Jump to content


Photo

Disconnecting losers (hall of shame)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1280 replies to this topic

#81 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:05 AM

This is getting repetitive, but I will keep on posting every disconnector I run across. Today it's Mariajojs.  Colonel on bomb...wait for it...wait...Disconnect!  We need Midnightguy to look at all these disconnectors and begin his plan immediately!  Give the guys five freebies (and this is a LOT), but then give them a 50 point ding for every time they do this afterwards.  If we give an erasure of a disconnect for playing 5 good games in a row, then these disconnectors would be able to rectify the problem themselves.  It is a totally good system of reward and punishment for an annoying behavior that needs to be accorded its just desserts.  

 

There are, of course, the valid disconnects.  But they do not happen right after a game-altering flub by a player.  At least not with such usual predictability.  Commonly, there would not be a high piece lost to a capture or a bomb just prior to the disconnect, and so the "valid" disconnects could be easily distinguished from the bad ones.  If Midnightguy's system did happen to catch a valid disconnect and treat that player just like a bad disconnector, it wouldn't be a problem because we've given the player 3 freebies and also a simple way of eradicating the bad mark(s) on his record.  If he's a good player this will come naturally.  

 

I would suggest a jubilee day every January 1st and erase all disconnect marks so we can start the new year fresh, but if we did this the marks put on in January would still last 12 months if the player did nothing about his behavior.  

 

Gary

 

ZWLKIwh.jpg?1



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#82 Roondy Moose

Roondy Moose

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:50 AM

I feel that is too lenient. How many players so far have been reported 5 or more times for disconnects?

I think it should be 3 max before 50 points are deducted. And provide screenshots.


  • GaryLShelton and Fairway like this

Love is a losing game.


#83 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:09 AM

I'll go with three.


  • Fairway likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#84 DejanNSAD

DejanNSAD

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Captain

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:12 AM

I vote too :)



#85 DejanNSAD

DejanNSAD

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Captain

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:07 PM

PFIFFIG

 

http://pbrd.co/1mYgwuF



#86 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:34 PM

 

I think Midnightguy has a really good idea here.  I would simplify it a bit though.  There’s no need to have so many levels.  By the time someone got their 19th quit they would have lost 1500 points!  Even with wins factored in they would have been taken down to 100 long before this point.  Another thing is that disconnects are only an issue when the player loses.  So a win should not assist a player in removing a quit point.  We don’t want players who have a high win percentage to be able to get away with disconnecting on the majority of their losses.  Rather, only a series of losses without a disconnect should count toward quit removal.  If we just count losses, it wouldn’t need to be 5 games without a disconnect, but instead say 3 losses without a disconnect.  Also, I think four free quits is too much and that the penalty should come sooner.  So I propose something like this:
 
1 quit:  No effect
2 quits:  A warning email is sent to the player
3 quits:  -25 points
4 or more quits:  -50 points for each infraction
 
1 quit is removed anytime a player has 3 losses that didn't result from disconnect since the last quit.
 
I think this would be sufficient to stop quitters.  Nobody is going to want to keep losing 50 points every time they quit.  It wouldn't be worth the 5 seconds it takes to click surrender and confirm.  

 

 

The Prof, I'm sorry for not reading this more closely earlier when you posted it. I will give kudos to Midnightguy for the idea, but this is a distinct improvement for an overall system.  I like your penalty schedule though I would alter the email requirement as only Ash can do that now.  Maybe we could simply post in the third thread as I've described below.  But your ideas are, as usual, excellent.  It must, as you say, be a "good" loss that removes a "quit" mark and not ever a win by the disconnector.  Because now we are talking about losses, I fully concur with reducing the required number of losses to 3 instead of the current 5.  On top of this I would NOT count "good" losses in the QUICK VENUE in removing "quit" marks in the FULL VENUE.  (I don't know if quitting is a problem in the Quick venue at all, but if it is then it should be dealt with separately from the full venue disconnects.)

 

One thing that I've been wondering about is the mechanics of doing all this.  Here's a plan that I have.   First, I suggest we have four pinned threads under Game Discussion:

 

  1. thread one for making the accusations (similar to this thread currently, only the new pinned one would start fresh with enactment of this rule);
  2. thread two as a venue for clearing the "quit" marks; and 
  3. thread three for a centralized Public Announcement and appeals venue with the MT, solely on this issue 
  4. thread four for a tally sheet for the MT's use only.

 

If someone wants to post a screenshot of a guilty disconnector, they post it to that thread one.  If someone wants to "redeem" a quit point with a "good" loss, he posts a screenshot to thread two.   All decisions by the MT, and appeals by players, would go to thread three.  The fourth thread would be where the MT keeps everything straight, and no one would be allowed to post there except MT members.  (Could be a pm here but pm's have a way of disappearing....)  Call the four threads "The Disconnector Accusations Thread"; "The Quit Mark Redemption Thread"; "The MT Announcements/Disconnector Appeals Thread"; and "The Disconnecor Records Thread", perhaps.  These separate threads would greatly benefit the MT in both keeping the posts on point and segregating this topic from other topics that they must deal with.  It would give the MT a place to move any post on this subject made elsewhere.  

 

The MT would begin to monitor for posts by Accusers, and those players posting "good" losses, and then tally these in the fourth thread.   They would make Public Announcements in the centralized third thread to announce any actions.  (This would be similar to "The Bomb" gathering place we have for the present tournament.)   These Public Announcements might take the form of single missives, or they could be weekly or bi-weekly digests listing all names with Punitive Actions taken against them in that time, plus those players with changes in their Quit Marks or Good Losses counts in that time.  

 

We would follow the penalty schedule laid out by The Prof above.  Players could clear a "quit" mark with 3 "good" losses.  (Note that any valid disconnect would also go away with the 3 "good" losses posted, but players would be allowed to appeal if they felt their disconnect was a bona fide computer issue.)   I also suggest that all quit marks and good losses be reset on January 1st each year so that everyone can start afresh each year.  To keep things clear for the MT, perhaps all screenshots used in assessing punitive points could be marked in the first thread somehow--blatantly and obviously--so that they were not used again.  The same marking procedure would go for the second thread for any "good" losses that were used to redeem "quit" marks, as well.

 

Could we do this, MT?

 

Gary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#87 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:56 PM

Gary, the reason I gave my as you call it "lenient" proposal is because we still have a number of players who are complaining that they are having computer issues that causes them to leave the game.  I even experience once in a great while a disconnect due to game or my ISP.  However, I believe my proposal in the long run, deals with quitters more harshly .

 

If you look closely at the two charts of mine vs The Prof proposal, we aren't that far off at the start:

 

                                Midnightguy                         The Prof

First 4 quits              no change                       After 3 games player is penalized 25 and 50 on 4th

5-9 quits                   -50                                  -50 for each additional quits

10-14 quits              -100                                  "   "

15-19 quits              -150                                  "   "

20+                          -200                                  "   "

 

Also I proposed you must play 5 complete games (I changed it from my first proposal of 10 complete games) without quitting to have an incomplete removed vs The Prof proposed idea of only 3 games.  



#88 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,147 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 April 2014 - 07:10 PM

I go for two, after a player is warned once, he has no reason to do it again, so punish him straight after.


To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#89 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 April 2014 - 07:17 PM

Max, you are assuming that after 2 quits its because they are mad they are losing.  What about players who are having computer issues?  



#90 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 08 April 2014 - 07:25 PM

Practical question: how to warn a player who isn't member of the forum?

Lucky

The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#91 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 08 April 2014 - 08:06 PM

...I would agree to implement some measures as described above, either as The Prof or Midnightguy proposed but instead of having to post screenshots and have MT debating and deciding on that (which is all additional work) I would implement it as an automatic effect in the software. For every defeat registered after disconnection the penalty of such player would increment as per the scale above or any other agreed scale (my own scale would have been first 2 disconnect nothing, 3rd disconnect minus 2x the points lost, 4th disconnect minus 3x the points lost, 5th disconnect minus 4x the points lost and so on...) and after let's say 20 consecutive defeats without disconnection the counter is reset to zero.

I don't think this kind of counter would be difficult to program but I'm not an expert and temporarily if it takes to much time to get it in the software than MT could help out ... but the ultimate goal should be to have it in the software automatically.

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#92 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 09 April 2014 - 02:19 AM

 

I don't think this kind of counter would be difficult to program but I'm not an expert and temporarily if it takes to much time to get it in the software than MT could help out ... but the ultimate goal should be to have it in the software automatically.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

Napoleon 1er, I couldn't agree more with this last point you make.  I am 100% always in favor of making the change in the programming.  As you point out, there's some amount of work for the MT to get this all done.  But the reality is that we have no option for programming at this point and what can we do by ourselves?  I myself would volunteer to help monitor all the stats involved, though I could only do this after Labor Day in early September.  

 

Gary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#93 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 09 April 2014 - 02:43 AM

I go for two, after a player is warned once, he has no reason to do it again, so punish him straight after.

 

Max, I agree in spirit.   But Luckypapa has a good point below in that how do we actually warn players who are not on the forum?  I suggested notification through the MT Announcements thread I described in my post.   But this doesn't address the fact of them not being on the forum either.   We could send emails, perhaps, but people might have their personal settings set to turn these off.  So my question to everyone is, Do we need a warning?  If someone disconnects twice, or three times, why don't we just punish him and let him figure it out.  He disconnected/lost 50 points.  I think he'll figure it out.  What about that approach?  Do we have warnings for everything?  We don't for the HmmNess chasing rule.  A chaser just gets bluntly stopped.  Would that approach work here?  Would you still want to punish on the 2nd disconnect if we did it this way, or would you want to stick with punishing on the 3rd, as Dave lays out?

 

 

Max, you are assuming that after 2 quits its because they are mad they are losing.  What about players who are having computer issues?  

 

Everyone assumes this might be hard, but I think it will really be simple to tell who's who.  If the disconnector was winning, or there was none of his major pieces lost just prior to the disconnect, then he's probably innocent.  The vast majority of these disconnects occurs right after "General fails to take bomb" type messages.  Judgement against disconnectors will not be complex.  Besides, it will always be possible to appeal to the MT in any case.  

 

Practical question: how to warn a player who isn't member of the forum?

Lucky

 

Luckypapa, it's a good point.  I would ask you the same question I posed to Max above.  Do we need the warning?  How many things here happen without a warning?  There's no warning on HmmNess or 2 Square rules, I would always point out.  Do we need one for the disconnectors?

 

Gary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#94 sirgeicoad

sirgeicoad

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:11 AM

With all due respect to all these delightfully well-thought-out ideas, which I would love to support, I still say let em ragequit. It's a stressful game, they just threw their golf club in the pond. I think once it gets punitive, the site risks losing casual players & those from the young, aggressive crowd. Perhaps more than those that would be gained by changing things. Partially because there are so many disconnectors (i had three today...I'm sorry that i do not post these), and then so many of the so many who aren't even aware we're waiting 2:30 for the victory. The rest refuse to surrender, dishonorable as it is to the victor. I just think there's a ton of these folks, especially under 400 rating. It might seem too rules-y to me to punish someone who quits badly online if there's a legal countdown in place for real disconnects. I like the hall of shame as a deterrent (or release for winners), and I'd add to it if there was more levity about it all.  

 

If only there were a software detection in the code that knew if the player actively quit the browser or the window without a connection dropout or crash. An intentional disconnect would just make an instant loss, mistake or no.

 

 



#95 Roondy Moose

Roondy Moose

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:24 AM

We shuddent want the young n nasty crowd.


Love is a losing game.


#96 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 09 April 2014 - 03:50 AM

Sirgeicoad, telling the bad disconnects from the valid ones is as easy as I described above. Somebody loses a big piece and quickly and a disconnect quickly follows? It means only one thing. The fact the 2:30 timer is there for the validly disconnected player should not be any kind of brake on us acting against those who do it on purpose. We can tell the difference.

As far as letting someone "rage quit" as you call it, this does not work for me. The person who disconnects forces his opponent to wait attentively for the 2:30. I have waited for all of them and after a couple came back on with a few seconds left to see if they could catch me sleeping and sneak a win, I have no feelings of levity for these people.

You say they do not know they make their opponent wait after they disconnect? Then by all means let's help them learn! A 50 point ding should do that nicely. Would this cause people to leave the site? I doubt it if they really want to play this game. But that's their call. If they want to leave the site to those of us more serious about the game, I'm not going to shed any tears. This is the best site to play at. Love it or leave it.

Just a point to be clear about. The penalty we are talking about would come after 2,3 or 5 "bad" losses, and would be in addition to the ELO points lost for losing the game.

Gary
  • Roondy Moose and sirgeicoad like this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#97 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:50 PM

I commend Gary on his willingness to try to police this with players sending screen shots of quitters and of honorable defeats in the Forum, but I think this will only be workable and effective if it kept track of automatically in the game software.  To illustrate why, note that there are on average about 200 players online at any give time, and so perhaps about 70 to 80 games are going on simultaneously.  Since games take less than an hour on average, it is conservative to assume 100 games occur per hour on the site.  That makes 2400 games in a day.  If even just 5 % of those games end in an intentional disconnect (although I think the real percentage is higher), that’s still over 100 intentional disconnects per day, and also there are likely hundreds of honorable defeats that players may submit to get credit toward removing a quit point.  So if most people report these screen shots it would easily overwhelm not just Gary, but the entire moderator team in trying to keep track of everything.  On the other hand, if only a small percentage of players actually post their evidence in the Forum, then the system will be ineffective.  So either way, a manual system of keeping track is not the way to go.


  • Napoleon 1er and sirgeicoad like this

#98 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 10 April 2014 - 05:27 AM

Something needs to be done.

 

I don't support having to provide screen shots and I simply don't know how to easily do it (don't bother sending me instructions I've tried).

 

Its simply ridiculous the amount of time being wasted.

 

Along with this the clock settings need to be reduced - too many people use time as a weapon in this game.  This isn't chess - its a board game and supposed to be enjoyable.

 

I can tell you that my son and his friends (all under the age of 10) agree with me - its just stupid what is being allowed.  And to whomever owns stratego I can tell you that their interest in playing is less than it was previously - while some of that is probably normal - their interest in Legos is intact - and its entirely down to people wasting time.

 

I would think that a program could keep track of "endings".  Either your opponent surrenders, you capture their flag, They capture yours,  you surrender, you disconnect or your opponent disconnects.   If you disconnect and that is 1/3 of your games then you shouldn't be playing. 

 

And I don't care about points - simply ban them.  I surrender about 1/3 of my games quickly - its not worth the time to play someone using 15 seconds every move - or all 7 minutes to set up - or sends profanity through the chat screen - etc, etc.  As a result we always have between 100 and 300 points.  I'd rather have zero points but play enjoyable games than have 800 points and waste huge amounts of time.  If you get the idea that I'm really irritated today - I am - the amount of time wasting has been even more than normal and its simply beyond rude.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#99 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 10 April 2014 - 08:45 AM

I commend Gary on his willingness to try to police this with players sending screen shots of quitters and of honorable defeats in the Forum, but I think this will only be workable and effective if it kept track of automatically in the game software. To illustrate why, note that there are on average about 200 players online at any give time, and so perhaps about 70 to 80 games are going on simultaneously. Since games take less than an hour on average, it is conservative to assume 100 games occur per hour on the site. That makes 2400 games in a day. If even just 5 % of those games end in an intentional disconnect (although I think the real percentage is higher), that’s still over 100 intentional disconnects per day, and also there are likely hundreds of honorable defeats that players may submit to get credit toward removing a quit point. So if most people report these screen shots it would easily overwhelm not just Gary, but the entire moderator team in trying to keep track of everything. On the other hand, if only a small percentage of players actually post their evidence in the Forum, then the system will be ineffective. So either way, a manual system of keeping track is not the way to go.


Well, The Prof, I can't argue with your statistics this time, and I do mean that sincerely. But what I will say is that at first there will be a lot of bad games, and as things progress the numbers of these issues should decrease. Also, the percentage of the games that actually gets posted would not be high, so that would be another limiting factor that you did not mention.

Nevertheless, I still agree with you that this whole thing, day in day out, would be too daunting. So, I'm left wondering how complicated it would be to get it programmed? To me, the whole issue would be if a player loses any piece to capture or by being blown up by a bomb, and this player immediately disconnects after that event, then this would be a recognizable event for the computer. If people started waiting a turn to express their disconnecting anger, then they would get away with it, I suppose, but I just don't think that will happen too much.

These disconectors do the deed immediately now and I don't think that would change much. But if they did, I must be honest and say I wouldn't know who to get them.

Gary

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#100 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 10 April 2014 - 09:00 AM

The beauty of Midnightguy’s idea is that it doesn’t require any special programming to judge whether the disconnect was intentional or not.  It counts all losses by disconnect the same, and it is fair to those who didn’t do it on purpose because it doesn’t penalize someone right away and gives them chances to remove quit points by surrendering losing games in the future.  We don’t want to open the door to intentional quitting that doesn’t get caught just because it wasn’t done immediately after losing a high piece.  All disconnect losses should be counted.  Also, keep in mind that if a player has a bad connection, in many case he can reconnect and so if and when he surrenders it is of course not counted as a disconnect loss.  But when the player doesn’t come back from a disconnect, it is usually correct to assume it was intentional.  So I think either Midnightguy’s original idea or my suggested revision will work just fine as is. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users