Azherae wrote: » So, this came up recently in my group (will probably ask it for the LiveStream but it feels like the sort of thing that can't/shouldn't get answered there) so I bring it up here. What should the policy be on people using AI to fake screenshots of chat logs that didn't really happen, to deceive other players for whatever reason (not GMs, they would have backend logs)? Does anyone want anything at all to be done about this from Intrepid side, or should we just consider it a natural part of influence/spycraft in the game and let it rock? In a game where reputation matters, but subterfuge is encouraged, I'd assume that Intrepid has neither the time nor the interest to respond to Snopes style 'debunking' of weird fake chat/combat logs. But this is now relatively easy to do, much harder to detect, etc. Most games lately don't have enough interaction between people that would be influenced by this sort of sentiment manipulation, and even fewer have any incentive for a double-agent to outright fake a screenshot to give to their handlers while pretending to be a spy for those handlers, for example. This actually came up because of the thought that we have to think about how much live GMs can be trusted if they have access to ingame logs, but that isn't really for this thread other than to remind people that mostly, at least when actual reports are made, inexperienced GMs can be 'tricked' by a specific type of insertion fake, wasting their time (basically, insert a fake line between two legit ones in a real conversation and when asked, claim not to know why the GM side doesn't have it, easy stuff to deal with when any trained GM on a good system is doing their thing). Point is, GMs will be trained to look out for this sort of thing in reports, so that's not a concern here, this is about spycraft. Thoughts?
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So, this came up recently in my group (will probably ask it for the LiveStream but it feels like the sort of thing that can't/shouldn't get answered there) so I bring it up here. What should the policy be on people using AI to fake screenshots of chat logs that didn't really happen, to deceive other players for whatever reason (not GMs, they would have backend logs)? Does anyone want anything at all to be done about this from Intrepid side, or should we just consider it a natural part of influence/spycraft in the game and let it rock? In a game where reputation matters, but subterfuge is encouraged, I'd assume that Intrepid has neither the time nor the interest to respond to Snopes style 'debunking' of weird fake chat/combat logs. But this is now relatively easy to do, much harder to detect, etc. Most games lately don't have enough interaction between people that would be influenced by this sort of sentiment manipulation, and even fewer have any incentive for a double-agent to outright fake a screenshot to give to their handlers while pretending to be a spy for those handlers, for example. This actually came up because of the thought that we have to think about how much live GMs can be trusted if they have access to ingame logs, but that isn't really for this thread other than to remind people that mostly, at least when actual reports are made, inexperienced GMs can be 'tricked' by a specific type of insertion fake, wasting their time (basically, insert a fake line between two legit ones in a real conversation and when asked, claim not to know why the GM side doesn't have it, easy stuff to deal with when any trained GM on a good system is doing their thing). Point is, GMs will be trained to look out for this sort of thing in reports, so that's not a concern here, this is about spycraft. Thoughts? ehh you could do that 30 years ago with no AI lol. why bring it now?
Azherae wrote: » What should the policy be on people using AI to fake screenshots of chat logs that didn't really happen, to deceive other players for whatever reason (not GMs, they would have backend logs)?
Azherae wrote: » Does anyone want anything at all to be done about this from Intrepid side, or should we just consider it a natural part of influence/spycraft in the game and let it rock? In a game where reputation matters, but subterfuge is encouraged, I'd assume that Intrepid has neither the time nor the interest to respond to Snopes style 'debunking' of weird fake chat/combat logs. But this is now relatively easy to do, much harder to detect, etc. Most games lately don't have enough interaction between people that would be influenced by this sort of sentiment manipulation, and even fewer have any incentive for a double-agent to outright fake a screenshot to give to their handlers while pretending to be a spy for those handlers, for example. This actually came up because of the thought that we have to think about how much live GMs can be trusted if they have access to ingame logs, but that isn't really for this thread other than to remind people that mostly, at least when actual reports are made, inexperienced GMs can be 'tricked' by a specific type of insertion fake, wasting their time (basically, insert a fake line between two legit ones in a real conversation and when asked, claim not to know why the GM side doesn't have it, easy stuff to deal with when any trained GM on a good system is doing their thing). Point is, GMs will be trained to look out for this sort of thing in reports, so that's not a concern here, this is about spycraft.
Sunboy wrote: » So it’s like risk vs reward again. Get a guild out of the way by mass reporting = Reward. Get caught and punished accordingly. Punishment should be very very very high. Much love ❤️
abc0815 wrote: » Sunboy wrote: » So it’s like risk vs reward again. Get a guild out of the way by mass reporting = Reward. Get caught and punished accordingly. Punishment should be very very very high. Much love ❤️ Please no trash game play. Weaponizing support should be a perma ban (i wont, don't panic).