Jump to content


Photo

Double/Multiple Chasing Rule Poll


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

Poll: Double/Multiple (D/M) Chasing Rule Questions (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What level of punishment would you like to see for a player who commits a recognized double/multiple (d/m) chase in a game?

  1. 1) A uniform 25 point deduction (one-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (1 votes [5.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  2. 2) A uniform 50 point deduction (one-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 3) A uniform 50 point deduction plus a one-week ban (two-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. 4) A penalty schedule: 25 points (one-week ban QA), 50 points (two-week ban QA), 100 points (one-month ban QA), ELO to 100 (three month ban.QA), permanent ban (9 votes [47.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.37%

  5. 5) A penalty schedule: one-week ban, two-week ban, one-month ban, three-month ban, permanent ban (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  6. 6) Both 4) and 5). A points deduction plus a ban. (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  7. 7) Some other points deduction/banning penalty (please comment below in the topic) (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

  8. 8) Nothing. Do not punish double/multiple chasing at all. (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

Should a Warning Only step be added to every penalty plan above for FIRST-TIME d/m chasing offenders?

  1. 1) Yes (6 votes [31.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.58%

  2. 2) Yes, unless the MT judges their double/multiple chasing prevented their loss (5 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

  3. 3) Yes, unless 2) above applies, or the offender double/multiple chases for more than 7 straight minutes OR makes a TOTAL of 40 d/m chasing moves in the game, of at least ten moves each time (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  4. 4) Yes, but for some other parameters (please comment below in the topic) (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  5. 5) No, no extra first-time warning is needed (4 votes [21.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.05%

Should the MT adjust ELO to penalize the double/multiple chaser with loss points and award the victim with victory points?

  1. 1) Yes, for all games where a recognized claim of double/multiple chasing occurs, and the victim quits the game. (7 votes [36.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.84%

  2. 2) Yes, but only if the MT can clearly judge their double/multiple chasing prevented their loss, and the victim quits the game. (5 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

  3. 3) Yes, but only for 2) above, or if the offender double/multiple chases for at least 7 straight minutes OR makes a TOTAL of 40 d/m chasing moves in the game, of at least ten moves each time, and the victim quits the game. (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

  4. 4) Yes, but for some other criteria not listed here (please describe in topic below) (1 votes [5.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  5. 5) No, the MT should never award a win for this (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

Vote

#41 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 03 May 2018 - 01:19 PM

I've also mentioned to the initiator of this poll that a week ban for a QA offense is way more severe than a 25 pt deduction. He seemed to be in agreememt - but I don't think its possible to edit the poll anymore.
Draw refusals often are obvious cases of mosbehaviour. I have a gen, opponent has a marsh left... marsh can't trap me.. it's a draw and even a total beginner should be able to understand that.
Mutiple chasing thing is less obvious. A warning (or two) with proper explanation before any punishments would be handed out would be a good thing. Some players don't onow or fully understand the concept of it all. Even experienced players may make a mstake in this.
Would MT hand out a punishment in case a player would not be an ♥♥♥ about it but gebuinely disagreed with his opppnent over something? (E.g. counter chase.. some people think that isnt allowed).
I'd suggest to hand out punishments to those who are assholes about it (I've got all day kind of people) who are being ignrant on purpose.
Of course this will lead to some difficult vases, but as mentioned before, the rules should protect players and be written from that point of view. Not from the punishment point of view.
In a live tournament I would never penalize a player who would multiple chase, but after instructions stops it, for this offense. Educating people in a non-obvious rule is to be preferred. Save the punishments for the select few that prefer to be an ♥♥♥ about it.
---------
In said PM, I also said I'd share my POV after being appointed into MT but there you go :).

.

Yes, I did agree that it's a bit unbalanced compared to the draw refusal schedule.

Here we currently have a 25 point ELO hit paired with a one week ban for QA games. There we have a 100 point ELO drop matched with the one week QA ban. So I do agree that it could be modified here.

One option I would consider (amongst others I haven't thought of) would be to change the suggested penalty schedule from the poll one of:

25 points/one week QA;
50 points/two week QA;
100 points/one month QA ban;
ELO to 100/three month ban QA;
PB

to:

25 points/warning only QA;
50 points/one week ban QA;
100 points/one week ban QA;
ELO to 100/one month ban QA;
PB
.

Does this appeal to anyone more than the one in the poll?

As for education, I am all for it. We are usually at our best when we are trying to educate. However, we must face the facts: we simply don't have the numbers of accounts on the forum to be successful in any kind of education program that doesn't last years. We just can't effectively reach the enormous numbers of those on the game side.

Because of this I would always advise to let the penalties do the talking. If we want to be sympathetic, that's fine. Let's work that sympathy into the schedule. I really believe it is there but if it isn't, it can be adjusted to suit. The first thing the vast majority of players are going to run into is the penalty for the offense, not our forum sympathy.

That penalty needs to educate and with all the understanding that can be built into it for our system at this site. But it should be firm.

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

#42 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,671 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 01:24 PM

I'll quote what I said in the PM

 

You guys send educational / warning letters for behaviour. You can do the same for this. - 


  • Thucydides_Olorou likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#43 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:11 PM

I'll quote what I said in the PM

- You guys send educational / warning letters for behaviour. You can do the same for this. -

.

Yes we can. The letters you refer to are sent in cases where we feel there is a substantial body of proof against a player but not quite enough for a guilty verdict, so we do the letter to remind the defendant of the rules.

But these are special cases.

When we have a guilty verdict (which is most of the time) the defendant merely gets a warning letter. Although the purpose of the letter is mostly to inform that person of the penalty being levied against them, it's partly there to educate them.

If in this matter you wish to send out more educational letters instead of actual punishments, that can be worked into a penalty schedule. It only need be worked out how educational versus penalizing you wish to be.

I cannot stress enough that your experience in live tournaments can't transfer similarly to the online environment we have because we don't have the one on one connection--if you consider the forum interactions that--with only but a small fraction of the players on the site. Not a high percentage come to the forum that play on the game.

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

#44 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,671 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:20 PM

It's still better than nothing. The penalty is the loss of the game already.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#45 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:38 PM

It's still better than nothing. The penalty is the loss of the game already.

.

If the loss of game penalty happens. In the poll above the opinions on that question are spread out a bit. Currently, although 7 people do favor the loss of game penalty every time, 12 more favor it with limitations, so it may not be that there is a loss of game penalty every time. In fact, 3 out of the total of 19 voters thus far positively want no loss of game penalty.

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

#46 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,671 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:46 PM

Priority #1 is that the chaseD player gets the points restored. A lost game for the offender sounds only fair, considering illegal moves were made by this player. Even more so, those illegal moves prevented progress in the game.

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

#47 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:50 PM

 

Priority #1 is that the chaseD player gets the points restored. A lost game for the offender sounds only fair, considering illegal moves were made by this player. Even more so, those illegal moves prevented progress in the game.

 

 

Also to keep the integrity the rating system in place: each game should have 25 points at stake. 



#48 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 03 May 2018 - 02:59 PM

English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun :) And with all the new genders popping up, We will be hard pressed to find one.


What "new genders"?

There are, and have always been, exactly 2 genders. Male and female.
  • Fairway, Major Nelson and Fks like this

#49 mazuzam

mazuzam

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 May 2018 - 04:01 PM

This WCO rule was surely written by a man.

#50 mazuzam

mazuzam

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 May 2018 - 04:37 PM

Let’s think about this scenario:

*A history of all pieces is kept for every move.

*A piece lost to any opponent, hers and his, :) resets the history.

*If in any part of the game position of all pieces is the same as one already recorded in the history, a warning is shown to both players.

*If the same position is in the history 2 or 3 times a warning is displayed to the moving player that by completing this move a tie request will be send to the opponent, do you want to complete the move?

*4th or 5th repetition can be blocked by the program.

I think this approach may have some holes but it could fix most of the frustrations we have with an unsportsmanlike behaviors.

Best

Edited by mazuzam, 03 May 2018 - 05:06 PM.


#51 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:14 PM

Mazuzam, your proposal is too broad.  It would block movements that have nothing to do with chasing.  For example, I move a piece, my opponent moves a piece on the other side of the board, then I decide to move back to where I was.  If my opponent moves back too this creates a repeated board position, and he would be warned or blocked under your proposal, but no chasing has taken place.  


  • mazuzam likes this

#52 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 03 May 2018 - 08:29 PM

Mazuzam, your proposal is too broad.  It would block movements that have nothing to do with chasing.  For example, I move a piece, my opponent moves a piece on the other side of the board, then I decide to move back to where I was.  If my opponent moves back too this creates a repeated board position, and he would be warned or blocked under your proposal, but no chasing has taken place.  

 

why would you treat repetitions in Stratego any different than in say chess? 


  • mazuzam likes this

#53 mazuzam

mazuzam

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:41 PM

This is the same as blocking moves back an forth between two squares.

First repetition has no consequence. Just information that this has been recognized. Second or third repetition has a warning and if the move is accepted by the originator an automatic draw offer.

Edited by mazuzam, 03 May 2018 - 09:41 PM.


#54 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 03 May 2018 - 09:58 PM

It's not the same, because the Two-Squares Rule blocks the player who initiates the movement, but in your proposal it is the 2nd player who is blocked, since he makes the move that creates the repeated board position.  This could force a player to give up an advantages board position.  For example, I want to keep an opponent's piece on the left side of the board without him being able to lotto anything on my left side.  We are diagonally across the lake from each other.  He moves forward, I move left, he moves back.  I'd like to move right, but this creates a repeated board position. if I am not allowed to make this move then my opponent's piece would be able to cross to the right side of the board.  Any rule that would block me from matching the movements of his piece I think is unfairly restrictive.



#55 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 03 May 2018 - 10:10 PM

It's not the same, because the Two-Squares Rule blocks the player who initiates the movement, but in your proposal it is the 2nd player who is blocked, since he makes the move that creates the repeated board position. This could force a player to give up an advantages board position. For example, I want to keep an opponent's piece on the left side of the board without him being able to lotto anything on my left side. We are diagonally across the lake from each other. He moves forward, I move left, he moves back. I'd like to move right, but this creates a repeated board position. if I am not allowed to make this move then my opponent's piece would be able to cross to the right side of the board. Any rule that would block me from matching the movements of his piece I think is unfairly restrictive.

Could you post a diagram with an exact move sequence? I don’t think that declaring repetitions to be draws would reduce advantages. If there is no progress locally in your lake area, and if there is no progress forcible elsewhere, then the game is stalemated. How is that different from otherwise empty board with a single gen / marsh opposite of a lake?

Edited by TemplateRex, 03 May 2018 - 10:18 PM.


#56 mazuzam

mazuzam

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 03 May 2018 - 11:26 PM

I see your point The Prof.
Not the one that completes the repetition should be penalized but her opponent.

Let me think about that some more.

#57 mazuzam

mazuzam

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 04 May 2018 - 12:01 AM

Ok so we need to recognize not a repetition but rather one move away from a repetition. Everything else similar to what was said before.

#58 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 04 May 2018 - 12:53 AM

Yes mazuzam, that is better, something like "A player may not move a piece again to a square he already moved to during an earlier sequence of moves by both players which led to repeated board position in the immediate preceding turn".  I would be in favor of an additional rule like this that would break stalemates and keep the game moving along toward a conclusion.  However, since this goes further than the ISF chasing rules, there probably won't be a lot of support to implement something like this.   

 

@TemplateRex, sometimes repetitive situations will occur for a while in a game while players are feeling each other out or deciding how best to proceed.  In this case, something like I wrote above would be sufficient to break the impasse.  I don't think the system should ever impose a draw if neither player is asking for one.  To handle the situation of one player refusing an obvious draw, I'd support something many others have suggested: an automatic draw after a certain number of moves, say 50, without an attack.



#59 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 04 May 2018 - 08:54 AM

@TemplateRex, sometimes repetitive situations will occur for a while in a game while players are feeling each other out or deciding how best to proceed.  In this case, something like I wrote above would be sufficient to break the impasse.  I don't think the system should ever impose a draw if neither player is asking for one.  To handle the situation of one player refusing an obvious draw, I'd support something many others have suggested: an automatic draw after a certain number of moves, say 50, without an attack.

 

Suppose in chess you play the opening 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 and now the opening position has been repeated once. Clearly neither player is interested in playing a game, and if this repeats itself, a draw can be claimed. 

 

In Stratego you can have 1. A4-A5 J7-J6 2. A5-A4 J6-J7. But now the opening position hasn't been repeated because 2 bits of information have been revealed (pieces on A4 and J7 can move). But if we now have 3. A4-A5 J7-J6 4. A5-A4 J6-J7 I would say the position after the 2nd move has been repeated once. I would like a pop-up that we have a repeated position. If this happens again 2 more times, I would allow a draw to be claimed. This still allows two attempts to feel the opponent out.

 

In chess you also have the 50 move rule to force progress in situations where the number of configurations is so large that an exact repetition is unlikely to occur (say 2 knights roaming the board). I would also like to have something like that in Stratego, but with say 100 moves (because the board is larger and pieces move slower). And "no progress" is defined as no new unmoved piece has moved and no new piece rank revelations have taken place (scout move, or direct attack). 



#60 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,671 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 04 May 2018 - 09:14 AM

Keep in mind that only attacking / threatening moves that are repeatedly and without any chance of capture using the MS rule are considered illegal. All other forms of repetition are taken care of I think (3 move rule comes to mind).

 

In chess 'forced draws' are much more common than Stratego. Also, in real tournaments, this, luckily, is way less of an issue with time control that will end in a draw if neither player wishes to advance the game.

 

---

 

As for internet autodraws and such, in Stratego, there are many seemingly pointless moves, e.g. getting the Marshal from A2 to J9 is going to take nearly 20 moves. Take into account an annoying spy that has to be pushed away, this can get up to 30 or even more. Many of those moves will be without captures. In chess you have mobile pieces (knight, bishop, rook) and the hypermobile queen. A smaller board too and more difficult to prevent forks compared to Stratego.

 

Should there ever be an autodraw on here, it definitely should be a high amount of moves (maybe 150? 200? 250?). It would give players sufficient time to try something and also take care of the annoying situations like a general that can't be captured vs a marshal , 2 colonels and 3 majors.

 

Another thing to take into consideration, is that given the current implementation of the anti-chasing (not online), you can attack a piece 3x, then another piece 3x, then retreat either piece one field, wasting up to 6 (12) moves. This can go on for quite some time and easily stall up to a lot of moves. ( one of the things I feel could and should be improved for live play ).


  • Napoleon 1er likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users