From the "OKbridge Spectator":
*** An in-depth look at cheating ***
Since many OKbridge members are interested in how OKbridge handles
cheating,
Wendy Baze decided to ask John R. Mayne, our ethics director, and Tony
Reus,
our chief tournament director, some incisive questions.
Following are the questions and answers in interview format between Wendy
and John. Tony offers his views in "Netiquette," his personal monthly
column
that is located elsewhere in this publication.
Wendy: How many reports of suspected cheating do you get a month?
John: When we started the Ethics Director position three years ago, we
received a large number of reports. Now we're down to fewer than 10
reports
a month. Often several of those reports reference the same player or
players.
Wendy: What steps do you take when you receive a report of cheating?
John: I review hundreds of hands played by a potential offender.
Sometimes,
other case-specific investigative tools are used. Those methods are
non-public. If I conclude that there has been cheating, the person is
notified and given an opportunity to respond.
Once all information is collected, a determination of whether illicit
information has been exchanged is made. Those determined to have used
illicit information are expelled. Measures are in place to remove people
who
attempt to return after being removed.
Wendy: Do you have an appeals process?
John: Our appeals process is for adjustments of director rulings in the
tourneys only; following the process on the web page will result in a
review
of the director ruling and possible adjustment. As for cheating, no. Once
you are found to have used illicit information, it is all over.
Wendy: Do you think a "Trial and Jury" type system would be appropriate in
some cheating cases?
John: Perhaps. At this point, I have personally reviewed thousands of
illicit information allegations and have conducted hundreds of thorough
investigations. The process is currently efficient enough to continue to
regularly remove cheaters.
Were we to require the number of man-hours needed to do a committee or
jury
system correctly on each case, we would not be able to effectively remove
so
many accounts on a regular basis.
Wendy: Everyone is aware that there is no way to prevent all cheating, but
what percentage of the OKbridge membership do you think is involved in
cheating?
John: I believe there is some involvement in cheating by about one in 500
members in open play. Because most who cheat do not do so on every hand,
the
number of results tainted by cheating is less than 1 in 500. The incidence
in tournament play is higher.
Wendy: Do you look into every report of suspected cheating that you
receive
from members?
John: Yes.
Wendy: Does it make a difference if the suspected cheater is a very
high-profile member?
John: We've removed highly-ranked pros, and we've removed rank novices.
Cheat and leave.
Wendy: Is the issue of losing revenue (membership fees) for OKbridge a
factor in determining how to deal with an ethics issue?
John: OKbridge members have demanded an atmosphere with minimal use of
improper information. We provide that, which increases member satisfaction
and thus member renewals. It's good business. In those limited cases where
a
person known and liked by a significant portion of the membership had to
be
removed, we still did it. We can't allow use of illicit information, ever.
Wendy Do you think the fear of low Lehman ratings encourages cheating?
John: No. It's quite clear that the people who cheat are, well, cheaters.
At
one time in the distant past, known cheaters were permitted to play in
non-comp mode. They cheated there, too.
Many cheaters believe they are better players than their results show. By
cheating, they simply improve their results to conform to their skill
level.
The results are therefore valid, they feel. It does not matter if it is
non-comp, for money or for Lehman's -- cheaters cheat.
Wendy: Do you and Tony work closely together?
John: Sure. Tuna Reus handles conduct and ethics and I handle cheating,
but
there is some overlap. I handle certain conduct appeals, and he's the king
of locating and removing previously expelled members.
Wendy: Have you found members in violation of our ethics standards on your
own?
John: Yes, but remember that "ethics standards" and cheating are
different.
Tony Reus and I have found people using illicit information on our own.
Wendy: How many memberships have you cancelled because of cheating?
John: About 150 in the last three years for illicit information alone.
Wendy: How many memberships have you suspended because of ethics issues?
John: One for illicit information. There were special circumstances in
that
case.
Wendy: How do you decide how long to suspend a membership?
John: Cheat and leave. Expelled members may apply for reinstatement.
Wendy: Do you show favoritism?
John: Sure! My favorite people send me reliable reports of cheating and do
not make public accusations of cheating. I love those people! That may not
be what you mean. We have no mercy on users of illicit information. Cheat
and leave.
Wendy: Do you know of any other interactive computer bridge clubs that do
more to address the issues of conduct and ethics than OKbridge?
John: No group does a better job than OKbridge. I am confident our
anti-cheating efforts are by far the class of the industry. Many have
claimed that they had better programs (even stating they would have people
removed from their live bridge organizations), but no one has come
remotely
close.
One large club that made impressive claims at its inception did not remove
any accounts for illicit information in a full calendar year. Of those
clubs
I am aware of, the most accounts removed for cheating in the last three
years is seven. We stand at 150.
Our conduct system, where Tony Reus works hard to educate members, warns
or
suspends members who show a low ability to accept education. It expels
members who refuse to abide by our rules. This has been one of OKbridge's
hallmarks. We are patient, but we do not allow people to wreak havoc on
others' enjoyment.
|
