super_dipsy wrote:Bromley86 wrote:You simply cannot hit someone with a surrender in this situation and still expect them to go to the effort.
You say a player should be rewarded for trying to find a replacement so the game is not further disrupted. Why?
See above. It's just human nature, unfortunately. Look, I get the idea of promoting correct behaviour; I think you'd agree that my posts to Find A Game for surrendered positions are among the most frequent, most detailed, and most updated on this site. I'd like to see everyone doing that, but I don't. This tells me something about the userbase, and the lesson I draw is that the vast majority of people need encouragement to do the right thing. Sad, but that's the environment.
Aside from that ongoing attempt to get a sub for an excellent French position, there don't appear to be many attempts to pre-fill an upcoming permanent vacancy. The only example I found was an advert for a replacement, followed by a surrender upon securing the replacement, by tombone in 125548. (He doesn't seem to have a surrender against his name; either admin intervention, or perhaps surrenders don't process until the game ends. It would be interesting if it was the former.) Wegg tried to find a replacement, for a day, but then surrendered anyway (125751). Sure, I may have missed a raft of them, but the key point is that this preferred behaviour does not seem to be particularly prevalent. The site has had many years to encourage it, but appears to have failed to do so. There's little reason to believe waiting more years will change this.
I would argue it encourages the wrong behaviour because it encourages people that you can ditch games without penalty, meaning that Playdip is a place where the encouraged behaviour is not to stay with your games but instead just to make sure if you want to leave that you try to find a replacement. I understand that this does ensure the game is not further damaged, but in my view it encourages completely the wrong mind-set on site.
Most people won't take over a really poor position (c.f. the 3 unit mid-late surrenders that remain unfilled), so it's not likely there will be much misuse; those cases will still surrender. And that can be aided by having a recharge time before you can ditch a game again (say a week from first use where you can use it, then 3-6 months to recharge). Or 3 replacements a year, with anything more being a surrender (simpler, so likely better).
It's easy to structure it so that you can't ditch a game without penalty. For example, I've suggested 100% of the loss be applied to the original player, should the sub not make the draw/solo. So there's no incentive there to drop games because they don't like someone in the game, don't think they are going to win, or are playing too many games at once (well, maybe that last one, but only if they're so strapped for time they'd have had a significant negative effect on the game anyway).
As I said above, it seems to me that the mindset that you want to encourage has not yet been encouraged, so perhaps there should be a shift to reducing harm over punishing moral turpitude. Mind you, I don't have any stats to indicate that this is a pressing problem, just a couple of posts on Find A Game.