Jump to content


Photo

Is the Notion of a Clear Draw a Bogus Concept?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 28 February 2019 - 02:56 AM

Ray, do you have a screen where you can show the clear draw?  Your side of the board is blocked out and so it's not possible to see your bomb layout.  Although a clear draw might be deduced, with the masked side of the board, it's merely a guess.  Without proof of a clear draw the no-progress rules will apply and we will be looking for 10 minutes of evidence at that point.  Also, if you have a timestamp on the one critical screen that doesn't have one, that would be helpful here as well.   

 

'Clear Draw' is really a bogus concept. It may not be clear to the guy who is refusing the draw. I always say 'lotto or draw' is the correct way to look at it. A player may figure the flag is not bombed in no matter what the board looks like. So the player may lotto. In this case the player shows they will not lotto as they have a Colonel which is highest piece on board and indeed the guy's only piece, and it is moving back into his own zone.

 

We don't know where Rgillis flag is, but it certainly is not in his opponent's half of the board. 


  • rgillis783 likes this

#2 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,202 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 28 February 2019 - 09:37 AM

I think that might be a bit harsh on our old friend the clear draw. 🤔 But I do think it's a fair exercise to seek the best definition for this event. Currently, the rules define it as:

The first is a clear draw and occurs when neither player can win the game. One example of this is a miner-less game with protected flags for both players where, in the absence of a gross mistake, neither player can capture his opponent's highest piece.

.

Whether this is the best definition possible, eliminating the clear draw as a concept would also eliminate any enforcement of it that is currently based upon the definition above. In other words, we'd be back to all draws requiring 10 minutes of evidence time.

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


#3 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

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

Posted 28 February 2019 - 12:51 PM

Tober is right. A clear draw is (often) subjective and dependent of a players willingness to lotto.


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#4 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 28 February 2019 - 01:17 PM

As Stratego players we all assume that a match can run from 10 seconds to over an hour. The ten second match --front row flag. The hour plus match a lot of bluffs-- reorganizing of ya base and a bit of a dance. We all should know this. Once a match comes down to each player having one movable piece each and a draw is requested it is common sense to take it and move on to another match. If a player declines this offer it means they have no common sense or they will take a shot at flag or their plan is to waste opponents time and hope they quit . In the match that Tober refereed to my opponent chose the last option. He stated in chat that he had better piece on the board and that means he won-- which is wrong of course. I truly don't think he knew the rules. His declining draw for a second time in this match and doing nothing other then run the lakes for ten min. Defeat screen showing the ten min. elapsed time is evident. While the third request  was not offered per rules--- maybe a full video would have helped the case ?



#5 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 28 February 2019 - 09:00 PM

a clear draw is not subjective. I t is clear draw when the party refusing the draw cannot win whatever he will be doing , including a lotto, assuming the party requesting the draw will not make a mistake. So examples of clear draws are:

- sealed flag of the party requesting the draw, no miner of the opposite party (or last miner of opposite party is cornered with the highest ranked  piece on the board) and minimum 1 non capturable piece for the party requesting the draw

- Open flag of the party requiring the draw but opposite party cannot pass any piece in its field because all 3 paths are blocked by 3 major pieces of the party requesting the draw

- open flag of the party requesting the draw but protected by major pieces that can neither be captured not be trapped by 2 square or more square rules or double chasing.


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

#6 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 28 February 2019 - 10:21 PM

I think the point is being missed here.

 

Rgillis was possibly going to lose his case because he covered up his set up in his screenshots. He was being asked to prove it was a 'clear draw' by showing that he had a flag bombed in. He had to prove that his opponent, Brainwatch, who had a Colonel as his only piece, could not possibly win the game.

 

My point is that the Brainwatch does not have to be able to win the game in order to fairly refuse the draw, and Rgillis does not have to prove that Brainwatch could not have won the game.

 

What is required of Brainwatch is that he attempt to win the game. He can only win by lottoing an open flag. He does not have to accept 'it is a clear draw' as he cannot see where the flag is. So it is fine for him to refuse the draw and then lotto an unmoved piece.

 

Rgillis does not have to prove that Brainwatch could not have won. Only to prove that Brainwatch was not attempting to win. 

 

Rgillis provides a screenshot showing the Colonel going backwards into his own zone (running around the lake) so he has proved Brainwatch was not attempting to win, as there is no reasonable scenario for Brainwatch to make that move. 

 

So 'clear draw' is irrelevant. The scenario we see is 'lotto or draw' and Brainwatch was moving away from the pieces he needed to lotto.


  • rgillis783, TemplateRex and UnladenSwallow like this

#7 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 28 February 2019 - 10:24 PM

 eliminating the clear draw as a concept would also eliminate any enforcement of it that is currently based upon the definition above. In other words, we'd be back to all draws requiring 10 minutes of evidence time.

 

So I am not saying 'eliminate the clear draw', simply define it as 'lotto or draw' , so that the refuser is obliged to lotto immediately, no 10 minutes, not any delay at all. Any proof that they made a backwards move means guilty.



#8 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,786 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 28 February 2019 - 11:17 PM

As we don't see the setup of rgillis we don't know if the case is a clear draw case or not. If flag is bombed in then it is clear draw, if not it is not. So in the absence of setup evidence MT has to assume the case is not a clear draw and apply the rules for a "non" clear draw.

Nevertheless this cases where the draw refuser is left with 1 single piece on the board that is the highest ranked piece and does not accept a draw request shall effectively not require the 10 minutes evidence. This could be a particular case of the non clear draw called "lotto or draw"  where the 10 minutes evidence is not required and a possibility for rules improvement. 


Edited by Napoleon 1er, 28 February 2019 - 11:18 PM.

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

#9 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,202 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 01 March 2019 - 12:35 AM

So I am not saying 'eliminate the clear draw', simply define it as 'lotto or draw' , so that the refuser is obliged to lotto immediately, no 10 minutes, not any delay at all. Any proof that they made a backwards move means guilty.

 

The draw refusal is presently established in the rules by a time delay of the game, whether that delay is 5 minutes for a clear draw or 10 minutes for a non-clear one.  It is not as you desire a simple illustration that an immediate failure to suicide or lotto one's last piece has occurred, as in this case.  I would agree that there are different scenarios, as Napoleon was getting at, and maybe he is correct that we should include the single piece situation featured in that game represented a clear draw.  The more I think about it, that I would support.

 

Whether we have a clear draw or a no-progress draw, though, I would always argue that the purpose of the rules is punish the wasting of time aspect of a draw refusal, which is extremely objective.  Did X amount of time pass?  Yes?  Then it's a refusal and a fact that is eminently provable.  But requiring someone to lotto their pieces is a bit more nebulous.  Does the fact a guy slips up and pursues the plaintiff one square, and then getting caught in a screenshot showing he didn't immediately head to lotto prove he was not going to lotto on the very next move?  And then what if our friendly draw refuser with only one remaining piece to move does turn to lotto but  there are two to three reasonable choices for the guy, and we see him hesitate.  He first approaches one, then moves away toward another, but then back again to the first target in a couple of screenshots that are separated by only one minute of time.  Does this prove the guy was not going to go for the first one?  Does it prove he was wasting time?  Maybe he rethought things and was going to hit the first target piece, but in two static screenshots only one minute apart he appears to merely be going back and forth.  Should this player get slammed for draw refusal if only one or two minutes has passed between such screens?  In my mind they do not prove he was a bad sport to refuse the draw.

 

The only thing, for me, that establishes bad sportsmanship in an objective way is a time delay.  We moved last year from only recognizing no-progress draws to recognizing clear draws and the special situation with them warrants a shorter evidence period of 5 minutes.  Although I will acknowledge that the single piece scenario should, and likely would in an MT vote on the matter anyway, be viewed as a clear draw, as Napoleon has suggested, I submit that the current requirement of 5 minutes for that situation is still the best rule to have.  It's objective in ways no other test can be. 

 

Sure we could go on number of moves.  You've always wanted that one, tobermoryx.  But I would not want to open the can of peas up on how many useless and wasted moves should be viewed as punishable. As additional evidence the number of moves is beneficial, I concur, but not as the main criteria. 

 

That's my four cents on the deal.  



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


#10 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,393 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 March 2019 - 12:43 AM

This conversation is a little pointless. The offence is draw refusal when a player refuses a draw without attempting otherwise. Whether it is a clear draw, or a likely draw, or no chance of a draw, or whatever - doesn't matter. The state of the game is irrelevant when a player refuses a draw and has no intention of trying for anything better. The player could be up a marshal, a general, 3 colonels and 9 majors - but if that player refuses a draw and refuses to progress the game then this is a draw refusal offence. MT's role is to judge whether a player has unreasonably refused a draw, not how draw-like the situation is.


  • tobermoryx and UnladenSwallow like this

#11 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 March 2019 - 12:57 AM

One more thought from the match was the amount of buffer my opponent used during this refusal time. I know I needed to take screenshots not sure what they were doing--most definitely not taking a shot at a unmoved piece of mine.  <_<   



#12 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 01 March 2019 - 03:57 AM

 MT's role is to judge whether a player has unreasonably refused a draw, not how draw-like the situation is.

 

Indeed. So while we could debate about 1 minute or 5 minutes of stalling being necessary for a conviction, the position of the complainants flag should not be a factor at all.

 

So Rgillis should not lose his case because he did not reveal his set up. Because his set up is not relevant to the scenario he has shown us.


  • Nortrom and UnladenSwallow like this

#13 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 06 March 2019 - 09:05 PM

Latest version of MT made the call !  :)  ;)  :D  :) Thank you Tober for starting thread ! 

 

Posted Today, 11:22 AM

rgillis783, on 18 Feb 2019 - 6:41 PM, said:snapback.png

BRAINWATCHER draw refusal. I got this player twice today. They do not know rules. I pointed them here. Naturally I would like pts back but am more concerned that they know this is not Okay !   :angry: Sorry for the order of picts.

 

https://imgur.com/a/XuZR6pq

 

Pending admin action, player BRAINWATCHER will have 113 points deducted from his rating and he will receive a warning letter. Player celtic rule will receive 13 points for the draw.

 

Edited by rgillis783, 06 March 2019 - 10:18 PM.

  • tobermoryx and Yellowhat like this

#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,202 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 15 March 2019 - 02:27 PM

This conversation is a little pointless. The offence is draw refusal when a player refuses a draw without attempting otherwise. Whether it is a clear draw, or a likely draw, or no chance of a draw, or whatever - doesn't matter. The state of the game is irrelevant when a player refuses a draw and has no intention of trying for anything better. The player could be up a marshal, a general, 3 colonels and 9 majors - but if that player refuses a draw and refuses to progress the game then this is a draw refusal offence. MT's role is to judge whether a player has unreasonably refused a draw, not how draw-like the situation is.

.
We punish draw refusal based upon time that has passed. Without designating a draw "clear" or "no-progress" we have to assume a draw is one way or the other in order to apply the correct rules. In this case the MT viewed it as a clear draw. Though there was an element of uncertainty about that assumption, due to the blocked-out information, it seemed fair to the MT this time, based upon the pieces left for both players and their movement in the evidence presented, that it be ruled with a clear draw view, for which time shown as passed was a sufficient chunk of the 5 minutes requirement.

But to say that it is not important to determine whether a draw is clear or not first makes no sense to me. Each type of draw has its own rules. It may not require knowing the flag location or the bombs, but these things plainly help make the "clear draw" determination. That is why we asked for the information.

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


#15 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 15 March 2019 - 09:30 PM

Well the whole point of the thread really is that 'lotto or draw' is a better way of categorizing it.

The player can win or lose by lottoing. If he refuses to do so then they must accept draw.

The MT does not need to determine how likely the player was to win or lose by lotto, only whether they were given an opportunity to lotto.

#16 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,202 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:09 PM

Well the whole point of the thread really is that 'lotto or draw' is a better way of categorizing it.
The player can win or lose by lottoing. If he refuses to do so then they must accept draw.
The MT does not need to determine how likely the player was to win or lose by lotto, only whether they were given an opportunity to lotto.

.
The amount of time is still the key question. Whether you call a rose by any other name, there is still a certain amount of time that a draw refuser must be allowed before he is charged with the bad sportsmanship of a draw refusal. If you say zero time, then that's just not fair. We can't hold everyone accountable to robotic concepts where they are required to immediately attack and given no room for leniency. Many games I've won because of a mistake my opponent has made in a critical moment, and many I've lost in the same way. A time seeking out a mistake does not mean a guy is a bad sport. I don't see 5 minutes for a clear draw or 10 for a no-progress one as horrible requirements. The original thrust of draw refusal rules was to prevent players from making games go on all night because that's how long the draw refuser works on that shift or something. Without the current ruleset that's exactly what we would have.

So if a victim wants his wait time shortened as much as possible, he needs to establish his game is a clear draw to get the shorter rules applied. Otherwise, he will fall into the no-progress ones. But both situations are far improved over the wild West days that used to exist here.

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


#17 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 19 March 2019 - 06:33 PM

.
The amount of time is still the key question. Whether you call a rose by any other name, there is still a certain amount of time that a draw refuser must be allowed before he is charged with the bad sportsmanship of a draw refusal. If you say zero time, then that's just not fair. We can't hold everyone accountable to robotic concepts where they are required to immediately attack and given no room for leniency. Many games I've won because of a mistake my opponent has made in a critical moment, and many I've lost in the same way. A time seeking out a mistake does not mean a guy is a bad sport. I don't see 5 minutes for a clear draw or 10 for a no-progress one as horrible requirements. The original thrust of draw refusal rules was to prevent players from making games go on all night because that's how long the draw refuser works on that shift or something. Without the current ruleset that's exactly what we would have.

So if a victim wants his wait time shortened as much as possible, he needs to establish his game is a clear draw to get the shorter rules applied. Otherwise, he will fall into the no-progress ones. But both situations are far improved over the wild West days that used to exist here.

Another option is to re-look at draw policy ! I see many MT members making excuses for the draw refuser-- maybe let the accused chirp up ! 



#18 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,202 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 19 March 2019 - 08:15 PM

Generally, the MT makes consistent decisions. If you provide us two refusal screens showing no progress ten minutes apart (5 for clear draws), then we'll uphold your draw refusal claim every time. If you ever feel you're not getting solid and consistent decisions, then check and see whether you've given the basics outlined above. Chances are you have not or you would have had your decision.

We do have flexibility as judges and sometimes you will see decisions that stray off the path of following the rules strictly. Those times are best limited but they do exist. Adherence to the rules as often as possible benefits everyone because everyone then knows where they stand.

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users