This has been debated before at length. CBS228 collected many posts and added his own comments and observations; it was an excellent essay on the futility of Sysops trying to enforce rules which are unpoliceable against canny infringers - it merely results in the dumb and dumber getting penalized. It is very simple to transfer MASSIVE assets without provable collusion. It is very simple to transfer information undetectably and unprovably. If you wish I will PM you examples. Can't find his essay, his site is gone, I'll ICQ him and ask if he wishes to publish a copy.

No bug use involved, let me hasten to say.

CBS228 sent me the link, it is archived courtesy of Eleq:
http://www.thestardock.com/fugitives/ol ... #118343392

Lots of good stuff there, particular text follows:

No More Unenforceable Rules!

Author: Cbs228
Posted: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 5:09:52 PM

It is SysOp's responsibility to determine what constitutes an "enforceable" rule. However, I have found a large number of SysOps whose judgment is flawed in that respect. As previously mentioned, the TWGS environment is not designed to detect rule violations. Furthermore, it cannot tap or examine a player's other methods of communications, such as ICQ. It has no access to an end user's machine to determine what programs are being run. This creates dangerous loopholes in some rules that would allow a rule violator to escape detection by even the most attentive Op.

Read on for my non-comprehensive List of Unenforceable Rules. The reader may, at his or her choosing, assume that the SysOp is watching via a TEDIT connection.


Cbs's List of Unenforceable Rules
No Scripting: The only method a SysOp has available for detecting a script running on a player's machine is the speed with which commands are received from the player in question. This is a very crude detection method. A properly set macro will, from the Op's perspective, resemble a script (in some cases). There is absolutely no way to determine the difference between an SDT macro and an SDT script, for example. Triggered event scripts are somewhat easier to recognize due to their inhumanely fast response to changing game conditions. But what if scripts have delays purposely inserted into them, reducing the speed of data transmission to a more human level, but still maintaining a definite edge over the other player? With some simple flow control, typos and backspaces can even be inserted into scripts. There would be absolutely no difference between a fast human and a script in this case.
No Information Exchange: The Information Exchange rule is completely unenforceable. There are plenty of other methods of communication that do not involve TradeWars: Anything from smoke signals to fiber optic cables will suffice. In order to be enforced, this rule requires that a reporting player have some form of proof that a violation has occurred. As screen captures are easy to fake, what counts as evidence? In order to obtain proof that a violation has occurred, a user must knowingly obtain tactical information from another team-- in the process, violating the rule themselves! Anyone who reports Information Exchange will doubtless find themselves the instant enemy of the person they reported. Suffice it to say that there has never been, and never will be, any way to enforce this rule.
No Resource Exchange: The clever trader can find many ways to circumvent this particular rule. Ships deliberately left in open space to be captured would appear to anyone, even an Op, to be completely non duplicitous. A staged podding in which the podee "just happened" to have 10 M credits would also appear legit. While teams can only do this for so long before the definition of "bad luck" ends and the suspicion of cheating begins, it is certainly possible to transfer a significant amount of resources this way. If the fakery appears sufficiently real (and it can), then there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between deliberate resource exchange and non deliberate resource exchange.
No Mega Corping: Since Resource Exchange is the (most common) definition of Mega Corping, and Resource Exchange is Unenforceable, Mega Corping is also an unenforceable rule. It would be possible for two corps to play a game as secret allies, engaging in the occasional staged battle to keep up appearances (and to facilitate resource exchange). At a strategic moment, one corp could invade the other and assume control of their resources. Granted, this would not be as effective as a formal alliance and mega corp, but a definite edge would still be maintained over the other teams.
No Account Sharing: It is impossible to detect the true point of origination of a connection on a packet-switched network (aka the Internet). A TCP connection can simply be "bounced" off of another machine, and that machine can present itself as the true originator of the connection. This technique of proxying is commonly used by spammers, and those who wish to browse anonymously. With the advent of highly reliable broadband connections, this method of misdirection by redirection is also possible for TradeWars players. While TWX has an anti-share "feature" which prohibits write access to users on different subnets, it is eminently simple for even a novice programmer to write a proxy application. Such a program could even be used to fool TWX into believing that a remote connection originated from localhost.

The above, of course, assumes that a SysOp is watching. Other rules such as bug use are partially unenforceable on the grounds that they are difficult to prove. No tool exists for the automated monitoring of connections, and as such no impartial evidence of bug use exists. Every attempt should be made to make partially enforceable rules fully enforceable. As I previously proposed, a server-side proxy could be used to assist Ops with rule enforcement.

Rules have no meaning unless they can be enforced. Relying on the "honor system" alone will place those obedient to the rules at a disadvantage to those who do not follow the rules. Some violators will escape detection, while others will not. As such, unenforceable rules perpetuate unfairness, not fairness. Unenforceable rules also make Ops appear incompetent, and may lead to players viewing them as capricious, arbitrary, or downright biased. To prevent this, SysOps should always meticulously evaluate the enforceability of their rules.


12 Jan 2012 08:59:PM

I remember rev stating in the last ICE (2011) a no mega-corping rule. He basically said... 'You know what it (mega-corping) is, just don't do it." This is a paraphrase but that was the jist.

But I understand what you mean. Its why I think a Truce mode for TWGS is so important, it will provide the basic game mechanics in support of a popular game type. Most of truce rule violations are unprovable except by logs that can be edited.

H