Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming (part 2)

*Admissions and Observations*

1. We do take gaming seriously however with all the other demands of running the site we probably haven't given it the attention it deserves. Part of the reason was we had hoped to deliver question approval functionality (which would eliminate most forms of gaming) sooner.
2. In the case of Satyaki my initial proposed resolution was obviously insufficient (my mistake)
3. One reason that Satyaki has stood out is his interest in Indian sport and entertainment. We have significantly less Indian than American users which means (a) they stand out and (b) questions at initially poor odds are much more likely to benefit the question creator. The Indian cricket questions were made significantly in advance of both the event and Satyaki making a prediction. If these had been about US sports other users would have shared in taking advantage of initially poor odds.
4. That said, Satyaki was obviously aware of this and repeatedly created starting estimates for a team at 48% which he subsequently thought were good value at 90% plus. Additionally, Satyaki is the only Hubdub user to be previously fined for gaming.
5. There have been other low level gamers that have received warnings and placed on an internal watchlist however no one else has progressed to a fine. Thanks to all the users for highlighting gaming.
6. (Jenniandboys point) Category editors always review flags. The current process is not to respond to the person who flagged the issue.

*General Resolution*

1. Revised procedure for dealing with gaming:
- First instance: Email warning
- Second instance: 50% fine, public notice and 2 week block on ability to create questions
- Third instance: Account closure

We could make this more aggressive (e.g. closure on first instance) however there are three issues with that.
(1) Most users just don't read the rules before they play and also for most social sites/games the accepted rules are unwritten therefore there is no point looking for them.
(2) I have emailed users (including some in this forum) about suspected gaming who have convinced me of their innocence. It can sometimes be very difficult to prove gaming between accounts.
(3) In usability studies we have done we have found new users very hesitant to create new questions. Basically they were scared they would do something wrong. Adding in the threat that they will potentially get their account closed would make that worse.

We won't at this time ban at IP level however if we do start to encounter a problem of account re-openings we will implement a more rigorous approach to user verification (e.g. banning of web mail etc)

2. To help make user activity more visible, we will list all users participating in a particular question on the question page. We are still working out the details of that.

3. We will implement question approval functionality by April 28th.

4. We will publish the new rules on gaming being discussed here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

5. (Jenniandboys list of potential gamers) Some of these we have already identified but I will review this to see if we need to take further action here. Thanks for your diligence.

6. We will review how the site currently links to the rules to ensure they are more widely read (good point newswrangler)

7. We will improve integration between Hubdub and Get Satisfaction (another good point newswrangler)

*Resolution re Satyaki*

This has been the third time that Satyaki has been caught gaming. His one defence is that he has complied with the letter of the rules, although clearly not the spirit by which the vast majority of the other users adhere to. The discussion above is finely balanced between people who think he should be banned outright and others who think he should be heavily penalised. A smaller proportion of users feel he has been unfairly targeted.

As we don’t have a consensus I propose to put this to a vote. At 8pm BST I will create a question in the Hubdub category asking for users vote on what we should do. The options will be:
1) Fine of H$8,300 (the amount earned from the gamed cricket questions) and 2 week bar on question creation
2) Fine of 50% of net worth and 2 week bar on question creation
3) Fine down to H$1,000 and 2 week bar on question creation
4) Account closed

The question will remain open for 24 hours and I will request users to place one comment each stating their vote (e.g. vote using the comments, not the market). Votes from accounts that have been created after this post or are from accounts suspected of gaming will not be counted. If no option has a simple majority then we will average and round to the nearest integer option number (round up on 0.5). E.g. votes of 1, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4 averages to 2.667 and therefore we would apply option 3 (fine down to H$1,000).

*Question*

Users can currently make public or private predictions. Making private predictions obviously reduces the ability for other users to identify users who are gaming the system. So the question is: Should we change the system so that all predictions are public?