[Yzerman]

BBO member Kleek, also my "regular" real life partner, met in chat room and commenced discussion on ideas and/or concepts for the recommendation of an active BBO ethics committee. The discussion was based upon SUGGESTING ideas as part of an overall solution in which SOME BBO member could assume responsibility for becoming the "champion" of the project.

Mind you the ideas that are to be expressed, are merely that - IDEAS. Our intent is not persuade anybody that what we suggest is any better than any other solution, but rather a foundation for further ideas and/or refinements of the original ideas.

BBO Active Ethics Committee -

1 - An "owner" or "champion" would assume responsibility for the project from an overall perspective. This person would be a BBO appointed or approved individual. This person/position would NEVER be able to actively participate in committee regarding ethics proceedings, he/she may be aware of problems but his/her advice and/or suggestion is NEVER to be part of a committee recommendation.

2 - Upon electing a an owner/champion of project, this person would be responsible for following a predefined PROCESS for electing committee members. The committee would have X number of members, and each member would serve for Y period of time (X and Y to be determined). Each member must be approved by a governing body (BBO/Tourney Hosts/Club Managers ???).

3 - The committee is to avail its services to ANY tournament (host/director/club) and potentially organized team matches (??). Each club has the right to enroll or reject this service.

4 - Upon enrolling in this service, any club that participates can advertise its tourney as member of the active BBO Ethics Committee (kind of serve the same purpose as the ADT home burglar alarm sticker on front window). Enrolled tourneys may have the ability to advertise that they are BBO Ethics Certified (see additional ideas @ bottom).

5 - Any player, director, or host from a participating tournament that is confronted with a potential infraction, can forward the deal in question to the committee. The deal or potential infraction is to be submitted such that NO NAMES are associated with the analysis or review, it will be a complete anonymous review. In all cases, the tourney director/host MUST be aware that a potential infraction has occurred.

6 - The committee will review and analyze the deal and come to a group conclusion and make a recommendation based upon that conclusion.

7 - The committee's recommendation will be according to a standardized and documented scale. This scale would need some work, but below is illustration of concept;

Scale, levels 1-5
Recommendation 1 - No infraction occured - No action recommended
Recommendation 2 - Suspicious - No action, place violator on watch list
Recommendation 3 - Suspicious - Action recommended, discuss with violator
Recommendation 4 - Suspcious w/reasonable doubt - Action recommended, warning
Recommendation 5 - Suspicious and conclusive - Suggest ban from tourney, forward to BBO

8 - The suggestion is to be delivered to the tournament host/director in which the infraction occurred. The host/director has the option of following recommendation or not, it is simply recommendation.

9 - Upon a conclusion and recommendation of level 5, a default mechanism is built in to forward the matter to BBO for review.

10 - A process or mechanism for sharing data, conclusions, cases could be considered for participating tournaments to use on an as needed basis.

******

Additional idea;

1 - Upon a tournament enrolling in this service, the committee has the ability to review tournament rules/regulations/conditions of contest/conv charts and make recommendations to the tournament such as that the tournament can become "BBO Ethics Committee" certified. The committee will have the resources to provide standardized documentaton for rules/regulations/conditions of contest/conv charts.

******

The ideas suggested above serve many purposes. First of all, tournaments that wish to enroll can have a sense of legitimacy such that they will be "certified" as per a documented standard. Second, the tournaments that do not participate are free from any constraints and/or conditions and can run a tournament how they please. Third, BBO players can have a comfort factor built in to be able to select which tournaments are actively involved in ethics considerations.

For those that argue that a committee's rights should be extrapolated across not only tournaments, but to all parts of BBO, I suggest that what is started here is the means to an end. To go from not having ANYTHING at all, to having EVERYTHING is perhaps not practical or reasonable. A process such as the one above could be the foundation for a more robust and inclusive set of controls, but in the meantime BBO players will at least have comfort knowing that someone is active in creating a fair and comfortable environment.

Personally, I think a committe similar to the one proposed, not only has merit in terms of creating an active ethics envrironment, but also lends itself to creating a foundation or structure for creating a body that can help maintain tournament and/or bridge standards with respect to tournaments (rules/regulations/cond of contest/conv charts).

Well, that is all for now, please dont beat on our ideas too much. ))

Regards,
Michael A Lucy

[hrothgar]

Hi Mike

I general I like the proceedure that you have set out. However, i would like to raise one issue. From my perspective, it is often very difficult to distinquish between cheating and bad play that happened to work. In particular, if you are basing this decision on a single hand the problem would seem to get much more difficult.

I wold prefer to see an addition step added to this process:
If the review of the hand in question sugests that a player or partnership may have cheated, I would like this to trigger a more thorough "review" of the entities history.

Ideally, this could still be accomplished in a way that preserved anonymity. For example, the committee might dtermine that they would be willing to inspect a total of 16 hands. The committee would communicate this back to the director, who woulld then pull 16 hands at random. Ideally, some form of random nmber generator would be used to avoid selection bias.

[melviss666]

Howdy, y'all, my first post. I detest cheaters as well. I'm not a computer nerd(said with affection to y'all who are) so some of you will have to help me. If BBO, or any other online bridge service could use some program to detect ICQ or other messenger programs running, I'd be all for it. There's no legitimate reason for those to be running while you're playing or kibitzing that I can see. I got on here & e-bridge as well in early January of this year. It seems e-bridge does a purty good job of detecting single cheats(using 2 computers or whatever) but not a very good job on the kibitzer cheats. e-bridge recently went back to kibbing only one hand at tournaments so they must KNOW it's a problem, or the partner cheats, ie, they're densive boards score way better than their declared boards. Something happened yesterday at a tourney at e that had me curious. A kibitzer entered the table twice, no, not left & came back, but entered twice, I thought this curious. What could've caused that? And of course there are telephones, another way to cheat. And I know cheaters are relentless, but, still, I'm for trackin' em down and shooting them for the dirty dogs that they are.

[melviss666]

oops, I didn't edit first, densive should read defensive, so sorry.

[the hog]

"If BBO, or any other online bridge service could use some program to detect ICQ or other messenger programs running, I'd be all for it. There's no legitimate reason for those to be running while you're playing or kibitzing that I can see."

Be extremely careful here. When I started playing in a new partnership on OK Bridge a couple of years ago, pd and I used ICQ a lot. We talked about the bidding and defensive signalling, naturally after the hand was over, perhaps even while bidding the next hand. You don't want to bore the opponents stupid with having to put up with your system discussions. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who has a chat program running is cheating. This is just one reason why you need to be so careful before making scattergun accusations.

[bglover]

I wasn't going to post this but rather send it directly to Uday, but since Malucy seems to taken the job on himself please look over a draft proposal that myself and 5 other individuals have worked on.

We already have an esteemed member who has volunteered to serve as head of our proposed Committee based on this proposal. I will refrain trying to defend in as better than the other proposal and let the masses have a look and comment.

Ultimately, it is BBO's decision what they will accept. All I will say is I believe our proposal is both fairer and more thorough. It would, however, also require a large commitment on BBO's part:


Abuse at bridgebase.com (Abuse) should immediately appoint a PANEL of volunteers to assist in the review of cheating allegations. This PANEL will be the first step in reviewing whether an allegation has merit. This committee should be comprised of Yellows with sufficient knowledge of cheating and hand analysis that the individuals are qualified to make such determinations. We suggest that no actions of any sort be taken against any individual or pair until Abuse has received a sufficient number of complaints against any individual or pair that it determines to be fair. We suggest that in no case should that number be fewer than three complaints nor higher than 10.

Abuse needs to ensure any anomalies it may see are not due to some systemic approach unique to the invidual(s) involved. Therefore, Abuse will need to contact the parties and notify them of the investigation and ask for a detailed list of bidding conventions and agreements in use by the partnership being looked at.

If, after its review, Abuse determines there is reason to suspect unfair play that a larger number of hands be referred to a COMMITTEE to be comprised of certified directors and players with a history of significant accomplishments in the bridge world. Because the COMMITTEE will be essentially the final arbiter of whether cheating has or has not occurred it is essential that its make-up be comprised of the absolute best players and directors available and willing to assist in this problem. After informal discussions with a number of prominent BBO players we believe this should not be a problem so long as BBO gives the COMMITTEE full support. Perhaps Fred Gitelman can assist in rounding up qualified volunteers. The COMMITTEE must have enough members on it to handle the maximum number of realistic allegations BBO has at any time. We anticipate no fewer than three members of the COMMITTEE would be assigned to review hands in any single given instance. (This is meant as a guideline as to how large it needs to be only.)

All hands referred to the COMMITTEE should be submitted anonymously to ensure that no reviewer has a personal bias for or against any of the parties who are being investigated. The COMMITTEE may review a set of hands either individually or as a group, but in all cases where a member suspects there may be cheating, another member should be consulted before any further actions are taken.

How many hands the COMMITTEE reviews is up to Abuse, but we suggest it be a significant number (at least 100 hands as a suggestion). Hands should include groupings where both players were partners and hands where other individuals partnered with each individual to better help determine if only one individual may be cheating or if it is a group endeavor. The COMMITTEE can ask Abuse for even more hands if it determines it needs more scrutiny of the individual(s) involved.

If, after its review, the COMMITTEE agrees there has been a high likelihood of cheating or other unethical conduct the matter will be referred back to Abuse for disciplinary action.

[luke warm]

i guess it's possible for bbo to ask for and receive enough volunteers to undertake this proposal... possible maybe, but i don't think they could be 'appointed'... remember, there are a *lot* of people on bbo, a lot of different nationalities, languages, etc... to take on something like this might prompt more expense than bbo feels justified in spending...

the sheer logistics of this kind of thing is staggering, especially given the (assumed) fact that there is no intermediary (club, etc)... what this means is, all who send an email to abuse@ will prompt the inquiry you spoke of... remember, at the moment all yellow hats are volunteers... to police okb, they had to hire someone...

this is the reason i mentioned that bbo will find it almost impossible to police every player (using volunteers only), and why i recommended starting on the club/tourney level... it's so much more manageable then, and it frees uday (or whoever does it now) to take on the every day, main bridge room, complaints... it seems far easier for each club to form committees than to do so for the whole server

maybe there's a way to combine the two... let the first step be at the club level or tourney level.. it's possible that most supposed infractions would then never even reach a governing committee... if this 'local' committee thinks more action is warranted (something like mike's 5 steps), then forward it to bbo's panel...

i don't think this panel should be "the first step in reviewing whether an allegation has merit..." it should be the *final* step.. there are a lot of clubs, a lot of tourneys... if a central panel has to view the occurances of supposed unethical behavior from them all, it will quickly get to be very time consuming... i think there will be far more complaints of cheating if this takes effect, further limiting the time the committee can spend on each one...

it seems evident that something should be done, and i think those of you (like steve and mike) who are trying to come up with solutions should be applauded

oh, and i'm not too sure about the instant messenger ban... i rarely open mine (those who are on my list know this), but i'd sure hate for someone telling me i couldn't open it...

[bglover]

I don't entirely disagree Jimmy that its a large undertaking.

The difference as I see it (and why I thought I'd post it here for comments once Mike had already posted his) is that it is treated as a function of BBO rather than of some subentity.

As I said in the introudctory comments, it would require more of BBO's staff at the start. On the other hand, the real grunt work (the reviewing of many many hands) would be put into the hands of others.

Please note there was a reason we suggested that there be a sufficient number of compliants before BBO even take action. To avoid having "every" allegation investigated.

This is only a personal guess, but I would bet you most (the vast majority even) of allegations are single-incident allegations made by individuals either mad about a result or not skilled enough to recognize a good (or a bad) play that resulted in a good score; i.e., they got fixed and assumed cheating. The requirement for MULTIPLE allegations is meant to avoid this problem.

As for rounding up volunteers for the Committee, I've done some informal asking around, and can honestly say there are many high-level players here who would gladly serve to help police this problem.

Admittedly, our proposal cannot work if BBO doesn't get more involved in some significant way. The staff would be both the first step and would have the additional burden of gathering hands and stripping out the names of the parties involved. I have no idea how much work this second part is. Perhaps its not much more than writing a simple routine in which case it wouldn't be burdensome at all.

[McBruce]

After eight pages of comments we are now proposing action. Well done.

Instead of trying to propose a comprehensive framework, as others have done, I would like to make a few suggestions that might be worked into whichever overall vision we decide to adopt:

1. It appears that the consensus is to have a central authority that will collect the suspect deals and farm then out to some (not all) members of a somewhat larger panel of people who will give their opinions about whether cheating has taken place. This sounds like the best model for reporting incidents. A player can complain to his TD, who can pass on all of the complaints he receives to the central authority, who can forward it to abuse@bbo if the panel decides it is serious. Of course, anyone can bypass any link in the chain: for example, a player could choose to go straight to the central authority or to abuse@bbo.

2. At the point where the central authority farms out each suspect deal to selected members of the panel, I think there is a strong case for stripping player names from the deal information. Someone who volunteered and was approved to serve on the panel should get only the conditions, vulnerability, auction, play, and result -- without comment as to who of the four players might have made a suspect action or where the suspect action might have occurred. This way there is a strong requirement for the panel members to look closely at the full record. Many members of the panel might be TDs who hear complaints about players often, and might have an unconscious bias against a name they had heard complained about.

3. There should be some sort of limit on the number of suspect deals one player can present, or perhaps a sliding scale based on the opinions of the panel on the complaints from one player. The problem with publicly offering to do something about this is that some players may spend more time complaining than playing. If these chronic complainers are consistently finding no support from the panel, this has to have a consequence. Something like "We have found no suspicious actions in the 27 complaints you have sent in the past week, and we will not be reviewing any more of your complaints." It would be a shame if the attempt to curtail cheating became so much work that it became impossible to maintain.

4. I don't believe we should get into the area of misexplanations, or landing on your feet after the systemic wheels come off. This is a matter for each TD to decide. Also, the panel will have an inkling who might be suspect if a deal includes information about the explanation of a bid. What the function of the central authority and panel should be is to investigate auctions that do not make sense and seem to be based on illegal information about what partner or the opponents hold.

5. If we take this route, I think many of us would be happy to volunteer to be on the panel, but the job of collecting all the complaints, stripping them of names, and handing them out to the panel, then collecting opinions and taking further action if neccessary (including perhaps marking for review a number of hands from the suspect player), would be a huge, massive job. But I think a lot of it could be done with a computer program. A complaint could be made by mailing the .lin file of the deal to an address which would strip the names off and choose say, five panel members at random to send it to for opinions. The program would be programmed to keep track of the number of deals sent out to any panel member, to avoid overloading any of them. The program could collect the opinions of the panel, report the results to the central authority, and would flag players who had multiple suspect boards.

6. If a player or pair's action(s) is deemed suspicious by the panel, the player and/or TD who complained should receive notice so that they can place them on their enemies list or tournament banned list. If several suspect boards are collected from the same pair or player, the pair or player should be contacted first to explain their actions on the suspect boards, but if no reasonable explanation is received, the BBO name(s) of the player(s) should be made available to all TDs, or at least all TDs who use/promote the service.

[mishovnbg]

McBruce, on Mar 21 2004, 11:55 AM, said:

After eight pages of comments we are now proposing action. Well done.

Instead of trying to propose a comprehensive framework, as others have done, I would like to make a few suggestions that might be worked into whichever overall vision we decide to adopt:

1. It appears that the consensus is to have a central authority that will collect the suspect deals and farm then out to some (not all) members of a somewhat larger panel of people who will give their opinions about whether cheating has taken place. This sounds like the best model for reporting incidents. A player can complain to his TD, who can pass on all of the complaints he receives to the central authority, who can forward it to abuse@bbo if the panel decides it is serious. Of course, anyone can bypass any link in the chain: for example, a player could choose to go straight to the central authority or to abuse@bbo.

2. At the point where the central authority farms out each suspect deal to selected members of the panel, I think there is a strong case for stripping player names from the deal information. Someone who volunteered and was approved to serve on the panel should get only the conditions, vulnerability, auction, play, and result -- without comment as to who of the four players might have made a suspect action or where the suspect action might have occurred. This way there is a strong requirement for the panel members to look closely at the full record. Many members of the panel might be TDs who hear complaints about players often, and might have an unconscious bias against a name they had heard complained about.

3. There should be some sort of limit on the number of suspect deals one player can present, or perhaps a sliding scale based on the opinions of the panel on the complaints from one player. The problem with publicly offering to do something about this is that some players may spend more time complaining than playing. If these chronic complainers are consistently finding no support from the panel, this has to have a consequence. Something like "We have found no suspicious actions in the 27 complaints you have sent in the past week, and we will not be reviewing any more of your complaints." It would be a shame if the attempt to curtail cheating became so much work that it became impossible to maintain.

4. I don't believe we should get into the area of misexplanations, or landing on your feet after the systemic wheels come off. This is a matter for each TD to decide. Also, the panel will have an inkling who might be suspect if a deal includes information about the explanation of a bid. What the function of the central authority and panel should be is to investigate auctions that do not make sense and seem to be based on illegal information about what partner or the opponents hold.

5. If we take this route, I think many of us would be happy to volunteer to be on the panel, but the job of collecting all the complaints, stripping them of names, and handing them out to the panel, then collecting opinions and taking further action if neccessary (including perhaps marking for review a number of hands from the suspect player), would be a huge, massive job. But I think a lot of it could be done with a computer program. A complaint could be made by mailing the .lin file of the deal to an address which would strip the names off and choose say, five panel members at random to send it to for opinions. The program would be programmed to keep track of the number of deals sent out to any panel member, to avoid overloading any of them. The program could collect the opinions of the panel, report the results to the central authority, and would flag players who had multiple suspect boards.

6. If a player or pair's action(s) is deemed suspicious by the panel, the player and/or TD who complained should receive notice so that they can place them on their enemies list or tournament banned list. If several suspect boards are collected from the same pair or player, the pair or player should be contacted first to explain their actions on the suspect boards, but if no reasonable explanation is received, the BBO name(s) of the player(s) should be made available to all TDs, or at least all TDs who use/promote the service.

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------

Hi mcbruce!

Spoiler

------

I agree, reasonable procedure. I can add here possibilty to analyse "My hands" database by program for frequent deviations of results of players and send it to panel too. The names of suspected players must be anonymous, because rumours can ruine fair, but eccentric man, not acceptable in my opinion. You can use BBO forum instead of panel, it will works enough well imho.

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------

Misho

[mr1303]

I'm really not in favour of some program that allows people to tell if I'm using ICQ, MSN messenger etc.

1) I talk to people who don't play bridge on there, whilst I'm playing bridge. E.g. my girlfriend.

2) Even those people who do play bridge on there, I like to talk to people about other things, such as holidays etc. One of my regular partners has just come back from holiday, and I wouldn't mind the opportunity to discuss this with him. Such a conversation is not suitable for discussion in the chat at a bridge table.

3) Bridge Base Online should not become a police state. As far as I'm concerned, I automatically trust people, and I like to see that trust reciplicated.

[spwdo]

hi,


agree with procedure mc bruce is proposing and i would offer some time in helping in the panel if needed, with pleasure.

As for the messenger disableling, simply cant do that for the outside bridgefriends that wanna talk with someone is online on bbo, second to that when we host in our tourneys, we make group conversation with all tds having messenger to have a general chat to save a lot of work(readress calls when u busy, agreeing where to go to check up late tables, when a player is not beeing granted an adjust all tds involved know, all these things very hard when u work with 5 tds to inform evry single td) so please let messenger be used for all and take action on the cheaters alone, i find no merit in punisching the fair for bad behavuior of the unfair



marc

[melviss666]

Howdy to The Hog & Mr1303, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you both. Hog, even if you're not using a chat service to cheat, the fact that you're typing away could cause your opponents to think that you're hesitating on a bid or play, or, at best, just holding up the game. The simple and polite thing to do is note the hand numbers and discuss them after the game. And Mr1303, I've been a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for years, not fond of Police States,lol. I'll just iterate that I see no VALID reason to have a chat service running while playing, or certainly not in a tournament. And if you have one of those clingy girlfriends, or if you're a clingy boyfriend, God help you,lol. To be carrying on outside chats while playing seems to me to be disrespecctful to pard & opponents.
Also, I've never disabled kibitzers at e-bridge, but, after some of the curious stuff the other day at a tournament, I suppose I will from now on.

[hrothgar]

Comment the first:

Short of having physical protor's staring over people's shoulder's, you aren't going to be able to stop people from cheating using "out of band" communications devices.

1. Adding code to BBO to monitor or worse yet block third party applications would substantially increase the complexity of the code base.

2. Players who wanted to cheat would still have the option of using an external device such as a cell phone or a RIM pager to accomplish the same goal.

Big cost
Zero benefit

Easy decision

[Free]

I don't like the idea of monitoring background programs, for the simple reason that most people startup their computer and MSN is already online. Lots of people just wouldn't think about it before playing, and false accusations will raise! It's more like "creating problems" rather than "solving problems" imo.

And from my personal point of view, I also like to be online with MSN while I'm playing. None of my partners is ever online, but some of my friends are, and I like some chat from time to time when I'm dummy...

[doofik]

To All Posters re: cheating

Everyone is speaking out about cheating and how to circumvent it. As much as I hate cheaters and being cheated I also dislike the idea of creating a police state on BBO, where there is nothing to gain. I limit my play to AbaLucy club because there's no intrusiveness and majority of people are great. Otherwise I stick to table games with people I know and like.

If and when a "game police" will be created I, for one, will refrain from playing altogether. What amazes me is that some people go to lengths of involving 5 people in a discussion of creating a police force while owners of BBO see it more the way I do. Blatant cases ought to be banned and let everyone else live and breathe. Loosen up please.

Jola

P.S. Don't even think of disconnecting my messenger and either trust that it's being used appropriately or don't play against me.

[Abadaba]

I wish my original post that was erased was still available.

The thing that amazes me about this string is the people who are telling Fred and Uday how to run THEIR business. The business they have spent 1000's of hours creating.... the business we all enjoy.

Yes, I think it would be wonderful to have a cheat-proof way of enjoying internet bridge. Unfortunately - fix one - another will arrive.

Perhaps if we said thank you Fred, Uday and Sheri - for this incredible opportunity you allow us to partake in.... for your incredible contribution to us all.... and to say we know you want the best for every player....

We hope you will find a way to make the players who betray YOUR TRUST and ours... go away. We appreciate how difficult the task and while we want to know that we hate it when they do what they do... whatever you decide... when you decide... is right... cause it is afterall YOUR PLAYGROUND!!!!

PS
I love the teeter-totter, swings and slide. Thanks for letting me play here

Aba

[melviss666]

Howdy Abadaba, I agree with your sentiments and would also like to thank BBO's operators. I talk up BBO to my friends at e all the time & several now come here as well. Also trying to talk several of my friends from the '80's who also gave up f2f tourneys after the smoking ban to get on here. So far, have only run across one rude person at BBO, at e it's nearly a miracle if there's not at least one rude person at the table at any given time,lol. But, back to this thread's topic, at least in tournaments, I wouldn't mind a little policing. I can also concur with an earlier poster's comments that playing cheaters in the main bridge room sharpens up his skills to play his best,lol. There is obviously not a clear-cut solution, but, without eternal vigilance in this area, well, you know...

[inquiry]

A couple of quick comments to abadaba and doofik.....

First to aba's comment about the "people who are telling Fred and Uday how to run THEIR business." In this very thread (on page 2), uday commented about the problems ol catching cheaters, and invited people to offer suggestions on way to find "proof".... some of his comments on this issue are in blue below...

" I handle the vast majority of cheating accusations."
"It is my (uday) belief that it is better to allow many suspected cheaters to play, unmolested, than to kick out people for cheating when there is insufficient evidence to prove that the perp is cheating."

"Think about our resources in this context (catch cheater). We have two nearly-full-time developers. One develops for the PC, the other for the servers. In our spare time, we deal with some customer support, and all the abuse cases. A pair that is accused of cheating needs to be investigated. System logs need to be dragged out, hands need to be analyzed by someone competent to make the determination that cheating might have occurred. Yes, we could charge a BBO entry fee, and use that to pay the people who handle abuse. Each serious case of suspected abuse takes many man hours to process. And in the end, you can almost never *know* that cheating occurred. You might suspect it, you might be willing to bet on it, but there is almost always room for doubt. "

"You may feel free to offer solutions to the issue of "proof"."

To summarize, too much effort for two people to catch, charging money doesn't seem best, and people can SUGGEST solutions. I think this is what is happening, people are suggesting ways to address the problems uday stated. And these are suggestions, surely fred and uday can do what they want in this issue. And it seems everyone is only offering to help investigate, final decisions not left to the "police", who ever they are.

To doofik, I don't think abalucy club is the cheat free zone you suggest. People have apparently been caught and banned for cheating there (this is from mikes post in this thread and aba's deleted one). But I do agree blcoking IM is not a solution simply because there are plenty of other ways to cheat and you clip the innocent as well as the guilty with that approach.

Ben

[doofik]

Ben:

I'm not suggesting that AbaLucy is a cheat-free zone. What you need to take a look at is the way it's been dealt with - quickly, decisively and with a great deal of discretion.

Jola