Jump to content


Photo

MT Announcement - Double/Multiple Chasing Enforcement


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#101 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,020 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 August 2018 - 10:55 PM

http://forum.strateg...-65#entry458332

I believe still under discussion, primarily because of the debate going on here about whether to adjust the rules for a punishment without the defeat screen etc.



#102 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

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

Posted 17 August 2018 - 11:06 PM

Thanks, Losermaker...I did review the posts. The item concerning a "Defeat Screen" has become a hot potato of discussion. When one puts it in the context of the fundamental Draw Refusal process, there is a related link, so I understand the MT's point of view. Having said that, the idea that TheO put forth also makes sense, but then it comes right back to: if you are going to file a complaint and request a case, then you know how and what you need; but if you want the case, but also to win, then you must accept the risk that goes with this goal...losing the right to open a case.

 

I really do not see the problem with submitting a screenshot of the game's final outcome...this is the official document of exactly how the game results are reported...pieces taken, moves made, who won, lost, or tied. Superfluous or not, it is the final document which validates all claims made by one or both parties.

 

As for your case, Losermaker, I am delighted you got the drop on your opponent...I played that jerk and he had an arrogance about the way he moved pieces...just a bad vibe is all I got from that person. The fact that you won does not change the fact that he was imposing a double chase. So, I imagine that the MT could at the very least, it to send a warning letter (it may or may not be read by the person), but it is a respectable course of action...the person did commit the offense. As to the question of points, that is a wholly different matter. At least by entering this offense into the book, should this player commit the same offense in the future, it would certainly allow the MT to have greater clarity with how they would like to deal with the repeat offender.



#103 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 02:18 AM

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?

 

To be honest, I don't remember the details of the case and, without looking it up, I can say that if d/m chasing Gwynplaine referred to was at a distance, then technically, no, it would not be double chasing.   That said, it would be a simple thing for his opponent to move in closer and get double chased adjacently.  

 

The ISF rules clearly require adjacency, technically.  But Nortrom is the expert on how this would be enforced in live, actual games.



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


#104 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 02:38 AM

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.

 

I would have bet a bodily appendage that that "useless moves" chop attracted you.  :D

 

As I said also, the other thing (and this might equally attract you) is the "consistency" of rules.  We have an announced policy of not allowing the continuation of games with PB'd players if one wants us to restore lost points.  There is a 5 move limit.  So here it's kind of the same.  

 

Of course, even though I feel I've got you cornered in the Tesseract, I'm sure you're about to pull some flambe move on me.  :)


  • Wogomite likes this

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


#105 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 08:48 AM

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.

 

Not sure where you get the 5-7 move treshold from.

 

The MT can make a case based on what they see/observe. 

 

You bring forth an interesting point and we'll have to look into it.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#106 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 08:48 AM

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.

This is not correct, even if the opponent admits to having made illegal moves, there won't be any result changes. 


  • GaryLShelton likes this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#107 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 10:31 AM

Live stratego is not comparable in regards to multiple chasing.

A player can't endlessly chase in live Stratego,

This means that the victim:

Doesn't have to surrender (to continue with their life)
Doesn't lose ELO points
Doesn't have to take screenshots and communicate with the perpetrator to persuade them to stop their actions
Doesn't get a loss on their record
Doesn't have to wait for admin to get their points returned
Doesn't have to wonder whether their case is strong enough

---

Gary mentioned you need consistency. Well that. makes sense in some contexts, but not in tbis one.

Playing a Pb'd player is not the same as playing someone who multiple chases. If I have three apples for lunch it doesn't mean I need to have three potatoes for dinner. Consistency is not necessary.

This is because playing against a Pb'd player is. It an automatic win, whereas getting multiple chased is. They are different.

Scrapping the arbitrary window for multiple chasing avoids all the issues mentioned above.

Side note - A player may only discover that they are matched against a Pb'd player once tbeir opponent starts acting up. By this time of course it may be too late for their case to be valid. You can't expect all players to know from the star of the match that they are playing against a Pb'd player.

#108 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

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

Posted 18 August 2018 - 12:25 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.

Now this is the type of defense that makes since. If you can come up with a few more of these, I may actually agree with your stance. As for now however, I see many more pros for the victims benefit rather than your one for the abuser. Even though yes, I guess the abuser does get to sit at the table for negotiation. Poor guy, we almost forgot about him. 

 

Here are a few things on the pro side of the victim and others that TheO, The Prof, and Wogo have said. 

 

1. They don't want a loss on their record.
2. They may want the practice
3. There may be a chance that their case is not successful
4. Admin changes to points can take a long time

5. Showing the chaser up by winning after he tried cheating. 

6. MT and Admin receive a little less work

7. Victim does not have to go through the hassle of submitting evidence. 

 

If you give both sides an arbitrary number of 18 pts per valid good reason for their arguments, you come up with:

18 pts for putting an allotted time on the victm to claim the win. 

116pts for not putting an allotted time on the victim for claiming the win. 



#109 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

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

Posted 19 August 2018 - 01:19 PM

It has been mentioned numerous times by MT that the rulings on PB players and what TheO, The Prof, and Wogo have been proposing need to be consistent with each other regarding allotted time given to quit before you can no longer claim the win. At first, this appears as though it makes since but if you take a deeper look, you will see how consistency does not coincide here. 

 

The purpose of MT awarding a player points of a PB player is so that a potential victim does not have to become one and has a right to play all games in peace. It allows the abuse that is sure to come, be prevented with no harm done to your elo or mental state. If you endure the abuse and ask for your points back...you willingly endured something you did not have to, this would defeat the whole point of MT ruling and you are now on your own. Attempting to play through the abuse and still prevent a loss would be trying to find a loop whole in the system. (<=== Gary, this is what baking your cake and eating it too, actually is.) With a D/M chaser, this is not the case.

 

With d/m chasing, it was never expected, you already are more than likely miles deep into the game before the "abuse" came and by the time you get through the abuse and obtain evidence, you can easily break the abuse and continue on with your fun. You're not choosing to endure more abuse like playing a PB player is. It is over, the cheater ruined the match but you should still be able to have fun finishing it in peace knowing your safe. 



#110 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

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

Posted 19 August 2018 - 04:16 PM

As far as live play and online is concerned, the two are far too tremendously different to compare. From records like screenshots and videos to blunders like tripping over pieces. Time restraints and game clocks with other differences in dynamic and practical play, live and online must be approached individually. Saying that one did it so it must be done the same with the other does not make a lot of since. The ISF runs one side which should be thought through according to lives circumstances. Admins, Mods and influence by the community help run the online side of things and they need to consider online circumstances. Let's not confuse the vast differences both have. Not only that, but what if one side does it wrong, it would be a shame to blindly follow a lousy idea. Let's think about this for ourselves and not rely on others to think for us. You would be surprised what you might be missing.

#111 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

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

Posted 20 August 2018 - 05:24 AM

Gary mentioned you need consistency. Well that. makes sense in some contexts, but not in tbis one.
Playing a Pb'd player is not the same as playing someone who multiple chases. If I have three apples for lunch it doesn't mean I need to have three potatoes for dinner. Consistency is not necessary.
This is because playing against a Pb'd player is. It an automatic win, whereas getting multiple chased is. They are different.

.

TheO, I may not be understanding you correctly, but playing a PB'd player is NOT an automatic win. If you play on there, too, and lose, you will lose points. PB'd opponent or no. If you play past 5 moves, then you will win or lose on your own merit. So that's consistent with what I'm saying our policy on d/m Chasing is.

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


#112 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

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

Posted 20 August 2018 - 06:52 AM

Ok so then if a d/m chased player loses his right for automatic win after "x" moves or "y" minutes then this rule shall be applicable to all d/m chasing cases without exceptions,right? ... including gwynplaine case.
Conclusion: a draw is the right outcome for that particular game.

Edited by Napoleon 1er, 20 August 2018 - 06:53 AM.

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

#113 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

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

Posted 20 August 2018 - 08:17 AM

.

TheO, I may not be understanding you correctly, but playing a PB'd player is NOT an automatic win. If you play on there, too, and lose, you will lose points. PB'd opponent or no. If you play past 5 moves, then you will win or lose on your own merit. So that's consistent with what I'm saying our policy on d/m Chasing is.


Unfortunate typo. Playing a Pb'd player is not an automatic win - so the two are different (multiple chasing vs meeting a Pb'd player). As they are different, consistency is not necessary.

#114 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Captain

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

Posted 20 August 2018 - 01:16 PM

It has been mentioned numerous times by MT that the rulings on PB players and what TheO, The Prof, and Wogo have been proposing need to be consistent with each other regarding allotted time given to quit before you can no longer claim the win. At first, this appears as though it makes since but if you take a deeper look, you will see how consistency does not coincide here. 

 

The purpose of MT awarding a player points of a PB player is so that a potential victim does not have to become one and has a right to play all games in peace. It allows the abuse that is sure to come, be prevented with no harm done to your elo or mental state. If you endure the abuse and ask for your points back...you willingly endured something you did not have to, this would defeat the whole point of MT ruling and you are now on your own. Attempting to play through the abuse and still prevent a loss would be trying to find a loop whole in the system. (<=== Gary, this is what baking your cake and eating it too, actually is.) With a D/M chaser, this is not the case.

 

With d/m chasing, it was never expected, you already are more than likely miles deep into the game before the "abuse" came and by the time you get through the abuse and obtain evidence, you can easily break the abuse and continue on with your fun. You're not choosing to endure more abuse like playing a PB player is. It is over, the cheater ruined the match but you should still be able to have fun finishing it in peace knowing your safe. 

 

.
playing a PB'd player is NOT an automatic win. If you play on there, too, and lose, you will lose points. PB'd opponent or no. If you play past 5 moves, then you will win or lose on your own merit. So that's consistent with what I'm saying our policy on d/m Chasing is.

 

Gary, can you comment on if what I'm saying here makes since to you? If it does, can you please stop ignoring the fact that these differences are allowed to make a difference with rulings that would be more efficient in its purpose. TheO, The Prof and myself are not trying to ruin this empire. We see a foundation issue with your beautiful wall no one seems to allow themselves to see. It's a little dissapointing more people from the community can't see our side and support us. Were not fighting for this to waste our time, but as people that see something better for everyone regarding d/m chasing. 



#115 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

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

Posted 20 August 2018 - 07:32 PM

In my opinion the effect of the two infractions is the same.  You have a PB player you are paired with and you can either quit immediately and take the points award (before the 5th move) or accept the consequences of the game.  Likewise, with a d/m chaser you may quit the game and take the points award or play on and accept the consequences of the game.  Our enforcement position on these is the similar.  

 

If, however, you are really bothered by either one, the other should change to match it would be my notion.  Everyone's argument on this issue has been good, but I'm a bit surprised no one has caught onto this angle yet.  Consistency is what I'm after.  



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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users