Oooooh!! Dynasty FA Scandal!!

[H]

It wasn't intended as a slur on any individual, more on just how the power is held in our sport.

Most of the guys at the top and in control of the rules do have close connections to the players and sponsors. I know it would be very hard to be truly independent but it should be a goal we need to be aiming for. The problem is that the sport is that it is closely tied to sponsorship, and that sponsorship only really comes from inside the industry. Maybe if more outside money (from TV or whatever) then there will be a necessity for the level of professionalism to be raised.

 

[sykesg]

FA is dangerous but ramping velocity even more so and I'm not sure how the rules committee can catch such a cheat in the act, any idea's?

The cheats need to be stopped for not only for shear safety factor but also safety insurance and therefore the future of big tourneys. God forbid some one does loose an eye from a FA marker it may well come out in the wash that the insurance company null and voids the policy. A whole can of sh1t will open up and running any future tourney will be a nightmare.


On a different note I hope the proceedure for determining bounce is tightened up for Paris. I wasn't in Germany but players have said the test varied from field to field and was often too stringent with marshals spending far too long trying to find bounce, which they eventually will on an electro. Then tagging markers illegal that had bounce that would be impossible/impractical for a player to replicate in a game.

While I totally agree bounce should be sorted the 'real' trigger cheats are not bounce issues but intentional FA settings.

 

[Robbo]

On the subject of testing for bounce

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
How do we ensure that we only penalise people with intent - and then do so severely ?
Nick

The problem with grey areas is, they can be inhabited by both innocent and guilty and until the technology / rules have caught up with the cheats, and 'intent' is all in the mind, we will be given the choice of penalising some innocents or ignoring all of the guilty, and I fear, for the time being, it will have to be the latter as the former is even more unpalatable

 

[Reloaded]

The only way we can make this work is with the leagues... if the league puts down in black and white that the ROF is max 15 and it's one pull = one shot all the time @ a constant velocity of 280 FPS then holy crap, that's what it is.

I'd only go into a boardroom of WDP, WGP, SP, Dye, etc. and try to lobby them to produce markers under the above said rule if Robbo walks in first and I hide in his shadow.

If the NPPL, PSP, Euro leagues, etc. put the rule out then it's done... you cheat, you're gone, period.

The problem still comes back to enforcement... I'm just pissed that people would go so far to cheat the system that they ruin the game for the rest of us, I mean having external switches to turn off software before testing and all, it's really pathetic.

I think the leagues should do a random confiscation of team markers after each day of the tournament and do testing on them at night with people who know what to look out for in terms of cheats on whatever marker is being tested. If they find the marker is cheating then erase the scores for that team for the day... how's that for a wake-up call for teams, I'd hate to be the guy that ruined my teams reputation. You come up with sophisticated cheats then you get bitch-slapped with severe penalties.

I dunno if any of you watch the NHL but right now in the play-offs the refs are hawks, calling tons of interference calls and such and I think it's really helped cut down on the stupid plays that have really injured some players recently... these big brutes aren't cruising for blood on the ice anymore since they know a 2 minute sit in the penalty box can easily give the other team an advantage and in the play-offs when it's do or die time then that makes them think twice about their actions.

 

[WKD]

Damn beat me too it

 

[Jaime Menino]

Why not just random pick a marker from a team for testings? I mean for example in the end of an event, go to the winning team and pick a marker, and return it after testing the marker, and search for cheats (software and hardware)? This could be a week or till the next event.

If other sports do blood tests to the teams, why don't we get a similiar testing for the markers.
Then if a team/player gets caught for software cheats aply the rules for example bans, and other...

Jaime

 

[beasty1711]

Originally posted by Jaime Menino
Why not just random pick a marker from a team for testings? I mean for example in the end of an event, go to the winning team and pick a marker, and return it after testing the marker, and search for cheats (software and hardware)? This could be a week or till the next event.

If other sports do blood tests to the teams, why don't we get a similiar testing for the markers.
Then if a team/player gets caught for software cheats aply the rules for example bans, and other...

Jaime

whats to stop said cheating person using Marker A all tourny and then using marker B for the finals just incase his gets taken for testing.

what about setting up something like a DVLA for markers... where u have to registar serial numbers, software versions etc... these could then be cross referenced with the setup that the player has on the day.. and and also the random checks to make sure all details match?
i know there are still ways around this.. but surly it might help..and if people know that a marker with S/n xxx123 was used for cheating in a tourny then it could alert organisers (bit like speeding points etc??)

 

[ascutt]

Nick

There is a way around the problem. It is fairly simple for manufactureres to encrypt the software on the chip and, with a signed NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) in place between the Leagues scrutineer and the manufacturer then the encryption key can be used to allow the scrutineer to read the software and check what the gun is programmed. I believe Encryption is already used on some chips in guns (although the lack of an interface port will never stop someone reading a chip).
I already have a box that will test rate of fire based on common ramp up sequences and, with a realtively simple interface to a laptop, I could quickly verify what software is loaded onto guns. Once you can do this, with some aid from the manufacturers, there is nowhere else for the cheaters to go. If manufacturers will not comply then the League doesn't sanction thier boards/chips/guns.
This isn't an on-field solution but it does give the League a way to prove cheating and remove the wolley 'intent' section because if you have cheater software then you meant to put it there.

Currently, without rediculous expenditure, I see no other way of stamping out potentially unsafe guns and intentional cheating.

 

[Bolter]

i think Manike once pointed out that things can be hidden if really neccessary so as to fool testing.

 

[ascutt]

Follow-up

Sorry, I was going to add this but hit reply instead.

My suggestion to Steve would work in the following way (and yes, I have borrowed some ideas from other people)

First: The League needs to appoint a scrutineer. This person would have to be very knowledgable about the technical side of our sport. The scrutineer would be available to teams during 'field walking' day to test guns for bounce using tests laid out in the rules. The scrutineer would also train the designated chrono judge from each field on how to perform the tests in exactly the same way as the rules state, this would give us some uniformity across all the fields.

Next. If any judge on a field is suspicious of a marker for bounce, ROF ramp or velocity ramp, they would seal the gun in a bag along with the players' pass and send it over to the scrutineer who would test the gun for software cheats, bounce, etc etc. If the gun is found to be ok it would be returned to the player. If not, the gun is held until the end of the competition along with the players pass. The player would be returned his gun once the competition is over but not his pass and would be banned for the period decided in the rules.

The only thing that is difficult here is giving the scrutineer the tools to do the testing and I know that some people, myself included, are already working on a solution for that.