The Esports Integrity Coalition (ESIC) has released a paper detailing its stance on cheating, and the organisation has made it clear where they stand and detailed exactly what constitutes both cheating and match-fixing.
"The esports industry is inconsistent and uncoordinated across the board on the issue of cheating," the organisation started by saying, before defining cheating itself:
"There is no inherent moral difference between cheating to win (software, ISP attacks or doping) and cheating to lose (Match-fixing). There are, however, differences in the severity and consequences of cheating and differences in the culpability of cheaters. We would hope that it is accepted that a 15 year old cheating with a free download aimbot is not guilty of as serious an offence as a seasoned pro winning prize money matches using cheat software and they do not deserve the same punishment. Equally, a 17 year old semi-pro who deliberately lost an online match to win a few hundred dollars' worth of skins is not in the same bracket as a top professional who throws a match at a major LAN for $10k [USD]. Both offences are heinous, but it would be equally heinous to treat them identically. In other words, every case should be treated on its merits using a fair process based on agreed rules."
They then talk about match-fixing, which has often been considered a more serious offence than cheating, due to longer bans and jail time etc., and ESIC defended ESL's position on VAC bans for this very reason. To give some context, ESL said that players who use VAC would be banned from competition for two years, after which they could play competitively again.
"The only consistent measure (certainly with respect to CS:GO) is the VAC ban, but that does not mean it is fair," ESIC continues. "In every other context the CS:GO professional is subject to an array of rules, procedures and consequences. It is confusing, inefficient, inherently unfair and will lead to bad outcomes and controversy (as has already happened). It is to ESL's credit that they have sought to clarify their position, but the reality is that the industry needs to resolve this issue collectively in consultation with the game community. Valve is the obvious vehicle for facilitating this, but the industry stakeholders need to get past their personal biases, entrenched positions and preconceptions."
They then talk about procedure, as VAC bans are often inconsistent, and consistent rules are needed to be clear about what is and isn't allowed and the punishments for breaching rules. "ESIC is best placed to provide it through the ESIC Programme where we already have clear rules, a clear and fair procedure and an independent disciplinary panel to make fair, unbiased decisions and provide an appeal mechanism," they add.
ESL's bans are defended again because they're closer to traditional sports, unlike Valve's life bans, which should only really be considered for truly bad offences or if the community thinks they shouldn't be playing again. "There needs to be a consultation and then agreement by the key stakeholders - the publisher, the tournament organisers, the teams, the players and the fans - as to what an appropriate range of sanctions are and they need to be applied consistently. In other words, banned players should not simply be allowed to open a new Steam account and carry on."
After saying that appeals should be allowed for players to defend themselves, ESIC concludes that communities, especially that of CS:GO, should come together to try to agree on collective rules and procedures, which ESIC says they can provide. "The members of ESIC, including ESL, already subscribe to this system and it would be relatively simple to incorporate it into other stakeholders' operations."
ESIC then said they will draft a consultation questionaire, which they will contact Valve about. Do you think ESIC's stance on cheating is the best one?