Jump to content


Photo

MT Announcement - Double/Multiple Chasing Enforcement


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#41 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:24 PM

Anyway, a defeat screen is required as a means to ensure the player did not attempt to play out the game in a different way, and also as a means to know how much points should be restored/deducted.

Are you implying it is possible to undo the offense once it happened? Please explain how.

If there is no need to restore points, a defeat screen is unnecessary to pin a crime on a d/m chaser offender.

Nortrom, you are one of the most logical people on this entire site, surely you understand there is no NEED of a defeat screen to punish a d/m chaser, right?
  • rgillis783 likes this

#42 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,809 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:25 PM

http://forum.strateg...ement/?p=459435


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#43 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:27 PM

So mt is bound to ruling something poorly because a law was poorely thought through and written? Is there no room for adaptation in MT?

#44 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,809 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:48 PM

Tournaments also function this way - it is pretty much a standard on here. I think it is fine the way it is. Should (many) players disagree with that, we should look into it again.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#45 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,503 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:48 PM

The problem is that a player can double chase another player and force them to give up their chance of victory.

Let's say Player A is in a marginally better position. That is - until Player B double-chased them. Now Player A has a choice.

Either Player A gives up the chance to win the game (by surrendering and making a case) or the player carries on.

If the player is to carry on though, a piece must be sacrificed. That sacrifice may be enough in a marginal game to mean that the player chan e of winning is significantly reduced. Is that a fair choice?

I understand that you do not want Player A to be able to have a go at winning and THEN still make a double-chasing case, but are we really to expect that this will happen regularly enough so that players can 'abuse' this rule? Surely the injustice of having a possible win thwarted by a double-chaser is larger than the reverse 'injustice' of allowing a player to try and win the game - and fail and then be unable to successfully report the double-chaser?

Side note - TC does not require a defeat screen to prove double chasing - it merely requires proof of double chasing.
  • rgillis783 likes this

#46 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 09 August 2018 - 07:26 PM

I agree with TheO.  I'd say the penalty for d/m chasing should be a 25 point deduction, regardless of the result of the game.  All that should be needed to penalize would be evidence of the d/m chasing.  A defeat screen would be required if points are to be awarded to the victim.  Allowing a player being chased to play the game out and still report does not give him any more benefit than allowing him to surrender and receive 25 points.  So he is not getting any kind of advantage by this.  He just gets the chance to really make his opponent pay if he can beat him in spite of the chasing and thus give him a loss plus a penalty.  This would also accomplish the goal of more games being decided on the board and reduce the number of times the MT will have to request admin to award points.    


  • rgillis783 likes this

#47 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,513 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 10 August 2018 - 08:52 AM

The original intent of d/m chasing enforcement was to focus on the more severe cases of the offense, instead of something like the 5-7 moves that might be blocked with ISF programming. Requiring a defeat screen goes along with this thinking because a defeat screen means a more severe instance of abuse. Or so we felt.

Another reason that the defeat screen requirement was inserted into the rule here is because we have it elsewhere, such as in draw refusal. There, if you are the victim and you play on past the time of your draw refusal evidence, and lose a single piece, you risk losing the draw. And so we ask for the defeat screen to prove the victim's intention to draw and not change the game situation.

But unlike draw refusal where the goal for the victim is a draw, in a case of double chasing the goal for the victim will always be a win. And arguably, the fact a player double chases is prima facie evidence that he's in a weaker position in most games. So awarding victory and loss points makes sense if the offense is severe enough. Currently the level where d/m chasing is recognized as "severe enough" is 5 minutes or 25 chasing moves.

At this point, and with the currently-required defeat screen from the victim, the d/m chaser will have 25 loss points deducted and his victim the same 25 victory points added to his. Any punitive points against the d/m chaser will be deducted at this time as well.

As for that pesky defeat screen, the argument by TheO and others that the offense stands on its own guilty legs here without the defeat screen is a good argument for the reasons I've outlined above. Moreover, The Prof also makes a good point that allowing a victim of d/m chasing to play out a game in which the offense occurs, gives no greater benefit to the victim than awarding him victory/loss points for quitting as soon as the offense occurs the offense occurs. This is a thought that makes some sense to me if the victim wins. However, should he lose, that would honestly leave a bad taste in my mouth to have him come back to us and then claim his victory. Since this enforcement by the MT is merely a trial I see no reason why the specifics cannot be changed a bit midstream if that is what's overwhelmingly desired. However, to be perfectly clear, it's up to the MT to make that call.

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


#48 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 10 August 2018 - 12:11 PM

TheO makes a good point, if a victim can confidently try to get the win themself, many people will not even waste time reporting their d/m abuser which could save the MT much time. If they fail, what's the difference to the result if they had just quit? Where does a victims decision to get a win make a difference whether there was abuse and an immediate guaranteed loss for the abuser? If the victim wants to try to get the win without mt assistance they should be able without the fear that mt will turn their backs on the victim. If the abuser thwarted the game either way, why cant mt recognize that and offer a win to the victim either way. The victim never chose for the abuse to take place but has a potential of suffering a repercussion from it? Is not mt here to help prevent this repercussion due to cheating?

#49 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,864 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 August 2018 - 06:54 AM

Reading all the above my summary is following:
1) a claim for d/m chasing is valid when first the victim will have asked in chat to his opponent to stop d/m chasing or he will get reported, and second when 7 consecutive chasing moves (for double chase) respectively 10 consecutive chasing moves ( for triple chase) will have been reported and evidenced by video to MT after the chat. The video shall also show the chat.
2) in case the victim decides to break the d/m chase but finally wins the game then 25 points penalty shall be given to the d/m chaser and no further measures are necessary.
3) in case the victim decides to break the d/m chase but finally the game ends in a draw or loss for the victim. In this case 25 points penalty shall be given to the d/m chaser but additionnally MT shall judge if the outcome of the game would have been different in favor of the victim in the absence of d/m chase. If MT judges that the outcome would have been different then additionnaly the points shall be restored for the victim and deducted for the chaser. If MT judges that the outcome would not have been different then no further measures are necessary. If MT does not have sufficient evidence to judge what the outcome of the game in the absence of d/m chase would have been then MT can decide to restore the points as if the game would not have been played
4) in case the victim decides to surrender after having shown evidence of d/m chase then 25 points penalty shall be given to the chaser and additionnaly the points have to be restored as if the game would not have been played.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#50 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,513 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 12 August 2018 - 05:17 AM

Dan,

1. The threshold for recognition is the 5/25 plan that is described in the opening post of the topic. No recognition by the MT will be given to 7 or 10 chasing moves by a player. It's not severe enough.

2. If the victim breaks the chase and tries to win the game, then no reversal of the system game points will take place, win or lose. But he is free to try and win if he so chooses. He has a guaranteed win (and his opponent a loss) if he quits and reports the complaint to us, but if he doesn't want to take that, it's his choice and risk to take.

At this time we are still discussing whether we will hand out punitive penalties against d/m chasers when the victim does not accept the MT offer to freely quit the game. I personally am in favor of still punishing the d/m chasers in such a scenario.

3. As I said, if the victim wishes to try and win the game he has been double chased in, that's his choice. He's giving up the MT offer of a free win. We will NOT be doing as you describe in trying to ascertain IF the victim would have won had the double chasing not occurred. The victim has simply lost the offer of the free win by the MT if he continues to play. But again, what happens to the chasing player is still up in the air at the moment.

4. This is the most correct statement you made. But in addition to the reversing of the 25 points from the system, the d/m chaser will incur further punitive penalties as described in our announcement in the first post of this topic.

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


#51 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 12 August 2018 - 11:21 AM

I am curious. Why is number 2 and 3 this way? If the MT sees a free win acceptable after a double chase, why under any circumstance would this change during the SAME match? Why does it matter to MT what the victim does as long as he is not breaking the rules himself?

#52 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,513 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 12 August 2018 - 12:47 PM

I am curious. Why is number 2 and 3 this way? If the MT sees a free win acceptable after a double chase, why under any circumstance would this change during the SAME match?

.

I didn't say that it would change, Ryan.

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


#53 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 12 August 2018 - 01:38 PM

Number 2 states this would change if the victim breaks the chase and tries to win. It then states if the victim fails to win, no reversal of points will take place and is a risk the victim is able to take.

Number 3 says "he is giving up mt offer of the free win". Why is mt retracting their offer here?

That is the change I'm talking about.

My question is, why is mt retracting the offer of the free win just because the victim wants to break the chase and try to win on his own? The victim is still at a disadvantage by what he had to do to break the chase. Why does this disqualify his win?

#54 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,809 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 August 2018 - 04:47 PM

It's the same for draw refusal. If you blow up your (last) piece trying to find the flag, we will not reverse the outcome of the game. Can't have it both ways.

 

The proposal would serve as a ' get out of jail card free '. If you lost the game due to a decision (give up a piece/position) you made, that's your loss (no pun intended).


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#55 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 12 August 2018 - 05:37 PM

Does no one honestly see the difference here? There is a huge difference and it's very obvious. A draw is a draw and would not be fair to allow a player to give up a draw and still claim a draw...there is no cheating with a draw refusal, just unsporting behaviour.

A d/m chase is a win and cannot have a "better" outcome going for the win yourself except for not having to wait four weeks to get your points restored...there is cheating going on here and should not in any way end accept with a forfeit by the chaser.

The motivation going for the win yourself in a d/m chase situation is not attempting to get you in a "better situation" as it would be with a draw situation.....they are very very different.
  • The Prof likes this

#56 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 13 August 2018 - 02:54 AM

 Allowing a player being chased to play the game out and still report does not give him any more benefit than allowing him to surrender and receive 25 points.  So he is not getting any kind of advantage by this.  He just gets the chance to really make his opponent pay if he can beat him in spite of the chasing and thus give him a loss plus a penalty.  This would also accomplish the goal of more games being decided on the board and reduce the number of times the MT will have to request admin to award points.    

I'm only being persistent about this because it would tremendously benefit MT and all of the victims of d/m chasing to adapt the rules to what The Prof is saying here. It in no way gives an unfair advantage to anyone but it in every way saves a lot of potentially wasted time for a lot of parties involved with d/m chasing crimes in the future. It's a very obvious great decision and I don't understand why it is like pulling teeth to get you to see that. 

 

Not to mention, it will keep the work load we give to admins a little bit less.  That is always a good thing considering we don't want them to help less and less. 



#57 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,513 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 13 August 2018 - 05:04 AM

Ryan, I am not sure I understand you.  If you are trying to say a player being d/m chased should have a right to try and win the game and still have his opponent punished, I agree with that position.  If you are simultaneously saying that the victim should then have his 25 points restored whether he wins or loses, then I 100% disagree with that and agree with Nortrom:  You can't have your cake and eat it, too.  As a victim you must decide whether to simply accept the MT offer of the win and quit the match, or press on at your own risk.  If you wish to press on, fine, but if it goes south on you, why would you then expect the MT to restore your points?

 

Such a request is similar to the recent position taken by the MT that no one can quit a game with a PB'd player once they are clearly losing and expect a points reversal by the MT.  You must quit such games before the 5th move.  After that, you press on at your own risk, just as we are saying here.  

 

One other thing I want to clarify is this matter about it saving the MT and admins time.  What you're saying would only save the MT and admins the time to request and fulfill a victim's points restoration because he quit the match.  That's not much.  We'd still have to post a decision to admins to punish the d/m chaser.  So there's not much overall time savings to my way of thinking.  



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


#58 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 13 August 2018 - 06:29 AM

Consider the case of a delayed penalty in hockey.  An infraction is committed against the team in control of the puck, but the referee allows them to play on to try to score a goal.  If they do not score and lose possession of the puck then the referee blows the whistle and assesses the penalty against their opponent, which then gives them a man advantage for two minutes.  If they do score then no advantage is given to them, since they already achieved the potential benefit it would have provided.  So what Gary is arguing is like saying that if the victimized team continues trying to score and doesn't stop play to immediately accept the penalty then they have no right to claim a man advantage should things not work out.  But I don't think too many hockey fans would agree with that rule change.  To spell out the analogy here:  Scoring a goal represents a winning result in a Stratego game, losing the puck means losing the game, and a man-advantage is a point adjustment that comes later by the MT, the idea being that an awarded win you have to wait for is not quite as desirable as getting your win points immediately. 


  • TemplateRex likes this

#59 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,513 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 14 August 2018 - 03:40 AM

Hockey, huh?  How does frozen hockey appeal to a sunny Californian?  :)

 

Anyway, The Prof, going with your metaphor let me say one thing:   Your metaphor is injured and standing on only one leg.

 

If the benefit to the victimized team in your hockey example is that they get to play on for a score after the penalty and thereby a clear chance to score points, and they aren't giving up free points by doing so, then of course they are going to play on.  Why wouldn't they?   If they don't score in that brief time they still get the "man advantage"  period to try again! 

 

Clearly, this "man-advantage" period you speak of is certainly NOT the MT adjustment.  The MT adjustment is a sure thing --- 100% guaranteed points awarded NOW.  The man-adjustment is only a further opportunity for points.  That's apples and oranges, my friend.  If these examples were the same thing then immediately after the penalty your hockey team would be given the choice to accept the referee-awarded points or play on for those same points and risk losing them at the same time.  

 

If that were the case, and your hockey team were given the choice to accept free points after the opponent was penalized or to play on for those same points (while putting them at complete risk), and your team's manager failed to take those free points, then I'm sure that the boo birds would start flying if he kept his team playing.



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


#60 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 14 August 2018 - 11:47 AM

Gary, have you thought about maybe were on to something? Seriously, have you tried to be open minded about this or are you refusing to see this except from your original perspective?

I'm very curious if there is any people in the community who understands what we are trying to show MT? Does anyone else see what TheO, The Prof and myself see?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users