Edited by KissMyCookie, 18 June 2019 - 09:55 AM.
Jump to content
Posted 05 May 2019 - 04:02 PM
As I said previously, KMC, the original penalty consensus was 25 points. And in this current initiative that now use we've jumped that to 50 points. However, I know from talking to various people that there is still a lot of resistance to this issue. Some do not any penalty at all ever! So my feeling is that for increasing the penalties in this matter that the option with the best chance of being accepted is the conservative one which says "Reset on the 5th", as opposed to "Reset on the 3rd", as josephwhite stands for. I would never, and neither would Joe, I believe, go for a Reset on the 1st offense. That's far too aggressive. My honest feeling is that I would go for either a Reset on the 4th or 5th. This would be either 3 or four relatively harmless (up them to 100 each!) penalties before the hammer falls.
Currently we have a 2-step penalty schedule for cheating, a 3-step penalty schedule for draw refusal, a 4-step one for abusive behavior, and a 6-step one for double chasing, all where the final step is a permanent ban. For disconnecting and ATW, however, we have an unlimited one. At least for the DC part I would like to make it either a 4-step or 5-step plan where the final step is a Reset and not a permanent ban, which only encourages the creation of a new account in my opinion. Hopefully, with a Reset we will merely see the same accounts restarted. Either way, 4-step or 5-step, the culprits will get sent to where they belong suddenly. And, this dramatic result would give one more chance to the perpetrators than they currently have for draw refusals.
It's all a matter of how much problem people sense with the offense. I think the 5-step plan is more appealing to those who find less wrong with disconnecters. For those who have paid the price like Joe of constant reporting, a 3-step plan may be desired, and I understand that, and could get behind it. I just don't believe the public is going to go for it. It's simply a vote issue now. What does the public in this discussion think?
Edited by GaryLShelton, 06 May 2019 - 03:13 AM.
Posted 07 May 2019 - 06:05 PM
Gary, I think 100 points might make it worthwhile to start reporting again, but I still don't think it is enough. I would rather opt for 200. If you don't want to keep track, then make it 200 points per disconnect. That would be like resetting anyway after 3-5 disconnects for most players who are being reported. Alternatively, do 100 (1st),200 (2nd),300 (3rd),400 (4th), etc., but then you would have to keep track.
My impression is that the people who don't feel that any penalty is necessary aren't defending the disconnectors, but they just see it as a waste of time for admins. I think they don't care much one way or the other. If admins are willing to take the time on behalf of those who do care, then this point is moot. I stand to be corrected though if there are people who are actually defending the behavior of disconnectors.
Lastly, I disagree with Tobermoryx that disconnectors don't care if they are reset. If this system works effectively, disconnectors would get to about 400 rating and then be reset all the time due to reporting. I don't think these guys are happy to almost always play their games with players below their level. The people who seem to care most are about 600+, so we would keep them from bothering us much at all. If we are pushing the problem down to players with lower ELO, hopefully they will be motivated to also report, thereby getting active on the forum and thus reducing the rating at which these perpetual disconnectors will get to. Instead of reaching 400, they might only reach 200 or 300 and keep getting pushed back. Many of the disconnectors that are being reported are at a level between 400-800 in skill, and I doubt that they will want to forever be stuck playing players far below them.
Hopefully, if this is successful, it will lead to less disconnections, less reporting and less time from all concerned. I think its worth a shot. If it fails, we can review.
Posted 07 May 2019 - 06:45 PM
Posted 07 May 2019 - 07:14 PM
Agreed, but accidental DC is v unlikely to get convicted. You’d have to be extremely unlikely to get dc’d Immediately after your marsh hits a bomb.
Yes, that would be unfortunate. But getting a DC in a game where you're up a capt but down a major and 4 LTs is less likely to be intentional. For something that is not always a deliberate choice, the penalty shouldn't be that severe.
Choosing to ATW or chat abuse is a deliberate choice. DC is not always.
Posted 08 May 2019 - 02:56 AM
The MT will always be judging on the basis of what Nortrom describes and what can be called the status of the game when a DC occurs. It is not automatic. If the game situation is NOT clearly one-sided in favor of the victim at the time of the DC, then it won't be punished. That is regardless of the penalties.
The view that we have a straight 100 point penalty is faulty because it never fully kills the perpetrator. He drops momentarily but then rises again to meet the same people. For the sake of the platinums and others of us like Joe who feel most victimized by this, knocking the repeat offender down with a reset is my preferred penalty. Keep in mind that a "reset" means not only an ELO to 100 penalty but also a complete zeroing out of the stats to 0/0/0. If a player is not affected by the ELO part, they may very well hate the stats penalty. If this is what is done for accounts on the fourth or fifth time, then that's sufficient in my book.
Why the rush to such a serious penalty of reset on the 3rd offense? It seems a bit imprudent to me. There are all sorts of reasons people will disconnect. I think our goal of improving the DC behavior of our community is better served by a steady series of either the same 50 point or even stronger 100 point penalties up to the fourth or fifth. Then a reset. Plus, do not forget, a DC by one alias, and a DC by another will always add up. Once reached the reset will be for all accounts that are known, and those we discover later, if they have not yet been reset one time. So if you want to get rid of these guys, this is pretty darned severe.
The players who DC once are always going to be there, and the 100 point penalty kind of ensures they will take notice of the offense a bit more and they won't repeat. For those who won't learn it will not take long to reach the fourth or fifth offense and a reset penalty. There's no sense to rush a reset on the 3rd offense. The fourth or fifth is more than sufficient. And this plan won't require much record-keeping. Once a player reaches reset, every time we see him again for the same offense it will be a reset unless he's good enough to sunset, which ends the problem as well. Once someone reaches sunset we'll place their name on a reset list and they will remain there.
Posted 18 May 2019 - 09:09 PM
KMC, there is no contradiction here. A single blunt hammer of a uniform 200 point penalty is what I'm against. That's because it kills all equally, and having, to explain this better here perhaps, a short series of three or four 50-100 point hits prior to a serious reset penalty serves the community far better by not smashing the one-time offenders--of which there are many--just so we can make sure the "bad guys" get a strong dose of medicine from the first time. The cost of smashing everyone equally with a 200 point uniform hit is simply not worth it. IT IS UNFAIR. The bad guys that deserve the strong medicine are the ones who should get it, not the ill-informed player who doesn't know any better. If we give honest people 4 strikes before they are pummeled on their 5th offense, that's plenty of time (Joe would argue too much time) and only the bad guys will be around to see the severe reset penalty.
Another reason I do not like the single 200 point penalty is that it is less effective at deterrence than a reset penalty. If today a repeat offender can quickly make up a 50 point penalty for no real deterrent effect, then the same will be the case for a 200 point one as well. Sure, he will be playing more to get back to where he was, but it's not enough. If your goal is deterrence, why stop at 200 points? If a platinum player is behaving badly continually, he might get a string of penalties that amount to a reset, I suppose, but in the meantime we've punished the not-so bad guys with the same uniform penalty.
My preferred plan is to continue with the same 50 point penalty level that we currently enforce but merely add a reset level into the plan after 3-4 allowed offenses, so that we the MT can move from simply hand-slapping the bad guys who deserve the starkest penalty to punishing them severely, and suddenly, and simultaneously leaving the not-so-bad guys to suffer the mere 50 point hits. There are far more who will learn from the 50 point hit than ones who won't. A 200 point uniform hit is too broad a brush.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users