Arimaa Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Team Games >> 2010 Arimaa World League >> "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
        
(Message started by: megajester on May 26^th, 2010, 4:13pm)

Title: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by megajester on May 26^th, 2010, 4:13pm

Dear League members,

The League Director RonWeasley and I would like to see what you all have to say about the following.

Last round Sanzo (Europa) forfeited his match against Korhil (Ring of Fire), giving the Ring of Fire 3 points. Understandably Sanzo wanted to salvage this, and agreed with Korhil to a rematch. Which Sanzo won. Neither team's captain was involved in this. If this rematch is accepted, the Ring of Fire will lose 2 points and Europa will gain 3.

The question is this: When the forfeiting player asks for a rematch, is it the opposing player's decision or the opposing captain's? Or should the forfeit stand? (Bear in mind that under the finalized rules, a forfeit stands regardless.)

Now there are two sides to this debate. My personal view is as follows: This is a serious league, the clubs are in it to win. Players called upon to represent their club are like employees of a company. An employee is not authorized to revoke customers' debts willy nilly without the company's permission. In the same way a single player should not be able to unilaterally risk the points earned by the club by agreeing to a rematch all by himself. If there is to be a rematch at all, it should be approved by the club. The club is represented by the captain, ergo it's the captain's decision.

The other view put forward by RonWeasley is that in the WC, players can agree to rematches if there is a forfeit, and that people tend to prefer it if these things can be decided over the board rather than by technicalities. However he agrees with me that the captain should be able to insist on a forfeit counting.

Of course, the Arbitration clause of the rules leaves this decision with Ron and myself, and we'll be deciding this before the rosters for the next round are submitted by the captains. However your input will be greatly appreciated, since we would like our decision to reflect the opinion of the League members to whatever extent possible. Thank you.

PS: You may wish to read our conversation in the chatroom from today by accessing the archive.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by ocmiente on May 26^th, 2010, 5:41pm

That's a tough question. I'll state up front that I'm on the Atlantics, so might have some bias.

I read the chat archive and I think I agree with megajester's point of view, more or less.

My thoughts are

The captain of the team of the player who did show up on time must agree to the rematch before the rematch game. I think it's a little unfair to ask Adanac to agree to this after the fact.
The rematch game time should be at one of the 1st preference times of the player who did show up at the original game time
The rematch game time should be announced so that other players can watch it live, like all of the other league games - that's part of the fun too, I think, and I think we should keep that up if at all possible.
The penalty for the player who did not show up for the original game should be greater than the penalty for substitution. I'm going to suggest a player cost penalty of the player's rating + 300, rather than the 200 points a substitution would cost.

That's my 2 cents - but I'll be happy with whatever decision is made.

<EDIT> After thinking about this more, and reading the other posts on this topic, I'm now leaning heavily toward agreeing that the forfeit should stand. Allowing reschedules is just too complicated.

I admire Sanzo and Korhil's attempt to play the game at a tournament game. I have the same reservation about disallowing it that megajester mentions (appearing to be too strict about the rules). However, the alternative to allow it seems worse, all things considered.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Nombril on May 26^th, 2010, 6:13pm

My gut reaction is that we should not reschedule a forfeit game.

(Full disclosure - I am on the Ring of Fire... but am hopefully looking at this from a general perspective and not a 2 point perspective...)

I don't see why the WC (individual event) necessarily sets a precedent for a team competition. I can't think of any other sporting or gaming competitions that allow games/matches to be rescheduled due to an injury or other occurrence that only affects one player.

I think ocmiente makes some logical suggestions for what would be required for rescheduling a forfeit. (Captain being involved in the decision, schedule in advance so teammates can watch, etc.) But it seems to add a lot of complication when we already have in place a substitution system to prevent a forfeit in the first place. (Hmmm - though some problems could crop up... if the game is scheduled in advance, and the person that showed up the first time doesn't make it the second time... then what?)

I recommend not getting more complicated than we need to. So if we aren't comfortable with the players rescheduling on their own and announcing it in the chatroom just before starting, then forget about any options to reschedule a forfeit game.

So, now you have 4cents...

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Eltripas on May 26^th, 2010, 7:19pm

I have read the chat archive and I understand Ron initial position about accepting the victory based on previous experiences on the WC but this case is different since the decision affects a team not an individual, the captain definitely has to agree on the rescheduling (if not the whole team or at least the other team members who played that round), plus rescheduling a forfeited game should cost at least 400 budget points.

Specifically the Sanzo-Korhil shouldn't count because the decision was only made by a player and not by a team.

I know that my opinion may sound biased because I'm on the affected team (ring of fire) but I'm pretty sure that my opinion would be the same being the affected team a different one.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Sconibulus on May 26^th, 2010, 7:47pm

After thinking about this for a while, I've an idea.

1: This game really shouldn't count, since it was played before rules existed to handle it, and it doesn't make sense to have both sides agree to a determined result while we work out rules for an indeterminate result. Should we decide that replays are legal, they should have an opportunity to revisit the game using the new rules, probably with a time extension since this debate will almost certainly extend past the ordinary statute of limitations.

2: Both captains and both players must agree to the game before it is scheduled, substitutions will not be accepted.

3: The team who suffered the initial forfeit shall pay an additional cost of 20% of their player's official rating for that round, or 1 league point, at their discretion.

4: The results of this game shall count as any other game, with the exception that should the player who initially won on forfeit shall earn 1 point, even if he fails to play the game.

5ish: Something to do with scheduling, I like Ocmiente's rules, but I'm not sure if we can actually really guarantee 1st preference across timezones, even though that player did show up when he was supposed to...

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Fritzlein on May 26^th, 2010, 8:08pm

My memory must be going... I thought the precedent from the World Championship was to allow players to wait around for late opponents and decline to take the forfeit immediately after fifteen minutes, but not to allow rescheduling once the player who is present gets tired of waiting and takes the forfeit. Yes, in the past we allowed the games be rescheduled at the discretion of the players involved, bit it created too many problems, so we stopped allowing it. The 2010 World Championship rules say, "A player losing by forfeit may not appeal for a rematch regardless of the reason for being late." The rules don't explicitly say that the consent of the winning player is irrelevant to whether there can be a rematch, so perhaps Ron remembers the current state of affairs better than I do, but if rescheduling were allowed I would expect the tournament rules to lay out at least some parameters for a rematch rather than being silent on that point.

Anyway, as a neutral observer (not a member of either team in the game at issue), I would definitely prefer to disallow rescheduling forfeited games even if both players and both captains would have no problem with it. It's not the individual decision vs. team decision that bothers me; it is the hassle for the league organizer. For the World Championship, voluntary rematches threw a monkey wrench into the scheduling of one round every week. The AWL would have more leeway for leniency due to only having one round every two weeks, but given how much running around organizers already have to do, I think we should err on the side of making it less work. A forfeit should stand as a forfeit just to keep it simple.

If other folks think that forfeits should be open for replaying at some combination of the discretion of the players and captains, then let's allow it in a future season under clearly delineated guidelines. How soon must the game be replayed? How is it officially scheduled? Once the rematch is scheduled, are substitutes allowed if either player in the agreement to replay can't make it after all? If there was a substitute in the original game, can the original player step back in for the rematch game if the time works better for him? What if the game is rescheduled and the player who would have won forfeits the rematch, or loses on move 3 due to a lost Internet connection? Can there be a re-rematch then? (It would seem weird to say the first player to forfeit can get a rematch, but the second player to forfeit can't. Get your forfeits in early!)

Also, if we allow forfeits to be rescheduled, shouldn't we allow games lost on time due to technical difficulties be resumed? I mean, a player presumably can't be more at fault for losing his Internet connection than he was at fault for not showing up on time. If both players (and captains, whatever) agree to resume a game lost by disconnection, I don't see how we could deny that and be consistent.

I understand that a spirit of sportsmanship prevails in the Arimaa community, and it is always more sporting for a game to be decided over the board than to be decided by any rules off the board. This urge to sporting behavior is exactly why I recommend taking the decision away from the participants. Don't give the players the option to create logistical hassles, or you can be sure they will.

But whatever the future procedure, there was nothing in current AWL rules to allow rematches in case of forfeit, so for this game and this season it should not be allowed. Of course, I am glad the players played; I mean only that the forfeit should count in the official league standings.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Korhil on May 26^th, 2010, 9:40pm

Sorry, I didn't appreciate the follow-on of problems that could be caused by playing the game.

I considered the scheduled time to be when the game would be played if there players couldn't otherwise agree on when to play it. If left to people in drastically different time zones, it's unlikely they would find a time slot they are both happy with, and the scheduled time would stand.

Sanzo asked if we could find another time after he realized he had missed the game. I didn't really have a good reason to just say 'no'.

One of Ocmiente's ideas - that the game be played at a time suiting the player that didn't miss the game - was used before he came up with it :)

Cheers,
Martin

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by RonWeasley on May 27^th, 2010, 5:10am

This has been a very productive discussion. So far I'm seeing:

1) Players don't like the risk of disrupting the scheduling of normal league play.

2) Players appreciate the difficulty in scheduling league play and don't like the risk of overburdening the coordinator and the captains. The motivation for this may be more than just being polite. If the organizers get overworked, the league may fail.

3) Players place significant importance on the effect results have on teams, not necessarily their own. This is a point about which I was not sure and megajester seems to have anticipated. Being generous with one's own outcome is different than being generous with a team's outcome.

At this point, because of this evidence, I would change my position and have the forfeit stand. At most, I would suggest having the 15 minute rule be in effect with the winner electing, or not, to play if the forfeiting player arrives while the winner is still in the game room.

I'm still interesting in other opinions before we make this final.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by ChrisB on May 27^th, 2010, 7:06am

In the interest in deciding matters over the board whenever possible, I'm leaning towards allowing a rematch if both players agree. I would suggest different point values for the rematch game though. One possibility is:

Player who originally did show up: three points for a win (as before), but two points for any other outcome (including not showing up).

Player who originally didn't show up: two points for a win and zero points for any other outcome.

Thus, in the case of the Korhil-Sanzo game, each player would get two points.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by megajester on May 27^th, 2010, 7:13am

I think it's good we've had this debate, because there still seems to be a misunderstanding about exactly what the rules represent. Take the following:

on 05/26/10 at 21:40:44, Korhil wrote:

I considered the scheduled time to be when the game would be played if there players couldn't otherwise agree on when to play it. If left to people in drastically different time zones, it's unlikely they would find a time slot they are both happy with, and the scheduled time would stand.

The rules are very clear that the scheduled game is THE game. But somehow Korhil managed to get this idea into his head.

The League was set up for us all to enjoy playing live games, true, but it's also envisioned to be the first season in a serious, professional-style yearly tournament. The rules are not simply guidelines that we decide whether or not we'll apply as we go. Like a country's constitution, they represent a contract with all members and teams in the League. That's why we spent weeks and weeks debating it before we finalized it.

The League Rules state:
"In the case of any discrepancy or omission in the rules, the LC and LD will agree on temporary amendments. The purpose of these amendments will be to ensure the League is completed in a reasonable and fair way that rewards skill and commitment."

So basically the only circumstances under which the rules can change is when something is unclear or contradictory (discrepancy), or if we've forgotten to account for a given situation (omission). And even then we will only be making amendments. There can be no changes or re-negotiations to existing rules.

Basically, the only reason we're having this debate at all is because of an omission, specifically in whether or not a player or team can be generous in agreeing to a rematch when their opponent forfeits. (We're not here to debate rescheduling as part of the subsitution procedure, which is already adequately accounted for under "Substitutions", point 4.) In actual fact, the lack of a provision for such a circumstance should actually mean the forfeit stands. My only concern was that if Adanac felt that the rematch should stand, his team is the only disadvantaged party in all of this, and I would end up looking like a holier-than-thou disciplinarian if I insisted the forfeit should stand.

Going forward, I would recommend that everybody make sure they really understand the rules, and keep in mind that they are binding. This will help everything to run more smoothly.

Thanks everybody for all your contributions. I look forward to your feedback as we plan for the next League. :)

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Adanac on May 27^th, 2010, 4:14pm

There’s no way we should allow substitutions after 15 minutes and yet also allow games to be re-scheduled at a future date. If a 2000 rated player fails to show up for a game, his 1500 rated team-mate could save the team by stepping into his place. Win or lose, under the original rules, he could at least feel that he’s helping out by preventing the loss of a forfeit point. But why bother? If we allow a game to be re-scheduled then the lower rated player will feel that he’s doing a disservice to his team by negating the possibility of a re-match (obviously the original player had a much stronger chance to win 3 points). So we’ll have all the spectators ready for the scheduled game, we’ll have two eligible players and yet no game will occur because we’ve created an incentive for a re-match rather than an incentive for a substitution at the scheduled time. We should have substitutions or re-scheduled games, but not both.

Also, I agree with those who said that the World Championship should not set a precedent for the World League. I feel much differently about allowing a game to be re-scheduled in the WC than I do here where it affects the entire team. I’d prefer that the LC or LD enforce the existing rules in every case rather than leaving it up to the captains’ discretion whenever a forfeit occurs.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by omar on May 27^th, 2010, 7:28pm

At one time we didn't have a clear rule on what to do about forfeits in the world championships, but now the forfeit situation is now clearly covered under the rules.

"Forfeits: If a player does not show up for the game within 15 minute after the scheduled start time then that player will lose by forfeit. To claim the forfeit the player that showed up just needs to exit the game window after the 15 minutes are over. However, the player can choose to give the opponent more time by keeping the window open. A player losing by forfeit may not appeal for a rematch regardless of the reason for being late. Also the player who forfeits a game is automatically removed from the tournament and will not play in future rounds unless the tournament directors accepts the appeal."

However, I can understand that the world league may have different goals one of which may be to allow more H-H games. The precedence set by the WC does not need to automatically carry over to the WL. However, the experience we gained from the WC can carry over and be applied to other tournaments. We've learned that if there is a forfeit, trying to reschedule the game was a hassle and opens up a can of worms with issues like: within how much time after the forfeit game must the rescheduled game be played; what if the player who was present the first time can't reschedule; what if there is another forfeit, etc. The strict rule we adopted that forfeits must stand and can't be rescheduled was to avoid these kinds of issues. So not based on precedence, but rather based on experience we should adopt the same for the WL.

On a technical note, the gameroom is already setup to allow 15 minutes of grace time for the players to join the game when it is a scheduled game. During the 15 minute grace time a player can join the game, exit the game and join again many times. But after the 15 minutes when a player exits a game that has not started and the opponent is not present the gameroom will mark it as a forfeit game and move it from a game in progress to a finished game. A player can give the opponent more grace time by keeping the game window open. Because this feature is already there for scheduled games it will apply to the WL games if they are scheduled.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Hippo on May 28^th, 2010, 2:29am

Hmmm, that means I was not allowed to replay the game with PMertens even when I wanted to. And he had to be removed from the WC....

But may be not removed from WC as he was somehow connected to the game so he just lost on time without possibility to replay ...

... I am absolutely OK with the result, I am just showing the WC rules are not so strict ...

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by RonWeasley on May 28^th, 2010, 4:25am

I find Adanac's comment very compelling. The substitution feature loses its meaning if forfeits are not strictly enforced.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Fritzlein on May 28^th, 2010, 8:47am

on 05/28/10 at 02:29:19, Hippo wrote:

If I remember correctly, you were still waiting for PMertens when he showed up, which is to say you didn't want to reschedule the game after taking a forfeit. Therefore what happened was exactly in the spirit of the rules. The confusion as to whether you were within the letter of the rules was caused by a game-room glitch that made PMertens appear seated at the game table when in fact he was not even at his keyboard. The precedent has always been to try to undo and/or minimize the impact of server-side glitches. There is some flexibility with rules, since not every scenario can be anticipated and spelled out in advance, but what happened between you and PMertens was far different from what happened between Korhil and Sanzo. The latter scenario, far from being a unique situation caused by a server-side glitch, was a common situation that had been anticipated in advance and explicitly forbidden, at least for the World Championship.

In terms of the hassle it causes the organizers, voluntarily waiting around longer than 15 minutes for a late opponent seems to be in a different class than rescheduling a game on another day, which is why the rule explicitly permits the former and explicitly prohibits the latter. It was crystal clear from your chat that you intended to be in the former class.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by megajester on May 28^th, 2010, 10:39am

Dear League members,

Thank you for all your feedback. In the end, while certain changes to the rules may be beneficial for future seasons, the simple fact that we are halfway through the current League means that any change to what has already been agreed upon is a bad idea. It undermines the reliability of the rules. We risk being inconsistent and unfair, not to mention the potential for added complications and impracticality.

So, after much deliberation RonWeasley and I have agreed to the following:

"AMENDMENT C: Unless otherwise stated, the implementation and outcome of the rules are final and binding, and may not be re-negotiated even with the consent of the party or parties that stand to be disadvantaged by such re-negotiation."

(Click here for the full text of the League Rules (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/mwiki/index.php/League_Rules).)

We hope you can appreciate the reasons for our decision, and would agree that we are acting fairly and consistently.

All your views and feedback are always most appreciated. We wish you all the best in the rest of the League!

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by RonWeasley on May 28^th, 2010, 5:24pm

First let me confirm, as league director (LD), that I concur with the league coordinator (LC) that the forfeit by Sanzo to Korhil stands. My clearest motivation for this decision is that the substitution rule covers this situation and would be invalidated if later make-up games were permitted.

Second, I want to express my belief that both Sanzo and Korhil acted in good faith in an attempt to improve the league experience by playing the game. The fact that this did not turn out as intended does not reflect badly on them in my view. On the contrary, I applaud their good sportsmanship and their grace during the ensuing discussion. I think the clarification resulting from this has been beneficial and that these questions would inevitably have been raised in the future.

Finally, a related issue brought up here is planning for rules revision for the next league (AWL) cycle. Specifically I would like to see the rules more clearly define the role of the LD. Currently, some decisions are said to be referred to the LC and the LD. I don't see any provision for a case where the LC and LD disagree. This is different from the WC where the TD's rulings are binding.

One possibility would be to eliminate the position of LD entirely. The LC doesn't play for a team and can therefore claim impartiality. AWL rule authority would be in a single person so the potential disagreement issue would be solved. A practical consideration is that megajester has had trouble reaching me and, I'm sure out of expediency, has given me credit for concurrance on amendments B and C that I don't deserve. This highlights another difference between AWL and WC in that megajester has no personal stake in AWL outcomes (besides the satisfaction from its success) while Omar has a lot of money on the line in the WC and Challenge. So the WC needs a separate authority if Omar is to be the coordinator. AWL does not if the LC is already impartial.

That said, I am happy to continue to offer whatever ambiguous assistance I can as LD to help AWL continue its success.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Fritzlein on May 28^th, 2010, 6:16pm

I would have not problem with megajester having final say on everything to do with Arimaa World League, without the need for RonWeasley to be league director. As Ron points out, megajester has no potential conflict of interest as a captain or player, and no financial interest, so his only interest is the success of the AWL. In this context an independent voice is not necessary to give the AWL credibility.

This is far different from the Arimaa Challenge, in which it is important that someone validate that Omar doesn't twist the rules to save his prize money, and the World Championship where it is important that someone validate that Omar doesn't advance his interests as a contender for the crown.

This is not to say that megajester shouldn't consult with Ron (or all of us) about rules and procedure. From the way the AWL has worked so far, I don't expect any decisions to be handed down that haven't been discussed to death beforehand. Ultimately, though, there has to be a final authority, and to me it makes more sense for that to be megajester than Ron.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by megajester on May 28^th, 2010, 10:35pm

Thank you both very much for your confidence.

When discussing the AWL in the beginning, I was mindful of the fact that I am a relatively new face here at the Arimaa community, an unknown quantity if you will. I thought the League members might not have taken too well to me proposing a rule that gave me a free hand in adding whatever rules I see fit. So I proposed that there should be a position of LD as a confidence-building measure. Ron is quite right that there is no provision for the event that we disagree; I suppose I had such faith in my negotiating skills and willingness to compromise that I was sure it wouldn't be a problem.

I want to have a reputation for consistency and fairness, which is why I slavishly consult Ron whenever there's an amendment, even if it's blindingly obvious. For the same reason, Ron, I'm afraid I will continue to disturb you periodically until the end of the League. :) I'm discussing a more structured decision-making process with Omar at the moment, so changes will likely be made in the next League.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Nombril on May 29^th, 2010, 3:21am

on 05/28/10 at 17:24:25, RonWeasley wrote:

Second, I want to express my belief that both Sanzo and Korhil acted in good faith in an attempt to improve the league experience by playing the game. The fact that this did not turn out as intended does not reflect badly on them in my view. On the contrary, I applaud their good sportsmanship and their grace during the ensuing discussion.

I want to second this point, I hope Sanzo and Korhil have not taken any of this discussion personally. What they decided made perfect sense for an individual game.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by Fritzlein on May 29^th, 2010, 10:45am

I also applaud the sporting behavior of the players involved, particularly Korhil. There's never anything wrong with playing a game of Arimaa instead of not playing it! This thread was just about trivial stuff like procedures and scores.

Title: Re: "Rematch in case of forfeit" issue
Post by megajester on May 29^th, 2010, 1:46pm

I too would like to thank Sanzo and Korhil for their patience. I hope my manner didn't come across as being abrasive, none of it was meant as criticism. Through most of the debate I was quite stressed trying to work out all the possible repercussions and how to prevent them, and unfortunately stress can often detract from my people skills.

Both players have shown fine sportsmanship in the worthy tradition of the Arimaa community. After all it's that more than airtight rules that will guarantee the success of the League. Well done guys, and thanks.