Winning after taking over for someone else

Suggestions on improving the site or comments in general?

Re: Winning after taking over for someone else

Postby Bromley86 » 13 Mar 2017, 22:48

@Gareth. Stage 3 lends itself to a temporary protected intervention. Up to that point, there have been (hopefully) no NMRs, so the small disruption of a one-time protection reset might allow for seamless transition.

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.
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
Premium Member
 
Posts: 214
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 2125
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: Winning after taking over for someone else

Postby gareth66 » 14 Mar 2017, 00:17

@Bromley86: Protection from loss of points for the game not going his way, yes and absolutely. But why should there be protection from the recklessness and irresponsibility of an NMR or surrender? Why should the original player be penalised if the person to whom he has entrusted the game does not fulfil his obligation?

So, under my proposal, the original player and the replacement enter into an agreement for the time-limited duration of the temporary substitution. The replacement agrees to take on the game for that period on behalf of the original player. During that period he agrees to play reliably and in the best interest of the original player. He is protected from how the game develops because he has no points interest, and the original player has agreed to tale whatever consequences follow in terms of the outcome of the game points-wise. That's part of the agreement. But if the replacement lets the original player down, not by virtue of play that for want of his best efforts takes the game away from him, but by virtue of lack of reliability entirely within his own responsibility, then he has broken his agreement to play reliably on behalf of the other player. Any NMR or surrender during the temporary sub period constitutes a breach of contract and at that point the sub forfeits his protection from the conseqnences of that breach. NMRs and surrenders go against the substitute.

On the other hand, the original player has agreed to return at the end of the temporary period. If he fails to do this then he is the one in breach of contract. At that point the sub has fulfilled his commitment, given in the original agreement, and is entitled to walk away if he does not want to take the game on for himself. So if the original player is auto-surrendered as a consequence, absolutely right that he gets the hit.

That's the way I see it anyway.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: (1921)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Winning after taking over for someone else

Postby Bromley86 » 14 Mar 2017, 01:06

gareth66 wrote:@Bromley86: Protection from loss of points for the game not going his way, yes and absolutely. But why should there be protection from the recklessness and irresponsibility of an NMR or surrender? Why should the original player be penalised if the person to whom he has entrusted the game does not fulfil his obligation?


Apologies, I wasn't clear. I merely meant that if the sub declines, and the original is auto-surrendered, at that point it might be useful if the game intervened with a message similar to that in a Protected game, and if the turn reset to give the remaining players a chance to advertise. Something like:

Admin (Spring 1909, Jun 22 2016 06:27 (GMT+12))
A substitute has elected not to continue past the substitute period. The deadline is extended for a grace period to allow for a replacement to be found. If one is not found, the country will be placed into Civil Disorder.


Totally agree that, under your system, both NMRs and surrenders count against the sub (obviously a stage 3 auto-surrender counts against the original).
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
Premium Member
 
Posts: 214
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 2125
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: Winning after taking over for someone else

Postby Bromley86 » 28 Mar 2017, 00:15

As a followup, I've just found someone doing something which is a natural result of the current system.

Surrender, you're punished (although at it hasn't stopped him in the past, including the recent past), play and you're bored. So a conclusion some will draw is to just gift your centres to someone. I've done that in the past, although in my case it was a gambit to shake things up and get included in a draw.

That really messes with a game. In this particular game, it may cost someone a well-deserved solo. I can't say that I've noticed a lot of it though, and I imagine that most people who are of that bent just click Surrender, just as this chap normally does. If I had to quit a game because I couldn't play, and couldn't find a sub, that's what I'd do rather than surrendering. I might even justify it to everyone as a kamikaze move.
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
Premium Member
 
Posts: 214
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Rating: 2125
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: Winning after taking over for someone else

Postby GhostEcho » 28 Mar 2017, 01:07

I don't know, I tend to think "here, take my centers" is probably a fairly common reaction to getting sick of a particular game, even without the incentive to start a new one. Though myself I stick around PlayDip mainly for the forum-hosted variants lately, and never play more than about 5 games at a time, and usually have Premium, so maybe I'm not the person to ask.

Anyway, your comment did make me wonder: maybe the better option for non-premium membership would be something like only joining a new game every n days rather than a hard limit? And potentially a surrender would add a +h hrs penalty to that?

So e.g. NewUser registers, and can join up to 3 games in his first 72 hours, but after that then only join a new game every 7 days, and any surrender either extends the next opportunity to join a game 48 hours and/or suspends ability to join a game (if he already could) 48 hours. Obviously I have (a) no idea what this would do to coding, server load, game counts, etc. and (b) those particular numbers are only suggestions.
"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, then it's time to panic." - Johann van der Wiel
"I'm not panicking, I'm watching you panic. It's more entertaining." - Elli Quinn (Brothers in Arms)
User avatar
GhostEcho
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 04:56
Location: PG County, MD, USA
Class: Ambassador
Rating: 930
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests