11 replies to this topic

[TheOptician]

astros has proposed that players who withdraw from the Pyramid without completing their games should be permanently banned if promotion and relegation are significantly affected.

You can see his original post here:

http://forum.strateg...osal-log/page-2

Some contributions by forum members have been made in response to this post, those comments are below:

 

Pretty harsh punishment.

 
 

People should not ruin the tournaments for others.
 
I am in a position where I could withdraw and automatically hand Leppie second place over panther65, giving leppie a chance at promotion. What kind of punishment do I deserve if I do that?

 
 

You'll certainly lose popularity, and people won't trust you anymore I think.
 
TC will look into this proposal.

 
 

I don't think too many on here care for me to begin with, but I was not threatening to do this. My point is that the punishment for being that sort of dickhead should be harsh.
 
Please note, I would like this proposal to apply to this iteration of the PL.

 
 

Permanent ban may be a bit harsh, but I definitely agree this ruins the experience for others and is serious. I would vote for a many-month or even an one-year ban.

 
 

It should be treated as if the withdrawing player is trying to help another competitor win, which should carry a permanent ban. The missed games do not have to be played right away, but if they never get played, then the punishment needs to be severe.

 
 

It is against site rules to use another person's account.  (T&C 4.2.)  If such is ascertained, someone should be PB'd from the site, not just tournaments.

 
 

I do agree that, in general, withdrawals are treated too leniently. Permanent ban is pretty harsh though, I'm sure there are some rare circumstances where something really has suddenly come up and someone needs to withdraw respectfully. Maybe like a 6 month ban?

 
 

I think just 1 tournament ban for the first time if they do it again a 6 month ban if happens again 1 year and eventually to a life long.  Going straight to a 6 month or 1 year ban is pushing it.

 
 

Can we also apply Texaspete example of the rare occasion for a legitimate reason. Even mt gives disconnectors a benefit of the doubt if there is no clear reason that they disconnected for poor sported reasons.

If a regular tournamnet participant withdraws where they had not just lost or a bad dispute did not take place, chances are the withdrawal was not in bad motive and should be recognized as no punishment needed. If the player either has a reputation for withdraws, no shows, withdrawing after a loss, crys about a dispute...yes the punishment should take place. I'm sure some of the long time tournament players can name a few players that fall under the latter of my examples.

 

[TheOptician]

Further comments (moved from original thread):
 

This topic is getting a bit off topic from what Astros brought up. He basically said that helping a player in a corrupt way by altering the results by either withdrawing or giving away a game should be treated harshly. With this being said, intentional corruption should be frowned apon, if the player withdraws, the reasoning of the withdraw should be considered before an act of punishment. There should be a very good reason to withdraw especially if it alters the results negatively of another player in any way.

 
 

I think people here are thinking of pretty severe punishments. I have never quit a tournament but I can imagine to do it when certain things happen in my private life, when Im ill or when other more important things get in the way. If this happen, do you want to force me to tell what happened in my private life and are you gonna do a moral judge if it is legitime to leave the tournament for it?
 
I do not support this. What I could support is a minor punishment for players that leave tournaments multiple times regardless of their latest results.

 
 

I second what DH wrote.

 
 

There is a difference between withdrawing and playing the relevant games at a later date because something came up and never making an effort to replay said games.
 
Extraordinary events are one thing, but being too busy is not an excuse. One should not sign up for a tournament if they do not have sufficient time to play.

[TheOptician]

 

I have a few questions to ask on this topic.

 

Your proposal suggests that permanent ban should only apply whereby there is a significant impact on promotion and relegation.

 

How would you define significance?

 

Should a player who withdraws (due to lack of time) having managed to play 5 games be treated differently to a player who is removed by TC because they only managed to play 1 game?

 

Would you agree that the player who managed to play 5 games had shown better commitment than the player who only managed to play one game? If so, then isn't it unfair to punish a player more harshly when they had played more games than another player (whose results did not end up significantly impacting final standings)?

 

Is it really TCs place to ascertain whether a withdrawal is 'valid' (ie an acceptable reason for withdrawal)?

 

Is the issue of players withdrawing from a league format going to be more effectively countered by installing longer bans? Doesn't the problem still remain regardless of whether the player gets a punishment or not?

 

Is there a better way (from a results perspective) to diminish the impact that withdrawals have on results?

[astros]

Significance is difficult to define, I'll do my best to come up with a relatively simple definition. However, we can both agree that Loco Luc's withdrawal from the PL was significant.

Yes, players who have played half their games before withdrawing should be treated differently than participants who withdraw early. All withdrawals are unfortunate, however, late withdrawals in the PL are much more serious because they affect the final standings.

Early withdrawals are not impactful. While a player who withdraws later may be showing better commitment, they are actually have a significantly more adverse affect on the tournament by withdrawing in the latter stages. Therefore they are being inherently more selfish by withdrawing because they are busy.

The TC's job is not to determine whether withdrawals are acceptable. Your job is to ensure fair and enjoyable tournaments, thus it is your prerogative to prevent players who withdraw late from entering future tournaments.

The motivation behind a permanent ban is to remove bad apples from ruining future tournaments and not to serve as a deterrent.

When I suggested a contingency due to Luc's withdrawal you did not want to change the PL rules this late. Ultimately, I agree with that decision but it still sucks for me.

There are valid reasons to withdraw late and I admittedly do not know why Loco Luc withdrew. However, PL 2019 does not start for 9 months, so even if he had a better reason for withdrawing than simply being busy, he has more than enough time to get those games played. If he, or players like him in the future, cannot find the time to honor their commitments, then they do not need to play in future tournaments.

[TheOptician]

I dislike the idea of allowing someone to complete their games many months after the tournament ends. A tournament tests the ability of players within a given timeframe (eg July-Nov). If one player is allowed to play their games 6 months later, then this is changing the parameters somewhat.

However I do agree with most of what you say.

There should be a stronger deterrent to withdrawal - and one way that can be imposed is to have consequences in the form of a tournament ban.

It is worth noting that it isn't the case that there is no current deterrent - a player not completing their games in Apex or Core for example automatically loses their place (ie relegation), so while we can't judge how good a players reasoning is for withdrawing - they are electing to be relegated rather than finish their games.

I don't think that a player who plays 6 games and withdraws should be punished more harshly than a player who plays 3 games and withdraws (regardless of how significant their withdrawal turned out to be), so for this reason I would prefer a uniform approach to any withdrawals.That is to say that all withdrawals should be treated the same.

My suggestion would be that any player who did not complete all their games and withdrew (or was removed) from the Pyramid may not enter the Pyramid again until certain criteria are met.

That criteria should demonstrate that the player can stick to commitments. Possibly require them to conclude a non-Round Robin tournament (where the impact of withdrawal is very low - eg Single/Double Elimination format) in which they receive no warnings/yellow cards.

[Nortrom]

If someone wants to withdraw one game before the end, they may as well simply not show up to avoid further consequences.

 

In general, I do feel sympathetic towards adding deterrent towards withdrawing from a tournament but I feel there are too many practical issues with such thing.

 

Ultimately, I'd rather see people withdraw rather than go inactive and ruin the experience of other players.

[TheOptician]

If someone wants to withdraw one game before the end, they may as well simply not show up to avoid further consequences.

.

This is not the case with the Pyramid, as no victories are adjudicated. You cannot avoid consequences by not turning up.

[Nortrom]

If the consequence for withdrawing from a tournament would be X, one could simply not show up to avoid that consequence. 

[Wogomite]

The question is TheO, if a player chose to not show up for their last match, would you treat it as a withdawal?

[Nortrom]

Or last two..... three... four.. etc

 

A player taking responsibility for their lack of time due to whatever reason should never, I feel, be treated more harshly than someone who simply disappears. If you want to treat those two equally - ok - I don't think I would necessarily agree with that, but it would be an reasonable position and it is ok to agree to disagree, as long as the baseline is fair - which would not be the case, I feel, if "drop outs" are treated more softly.

 

Of course, the topic at hand is players withdrawing, I just like to point out that there would be ways around withdrawing that are even less desirable, which, probably, should be taken into consideration.

[Nortrom]

Liefdemeisje deeply apologizes for the unconvenience for all of the organizers and players.
​I did not play Stratego in the last months due to private reasons and did not think about telling anyone here that I have to forfeit.
​I respect the removal and will also probably not be able to play Stratego anymore, but I do feel sorry that I didn't say anything.
​Good luck for all the competitors and shall fairness and friendship in the Stratego community remain being valued high in the future,

http://forum.strateg...hread/?p=439898

 

For example, I found this specific case very respectful towards the participants and organising party. 

 

Things happen, unfortunately. When removing someone from WCO, during the manual task of removing them from Swiss Perfect, I always feel a little "♥♥♥♥ you" towards those who never made any effort, opposed to those who have the dignity to choose the respectful way.

 

Bottomline is, you were to fine a "drop out"  a hypothetical100$, the maximum fine for someone that withdraws should be 99$

[TheOptician]

Apologies for the delay on this decision - it was made a while ago but we forgot to publish.

 

Result:

 

Against (4-0)

 

Some extracts:

 

'I'd prefer a case by case ruling'

 

'Ideally we would seriously punish people who withdraw either to help someone else, or just because they're out of it and don't care that their absence will effect the overall tournament.  But we don't want severe punishment for someone that has to withdraw for legitimate reasons... to determine the legitimacy of a withdrawal...would be very subjective at best'

 

'There will always be a number of players who withdraw from tournaments - we can't realistically make a judgement on personal circumstances and nor should we. If withdrawals become numerous from a certain player, then this should be a factor that is considered on entry, and this lends itself to a case-by-case approach'

 

----------

 

Whilst TC have rejected the proposal, they did agree to the following entry conditions for next year:

 

1. Players may not join the Pyramid League if it is their first tournament. (The vast majority of withdrawals were new players who would have been better suited to joining a different tournament that requires a lower level of commitment and where that players withdrawal has much less impact on the other players).

 

2. Players who competed in the Pyramid League 2018 but did not complete all their games will be admitted to Pyramid League 2019 on a case by case basis. TC will decide whether to allow that player to compete based on their historical reliability.