Jump to content


Photo

MT Announcement - Double/Multiple Chasing Enforcement


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#81 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 August 2018 - 05:38 PM

Dan, yes in paragraph 1, as Nortrom says.
In paragraph 2, the only problem with the Gwynplaine affair from that time is that there was no announced enforcement of double chasing at all then. So we were forced to ignore the double chase aspect of that case. Today there is. Still, by the book today, if we don't have the complaint and evidence by the victim of the d/m chase, then we're not going to go looking for cases. But since we are definitely now policing this offense we aren't going to allow it to slide by in a case similar to what you mentioned. If we see double chasing by a Gwynplaine seeking a draw refusal, we're not going to ignore it.
If Gwynplaine is breaking the rules by double chasing his opponent, today he will not be able to complain his opponent is refusing a draw. Any ruling for such a flagrant rule breaker makes a travesty of the rules.


In fact in the gwynplaine case we assumed there was double chasing because gwynplaine was so nice to say he was double chasing his opponent. But one could imagine that in same case the victim of the double chasing was retreating to his field with the miner on the right side, then gwynplaine abandoned the double chasing leaving his own strong piece on his field, then started again double chase when the miner came back. We don't have the real evidence that it was really double chase. So what do you do if instead of double chasing the miner was in his field and the strong piece of gwynplaine was just following it from the other side of the lake. This would be chasing from distance instead of double chase. Would the same rule apply?
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#82 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 16 August 2018 - 07:34 PM

and the strong piece of gwynplaine was just following it from the other side of the lake. This would be chasing from distance instead of double chase. Would the same rule apply?


No, chasing requires adjacency. Just as with the ISF.

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


#83 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 16 August 2018 - 07:49 PM

>how long does a victim have to quit before the MT says, "You're on your own."?
I think you're making this unnecessarily hard for yourselves, and this is only because you currently think that a victim of multiple chasing should lose his/her rights to an automatic victory should he/she play on after the infringement. The victim has absolutely nothing to gain by playing on (bar a reduced inconvenience and unblemished record should he/she manage to win the game a second time)
I have yet to hear a good reason why the victim should lose this right. So why not just scrap that strange clause and keep it simple?
Multiple chasing = forfeit of game. Whatever happens afterwards.


We will always appreciate the rules being simple, TheO. You feel your way is simple and ours is not, but I think that our approach is actually simple as well. You want a complete yes; we want a complete no. For ease of enforcement they are about equal.

One more thing I would argue is that continuing to play past the penalty occurrence, as you wish, is a waste of time since the game is forfeit at that point. So why encourage useless moves is a solid question I put to you?

You are all making an impressive and impassioned argument for this, and not unpersuasive. We will continue to discuss it in the MT.

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 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 16 August 2018 - 07:53 PM

If Gwynplaine is breaking the rules by double chasing his opponent, today he will not be able to complain his opponent is refusing a draw. Any ruling for such a flagrant rule breaker makes a travesty of the rules.

 

Hence, the urgency in resolving the matter of double chase as Admin has not invoked programming that will deal with this problematic issue. Knowing that MT would accept the standards of the site at the time, it was clear what would be the best course of action.

 

Yes, from this moment on, and just some time before, the double chase is now a matter for the MT.

 

I applaud the MT and support its course into this realm.



#85 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 August 2018 - 07:54 PM

The ' claim a match afterwards ' is a bit of a license to lotto/setup scout and then come to the MT to get points refunded.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#86 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,494 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 16 August 2018 - 08:12 PM

Of course, the number one reason for keeping the current MT position is rules consistency. As I've said before, if your argument holds here, it should hold with PB'd players as well. When that rule was announced recently, however, no one objected. So currently if you are paired with 12 or an alias of his, you will only have 5 moves in which to quit the game and claim your restoration of points. If a player chooses to continue the game with 12 past that time, they can, but the risk of losing is now on the player making that decision. We won't restore points lost after the 5 move cut-off.

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 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

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

Posted 17 August 2018 - 03:15 PM

One more thing I would argue is that continuing to play past the penalty occurrence, as you wish, is a waste of time since the game is forfeit at that point. So why encourage useless moves is a solid question I put to you?

 

If you make the penalty a 25 point deduction regardless of the result, as I was suggesting, then what happens after the chase does matter, since if the victim goes on to win the game outright then his opponent gets a loss plus a 25 point deduction, instead of simply a lost game.



#88 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 03:22 PM

Reminder that this is the current penalty system put in place:

 

1. Lost game (and thus point deduction) + Warning letter
2. Lost game (and thus point deduction) + Warning letter
3. Lost game (and thus point deduction) + 100 point deduction + Warning letter
4. Lost game (and thus point deduction) + 100 point deduction + 1 week game side ban + Warning letter 
5. ELO to 100 penalty + 1 month game side ban + Warning letter
6. Permanent ban


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#89 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 04:25 PM

Is there not a big amount of players who are not familiar with the multiple chasing moves? They might do it without notion they breaking the rules. Ive experienced this with players on this website. Maybe a consideration?

 

Like said before the best would be that these rules are implemented. It will safe a lot of discussion, screen shots, video shots, more discussion, complaints etc. 

 

Wasnt implementation one of the goals of Nortrom in joining MT? How are things working out?


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#90 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 05:08 PM

Is there not a big amount of players who are not familiar with the multiple chasing moves? They might do it without notion they breaking the rules. Ive experienced this with players on this website. Maybe a consideration?

 

- You should inform your opponent at least once that the moves made are illegal.

 

Like said before the best would be that these rules are implemented. It will safe a lot of discussion, screen shots, video shots, more discussion, complaints etc. 

 

Wasnt implementation one of the goals of Nortrom in joining MT? How are things working out?

 

As for the D/M chasing, the MT started the trial 2nd of july 2018. Improvements to draw refusal have been made. PB'ed players issue has been tackled (not resolved). We're working on the d/c or/and clock abusers issue currently. I'd have liked all of this to be a bit quicker, but atleast we're getting somewhere.

 

When I have a bit more time on my hands I'll make an instruction video on what is and what is not allowed that'll cover the most common D/M chasing issues.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#91 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 05:12 PM

When I have a bit more time on my hands I'll make an instruction video on what is and what is not allowed that'll cover the most common D/M chasing issues.

If you just work on implementation there is no need for all of this. The players learn it automatically. 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#92 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 05:17 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by implementation now, I assumed you meant the MT implementing a policy against D/M chasing, but I think you're on about software changes? if so, that is beyond MT's control.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#93 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 05:33 PM

No, chasing requires adjacency. Just as with the ISF.


Ok so then in the gwynplaine case if gwynplaine would not have declared he was double chasing then you would have no evidence of it. In the absence of such evidence then the draw refusal should have been awarded ti gwynplaine and no case for any not evidenced d/m chasing, right?
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#94 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,801 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 05:45 PM

It's a tough (hypothetical) question, but a good one nonetheless, hopefully you won't be as sharp during the live WC should we have to play :). For me it would depend on how obvious it is, e.g. two miners vs two pieces in a d/m chasing situation. I don't know how the other mods look at that.



By the way, in live play a referee must be called during a dispute, if you play on you can't later claim illegal moves were made. (@the prof / theo / wogo)
  • GaryLShelton likes this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog posts

 

eOMDNAj.png


#95 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 06:48 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by implementation now, I assumed you meant the MT implementing a policy against D/M chasing, but I think you're on about software changes? if so, that is beyond MT's control.

Yes, and this is a very easy answer. You can do your best.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#96 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

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

Posted 17 August 2018 - 07:29 PM

By the way, in live play a referee must be called during a dispute, if you play on you can't later claim illegal moves were made. (@the prof / theo / wogo)


The reason being is that there is no proof of illegal moves in a live tournament due to no recording in progress. Online is not the case and with recording, this should be considered differently.

#97 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 09:48 PM

It's a tough (hypothetical) question, but a good one nonetheless, hopefully you won't be as sharp during the live WC should we have to play :). For me it would depend on how obvious it is, e.g. two miners vs two pieces in a d/m chasing situation. I don't know how the other mods look at that.



By the way, in live play a referee must be called during a dispute, if you play on you can't later claim illegal moves were made. (@the prof / theo / wogo)

the point is that if with your new rules you say that a victim of d/m who does not profit from the automatic win opportunity if he surrenders after the foreseen 5-7 moves then he loses his opportunity to win and the outcome will be what it will be. So in the case of Gwynplaine, because the victim of d/m chase does not claim, does not bring evidence, and does not surrender you should apply the same rule ... his right to get an automatic win is over and the outcome of the game is what it will be ... in this case a draw because gwynplaine reported correctly for a draw refusal and he should be getting such draw. You cannot limit the right to have a clear win in one case and not in another.


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

#98 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 17 August 2018 - 10:12 PM

Up to this point in time, has the MT had a Double Chase, or Multiple Chase case brought before them to decide?



#99 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,015 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 10:40 PM

This sparked the debate:

http://forum.strateg...e-2#entry459429



#100 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 17 August 2018 - 10:47 PM

Greetings, Losermaker. Where was your case submitted, and is it still being argues, or was it ruled upon? I would like to read it, please.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users