| Poll |
| Should there be a concession rule? |
| Yes |
|
56% |
[ 74 ] |
| No |
|
16% |
[ 22 ] |
| Pie |
|
26% |
[ 34 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 130 |
|
WardenUSA
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
|
 Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:37 |
 
|
I think that it's good that people arn't singled out when they make mistakes. Even though in this case I think my opponent was being a real jerk I still don't think his name should be plastered all over the place because of his poor choice. Let him suffer his ban in silence and then we can call it good. But it would be nice if I knew what the punishment was going to be. it could even be an admin blog that said something like:
1 coach banned 7 days for dropping out of a game
1 new coach banned 1 day for playing same opponent 2 days in a row
1 coach warned for language in game
ect |
|
|
Woodstock
Joined: Dec 11, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:42 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Rijssiej wrote: | yeah no more secrets!  |
Actually, I do think that having admin decisions made in a public channel - where anyone could idle, but which was muted for all apart from admins and those involved in the "case" - would be beneficial in a number of ways |
You mean public witch-hunting, something that is against the rules?
If someone breaks the rules, he gets punished, if he learns from it, there is no reason to label him in public. If he doesn't, well... He will find his way back to us again, until the time the road doesn't stop anywhere. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:45 |
|
Pac, on one other MMO I played it was also the policy not to disclose disciplinary actions.
To deter misbehavior, I think all you need is a clear policy and a statement that it will be enforced. I assume this will increasingly happen as [B] develops. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
Naboimp
Joined: Dec 23, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:47 |
|
My time for playing Blood Bowl is pretty compressed. I generally allow about an hour and a half to play and generally games fit in that time period (since most turns do not take 4 minutes apiece). One reason I play in [B] is that so I don't waste much time in setting up a game.
The other day a situation came up where I almost had to reschedule the end of the game. In the middle of the game, my opponent stopped responding. He was still online, but he didn't respond to my messages either. As it turned out, he had received an important phone call and was just unavailable - for at least ten minutes. He returned to the game just about the time I was informing him that I'd have to reschedule so fortunately, we were still able to finish. (Neither of us was having much luck with the dice so it was otherwise a quick game.) Still, as much as it may suck to have to reschedule a [B] game, there are certainly situations where it makes sense to do so. An unexpected technical problem would be another example - I had one of those crop up in another game recently.
As for the situation in the original post, I don't know whether the opponent was being reasonable or not. But let me play devil's advocate. He sits down to play expecting to have time. Along the way, he receives notice that he doesn't have as long as he expected (whether work calling or a spouse giving an ultimatum or whatever). That doesn't necessarily mean he has to leave at that moment, but it may become clear he doesn't have time to complete the game. So spending what time he has to try to convince you to reschedule isn't necessarily that unreasonable. (On the other hand, if he was just trying to get the game unscheduled, especially if you were winning, that does sound unreasonable. That doesn't mean that he was lying about the need to leave, however.) |
|
|
Leijonet
Joined: Jul 01, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:50 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Rijssiej wrote: | | yeah no more secrets! |
Actually, I do think that having admin decisions made in a public channel - where anyone could idle, but which was muted for all apart from admins and those involved in the "case" - would be beneficial in a number of ways:
- people are less likely to be abusive in public channels (I am told that one of the burdens of being an admin is the abuse received from people hauled into #fumbbladmin - conversely, sometimes people have complained about being abused by an admin: in that event, they would be protected too)
- sometimes, in long-running disputes, logs from #fumbbladmin do get quoted elsewhere. Are they ever altered? It can be become one person's word about what happened against another's. A public channel again helps to avoid this
- such a channel would give coaches a better idea of the volume and type of work that the staff have to deal with (many members of staff and those who support them often make reference to this, but being told about it is very different from actually seeing (a bit of) it). It would also serve to show that problems do get dealt with, and thus encourage people to report
I know that there is next to no chance Christer would implement such a system, as he prioritises coach privacy about such subjects (and that is also a concern). There would certainly be other effects of such a channel that many might consider downsides, such as second-guessing of admin decisions in other forums. But this should serve to illustrate that the way things are done at the moment is not the only possible way, and any way of handling things is going to have certain consequences - for a secret system, the first is lack of confidence. |
I was going to make a long post about the difficulties of more openness, but I don't have the energy so I'll just make a few short points.
-More public insight would mean less chance for the offending coach to move on after doing his time. As in most punitive systems, on Fumbbl once you've done your time you are allowed to go ahead, leaving your transgression behind you. This would be far more difficult if all rulebreakers were made public.
-More flak for the admins meting out the punishments. There will always be hangarounds who dislike the decisions made, and the judgement calls that are done. I for one don't really feel like having my judgement questioned by people who lack the information I have and use to make my decisions.
-Even if such a channel as you propose would be implemented the information given out would still be woefully incomplete, as previous history and other factors also apply when the consequences of a rules violation is decided. This would in turn lead in to the point I made above.
<b>In the end it comes down to the simple question of trust.</b> Do you trust us to do this job of regulating the site? Great, then this discussion is ended. If, on the other hand you do NOT trust us to regulate the site? If so I doubt that a channel showing halves of stories, that imo would more often than not be used as public amusement more than anything else, would really change your opinion. |
_________________
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Leijonet -Winging justice since 6/9-08 |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 15:59 |
|
I wouldn't derail on admin policy there but on a solution about how to play in the box while having a game re-schudeled. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
Thomcat
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:14 |
|
I can from experience tell you that the excact same thing happends in Ranked. And there is nothing to do about it either, |
_________________
Og inviterer hermed alle danskere MED godt humør ind i #fumbbl.dk |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:15 |
|
Warden, the same has happened to me, probably about a week ago - 'playing a game and the guy said his
"kid just woke up" and he had to go after about 15mins and 4 or 5 turns (don't remember exactly)...
...now, i don't want to blame anyone for trying to be a good parent, but when you're happy you got a game
and something like that is thrown into your face leaving you no choice, but to sit and wait for the
time when your opponent will be back online at some other time, that's not really acceptable, i find.
i asked him if he could please just concede, so my team wouldn't get blocked, but since he wasn't too clear
about whether or not he would do that, i set up my team anyways (just scored a td) and the guy disconnected...
...later he told me, that he would have been willing to concede, but i was taking too long for him
setting up my team. He also said, that his baby was sick and that i couldn't blame him for watching his
sick baby when it woke up.
...certainly i wouldn't blame anyone for doing that, but how can you start a game which will take at
least 1h (and possibly quite a bit longer), when you have to watch a sick baby - especially w/o asking
your opponent first?
...when i reported the guy, there were no options besides finishing the match later or unscheduling.
i'm not aware of any "punishment", that my oppo got and since i talked to him on irc and in the game about
it i think he would've mentioned it, if there was any. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:15 |
|
| Woodstock wrote: | | pac wrote: | | Rijssiej wrote: | | yeah no more secrets! |
Actually, I do think that having admin decisions made in a public channel - where anyone could idle, but which was muted for all apart from admins and those involved in the "case" - would be beneficial in a number of ways |
You mean public witch-hunting, something that is against the rules? |
Yes, I know it's presently against the rules. I was simply noting that the rules could be different (while recognising that they won't be).
Any particular way in which you set up the rules has consequences: for an open system, that would (among others) be lots of public analysis of decisions; for a secret system, it's lack of confidence. This is an observation, not a condemnation. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:22 |
|
| Thomcat wrote: | | I can from experience tell you that the excact same thing happends in Ranked. And there is nothing to do about it either, |
i suspect, that in R, most people tend to give information like "i have to watch my sick kid" or "i
might have to answer a phone-call, later" beforehand - you then have the chance to say "i'm off for the
weekend so i'd rather start a game that i can finish in one go" and find another opponent or accept that
you might have to wait or even finish a game later...
...that really isn't possible in B, since you're scheduled vs. an opponent like in L, but with the
difference, that it's intended to be played instantly (as opposed to L, where you have to agree
on a specific date and time).
...thus, i think the need to enforce an instant match is similar to the first game in a SMACK - no
shows should really be forfeits, i think. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:23 |
|
| Leijonet wrote: | | -More flak for the admins meting out the punishments. There will always be hangarounds who dislike the decisions made, and the judgement calls that are done. I for one don't really feel like having my judgement questioned by people who lack the information I have and use to make my decisions. |
I assume that part of the point of pacs idea is that this wouldnt be the case, everyone would be able to see the information. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:31 |
|
BTW, I didn't think this would provoke so much comment so quickly, but since we may as well continue this entirely hypothetical debate. 
| Leijonet wrote: | | -More public insight would mean less chance for the offending coach to move on after doing his time. As in most punitive systems, on Fumbbl once you've done your time you are allowed to go ahead, leaving your transgression behind you. This would be far more difficult if all rulebreakers were made public. |
This is certainly true - the extent to which it would be an issue can only be guessed at.
| Quote: | | -More flak for the admins meting out the punishments. There will always be hangarounds who dislike the decisions made, and the judgement calls that are done. I for one don't really feel like having my judgement questioned by people who lack the information I have and use to make my decisions. |
First of all, if all of these issues were handled in a public channel, the people questioning would have access to the information you use to make decisions, as that would be presented in the channel as part of the process.
Secondly, what you see as ammunition for your detractors can also be seen as protection for yourself. It's much harder to complain about being oppressed by the admins if everyone who cares can check: what that person was being punished for, the evidence for that, what the punishment was.
The same applies to the next point about past history.
| Quote: | | <b>In the end it comes down to the simple question of trust.</b> Do you trust us to do this job of regulating the site? |
I do, but I am in the position of someone who has had dealings (to one extent or another) with many (maybe even all?) the site staff at one time or another about matters which had nothing to do with the running of the site. In other words, they are my friends or acquaintances and I have reason to trust them to do a fair and honest job. The majority of users are not in that situation. You can't ask someone to trust someone they don't know.
| Quote: | | Great, then this discussion is ended. If, on the other hand you do NOT trust us to regulate the site? If so I doubt that a channel showing halves of stories, that imo would more often than not be used as public amusement more than anything else, would really change your opinion. |
I don't think it would be a public amusement, tbh. There would be a brief period of excitement about it, a few controversies, and then people would discover that it just wasn't that interesting. Because, really, it's all going to be repetitive, procedural stuff - speccing matches is going to be a lot more fun than speccing admin decisions. But a few obsessives would permanently idle there and keep the logs, and they'd be a benefit whenever controversy came up. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:40 |
|
This might not be the case of WardenUSA of course, and I'm in no way implying it is, but I think a little flexibility on the opponent's part would probably help...
It's not like rescheduling is THAT a crime, after all. Sometimes things happen that you hadn't planned and that you need to deal with (even small things, not necessarily a flood or a hurricane or a earthquake that would probably imply running away from PC without even writing "hey dude I have a problem" first), and the "concede, then" approach sounds a bit harsh. I mean, technically it makes perfect sense, but a little empathy would do this site a whole lot of good.
If I have a valid reason for asking for a re-start later on, and my opponent refuses it just because he wants the benefits of a concession NOW so that he can play on with THAT particular team (especially if I'm not offering a "next week" restart, but more of a "tomorrow" or even a "later on" one), that would make me quite grumpty. I'd probably concede if I really have to, but still I'd make sure to avoid a person with such a low-flexibility in the future.
But that's me... (who, incidentally, never asked for a later-on game, btw)
ps: of course, there's people out there who make up excuses just to try and dodge you forever... and that's as lame as it gets... but they do get spotted easily enough with time, I think. |
_________________
 |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:50 |
|
You don't need a concession for disconnecting players. If your internet's on the blink or your son's fallen down the stairs, that's no reason to cripple your online Blood Bowl team as well.
What you need to do is reschedule the match. Concessions could be appropriately forced where one player refuses to do this.
The problem specific to Blackbox is that you can't then play at all until that rescheduled match (as opposed to just having the one team tied up). So what is really needed isn't mindless concessions, but a system for allowing players to play on with their other Blackbox teams in the meantime. (On a side note, that would also be one reason to have more than one team in the Blackbox. Always a good thing too.) |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Feb 25, 2009 - 16:56 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | | ...my opponent refuses it just because he wants the benefits of a concession NOW so that he can play on with THAT particular team... |
Jan, in Blackbox, it's not so much wanting the concession NOW, but wanting to play AT ALL. If you have a match scheduled, you can't activate your other Blackbox teams (you can click the button, but you won't go into the draw). |
|
|
|
|
| |
Vamps win another ma...
Search
