Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Suggestions on improving the site or comments in general?

Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby ColonelApricot » 16 Nov 2017, 07:27

I've been a Classicist for quite a while but have very rarely participated in Classicist games. Why?

---Virtually all Classicist games are standard map, vanilla variant and I like to play premium variants and non-standard maps.

I am a bronze but probably could be at a higher rating but haven't bothered. Why?

---The only significant distinction seems to be between Aspiring and the rest. I think it is pretty tough getting seven platinum, gold plus or even silver plus level players together. I question whether the admin overhead in maintaining these categories is worthwhile.

Regarding reliability (and ignoring the classicist sanction requirements) we have the following levels:

Diplomat - unknown.
Aspiring classicist - 1 completed game without surrender (managed by Classicist admin)
Ambassador - 3 completed games with "minimal unreliability" (automatic by site)
Bronze/ Silver/ Gold/ Platinum - various levels managed by Classicist admin.

Suggestion: how about automating "Aspiring Classicist" to become "Aspiring Ambassador" or "Attache" or whatever - to set a fairly low bar for newish players that are aspiring to be a notch up in recognised reliability. This might encourage them to build up a bit of reliability history, with the next hurdle (fully fledged Ambassador) well within sight. And a PLUS for the hard-working Classicist admins to save them laboring on the steady stream of aspirants (Classicist applications would need to beat least "Attache" level to be considered).

If the category "Attaches Only" were added to the game parameters then players with just one clean completed game could participate in games with Attaches or Ambassador with some confidence of getting a decent game experience.

(Note: originally filed under the Classicists Forum).

..CA
Ethiopia in Dissolution
GRU of the Despicables
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 979
All-game rating: 1395
Timezone: GMT

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby Bromley86 » 16 Nov 2017, 13:32

Given that you were told in the Classicist forum to post here, it falls upon me to be the bureaucrat that tells you suggestions about the structure of the Classicists belong in that forum :) .

Seriously, you're absolutely right about the Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum thing. Aspiring, Member, Kicked: these are the only categories of Classicist that are necessary. Reducing the tedious checking for those in charge will make for a better club, as people waiting for attention are more likely to become disillusioned.

Over to your main point: automation is something that should always be sought. So if a sanctioned group has a set of requirements that can sensibly be coded to automatically make the selection, I'm all for that. The tags need to have an admin (not site admin, club admin) override though, to avoid issues around a justified surrender accepted by the admins.

There's a lot of thought that needs to go into adding extra layers into the current site ranking structure. I got pulled up a while back for suggesting something similar; I was ill at the time, and I've deliberately not bothered looking at it since, because I've not wanted to wander down that rabbit hole. There's definitely something to think about on the subject though. I mean, what are we aiming for here? 100% inclusion, including people who do the Diplomacy equivalent of smearing faeces on the wall, or 100% good game experience?

Let's put it another way. How long do you want to tolerate someone in genpop who repeatedly surrenders or NMRs? And, do you think that improves the experience of a new player, who inevitably bumps into this sort of person more than I do? There are Ambassador games to help avoid this, but even after they attain that, how many players make use of it? Just as with Classicist, I make use of neither as much as I should if I was being sensible. Perhaps instead of giving people targets to attain, we should be giving them a low bar to access at a high level, and then remove privileges, subtly, for bad behaviour?
A member of the Classicists, a group that aims to reduce NMRs/surrenders.
Bromley86
Premium Member
 
Posts: 488
Joined: 02 May 2012, 00:16
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1884
All-game rating: 2257
Timezone: GMT+12

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby Alman » 16 Nov 2017, 17:36

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rise in defense of the metal categories,

While I completely concede the points about the easier bookkeeping and utility of only two categories of Classicist, I also feel that there is something to be said for the gradations. The first reason in favor is human nature. We are prideful people, who tend to be motivated by achievement and competition. Providing additional ranks to motivate one to continue to uphold your status and strive for better are real things. I cite as evidence that this works that while anyone could just join and then leave it be, many make the effort to apply to the upgrades as soon as they qualify. This shows that it has value to people. I myself, after suffering loss of position (from gold to bronze) after an unfortunate accident/oversight, felt the pain of the loss of achievement and I now look forward to my upward restoration as I rebuild my record.

Second, there have been (and I believe should be again) occasional "upper" level Classicist games. A couple of years ago there was a couple of games launched as a proof-of-concept and they not only filled, but were quite successful and fun.

Again, not discounting the previously stated advantages of a simple 2-tier system, but arguing there are good reasons to keep the current system in place.

Mr Speaker, I yield the floor.
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
Turkey in "Blitzkrieg" PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1459
All-game rating: 1581
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 16 Nov 2017, 22:57

Bromley86 wrote:Given that you were told in the Classicist forum to post here, it falls upon me to be the bureaucrat that tells you suggestions about the structure of the Classicists belong in that forum :) .

You'd be correct, except that the actual suggestion:

CA wrote:Suggestion: how about automating "Aspiring Classicist" to become "Aspiring Ambassador" or "Attache" or whatever - to set a fairly low bar for newish players that are aspiring to be a notch up in recognised reliability. This might encourage them to build up a bit of reliability history, with the next hurdle (fully fledged Ambassador) well within sight. And a PLUS for the hard-working Classicist admins to save them laboring on the steady stream of aspirants (Classicist applications would need to beat least "Attache" level to be considered).

Is asking for automation, which is something beyond the abilities of the Classicist admin, and would require site admin to set up (actually, I think Dipsy might be the only one who could do this, but don't quote me on that). So yeah, this is partly a suggestion of restructuring, but also partly a suggestion that would change how site classifications work too (unless I'm badly misreading it).


My own personal two cents is that this intertwines the main site classifications too much with the Classicists--while I love the group and I've played some of my favorite games there, I don't think it's really fair to the broader population to tie anything on the main site to the club, because there are many players that for whatever reason aren't interested in the club.

That's my own opinion though, and it's possible that I'm misunderstanding the suggestion to begin with.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1386
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby ColonelApricot » 16 Nov 2017, 23:14

Bromley86 wrote:Given that you were told in the Classicist forum to post here, it falls upon me to be the bureaucrat that tells you suggestions about the structure of the Classicists belong in that forum :) .


Done.

Bromley86 wrote:Over to your main point: automation is something that should always be sought. So if a sanctioned group has a set of requirements that can sensibly be coded to automatically make the selection, I'm all for that. The tags need to have an admin (not site admin, club admin) override though, to avoid issues around a justified surrender accepted by the admins.

For my proposed "Attache" category it is a pretty low bar - one game without surrender (same as Classicist Aspirant). Not really worth the bother of adminning justified surrenders because there's nothing at stake. Let's say an engineered 7 way surrender is performed in 1901. No problem, just get another game set up and finish it. What about an engineered 7 way draw? Good on them, they've got a brain, as I say, it's a low bar.

Bromley86 wrote:I mean, what are we aiming for here? 100% inclusion, including people who do the Diplomacy equivalent of smearing faeces on the wall, or 100% good game experience?
Let's put it another way. How long do you want to tolerate someone in genpop who repeatedly surrenders or NMRs? And, do you think that improves the experience of a new player, who inevitably bumps into this sort of person more than I do? There are Ambassador games to help avoid this, but even after they attain that, how many players make use of it? Just as with Classicist, I make use of neither as much as I should if I was being sensible. Perhaps instead of giving people targets to attain, we should be giving them a low bar to access at a high level, and then remove privileges, subtly, for bad behaviour?

Aiming for the largest possible subgroup of genpop that have made a discernible effort toward reliability. One game without surrendering. The reward: ability to join a game made up of peers. It's a really low bar, but it works for the Classicists and it should work for genpop. And they don't have to go near the Forum either. It'll be there, Ambassador-style, as soon as they get that completed game under their belt. Nice would be a message telling them "You are now an Attache - you can join Attache-only games for a better experience. Make sure you don't surrender and lose the privilege. And BTW only two more non-surrender games and you'll be an Ambassador!".

..CA
Ethiopia in Dissolution
GRU of the Despicables
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 979
All-game rating: 1395
Timezone: GMT

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby ColonelApricot » 18 Nov 2017, 01:01

Hi Mods.

Would you please provide some stats as follows:

1. Currently active players: the number of players that have finished at least one game since joining, and have started in a ranked or non-ranked game within the past 6 months (arbitrary choice of period, being long enough to include recent joiners that have finished a game but short enough to exclude drop-outs and one-offs).

2. Currently active players eligible to be at least aspirant levelCurrently active players eligible to be at least aspirant level: Number in category 1 who completed their last game without surrendering. (This will include all existing Ambassadors).

3. Currently active ambassadorsCurrently active ambassadors: Number in category 1 that are ambassadors.

Reason for asking? To find out what percentage and number of active players that would fulfill the criteria for a basic "Attache" category, and how this compares with the existing Ambassador category. This would be a measure of the number of players interested in being "reliable" players.

Totally open to refining the above conditions of measurement if anyone has such to offer.

..CA
Ethiopia in Dissolution
GRU of the Despicables
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 979
All-game rating: 1395
Timezone: GMT

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby WHSeward » 18 Nov 2017, 01:49

Based on data in the forum and on the site, you can figure all this.

1. Currently active players:
Scroll to the bottom of the stats page (or if you can read the url, make big jumps until you find the bottom) and that will tell you. It's usually around 2000.

2. Currently active players eligible to be at least aspirant level
As defined, you want the number of players that have not surrendered 1 game in a row, right? Well there are around 2.5 surrenders per game, so that means about two-thirds of your population did not surrender their last game. (There is some potential reasons that estimate might get distorted, but it is going to be close enough for your purposes.)

3. Currently active ambassadors
About 20% of the players.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2743
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1633
All-game rating: 1647
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby ColonelApricot » 18 Nov 2017, 04:30

Thanks.
WHSeward wrote:Based on data in the forum and on the site, you can figure all this.

1. Currently active players:
Scroll to the bottom of the stats page (or if you can read the url, make big jumps until you find the bottom) and that will tell you. It's usually around 2000.

That would be the "Website" tab on the Stats page? No scrolling needed so maybe not that one, but there I see
--Total number of players active:1431. What is the definition of "active" there please? This number is significantly below your estimate of 2000.
--Total number of Ambassadors:2871

What data is on the Forum?

WHSeward wrote:2. Currently active players eligible to be at least aspirant level
As defined, you want the number of players that have not surrendered 1 game in a row, right? Well there are around 2.5 surrenders per game, so that means about two-thirds of your population did not surrender their last game. (There is some potential reasons that estimate might get distorted, but it is going to be close enough for your purposes.)

Yes the number that did not surrender their last game. 4.5/7 = 65% equates to 930 players.
WHSeward wrote:3. Currently active ambassadors
About 20% of the players.

20% of 1431 = 286 active ambassadors then.

SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE

Ambassadors 20% = 286
"Aspirant eligible" (excluding Ambassadors) 45% = 644
Ineligible 15% = 501.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Based on the numbers derived above, nearly half of all active players that are not already Ambassadors would meet the reliability requirement for Classicist Aspirant (last completed game not surrendered).
2. Based on a quick search through the Classicist forum the number of aspirants is 110 (less if subsequent promotions were to be excluded). Therefore there are 500 out there that are not aware or not interested in being Classicist or don't use the Forum.
3. Automatically anointing these as "somewhat reliable players" in a subgroup that I am calling "Attaches" would provide a large group that are likely to be interested in playing games unspoiled by surrenders.
4. By providing a selection parameter similar to "Ambassadors Only" at game set up for this "Attache" group such players could expect a better game experience by restricting participants to their peers.
5. If the number of "Attache" level games generated is substantial then there will be a significant improvement in game quality and game experience, especially for new players that might otherwise be discouraged by gratuitous surrenders.

..CA
Ethiopia in Dissolution
GRU of the Despicables
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 281
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 979
All-game rating: 1395
Timezone: GMT

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby WHSeward » 18 Nov 2017, 05:22

@CA, no, I had in mind the Players sub-tab under Stats. You asked for "ranked" games so for that requires looking at the rankings. Not sure what the definition of active on the website tab is, but I'd assume it includes players of all games. I could be wrong.

Dipsy posts stats from time to time. Just search his posts with a few good key words and you will find it quick. I use google rather than the phpbb search function; its faster.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2743
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1633
All-game rating: 1647
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Reliability - Aspirants, Classicists and Attaches

Postby super_dipsy » 18 Nov 2017, 08:40

Just using simple DB queries (in other words, not doing anything too clever!) in your criteria the number of 'active' players is 2570. The number of ambassadors currently active is 664. The number of your 'active' class that did not surrender their last game is not something I can think of a database query to get. It might be possible with ranked games, but including unranked makes it very messy because although we record all surrenders, most other game data is only built for ranked games.

PS. Ah, I had a bit of a brainwave on the active class that did not surrender in their last game. It at least comes close! Of the 2570, 1966 had at least 1 game in the last 6 months that was not surrendered.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10892
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (956)
Timezone: GMT

Next

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests