Jump to content


Photo

Solution to the trolling, chasing, etc.


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think the best solution is? (87 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think the best solution is to prevent trolls, chasing, etc.?

  1. Implement a forced game ending (see question below) (46 votes [48.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.94%

  2. Introduce a 'fatigue' system (6 votes [6.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.38%

  3. Voted Implementation of the ISF game rules section 11 (More-squares rule) (23 votes [24.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.47%

  4. Implementation of HmmNess' anti-chase system (19 votes [20.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.21%

About the forced-game ending solution, which do you think is better?

  1. When no attack has been done for X moves, the game is ended in a WIN for the player that has the piece with the highest ranking (that can still move). If both players have this, the game ends in a DRAW. (27 votes [31.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.03%

  2. Voted When no attack has been done for X moves, the game is ended in a DRAW. (60 votes [68.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.97%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:54 AM

It is not illegal though to have many full binds. Every player does this to move a piece away. The key is that the piece can escape. While with the pre bind full bind the piece cannot escape because he is stuck forever in a line and cannot turn any corners.

In full bind full bind the piece can turn corners and move about.

If the piece cannot escape in full bind full bind even though he has access to all ends of the board, it should be a draw.

 

D.B., You're right, perhaps I will admit, about what is the most ONEROUS kind of chasing.  The "pre bind"/"full bind" definition addresses this nastiest kind, that's true.  But the other chasing exists also. You can call "full bind"/"full bind" pursuit "not" chasing, and even say that it is "legal", but I submit to you that it is clear that it could go on FOREVER.  To not include it in our chasing rule is to completely ignore one whole side of the chasing problem.

 

You say that the "full bind"/"full bind" piece being pursued can escape?  But that's just it, in the "fb/fb"-only chase, the piece CANNOT escape.  How can it?  It does have more freedom of movement than the "pb/fb" situation, yes.  It does have the ability to go around the board in any direction it chooses, certainly.  But it CANNOT escape--not unless the chaser quits.  A chaser from behind can continue to pursue, "full bind" to "full bind", no matter what direction the lesser piece moves.  It could go on FOREVER.  

 

All I'm simply saying is let's not forget this half of the POTENTIAL chasing threat in whatever reg we promulgate here.  And don't give the "full bind"/"full bind" chaser the cheap draw just because of the lack of a rule to stop him.

 

The most important thing here is the numbers of binds to be allowed, both per incident and per game.  I still say err on the side of the large number to be conservative.



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...604#entry339604

#22 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:17 AM

From my experience, I have always thought full bind full bind is legal. Yes, in some instances it can be chased forever, however, that should simply be a draw! If you get in that situation the game should be drawn I think. . I have never been in that situation, except in games that were finally drawn.

Plus you would have to allow yourseof to get in that situation AND there would have to be no piece to contest the pursuing piece.

An example could be a marshal pursuing a general full bind full bind forever, but pursued piece would have to have no spy and no marshal.

The solution then would be simply to implement the auto draw after x moves without a capture.

I am open to arguments, though because now I am not sure of the rule anymore. I have never thought full bind full bind is ever considered cheating...

We need someone who knows for sure. I wish HmmNess were still here...

 

Also, so even with what you are saying, perhaps HmmNess's suggestion would work very well as it is proposed because even though it does not address full bind full bind, the bad kind of chasing would be gotten rid of, the kind that cannot move a player and is never good.


gg


#23 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:26 AM

D Baby - if a guy is chasing you full bind / full bind, he is not going to agree to a draw regardless if you think it should be a draw. Chasers are trying to do anything they can hook or crook to win. And it's easy to take a full bind / full bind situation and turn it into a half bind when you turn the corner around the lake. I don't see any scenario where you are forced into a full bind / full bind 'forever' - so no need for a draw.

#24 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:11 AM

Guys, if I understand HmmNess correctly, the turn around the lake, or any turn, would create a "pre bind" (half bind), yes, but this would still not erase the AI cache.  The cache would pick back up where it left off when the full binding continued again.  That's only sensible.  Besides the obvious example of one of the pieces getting captured, the cache should only be cleared when a complete square break occurs between the pieces and is not immediately closed by the chasing opponent .

 

D.B., Spiff, yes the HmmNess proposal does get rid of the worst of the chasing.  But is even that chasing so bad that we have to cut it off after only 5 moves?  D.B., this small number would be less like the board game, I submit, than a bigger number, though both are only necessities due to the computer nature of things.

 

D.B., I also want to say, in response to the draw notion you bring up, that if it did happen that "full bind"/ "full bind" chasing became a problem, then the break forced by the anti-chasing rule against it would very possibly alter the game right out of any draw situation.  One space is all it takes sometimes around here....

 

D.B., I really don't want to keep thrashing the same things around with you without acknowledging your help here.  I thank you for constant look at the issue with me in the forum.  Your point of view is good, and I'm sure I think about it  from your perspective more than I did at first.  I will go this far:  the pb/fb chasing is the worst.  The fb/fb is not as likely to be a problem, but it could be.  If we leave it out of the equation, we've left a loophole for someone to be nasty and fixing it could prevent a certain draw-type situation, possibly.  

 

All I really want are two things:

  1. a rule that covers any kind of chasing, without regard for its "pb" or "fb" start.  
  2. a reasonable number of "full binds" for the per-incident and total game limits, 

The latter is the thing I would like to next discuss.  What should those limits be, and why? 



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...604#entry339604

#25 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 27 March 2013 - 11:21 PM

Chasing rules are not so easy to understand.
I think more than 90% of the chasing issues are due to a lack of knowledge.

Is there a clearly post where we can read officials rules, and some printscreens to explain them ?
  • Don_Homer likes this

#26 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 29 March 2013 - 06:14 AM

D.B., Spiff, and all, I am ready to concede to a chasing rule that addresses "pre bind"/"full bind" chasing only.  It is the worst kind, I admit, because it is a more common problem.  If we can squelch it, we are certainly dealing with the worst of the chasing issue.  Having acquiesced on this point, however, I still believe that the numbers have to be determined for the per-incident limit and also the per-game limit.  

 

If we do this--if we alter our path from wanting to make a rule for both kinds of chasing (both the "pb/fb" as well as the "fb/fb" kind), to only addressing the "pb/fb" kind, then I think the numbers should be less for the two limits under discussion.  In "fb/fb" chasing, you'll recall, I put forth 50 "full binds" per incident and 200 "full binds" per game.  However, if we remove the "fb/fb" chasing from consideration in our rule, then perhaps the numbers should change.

 

I submit that the per-incident limit should be 20 for the new situation where we are addressing "pb/fb" chasing only.  This will allow for a chase to go from one side of the board and back.  It would be plenty of time for the chaser to put a piece into range of his backup, as well as plenty of time for a chasee to decide where he best wants to end up in the chasing row.  Of course, end the chase with a pop-up window to the chasing party once they have reached the per-incident limit.

 

Now, for a per-game limit, I still feel the number should be very large.  If it is large, the rule will stay out of most games where it is not required, and I think this is something we all would like very much.  Basically, I feel that if a moderator wouldn't end a game because of a slight to moderate problem, then neither should our rule.  Our rule should seek to quell the nastiest behavior, in my opinion.  Therefore, I say make the per-game limit high.  Keep it in a range of 150-200 "full binds" FOR NOW and see how it goes.  We can reduce it later, and in the meantime see if the per-incident limit doesn't alter the course of the game in a positive way.  

 

I further still hold that we should have a continuous chasing counter, showing "full bind" counts for each player to that point, and have this box off to the side discreetly somewhere, and visible to both players.  A warning should be given to the offending player when only 30 "full binds" are left, and perhaps another when only 5 are left.  Give our rule some teeth by making the violation of it a loss of game.

 

I still do not like the very small limit of 5 full binds per incident that HmmNess proposed.  I think it is too short and unnecessarily so.  None of us here are so sensitive that we couldn't deal with my 20 number.  But please give your ideas here on the topic of these numbers.

 

I hope this post furthers the discussion and moves us closer to a roll out date, which we need so we can move on to the next thing.  



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...604#entry339604

#27 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 29 March 2013 - 06:34 AM

I oppose all per game limits. I oppose them so vehemently I am willing to give my life for the cause.

The binds issue should really be 5, because there is no reason for it to be more. You cannot move a piece any considerable distance by chasing it with pre bind full bind. The piece can simply double back the way it came after traveling three squares.
There is not a situation where you would need more than 5. I am too sensitive to be able to deal with the 20 bind proposal. I think it is exactly 4 times the max amount I am willing to deal with.

And when you say it would give plenty of time for a chaser to move another piece to help, if he moves another piece that would cut into the number of pre and full binds in a row, so the number would be reset.

The way to deal with the rest would simply be the auto draw system.


gg


#28 M-D

M-D

    Game Developer

  • Administrators
  • 124 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Scout

Posted 29 March 2013 - 09:07 AM

A lot of good information in this topic! Please keep the discussion going!

 

Midnightguy made an interesting topic about forced game endings, which (I though) was an interesting read.

 

 

As for us (the team), we've decided to implement most / all of the rules but not apply them right away and only log them when the game ends. This will give us some information on which situations happen the most. This will also allow us to try the rules out for a period of time and see how you guys like them. HmmNess' system will the be first one that we're gonna enable.


  • Midnightguy likes this

#29 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

I would like to add to my proposition above that just because a pre bind turns into a full bind, it does not mean chasing is occurring.  It could be incidental.  That is, it could be that I am moving my piece past a row of my opponent's pieces enroute to another objective.  I would be in pre-bind with the first, then full-bind with it as I moved, while simultaneously being in pre-bind with the next piece, that piece becoming full-bind when I move again, and this causes yet another piece to become pre-bind, etc.  None of these would be chasing but rather merely incidental.  I think that it would be good to put in place a "minimum threshold count" so as to not begin calling an incidental pre-bind/full-bind occurrence chasing.  Once the same two pieces met in full-bind, say, 3-5 times, it would register as chasing for purposes of the counter.  Before that it would not count as chasing and would have no effect on a total game limit counter, if one were established.

 

Also, perhaps just to clarify:  I think that "going around" another piece should not count as chasing that piece in the simple "pb/fb" proposition at hand.  That piece might be a bomb, or not, but it should in no way count as chasing to go around said piece.  The full-binding, for purposes of our "pb/fb" rule, should only be counted when the full-binding is on the same side of the two pieces.  As I said, this is just to clarify.

----------------------------------

 

D.B., I see what you are saying about it being not possible to drive an opponent any certain way, in reality, with one piece.  The piece might just move back and forth within three spaces. Yes, this is true.  The piece being chased does have important control over the direction of movement, and that movement COULD GO NOWHERE as you clearly point out.  I guess my only counter to what you are saying is that the chased piece MAY do what you say, OR IT MAY MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION.  To limit chasing to 5 full binds prevents any shifting of the play by the chasee.  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.  That is, I might want your powerful piece to move as far away as possible.  If I can lure the chase (as a chasee) to where I want it to go, then I can possibly move said powerful piece far enough away from another movement I wish to safely make elsewhere on the board.   THIS IS NATURAL PLAY.

 

If we limit the chase to ONLY 5 full binds, we are limiting this VERY IMPORTANT ABILITY of the chasee's.  D.B., you have said you do not want something that changes the way the game plays from the board game.  I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.  I say here that if we limit this thing to 5 full binds, we are going to have a rule that KILLS AN IMPORTANT ABILITY for the chasee and INTERFERES with the NATURAL PLAY far too much, even it only happens one time in a game the the chasee is foiled in his NATURAL RIGHT TO MOVE THE CHASE.  That one time in a game could mean the game ends differently.  

 

I have previously given the example of how I was able to lead Justin Hayward's chasing down to my spy where I was able to end the game to my favor.  Had a 5 full bind rule been in place, this NATURAL PLAY would have been totally foiled and the game could have ended differently.  

 

I say two things:

  1. Preserve the chasee's rights to REASONABLY lead the chase!  Set the full-bind chasing limit to NO LESS THAN 20.  This will prevent the hours of chasing that we all ache in our hearts to hear about, yet still preserve NATURAL PLAY AND THE CHASEE'S RIGHTS.
  2. Establish a conservative TOTAL GAME limit of 150-200 full-binds, the breacher of which forfeits the game.  If we use 20 as a first rule number, then we will need this second rule or we will still have a terrible chasing problem and bad behavior by players.


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...604#entry339604

#30 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

Are you or are you not a spy from metaforge sent here to sabotage this site?

If your rules were implemented no one would play here.


gg


#31 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:30 AM

Are you or are you not a spy from metaforge sent here to sabotage this site?

If your rules were implemented no one would play here.

 

D.B., Of course not.  Look, I'm sorry if I have offended.  This is a very important topic and I feel I can see your side of things far better than when we began.  It can certainly be said that I am too opinionated.  Still, I am looking for more substance from you on this.  

 

To Recap:  I do feel that 5 full binds is much more of an unnatural thing to the game than 20.  And you want no more than 5 because of the same feelings.  Plus you do not want a total game limit.  I believe that sums everything up, right?

 

On the first issue I will stand by what I said for now.  I feel that seeing a pop-up window after only 5 full-bind moves is just too quick. I think it will hit us like brand new onerous 2 space rule if it comes on board that way.  Besides this, the foremost reason I am against it is the issue of the chasee's rights, which I outlined previously today in this thread.  As to the second issue, the total game limit, HmmNess himself proposed similar total game limits for other violations elsewhere and so it's a valid concept.  I like a large total game limit of full-binds, such as I have proposed, because that makes it unobtrusive to the game and therefore inoffensive to those of us (me and you!) who want to play as close to board game rules as possible.

 

D.B., I do echo your post elsewhere today that rules will need to be game-tested.  I like that a lot.  If the Dev's are ready, that is only sensible.  

 

But before that happens, I would like to see going forward in this thread some substantive reasons why I am wrong in my defense of chasee's rights, and reasons why a total game limit is a bad idea, if people feel that way.  I would like to hear the comments out there on the numbers that D.B. and I have hashed back and forth here.  I am surprised there are not more comments from higher up players in this thread.  We need those comments to help the Dev's out in their decisions.  Where is HmmNess?  Can somebody wake him from the dead?  One month ago, guys, I was a Bronze Spy.  C'mon, post your ideas!



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...604#entry339604

#32 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 31 March 2013 - 12:00 AM

This is my last post here. The chasers have "chased" me off of the site.

I just played a guy, unicorn ranger, or some such shit and he chased, said he had all morning, call me a clown, said I always cry, etc.
I am just a young man who wants to play stratego some times. I don't have any people I know who are interested in it and are good enough to play it with me.

But, I also should not have to put up with abuse.
I am going the way of HmmNess and Lady Kathryn before me, off the shinking ship and into the shimmering sea of life.

And those of you who continue to give money to these "people" for "battlecoins" are fools.


gg


#33 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 31 March 2013 - 01:25 AM

This is my last post here. The chasers have "chased" me off of the site.

I just played a guy, unicorn ranger, or some such shit and he chased, said he had all morning, call me a clown, said I always cry, etc.
I am just a young man who wants to play stratego some times. I don't have any people I know who are interested in it and are good enough to play it with me.

But, I also should not have to put up with abuse.
I am going the way of HmmNess and Lady Kathryn before me, off the shinking ship and into the shimmering sea of life.

And those of you who continue to give money to these "people" for "battlecoins" are fools.

 

D.B., you're giving up?  Surely not now when the time is so nigh for a solution!  Both the anti-chasing and auto draw could roll out with the next update.  The Dev's are talking.  Have a little faith.  This game, your game, deserves it.  



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...604#entry339604

#34 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:12 AM

Sorry to see you go D B you were one of the few people who are making an serious effort along with a few others to help fix the chasing and automatic draw issue.  Gary is right, we are so very close to getting this done, try to hang in there.  I had two games within three nights vs silver players who were being asses not accepting the game was a draw..one was me being behind in material and the other I had a huge advantage but couldn't leave my Flag area.  This makes me more determined that something needs to be done to fix the few game flaw we have here with chasing and games that should be drawn but other player wants to drag it out until you quit. 



#35 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:28 PM

I'm really getting tired of all those people who announce they will leave this site.

What is the goal of such a statement on this forum?  Is it the meaning to have a moral impact on other regulars here so that they would do the same?

If you don't like it here or you think this site has no future, fine........then leave in silence and go play on Metaforge, Gravon or I don't know where.  But it really doesn't help to announce such statements because it won't affect other players in a single bit.

And allthough I like some players here, I won't be heartbroken if they decide to leave here, that's their choice.

 

The bugs are annoying, the endless chases are annoying, we all know that,.....but I do have hope and faith that this site will be the absolute number one Stratego site.

There is much on this site that I like which other sites don't have.

This site has a lot of potential and the dev's are working on the issues.

Rome wasn't built in a day as well.  Maybe it's going a little slow for now but eventually, this site will be great!

It's great already of course but I mean REALLY great without annoying bugs and so on.

 

 

Just hang on :)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#36 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

Thank you, trickz for the sentiments above.  Concisely put.  To "Like" them isn't saying enough for me.  GLS

 

-----------------------

 

[Note:  I am copying the following post here, in part, from an auto draw thread begun by M.G. in this forum. gls]

 

-----------------------

 

M.G.,

.

.

.

.

 

[A]s I said in my p.m. to you last night, we need to make sure that the TOTAL GAME LIMIT for the Anti-Chasing Rule is NO MORE than the limit for Auto Draw.  If they are the same, that should be fine, I think.  Here's what I mean, if one player has chased 120 times throughout the game and it is now apparent that a draw is likely, then he only has 80 chasing moves left before the TOTAL GAME LIMIT of the Anti-Chasing rule forces a game loss on him.  (200 full-bind moves -120=80).  He cannot achieve the draw game--if he wants to keep chasing--because the Auto Draw rule requires he move 100 times (assuming suggested number of 200 total), and he only has 80 chasing moves left.  Therefore, together, both the Anti-Chasing and Auto-Draw rules work to punish bad chasing behavior.  For if the chasing were bad enough, as in my example, the onerous chaser gives up his right to a draw.  



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...604#entry339604

#37 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 865 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:04 PM

Implementation of the ISF game rules section 11 (More-squares rule) looks like the best thing

 

Why?

 

- Puts an end to endless chasing

- Prevents "defending" by chasing (e.g. miner vs general)

- Does not have any  if, else, then, condition x, condition y (like some of the previously suggested solutions)

- Rules are simple and straightforward (yes, really)

 

In order to prevent games being dragged forever, a "forced draw" after X moves of no pieces killed could be implemented


  • match likes this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

 

Follow the 3rd Online World Championship: http://forum.strateg...d-championship/


#38 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 02 April 2013 - 06:13 PM

Implementation of the ISF game rules section 11 (More-squares rule) looks like the best thing

 

Why?

 

- Puts an end to endless chasing

- Prevents "defending" by chasing (e.g. miner vs general)

- Does not have any  if, else, then, condition x, condition y (like some of the previously suggested solutions)

- Rules are simple and straightforward (yes, really)

 

In order to prevent games being dragged forever, a "forced draw" after X moves of no pieces killed could be implemented

 

Agree, obviously the solution


  • match likes this

#39 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:02 PM

Implementation of the ISF game rules section 11 (More-squares rule)

The International Stratego Federation has the following rule which we don't implement:

# 11.1
It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place. 

# 11.2
Exception: chasing moves back to the square where the chasing piece came from in the directly preceding turn are always allowed as long as this does not violate the Two-Squares Rule.

# 11.3
Definitions:
continuous chase: the same player is non-stop threatening one or more pieces of his opponent that is/are evading the threatening moves.
chasing move: a move in a continuous chase that threatens an opponent's piece that was evading during the continuous chase.

Hereby:
a/to move:   a/to move plus attacking or a/to move to an empty square.
to threaten: to move a piece next (before, behind or besides) a piece of the opponent.
to evade:    to move a piece away in the direct following move after it has been threatened.


This rule will be quite difficult to explain to newer players, I'm also not sure if this will actually solve the issues that you've been reporting.

 

Nortrom and Pd3A, if the rules above are what you say are "obviously the solution", then where are the details for them?  11.1 says "It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly."  What does that mean?  There is nothing clear about "continuously" and "endlessly".  Although such loose rules could work for playing the board game across from one's opponent, face to face, I submit to you that we can't enact an online rule on such imprecise words.  

 

And what, exactly, is an "a/to move" under Hereby?  



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...604#entry339604

#40 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 02 April 2013 - 10:20 PM

You're right Gary - ISF rules do not define a methodology for enforcement of Section 11 in online Stratego. HmmNess was clever enough to develop a detailed, programmatic, anti-chase logic model that captures the essence of Section 11 for the purpose of implementation in an online Stratego system. I'm not even sure why M-D listed them out as separate 'options' because if we vote for ISF Section 11, how would it be implemented here??




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users