Author |
Topic: League Feedback (Read 34773 times) |
|
starjots
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #5147
Gender: 
Posts: 20
|
 |
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #135 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 3:30pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
On the devil's advocate side here as well - how is a player going to know if his opponent was in the chat room during a game? He'd have to break the rules himself  *
*asterisk says i may be wrong!
**i'm only talking about rules here, not any particular game
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #136 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 5:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, the chatroom does say when people went in and out, so if you entered the chat after the game, and see your opponent there without a recent notification of entry, they were there the whole time.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starjots
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #5147
Gender:
Posts: 20
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #137 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 6:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 5:43pm, Sconibulus wrote:| Well, the chatroom does say when people went in and out, so if you entered the chat after the game, and see your opponent there without a recent notification of entry, they were there the whole time. |
|
Good thing I used an asterisk!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #138 on: Jun 21st, 2010, 9:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 3:11pm, ocmiente wrote:
I agree that this game should stand, but I'm going to play devil's advocate on your interpretation of the rules.
According to the rules:
I didn't find any time limitation on 'the discretion of the opposing player' in the rules, and implicit acceptance doesn't seem to be in the rules either. Of course, I might have missed something...
I think the rule should probably include a 24 hour time limit on protests to eliminate the possibility that a game might be challenged days or weeks after the event.
|
|
According to the log, starjots signed in immediately after the match and could have seen that Korhil was present. He signed out before Hippo pointed that fact out, but signed in soon afterwards and will certainly have seen what Hippo said. However he continued to merrily discuss the game. As far as I'm concerned that's implicit acceptance.
"But I didn't know that's what the rules say" doesn't count in my book, because it'll set a bad precedent for future disputes. I've made enough calls for players to familiarize themselves with the rules for it not to be a valid excuse. Hence the decision.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #139 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 2:25am, megajester wrote:| It was brought to my attention that Korhil was signed into the chatroom for the duration of his Round 5 match against starjots. |
|
I've noticed that Korhil has been signed into the chatroom continuously for weeks. He may not know he's signed in. Go and look. You can try to chat with him, but he's afk. I think he may be perpetually logged into the game room too.
So he might not be aware of this, or it could be his preferred default connection state. Either way, he should be encouraged to log off the chatroom when he plays event games.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #140 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 6:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:11am, RonWeasley wrote:
I've noticed that Korhil has been signed into the chatroom continuously for weeks. He may not know he's signed in. Go and look. You can try to chat with him, but he's afk. I think he may be perpetually logged into the game room too.
So he might not be aware of this, or it could be his preferred default connection state. Either way, he should be encouraged to log off the chatroom when he plays event games. |
|
We have already been messaging about this issue, bu thanks for the heads up.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #141 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 6:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
As a reminder, please could all captains check their messages and get back to me as soon as possible concerning the next League. Thank you.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
leo
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 278
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #142 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 9:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:11am, RonWeasley wrote:
I've noticed that Korhil has been signed into the chatroom continuously for weeks. He may not know he's signed in. Go and look. You can try to chat with him, but he's afk. I think he may be perpetually logged into the game room too. |
|
He may have good reasons for doing so, but considering the primitive communication system the browsers are stuck with so far (i.e. Ajax), that's a burden for both the Arimaa server and Korhil's computer.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starjots
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #5147
Gender:
Posts: 20
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #143 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 10:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 9:32pm, megajester wrote:
According to the log, starjots signed in immediately after the match and could have seen that Korhil was present. He signed out before Hippo pointed that fact out, but signed in soon afterwards and will certainly have seen what Hippo said. However he continued to merrily discuss the game. As far as I'm concerned that's implicit acceptance.
"But I didn't know that's what the rules say" doesn't count in my book, because it'll set a bad precedent for future disputes. I've made enough calls for players to familiarize themselves with the rules for it not to be a valid excuse. Hence the decision. |
|
I know you are responding to someone elses post here, but it leaves an impression I wish to correct. I didn't bring up Korhil being logged in with you or anyone else. He won. Maybe next time I'll win
My feedback, which is generic, is having player's trying to detect irregularities in games is not something that scales well nor is it in line with what a player is really there to do (play). But I also realize that on-line matches within a small community pose a lot of constraints - so I accept the realities and thank all the organizers for their hard work.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2010, 10:47am by starjots » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ocmiente
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #3996
Gender:
Posts: 194
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #144 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 11:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 21st, 2010, 9:32pm, megajester wrote:
According to the log, starjots signed in immediately after the match and could have seen that Korhil was present. He signed out before Hippo pointed that fact out, but signed in soon afterwards and will certainly have seen what Hippo said. However he continued to merrily discuss the game. As far as I'm concerned that's implicit acceptance.
"But I didn't know that's what the rules say" doesn't count in my book, because it'll set a bad precedent for future disputes. I've made enough calls for players to familiarize themselves with the rules for it not to be a valid excuse. Hence the decision. |
|
I agree with the decision.
My post has more to do with the rules, and future protests than this particular instance.
By your decision, it appears that you have created an unwritten rule that protests must be made by one of the participants, and that the protest must be made in the chat session immediately following the game, or some indeterminant number of post game logins (citing this particular instance with starjots) and once that player logs out (after some undefined number of chat room logins), the player may not contest the game results.
If that is what you want, I'm OK with that... Well... no... I guess that's still a little vague, actually . In any case I'm just recommending that whatever the rule is, it should be written in the rules so that people can familiarize themselves with this rule.
I still recommend a 24 hour protest period. I hate to think that I'd be up at 10:00pm, play for over an hour, then have to determine whether there is any need to protest - especially if there was a teamspeak recording, which means I might have to listen to that for another hour (yikes, is it 1:00am already! I need sleep! No... must... push... through... might... need... to protest!).
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2010, 11:48am by ocmiente » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #145 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 1:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 11:48am, ocmiente wrote:
By your decision, it appears that you have created an unwritten rule that protests must be made by one of the participants, and that the protest must be made in the chat session immediately following the game, or some indeterminant number of post game logins (citing this particular instance with starjots) and once that player logs out (after some undefined number of chat room logins), the player may not contest the game results. |
|
Hm OK I see what you mean. (And by the way, I'm really glad to have someone play Devil's advocate with me...)
OK here's how my reasoning works. The rules say:
"While a game is being played there shall be no communication between any one of the players and anybody else concerning Arimaa. Such communication includes, but is not limited to, being signed in to the chatroom or the Teamspeak client. Any infringement of this rule shall result in forfeit subject to the discretion of the opposing player."
Meaning, the forfeit only happens if the opposing player signals he wants it.
Once a player is made aware of such a situation, one would usually expect an explicit decision one way or the other. Failing that, if it is clear the opposing player is aware of the situation, a clear indication of his opinion one way or the other should suffice. One would have expected starjots to immediately cry foul. However he didn't, quite the opposite, he seemed quite happy that the game was played fairly. Therefore I accept that as his decision not to regard the game as a forfeit.
So my decision rests on three principles:
1. Starjots should know the rules
2. Starjots was clearly aware of the situation
3. Starjots clearly indicated his decision, ie. his acceptance of the result
So my unwritten rule is not that a protest must be made immediately after the game, but that once a player is aware of the situation and has indicated his decision he can't then change his mind.
A 24-hour breathing space would be a good idea (I will add this for the next League), but seeing as we haven't got one under the current rules I think we have to accept first decisions as final. Otherwise that sets a precedent of letting people change their minds whenever they like.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #146 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 1:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 10:46am, starjots wrote:
I know you are responding to someone elses post here, but it leaves an impression I wish to correct. I didn't bring up Korhil being logged in with you or anyone else. He won. Maybe next time I'll win
My feedback, which is generic, is having player's trying to detect irregularities in games is not something that scales well nor is it in line with what a player is really there to do (play). But I also realize that on-line matches within a small community pose a lot of constraints - so I accept the realities and thank all the organizers for their hard work. |
|
Sorry I only just saw your post starjots.
The point of the rule is not to encourage players to actively look for irregularities. It's so we know what to do when we do spot them.
Let's say Amendment B never existed. PlayerA loses to PlayerB, and gets suspicious because he played much better than he does usually, and so he goes and checks the chatroom. It turns out PlayerB was logged in the whole time and played almost the exact same moves the spectators thought he should. Now PlayerA "knows" PlayerB cheated. But PlayerB says he really is that good, he's just been training really hard, and he never even noticed he forgot to close the chatroom window. Now how do you adjudicate THAT one and keep everybody happy? 
So basically I've been trying to develop a framework of rules to prevent hurt feelings or any perceived unfairness, which especially in the beginning could have seriously damaged the League's prospects or even killed it off completely. Though I'm very happy for people to play Devil's advocate with me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ocmiente
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #3996
Gender:
Posts: 194
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #147 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 2:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| A 24-hour breathing space would be a good idea (I will add this for the next League), but seeing as we haven't got one under the current rules I think we have to accept first decisions as final. Otherwise that sets a precedent of letting people change their minds whenever they like. |
|
Your judgement is excellent as usual . Seriously!
Thanks very much for starting up and running the league. It's been a lot of fun!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Korhil
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #5160
Gender:
Posts: 27
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #148 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:11am, RonWeasley wrote:
I've noticed that Korhil has been signed into the chatroom continuously for weeks. He may not know he's signed in. Go and look. You can try to chat with him, but he's afk. I think he may be perpetually logged into the game room too. |
|
I tend to keep the chat window open from multiple machines, so it's common that one will always show me as connected.
With the archiving (that I only recently learned existed) there isn't the same need to remain connected from somewhere - I didn't want to miss anything interesting that was discussed.
I'm pleased Starjots shares my opinion regarding a decision over the board being more important. (As the drama I manage to create in the last round I was involved in shows).
All I can add is that immediately after I read the thread about 722caasi I realised I had ensure that it was more widely known I was connected to the chat room during my game. My initial message about it was a PM Adanac to ask exactly what I should do. I didn't want to act alone again - as in my game with Sanzo - and make a bigger mess. As a result, by the time I actually informed megajester, this thread had already covered it.
Cheers,
Martin
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: League Feedback
« Reply #149 on: Jun 22nd, 2010, 4:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I would prefer if the forfeit is not up to the opposing player in the future. The opposing player must then either accuse someone of being a cheater, look like a jerk for claiming a forfeit for an innocent mistake, or do nothing and feel like someone may be taking advantage of them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print