Jump to content


Photo

My win became a defeat !


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 soldersnake1

soldersnake1

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:16 PM

many times when I play a camp, and today today on 13/5 19 while I defeated the opponent and I ate the flag Nike was not charged to me but to my opponent and I lost a rank and a general to become a major I think is very unfair I have also written in the game's e-mail to fix the bug but I have not got an answer

 



#2 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,141 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 14 May 2019 - 02:01 AM

Hello SolderSnake1,

 

This is not a game bug, but rather because you have been found guilty of double chasing in a recent game, which is an offense punishable by a -25 point deduction on the first violation.

 

See the post about it here: http://forum.strateg...-here/?p=476358

 

You didn't lose points because you won the game, you lost the points because of this penalty. The game only accounts for admin-run adjustments in ELO after a game has been played, so this is why you didn't notice the -25 point penalty when you first logged into the game today.


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#3 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 16 May 2019 - 05:34 PM

many times when I play a camp, and today today on 13/5 19 while I defeated the opponent and I ate the flag Nike was not charged to me but to my opponent and I lost a rank and a general to become a major I think is very unfair I have also written in the game's e-mail to fix the bug but I have not got an answer


This time you got lucky because only 25 points were deducted from your rating. Had I taken the screenshot where you refused to accept my second draw offer, your rating whould have been reduced by 113 points.

#4 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 18 May 2019 - 05:33 AM

This time you got lucky because only 25 points were deducted from your rating. Had I taken the screenshot where you refused to accept my second draw offer, your rating whould have been reduced by 113 points.

 

This brings up an interesting question.  Can a double chaser be simultaneously hit with a draw refusal case? 

 

My personal view, in an initial contemplation, is that this should not happen.  For me that's because the I feel double chasing is less intuitive than draw refusal.  And d/m chasing already has its own penalty schedule where, although there's a loss of the game penalty from the very first offense, there's one out and out freebie in terms of any further punitive penalties given.  If a victim of a double chase is able to simultaneously press for a draw refusal from his double chasing opponent, then now the double chaser gets penalized stiffly on his first offense, instead of having the one break built into the d/m chasing penalty schedule.  

 

Plus, on the second offense for draw refusal a player gets his ELO dropped to 100.  If we combine the d/m chasing penalty with that, we're punishing the d/m chaser far harder than the current -100 points penalty.  It just gets too gnarly to try and mix these two different offenses and their penalty schedules in my opinion.



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


#5 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,141 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 18 May 2019 - 01:33 PM

Technically, if one is double chasing in the endgame in order to save their flag, as Soldersnake1 was doing, then SQA deserves to win the game, and it's not actually a draw. So I don't know why SQA offered the draw in the first place as according to the rules, he wins the game. Why soldersnake1 would not accept such a benevolent draw offer from SQA is absolutely beyond me.


  • GaryLShelton likes this
WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#6 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 18 May 2019 - 06:25 PM

If a guy was forced to double chase and he was offered a draw opportunity simultaneously with the double chasing he was doing, he should certainly thank his lucky stars and accept it, though it doesn't make sense for the d/m chasing victim to offer that, you're right.  And most cases would fall like that, I'm sure.  But in this case the d/m chaser actually refused the draw offered to him so it presents this question.  Should there be any further punishment for a d/m chaser who also draw refuses?  Can a drowning man get any wetter?  

 

As the d/m chasing penalty awards the victim the game in every case my general feeling would be to favor that penalty over draw refusal and say no to the above.  The only exception would be for a double chase situation where the victim of the d/m chase did not lose a piece or give up a position and continued playing instead of quitting the game and claiming the win from the MT immediately.  In that case we let the game be decided on the field and so the draw refusal could stand alone as well, I think.  
 

Hopefully, it never comes up.



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


#7 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 4 weeks ago

This brings up an interesting question.  Can a double chaser be simultaneously hit with a draw refusal case? 

 

My personal view, in an initial contemplation, is that this should not happen.  For me that's because the I feel double chasing is less intuitive than draw refusal.  And d/m chasing already has its own penalty schedule where, although there's a loss of the game penalty from the very first offense, there's one out and out freebie in terms of any further punitive penalties given.  If a victim of a double chase is able to simultaneously press for a draw refusal from his double chasing opponent, then now the double chaser gets penalized stiffly on his first offense, instead of having the one break built into the d/m chasing penalty schedule.  

 

Plus, on the second offense for draw refusal a player gets his ELO dropped to 100.  If we combine the d/m chasing penalty with that, we're punishing the d/m chaser far harder than the current -100 points penalty.  It just gets too gnarly to try and mix these two different offenses and their penalty schedules in my opinion.

 

A player can always commit several violations simultaneously. For example, he can engage in double chasing, use abusive language, and reject draw offers without making any progress.  In such a case the penalty should be cumulative. I propose that for each type of offense the penalty is to be determined as if no other offense has been committed, and then all penalties are to be added up. In my case, assuming that took the screenshots of the draw rejections, and assuming soldersnake1 has no priors, the cumulative penalty is a deduction of 138 points: 25 points for the double chasing, and 113 points for the draw rejections. 



#8 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 4 weeks ago

A player can always commit several violations simultaneously. For example, he can engage in double chasing, use abusive language, and reject draw offers without making any progress.  In such a case the penalty should be cumulative. I propose that for each type of offense the penalty is to be determined as if no other offense has been committed, and then all penalties are to be added up. In my case, assuming that took the screenshots of the draw rejections, and assuming soldersnake1 has no priors, the cumulative penalty is a deduction of 138 points: 25 points for the double chasing, and 113 points for the draw rejections. 

 

It's a nice sentiment, and on the first offense it doesn't seem too radical.  But on the second offense it runs into problems.  The draw refusal penalty is ELO to 100 where the d/m chasing penalty is only loss of game (25 points) + a punitive penalty of -100.  The two penalty schedules would run into each other badly.  

 

Besides, it's a very serious question as to why a player who's been double chased and lost a piece or position to the offense would ever request a draw anyway?  If he has been double chased and given up a piece or position to the offender, then the victim need only claim the d/m chase and get the victory.  We shouldn't award both a draw (13 points) and a victory (25 points) to a victim for this situation.  A victim claiming both offenses would be what they call where I'm from "milking" the thing.  The victory should be sufficient.  



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


#9 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 4 weeks ago

There are two different things here: (1) the penalty that punishes the violator, and (2) the award that compensates the injury to the victim.

The penalty should be cumulative when possible. In cases where cumulative penalty is not possible, the penalty should be the harshest among penalties prescribed for the offenses committed. For example, if it is already the second draw rejection but the first double chasing, the penalty is to set the rating to 100 ELO, not deducting 25. But the record should reflect that it is the second draw rejection offense and the first double chasing offense.

As to the award, it should not be cumulative. It should be only for one offense. So it should be either at the election of the victim, or one which is the most favorable to the victim.

#10 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 4 weeks ago

Besides, it's a very serious question as to why a player who's been double chased and lost a piece or position to the offense would ever request a draw anyway?


Because d/m chasing is hard to prove. Ordinary you need video recording to show the chasing was continuous. This requires not only video recording, but also some kind of video editing. Draw refusal is very easy to prove with just screenshots, which are much easier to crop.

Edited by SQA, 4 weeks ago.


#11 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 4 weeks ago

D/M Chasing to the standard of 25 moves requires video. D/M Chasing to the standard of 5 minutes requires only screenshots.

Because the latter only requires 2-3 screenshots and 5 minutes of time, it can be established very easily and in half the time of a normal no-progress draw.

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


#12 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,141 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 4 weeks ago

The point is that a person who is being double chased in a situation like yours deserves and according to ISF rules wins the game as the opponent can do nothing but double chase or else will lose. It doesn't really make sense to offer a  draw because you are hurting yourself by doing that- you are giving him the opportunity to get what he wants (draw) before you can make a DM case against him. Thankfully for you your opponent was ignorant in the rules enough to reject the draw (!!!!)


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#13 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 4 weeks ago

Double chasing requires a showing of continuous chasing, i.e. I must show that each move that my opponent made was such that it created imminent threat my piece so that I had no other choice but to move that piece. If you look closely at the screenshots, you'll see that my opponent did not have to create an imminent threat to my pieces continuously because there was a bomb at A9. So instead of constantly moving his piece between A7 and B7, sometimes he moved his piece from B7 to C7 and then back to B7. This allowed me to move the miner from J1. So without video I could not prove that the chasing was continuous for 5 minutes because he could have made the moves from B7 to C7 and back to B7 several times, but each time just before the 5-minute period expires.

#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 4 weeks ago

Double chasing requires a showing of continuous chasing, i.e. I must show that each move that my opponent made was such that it created imminent threat my piece so that I had no other choice but to move that piece. If you look closely at the screenshots, you'll see that my opponent did not have to create an imminent threat to my pieces continuously because there was a bomb at A9. So instead of constantly moving his piece between A7 and B7, sometimes he moved his piece from B7 to C7 and then back to B7. This allowed me to move the miner from J1. So without video I could not prove that the chasing was continuous for 5 minutes because he could have made the moves from B7 to C7 and back to B7 several times, but each time just before the 5-minute period expires.

 

In ruling on double chasing there is going to be a general lock of a view that if your opponent has two pieces against two of your miners, he is going to be double chasing you.  Most of the time that will be more than evident with a few screenshots.  In this game, however, you should have won the game on bluffng alone.  You had all those extra pieces that could run the three lanes and he could only guard two of the lanes...and he didn't know where your miners were apparently, at least not both of them.  Instead of asking for a draw, you should have been going for the win in my humble opinion.



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 SQA

SQA

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 4 weeks ago

In ruling on double chasing there is going to be a general lock of a view that if your opponent has two pieces against two of your miners, he is going to be double chasing you. Most of the time that will be more than evident with a few screenshots. In this game, however, you should have won the game on bluffng alone. You had all those extra pieces that could run the three lanes and he could only guard two of the lanes...and he didn't know where your miners were apparently, at least not both of them. Instead of asking for a draw, you should have been going for the win in my humble opinion.


I'm not sure what the expression "general lock of a view" mean. Does it mean that there is a presumption of double chasing from two screenshot taken 5 minutes from each other showing two high pieces against, say, two miners? I didn't know anything about such a presumption. I find it surprising because it is well possible that during those five minutes one miner could make an attempt to run around the lake. Only video can prove this never happened and the chasing was continuous. But if indeed there is a presumption, next time when this happens I will not offer a tie.

#16 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 4 weeks ago

I'm not sure what the expression "general lock of a view" mean. Does it mean that there is a presumption of double chasing from two screenshot taken 5 minutes from each other showing two high pieces against, say, two miners? I didn't know anything about such a presumption. I find it surprising because it is well possible that during those five minutes one miner could make an attempt to run around the lake. Only video can prove this never happened and the chasing was continuous. But if indeed there is a presumption, next time when this happens I will not offer a tie.

 

As the chasee in the situation of your game you had more control than the chaser.  Normally you can direct the chase so that it is perfectly two pieces on two pieces with adjacency on both situations. If the chase goes around the lake, it's because you the chasee led it there.  So don't lead it there.  If your opponent does not know your miners, he's at a fatal disadvantage.  If you bring your attacks up three lanes and he can only defend two, you should win that game with two unknown miners.  The best he can hope to do--even if he knows your miners--is double chase you.  If you run away from him around the lake, then technically there will be a break in the continuous chasing, yes, and he will not be guilty in that moment of double chasing you.  So don't allow that to happen.  If he pulls back from the chase on either leg, advance to him on that leg. Ratchet down on him.  And bring more pieces to the party.  You had plenty of decoys to toss out in this game.  He's got to chase you somewhere.  It was an interesting game.  Good luck if it happens to you in the future.



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