On cheating and "proof"

We don't all speak the same language when it comes to cheating in games. There is no concrete definition for cheating. Google dictionary says it's to "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage." Taking this definition literally would be disastrous, so we interpret it based on our history and culture, our personal values, and what we believe would be best for competitive communities.

In the United States, people accused of a crime can only be convicted if their guilt is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." This term is also ambiguous, but I would argue it's been effective. It's a very high standard for a reason -- sentences for criminal convictions are harsh (prison) and should not be imposed on people who have a decent chance of being innocent. Society would crumble if the criminal standard was simply "more likely than not," as it is in civil courts.

Another maxim I hear often is "No one should be accused of cheating without proof." People generally agree on what constitutes proof -- usually physical/video evidence or a non-coerced confession. Proof usually removes reasonable doubt and ends the debate over whether someone cheated.

When there is no proof, that doesn't mean they didn't cheat. It just means they wouldn't be convicted in a U.S. criminal court. From here, we have to ask the big questions -- how much discussion about cheating is healthy when there is no proof? How hard should we be searching for proof? Is it ever OK for a person, community or event to exclude someone because they are suspected of cheating?

I don't have a good answer to any of those questions. But I do have my own way of evaluating potential cheating, which probably doesn't work for everyone. This is the language I speak: Every competitive action should be evaluated in terms of the percentage chance that it was cheated. Think of it like poker equity, or odds of winning a sports bet (what odds would you give that the person cheated?). That percentage is based on all available evidence.

In the absence of proof, the strongest evidence comes from experts in the game. People with well-reasoned arguments but no expertise should largely be ignored (e.g., random people's Twitter/Reddit posts). Experts can usually detect suspicion immediately in ways that non-experts can't, no matter how smart they are.

Evidence is also much stronger when it is unbiased. Some experts are more likely to be biased because they have more at stake when cheating happens in their community. If the accused person cheated, does their reputation or ranking improve? Do they make more money?

Finally, the accused person's history can be especially strong evidence. Have they cheated in the past? Have they competed successfully in conditions where cheating is impossible? Have they improved at a rate comparable to other successful peers? Have their competitive results given them a strong motivation to cheat? The weight of this evidence depends heavily on the person, but it should always be considered.

After weighing these factors, I estimate the percentage chance that the run is cheated. From there, my approach is as follows:

0-35% chance -- No mention of cheating to anyone.

36-60% chance -- No public mention of cheating, might mention my suspicion to a friend in private.

61-74% chance -- Might mention my suspicion publicly if it comes up in conversation, but I won't accuse the person or elaborate on any theories I have about how they cheated. I will be more likely to discuss these with a friend in private.

75-89% chance -- Response greatly depends on how much I care to see a resolution. If the accused person is no longer around or it doesn't matter to a community whether they cheated, I will use the same approach as the 61-74% tier. Otherwise, I will likely do more research to try to reach the 36-60% tier or the final tier:

90-99.9% chance -- At this point I firmly believe that the suspicion needs to be addressed publicly. If no one else has done so, I will do it by documenting my reasoning and posting it somewhere on social media. I won't necessarily accuse the person, but my words will likely have that effect. I understand some people will use the "no proof" maxim to defend the person, and I will not have a counter-argument to that.

Over the years, I have seen several people receive heavy criticism for posting public accusations (or arguments that read as such) of cheating. These people have all been experts who had a significant amount of bias. I believe all of these people would fall into my "90-99% chance" tier if they had to put money on it. As such, I understand why they made their posts. If you believe something is true to a high degree of certainty, and you have some stake in the outcome, it's natural and fair to push for that outcome. I think it's unfair to criticize these people for the accusations themselves, but it's fair to criticize them for any hostile behavior they exhibit along with it (e.g., attacking those who disagree with them, making threats).

Tl;dr -- Discussions about cheating can be healthy even if there is no proof, but they must be handled with care and understanding for the many variables involved.