Cheating - Revision history

Olin Bose at 16:09, 18 November 2025

2025-11-18T16:09:43Z

Reilly Melville at 14:28, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T14:28:23Z

Reilly Melville at 14:27, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T14:27:13Z

Reilly Melville at 14:25, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T14:25:58Z

Reilly Melville at 14:24, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T14:24:58Z

Reilly Melville: expanding link

2021-06-29T14:24:36Z

expanding link

Kevin Wang at 13:47, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T13:47:11Z

June Yin at 05:07, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T05:07:27Z

Chris Chiego at 04:07, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T04:07:30Z

Chris Chiego at 03:58, 29 June 2021

2021-06-29T03:58:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 18 November 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:
	==References==		==References==
	<references/>		<references/>
		+	{{c\|Quizbowl lingo}}

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 Sometimes players who have been accused of cheating stick around. This has been more common in the age of [[online]] quizbowl, where there is rarely a smoking gun if someone has been occasionally looking up answers to questions. In some cases, players have had multiple accusations leveled against them - without any way to verify the veracity of these claims, there is no way to determine the level of punishment. The identity of people who have had multiple accusations against them is an example of an [[open secret]], as revealing the name of everyone who is accused of cheating is typically considered inappropriate.
-One case of someone who was confirmed to have cheated but still ended up remaining in the community was [[Eric Mukherjee]], who confessed to cheating on roughly ten tossups at the online mirror of [[Terrapin Open]].<ref>[https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=369700#p369700 Re: This Time, A Stern Warning] by [[Sima Guang Hater]] » Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:43 am</ref> He received a one-year ban from [[ACF]] (effectively indefinite as Eric completed his MD/Ph.D some years ago and will likely never be [[eligible]] for ACF tournaments again) and self-imposed a one-year ban on tournaments. Unlike all previous instances of cheating, Eric made attempts to reconcile with the community. He also had a long history of community-oriented work, which (coupled with the relatively minor infraction) many considered sufficient to tip the balances away from a permanent ban.
+One case of someone who was confirmed to have cheated but still ended up remaining in the community was [[Eric Mukherjee]], who confessed to cheating on roughly ten tossups at the online mirror of [[Terrapin Open]].<ref>[https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=369700#p369700 Re: This Time, A Stern Warning] by [[Sima Guang Hater]] » Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:43 am</ref> He received a one-year ban from [[ACF]] (effectively meaningless as Eric completed his MD/Ph.D some years ago and will likely never be [[eligible]] for ACF tournaments again) and self-imposed a one-year ban on tournaments. Unlike all previous instances of cheating, Eric made attempts to reconcile with the community. He also had a long history of community-oriented work, which (coupled with the relatively minor infraction) many considered sufficient to tip the balances away from a permanent ban.
 ==References==
 <references/>

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ==Punishments==
-The most common consequence of an individual being caught cheating is that they leave the quizbowl [[community]] without a backwards glance. This is often the case when the player is relatively new and lacks significantly ties to the community.
+The most common consequence of an individual being caught cheating is that they leave the quizbowl [[community]] without a backwards glance. This is often the case when the player is relatively new and lacks significant ties to the community.
 When an individual is more involved in the community, organizations will often issue bans. In almost every case, the guilty party does not ever try to play another quizbowl tournament and the ban functions as a formality.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 In the case of Andy and Joshua, the culprit was a flaw in the NAQT writing software Ginseng, which allowed writers to view some or all of questions that they were eligible to play - this flaw was [[2013 NAQT Cheating Scandal|discovered in 2013]] and resulted in the vacating of [[Harvard]]'s titles at the [[2010 ICT|2010]] and [[2011 ICT]]s.
-In the case of Amit (and Joshua, in one instance) the method of choice was social engineering. The cheater posed as an individual who had a legitimate reason via email and was able to receive the packets. To avoid this, do not ever give packets to individuals who you cannot 100% confirm as legitimate.
+In the case of Amit (and Joshua, in one instance) the method of choice was social engineering. The cheater posed as an individual who had a legitimate reason to access the questions via email and was able to receive the packets. To avoid this, do not ever give packets to individuals who you cannot 100% confirm as legitimate.
 In the case of Stephen, the [[Lederberg 2|questions]] were already uploaded to the [[archive]] and he simply downloaded them before the tournament. Any tournament which happens on a [[clear]] set relies entirely on the [[honor system]], which is an opportunity that dishonorable individuals can exploit.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 This is most common form of cheating in in-person quizbowl and is known to have been done via various methods by the likes of [[Amit Bilgi]], [[Andy Watkins]], [[Joshua Alman]], and [[Stephen Hines]].
-In the case of Andy and Joshua, the culprit was a flaw in the NAQT writing software Ginseng, which allowed writers to view some or all of questions that they were eligible to play - this flaw was [[2013 NAQT Cheating Scandal|discovered in 2013]] and resulted in the vacating of [[Harvard]]'s titles at the [[2010 ICT|2010]] and [[2011 ICT]].
+In the case of Andy and Joshua, the culprit was a flaw in the NAQT writing software Ginseng, which allowed writers to view some or all of questions that they were eligible to play - this flaw was [[2013 NAQT Cheating Scandal|discovered in 2013]] and resulted in the vacating of [[Harvard]]'s titles at the [[2010 ICT|2010]] and [[2011 ICT]]s.
 In the case of Amit (and Joshua, in one instance) the method of choice was social engineering. The cheater posed as an individual who had a legitimate reason via email and was able to receive the packets. To avoid this, do not ever give packets to individuals who you cannot 100% confirm as legitimate.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In the case of Amit (and Joshua, in one instance) the method of choice was social engineering. The cheater posed as an individual who had a legitimate reason via email and was able to receive the packets. To avoid this, do not ever give packets to individuals who you cannot 100% confirm as legitimate.
-In the case of Stephen, the [[Lederberg 2|questions]] were already uploaded to the [[quizbowlpackets.com|archive]] and he simply downloaded them before the tournament. Any tournament which happens on a [[clear]] set relies entirely on the [[honor system]], which is an opportunity that dishonorable individuals can exploit.
+In the case of Stephen, the [[Lederberg 2|questions]] were already uploaded to the [[archive]] and he simply downloaded them before the tournament. Any tournament which happens on a [[clear]] set relies entirely on the [[honor system]], which is an opportunity that dishonorable individuals can exploit.
 Other instances of cheating have included individuals who befriended quizbowl players around the country, then [https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15954 asked for copies of sets] that were not yet clear. Tournament directors should exercise great caution in sharing question sets with individuals without the expressed permission of the set's editors and should make sure that staffers who have access to the sets understand that such sets should not be shared before the set is cleared.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ===Colluding===
-The act of teams colluding during a match to change the outcome is a form of cheating. The most common example of this is a team throwing a match, either to intentionally affect their or the other team's [[seeding]] or to benefit the other team. On [[A team]] throwing the match to its B team.
+The act of teams colluding during a match to change the outcome is a form of cheating. The most common example of this is a team throwing a match, either to intentionally affect their or the other team's [[seeding]] or to benefit the other team. This might include an [[A team]] throwing the match to its B team or vice-versa.
 ==Punishments==
-The most common consequence of an individual being caught cheating is that they leave without a backwards glance. This is often the case when the player is relatively new and lacks significantly ties to the community.
+The most common consequence of an individual being caught cheating is that they leave the quizbowl [[community]] without a backwards glance. This is often the case when the player is relatively new and lacks significantly ties to the community.
 When an individual is more involved in the community, organizations will often issue bans. In almost every case, the guilty party does not ever try to play another quizbowl tournament and the ban functions as a formality.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <onlyinclude>'''Cheating''' is the act of a [[player]] or [[team]] breaking the rules of quizbowl to gain an unfair advantage. It is a form of grievous [[misconduct]] - players who are known to have cheated are typically banned permanently, though this is not always the case.</onlyinclude>
 It should go without saying that no player should ever cheat.
 ==Methods==
 Cheating in quizbowl almost always refers to the act of obtaining outside information about the questions being played. This section is not a guide on how to cheat - if anything, it is a guide on how to prevent cheating. Do not ever attempt to do any of these things.
 ===Obtaining packets or questions beforehand===