Jump to content


Photo

Enforcement of ISF Stratego game rules


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Poll: Should MT, finally, enforce ISF rules regarding chasing? (25 member(s) have cast votes)

Should MT, finally, enforce ISF rules regarding chasing?

  1. Yes (24 votes [96.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 96.00%

  2. No (1 votes [4.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:22 AM

No need (but feel free to) bring up all the pros and cons again, many of it can be found at: http://forum.strateg...double-chasing/ and some other threads somewhere on the forum. Just a simple yes / no vote will suffice.


  • Yellowhat and Edmond Dantes 1844 like this

sOoQsuN.png


#2 OuweSok

OuweSok

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:48 AM

This will be more lopsided than catalunya voting for their independence.


Check out my Stratego Youtube channel ! :o


#3 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 11:05 AM

Probably ;)


  • Edmond Dantes 1844 likes this

sOoQsuN.png


#4 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:11 PM

I would gladly vote YES if the site would support blocking double chasing. The problem is that you create two separate standards and outcomes regarding a ruling by the MT–one for those who know the rules, and one for those who do not know. Ignorance may be no excuse, but there are too many players on this site who refuse to back down from a double chase because they can.

 

Scenario A–One who knows the rules is playing with someone else who knows the rules. They get into a D.C. and one refuses; complaint at Forum is lodged; MT delivers a guilty verdict. Both players understand the result.

 

Scenario B–One who knows the rules is playing with someone else who does NOT know the rules. They get into a D.C. and one refuses; complaint at Forum is lodged; MT delivers a guilty verdict. One player who does not visit the Forum is left to wonder why they lost points and the match, etc...

 

Scenario C–One who does not know the rules is playing with someone else who does not know the rules. They get into a D.C. and one refuses; no complaint at Forum is lodged; MT never knows about it...a tree falling in the forest unwitnessed.

 

You start down a slippery slope by devising a program for which the MT judges something not enforced on this site. The tournaments, on the other hand, are very clear about the rules and regulations, and thus Tournament directors and judging panels have complete authority and transparency in upholding ISF Rules, even though the site does not impose a D.C. stopper.

 

I must vote NO until the site programmers will add this feature to this site.

 

P.S. I realize that the scenarios are already fulfilled when the MT must make a decision regarding Draw Refusal, but in this instance, the people perpetrating the offense usually are well aware that they are behaving in a manner motivated by poor sportsmanship, or meanness, or just pure nastiness. A double chase may have similar roots, but sincerely, there are really many players who are simply ignorant of this rule, and when prompted in kind, usually respond with a, "Well then why doesn't the site stop it?" (meaning, "Why can I do this? Nothing is stopping me."). The Draw Refusal, when there is a clear and obvious draw, is usually refused by some jerk intending to be antagonistic–hence, the MT has a necessary and meaningful voice in doling out a verdict and an appropriate action against the guilty party. I must admit, I am reconsidering my vote...


Edited by KissMyCookie, 20 October 2017 - 12:32 PM.

  • Don_Homer and TheOptician like this

#5 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:26 PM

You have a point, but on the other hand some players may not even know that sometimes they must accept draw as a result, which at least was the case when the draw refusal policy began. This does not mean that there shouldn t be a thread for draw refusals and the points lost restored. The fact that a part of the stratego community is not aware of all the ISF rules doesn t mean that we shouldn t aim at enforcing the rules. Certainly, players need to get better informed and I am sure that with experience they will realise that double-chasing is not allowed; but the rules should always be enforced, as thereby the results are more just. Even if we are merely talking about ranked matches and not tournament ones.
  • Don_Homer, Henry domerkant and Edmond Dantes 1844 like this

"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth."

 

-Plato

 

"Showing off is the fool's idea of glory."

 

-Bruce Lee


#6 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:34 PM

You have a point, but on the other hand some players may not even know that sometimes they must accept draw as a result, which at least was the case when the draw refusal policy began. This does not mean that there shouldn t be a thread for draw refusals and the points lost restored. The fact that a part of the stratego community is not aware of all the ISF rules doesn t mean that we shouldn t aim at enforcing the rules. Certainly, players need to get better informed and I am sure that with experience they will realise that double-chasing is not allowed; but the rules should always be enforced, as thereby the results are more just. Even if we are merely talking about ranked matches and not tournament ones.

 

Basically, I agree with you, Major Nelson. I am reconsidering my vote...this is an excellent topic to open a necessary conversation. Again, I am starting to lean towards a YES vote. I am thinking about it.


  • Don_Homer likes this

#7 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:37 PM

You should most definitely join the yes-camp, all the cool guys are here ;) You don't want to be left out, do you?

 

Fake news here might claim an outstanding victory for the no-camp :rolleyes:


  • Major Nelson and Edmond Dantes 1844 like this

sOoQsuN.png


#8 OuweSok

OuweSok

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:42 PM

Or the police might come and and start beating up all the voters and the government might relieve the MT from their duties and replace them with baboons.


Check out my Stratego Youtube channel ! :o


#9 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:45 PM

Then, let us all campaign for a YES and see if we can get the MT to add this to their charges. The easiest way to provide the MT with evidence would be video...screenshots may not be enough, and possibly even arguable, but then I believe that the MT would already have a program which they have been kicking around in theory.

 

I'm on board...you've convinced me.



#10 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 02:50 PM

You have excellent points kmc! I think Nortrom (and other mt members etc) should read them carefully. I dont see other objections against implementing ISF than the points made by kmc. And I think they can be solved by learning these isf rules to the greater community. Maybe a simple version is the best here (with most important rules). Also links to the rules at places on the website you cant miss are important.
  • Edmond Dantes 1844 likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#11 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:05 PM

Beside the double chasing cases what are the other isf rules that are not implemented on stratego.com?
I give you one: what about draw refusal? Isf rules say that a referree shall decide if a situation is a draw abuse otherwise the game shall continue as is until the 50 minutes (isf standard game duration) are over and the draw will automatically become true at that time. Here we have already introduced a non isf 10 minutes rule. Do you really prefer the isf rule for draw refusal case or is the non isf 10 minutes rule more appropriate?
  • GaryLShelton and Don_Homer like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#12 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:13 PM

Do you really prefer the isf rule for draw refusal case or is the non isf 10 minutes rule more appropriate?

 

Napoleon 1er, what are the clocks set to in terms of the buffer; and how many seconds are used up per move in an ISF tournament match, if any?



#13 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:15 PM

No opinion, live games are played with a clock + net playing time, so eventually time will run out, making draw refusals nearly non existant.

 

As for rules not implemented here, I'd have to check, but certain rules (e.g. sequence of a move) are handled by the computer here and thus do not apply.


  • Edmond Dantes 1844 likes this

sOoQsuN.png


#14 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:15 PM

I think total buffer is 15 minutes and time per move 4 seconds but better get it confirmed by those who play isf tournaments.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#15 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:20 PM

No opinion, live games are played with a clock + net playing time, so eventually time will run out, making draw refusals nearly non existant.
 


No opinion? Really if somebody is asking for draw after 15 minutes into the game then you find it normal that the game continues with no evolution for another 35 minutes until the game duration is over?
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#16 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:26 PM

As there is not a clock on every match to automatically end a game, and thus matches can last indefinitely, the non ISF 10 minute draw refusal rule eliminates this nonsense as there must be an end time to every match. Furthermore, as there are no referees for this website, you cannot get an in game ruling on poor sportsmanship, abusive conduct, double chasing, and draw refusal; therefore, again, the limitations imposed upon players on this site for which MT may adjudicate are a huge plus.

 

Conclusion: Yes, I am delighted with the 10 minute rule–I know that there are others who advocate not having to wait more than a few minutes.


  • Don_Homer likes this

#17 Major Nelson

Major Nelson

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 October 2017 - 06:59 PM

If there is a clock (50 minutes or 1 hour) and neither of the two players can win, draw will be the result eventually, so there is no point in discussing further. This is the case with live tournaments, but also Gravon (one of the features that make me prefer that site). This site, however, does not offer a clock at matches and therefore some games that would normally end as draw go on until one of the two players cannot continue. The ideal solution would be for the site to add a clock at matches, but until this is done the draw refusal report policy is required. It is very clear to me.


"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth."

 

-Plato

 

"Showing off is the fool's idea of glory."

 

-Bruce Lee


#18 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:18 PM

Should double chasing be disallowed by the programming, yes. Should the MT enforce this rule, no, for the reasons KissmyCookie stated.

Draw refusal and double chasing are not analogous. One is inherently obvious and wrong the other is not.

Edited by malcom.jansen, 20 October 2017 - 09:19 PM.

Message me on Discord for more game breaking bugs such as: how to cause your opponent to lose points after a victory, identify whether a piece is a scout based on how it moves, and the piece movement kick to login screen bug.


#19 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,100 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 20 October 2017 - 09:50 PM

The thing about enforcing a double chase manually on this site is that we're talking about something that is far, far better suited to a programming fix. If the thinking is that we're going to be able to enforce a block on double chasing as well as programming would do, then that is an unreasonable expectation. In a programming fix no one would be able to double chase more than half a dozen moves or so. Board position would repeat, the two squares would expire, and the offense would be summarily ended. But such a short run of chasing would not be worth the hassle of reporting, I dare say. So in our manual world that we have here at Stratego.com we need to determine what is the level of offense that will warrant a punishment, and of course what that punishment will be.

My feeling is that we should accept the limitations of the site we're on and only consider punishing the worst offenses of double chasing. But then punish hard.

Also, how to rate double chasing? It has been suggested previously that we consider continuous double chasing for ten minutes to be a punishable event. This has the advantage of matching the draw refusal time. But might be too long. Maybe five minutes would be better? In either case I think we'd need to build some flexibility into any rule. That is, if someone solidly double chased, but quit just prior to the cutoff point for the offense, there shouldn't be any loopholes left open where the intent was clear to double chase as much as possible. (This is a touchy point about how close to black and white we would try to make things.) To me what would make sense is to say that in any instances of double chasing lasting our required five or ten minutes, if half (three-fourths?) of the moves of the opponent are double chases, then the offense should become punishable. It has also been expressed that the victim of double chasing should be required to warn his opponent in BattleChat of the infraction as the enforcement of it would be new and strange, considering the site allows it to take place.

What should the punishment be? Assuming notification was duly given above I'd propose the following penalty schedule:

1st violation) warning only
2nd violation) 100 points deducted [one week QA ban]
3rd violation) ELO gets set to 100 [one month QA ban]
4th violation) PB

Another thing to consider is that, although it might be possible to show in screenshots, the required evidence is likely going to be video. This fact alone will favor those who know how to do video. The rest will not be served by the rule, if this is indeed the case.
  • Don_Homer and Major Nelson like this
Posted Image
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

#20 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 21 October 2017 - 12:23 AM

Yes. Really, no opinion. Eventually it will become a draw, unlike online, where you could keep playing untill the 2099th year. People in live tend to display less asshole behaviour compared to the behaviour they show when feeling safe behind their screens.
 
Most tournaments use  12 min buffer 4 sec free, with 5 min setup and 50 playing time. WC's differ.
 
KMC ( post 16 ) basically said it all. Also, draw refusal is not really a matter of importance in this discussion.
 
@ Gary: If someone makes an illegal move, it wouldn't be such a big deal most of the time, "punishment" should only be needed if it keeps happening e.g. double chase... if you attack a piece 1x too much during a chasing sequence, I'm sure no one will lose sleep over it. I'm sure MT is more than capable enough to come up with a smart way of enforcing it.

  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer and Edmond Dantes 1844 like this

sOoQsuN.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users