Jump to content


Photo

Proposed penalty changes


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 josephwhite

josephwhite

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 June 2020 - 03:22 PM

I propose a completely new approach for ALL offenses.

 

It is clear that there are many players who simply don't care about being punished. In the meantime, it seems to me to be such a waste of time for moderators and forum members to keep reporting these players. They get knocked 75 points and then just gain it again to be knocked a month or so later. It doesn't really make any difference.

 

I propose the following as a new approach - to create quite harsh penalties for offenders.

 

I propose the following:

 

An offense in any category (disconnecting loser, draw refusal, double chasing, offensive language).

  • 1st offense - warning
  • 2nd offense - reset
  • 3rd offense - reset + 1 month ban
  • 4th offense - permanent ban

I recommend that these penalties be per category - e.g. if they disconnect and get a warning, then do a double chase, they will still get a warning (and not reset), but a warning for that category.

 

The advantage of this could be:

  • It will probably cause some to change the behavior because the penalties are so stiff
  • It will relegate continuous offenders to forever be stuck in the low hundreds. I think this is because:
    • People will be more proactive in reporting knowing that it will make a greater difference
    • It will be hard to climb if you are continuous offender and get reported, even if you keep creating multiple accounts.
  • It will limit the affect of multi-account players, as many of the ones who create lots of new accounts are the same ones who do these irritating behaviors.
  • It will save moderators time on adjudicating cases - initially it might be higher, but over time should probably be much lower.

Related to this, I propose that some players have 1 additional account (an exception to the multi-player rule - probably the same name as the main account but with v2 or something similar like mine) for two purposes (to be stated in advance). These accounts would intentionally stay low (e.g. 100-300 rating).

  • To watch out for new multi-accounts
  • To welcome new/emerging players to the game and give them guidance about how to improve and connect with tournaments, etc.

This could be done by introducing themselves as someone to help guide others with tips, but to intentionally surrender if they determine that the player seems to have beginner skills, so as not to hurt their point rating. If the player has more advanced skills, they should try to win and see if they exhibit any of the behaviours of a multi-account player and then report them if they do (e.g. disconnect, but possibly giving guidance on the rules before this happens).


  • garlick likes this

#2 Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Lieutenant

  • WC Online Team
  • 500 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:02 PM

the problem with "warnings" is some people use a fictitious mail address


Live by the fable rule book or perish without it.

#3 Wnehme

Wnehme

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:14 PM

Nice proposals and if i can make one slight change it will be that from the 3rd offense it will be an automatic ban

If i may ask,for players who are on different platform or games like chess, do you encounter similar stupid players or it is only in stratego

#4 josephwhite

josephwhite

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 June 2020 - 07:40 PM

the problem with "warnings" is some people use a fictitious mail address

 

If someone's account gets reset, they will definitely get the message that what they were doing was not OK.



#5 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 28 June 2020 - 08:10 PM

I've never seen why 'resets' are thought to be such a devastating punishment.

 

All of these bad guys (and most of the 'good' ones) are constantly starting new accounts. This involves starting at 100 and building up over 100 odd games to whatever their level is. Why is anyone going to be fearful about being compelled to do something when they are already doing it voluntarily ?


  • Edmond Dantes 1844 and i really suck like this

#6 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 28 June 2020 - 09:09 PM

If someone's account gets reset, they will definitely get the message that what they were doing was not OK.

 

I disagree with you. Message or not...they do not care. This is a weak argument at best in my opinion. Why? (See below.)

 

 

All of these bad guys (and most of the 'good' ones) are constantly starting new accounts. This involves starting at 100 and building up over 100 odd games to whatever their level is. Why is anyone going to be fearful about being compelled to do something when they are already doing it voluntarily ?

 

@tobermoryx–Exactly so.

 

These reprobates already create an endless number of new alias accounts starting at 100 Elo. A reset simply means that they have an account STARTING at 100 Elo.



#7 i really suck

i really suck

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 29 June 2020 - 01:57 AM

If someone's account gets reset, they will definitely get the message that what they were doing was not OK.

In a way these people have received the "message" before they even began their offense. Most of these guys know exactly what they are doing and don't care if it is "not OK".

 

I've never seen why 'resets' are thought to be such a devastating punishment.

My thoughts exactly. A reset for these trolling clowns is hardly a punishment at all. All a reset is is changing the skill level of the people on the receiving end of these guys. Simply taking them back to square one is near useless. :(


Failure is Life's Greatest Teacher.
I must really like to learn.

#8 josephwhite

josephwhite

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 29 June 2020 - 05:08 AM

I've never seen why 'resets' are thought to be such a devastating punishment.

 

All of these bad guys (and most of the 'good' ones) are constantly starting new accounts. This involves starting at 100 and building up over 100 odd games to whatever their level is. Why is anyone going to be fearful about being compelled to do something when they are already doing it voluntarily ?

 

It may be true that some don't care at all, but if they are forever stuck below 300 rating, I think some would care. I don't think players at 500-700 skill level only want to forever play players at 100-500 skill level only (only very occassionally being matched higher). Currently, they get to build up and stay reasonably close to their level becuase they only get penalties that push them back a little bit.

 

I think its worth a shot to test it out. The other option is to stop the punishments altogether. If a severe penalty does not deter these players, then there is no point to even have the punishment. I'm aware that some people feel this way already, but I think its worth trying harder punishments first before giving it up. I don't report as I think it is a waste of time. I even feel more sorry for moderators who have to spend so much time on what I perceive to be a fruitless excercise.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users