyway.

The issue at stake is a question of trust. It is a question of how to deal with a player who breaks rules. It is not an issue of life and death, rape or pillage.

The organisers were, and are aware of the subject's background - and it went to a vote initially, when the subject in hand asked if he could be allowed to enter the tourney. At that stage, the prizepool was not as large as it now is, and some were more lenient than others.

So, he was provisionally allowed in, although the organisers had to set up safeguards... and these were under review, when the double accounting came to light late in the day. In other words, the questions of trust and rule breaking magnified themselves horribly. And the prizepool had grown again.

That in turn caused an even closer inspection of what effective monitoring might be made and whether indeed, there was any point. Ultimately, this was what caused the decision to be made.: the results of another breakdown in trust. Like Ciez, I believe we are dealing with the same cyber person - Razh/dbmb - and we are by no means the only ones

So when to publish? Certainly not before the sign-ups had closed - that was midnight on Friday. - we did not want the risk of yet another account being created and entered. And after that, we did not want to tarnish the opening of the tourney. So yes, we left it until the last minute. We do not owe a rulebreaker anything in these circumstances It was, and is, our paramount duty to protect the tournament and the interests of the community who supported it and who helped to create it . Rule breakers have to take whatever decisions we choose to apply.

As a result, the question has now been raised in Staff as to whether there should be a Fair Play Forum established, with commensurate sanctions. This is a thorny subject, since Relic apparently asked us to lay off this subject, when COH2.ORG was first established. Relic would take care of it themselves. The issue has been documented in threads before.

And certainly, I can testify to the number of threads we have hsd to lock, or invis, raising questions of cheating , some unfounded.

But now the Community has established that it wants big tourneys and will pay for them, the issue is back on the table, It certainly won't get resolved fast, and even if proceeded with, it will be necessary to think through any longterm bans we might propose in such circumstances

Lesson to be learnt? Dont cheat. Don't break trust.

I am realistic enough to know this reply will not satisfy all of you - I apologise - but there is nothing more I wish to add, to what I have written here.

I am going to set this out as briefly as I can. There are parts missing - bcs I do not want to encourage silly behaviour from those outside these forums who may wish to educate htemselves on how we try to nail down the problems we faced here. Most IT professionals here probably have a very good idea anyway.

The issue at stake is a question of trust. It is a question of how to deal with a player who breaks rules. It is not an issue of life and death, rape or pillage.

The organisers were, and are aware of the subject's background - and it went to a vote initially, when the subject in hand asked if he could be allowed to enter the tourney. At that stage, the prizepool was not as large as it now is, and some were more lenient than others.

So, he was provisionally allowed in, although the organisers had to set up safeguards... and these were under review, when the double accounting came to light late in the day. In other words, the questions of trust and rule breaking magnified themselves horribly. And the prizepool had grown again.

That in turn caused an even closer inspection of what effective monitoring might be made and whether indeed, there was any point. Ultimately, this was what caused the decision to be made.: the results of another breakdown in trust. Like Ciez, I believe we are dealing with the same cyber person - Razh/dbmb - and we are by no means the only ones

So when to publish? Certainly not before the sign-ups had closed - that was midnight on Friday. - we did not want the risk of yet another account being created and entered. And after that, we did not want to tarnish the opening of the tourney. So yes, we left it until the last minute. We do not owe a rulebreaker anything in these circumstances It was, and is, our paramount duty to protect the tournament and the interests of the community who supported it and who helped to create it . Rule breakers have to take whatever decisions we choose to apply.

As a result, the question has now been raised in Staff as to whether there should be a Fair Play Forum established, with commensurate sanctions. This is a thorny subject, since Relic apparently asked us to lay off this subject, when COH2.ORG was first established. Relic would take care of it themselves. The issue has been documented in threads before.

And certainly, I can testify to the number of threads we have hsd to lock, or invis, raising questions of cheating , some unfounded.

But now the Community has established that it wants big tourneys and will pay for them, the issue is back on the table, It certainly won't get resolved fast, and even if proceeded with, it will be necessary to think through any longterm bans we might propose in such circumstances

Lesson to be learnt? Dont cheat. Don't break trust.

I am realistic enough to know this reply will not satisfy all of you - I apologise - but there is nothing more I wish to add, to what I have written here.

To be honest, this reply was better than cold silence.

Its a little worrying to know all this was done and pre-known in the shadows of OCF, But aslong as something is been done about people like this... then thats good enough for me.

The problem for me is inconsistency. If the ban was for double accouts, VonIvan and some others also qualify. If its for cheating, Barton and DevM received a temporary ban in coh1 for exploits (defensive artillery on barbed wire I believe) which isn't technically cheating but did get them a short ban from GR.org. If CoH1 does not count, would Biosparks be allowed to participate?

The fact that the size of the pool influenced the decision is also messed up. If the official stance here is no past cheaters in coh2.org hosted tournaments then thats fine, but that should be the case 100% of the time, not when prize pool reaches X amount.

Plus how mad would donors be if their prize money was won under suspicious circumstances. I think it was vital to protect the integrity of the tournament, even more so in a case like ours.

The problem for me is inconsistency. If the ban was for double accouts, VonIvan and some others also qualify. If its for cheating, Barton and DevM received a temporary ban in coh1 for exploits (defensive artillery on barbed wire I believe). If CoH1 does not count, would Biosparks be allowed to participate? The fact that the size of the pool influenced the decision is also messed up. If the official stance here is no past cheaters in coh2.org hosted tournaments, that should be the case whether $200 or $3k is on the line.

He was banned from the site for multiple accounts, dropped from the tournament for having a history of cheating. Sure exploiting is low but it's not directly and consciously going outside the constraints of the game to gain an unfair advantage, as cheating is.

The problem for me is inconsistency. If the ban was for double accouts, VonIvan and some others also qualify. If its for cheating, Barton and DevM received a temporary ban in coh1 for exploits (defensive artillery on barbed wire I believe) which isn't technically cheating but did get them a short ban from GR.org. If CoH1 does not count, would Biosparks be allowed to participate?

I cheated on my gf and got caught. I should have been banned from OCF as well #MVGame

Sure exploiting is low but it's not directly and consciously going outside the constraints of the game to gain an unfair advantage, as cheating is.

Yeah I agree, I reworded it. Its also possible they didn't even realize what they were doing was made against the rules at the time. My point was if all CoH1 are offenses overlooked, would Biosparks or Snej be allowed to play?

Yeah I agree, I reworded it. Its also possible they didn't even realize what they were doing was made against the rules at the time. My point was if all CoH1 are offenses overlooked, would Biosparks or Snej be allowed to play?

I think it's somewhat irrelevant at this point because I don't think either of them entered OCF so it would have to be a decision to be made if/when they wanted to participate in a coh2 tournament.

Plenty of people have been banned for multi accounts, Raz/dbmb isn't the first. Overall the ruling is pretty consistent in my opinion. Especially considering he was actively logging into both accounts. I'm not sure Ivan has done that.

I abhor online cheating. However, there are a few questions I would like answered, if possible:

1. Is there a facility on coh2.org to delete an account at the account holders discretion?

2. Is there a clearly defined explanation, on how to delete one's account if the user so desires?

3. Was the said user given a chance to rectify any untoward behaviour, before the tournament began?

4. How long did coh2.org know about the I.P match?

5. Was the 2x Coh2.org accounts a convenient way to ban a known cheater from the tournament?