Ladle 37 - Discussion Thread

[kyle]

Changed this to Ladle 37 -Discussion thread.

As for seeding, that involves a great deal of work from our current system of creating the brackets to a new system that would support seeding when creating brackets. For that reason, If that does pass during this vote, I think that should not be effective until ladle 38. This is because I won't put time to something that may potentially be useless, If someone else wants to that's fine, But when the voting thread would end and the challenge board gets set, there is not enough time to rewrite it.

But please once there is a pretty solid idea on seeding bring it into here.

[PsYkO]

...Vote If any issues evolve from the time of creating the challenge board to the time of the event.

Exactly. Think of it as an extra security measure or fail-safe that we'll use rarely. If we do use it, it will probably be to sort out server issues, which are the most likely place we'll have a problem (where to play when this or that server is down?).

Fair enough. Thumbs up!

[owned]

Changed this to Ladle 37 -Discussion thread.

As for seeding, that involves a great deal of work from our current system of creating the brackets to a new system that would support seeding when creating brackets. For that reason, If that does pass during this vote, I think that should not be effective until ladle 38. This is because I won't put time to something that may potentially be useless, If someone else wants to that's fine, But when the voting thread would end and the challenge board gets set, there is not enough time to rewrite it.

But please once there is a pretty solid idea on seeding bring it into here.

Would it really take a lot of extra time? Once you know the teams that have been seeded, you can just place the 4 seeded teams on the challenge board and then randomize the other 12.

[Flex]

I used to think seeding was fine, and might have even made the Ladles more fun and possibly even fair, but in actuality it would require a Human mind to even begin seeding the Ladles. Because as a point system or any other form of trying to rank the teams would fail or be incomplete half the time and require some intervention. For that reason I think it's simply not fair and wouldn't work. And that is one of the reasons why I disagree.

The Ladle is far too dynamic and flexible in terms of players per teams to be able to have a seeding system that works fairly easily. Teams seem to change nearly every Ladle - and that's one of the key enjoyments about it, I believe (but I don't get to enjoy that part ). Players that were playing in one team are seen playing in another, one or two Ladles later. How would you begin to seed a team that doesn't have the same players it did last the Ladle? Would you decide that "Yes, we'll seed them, because that team was awesome last Ladle". Seems quite stupid.

We don't get paid for this - so obviously we're not dedicated to show up every Ladle or make sure we turn up every time playing our best or on form. A team can be really good one Ladle and be really average another Ladle. New teams are also added - what to do with those. Old teams are added - what to do with those? Unlike the world cup where seeding looks like a good idea - in the Ladle it would only create extra effort and possibly even unfairness. We don't know how many teams every Ladle will show up or we can't predict how many new teams will join or the correct strength of every team.

As just an example - within the world cup, seeding is based on fixed teams and qualifications and done with almost zero human intervention. As Kyle said, nobody is interested in putting so much work into seeding that would not really make a massive deal or ANY difference as of right now. Just so we could be happy knowing where everybody is going to be playing every Ladle.

Random is fun, trust me. And for that main reason, I do not agree with seeding at this time. I think the best way to show everybody how something is so good, is by giving them an example, either by creating a separate tournament or league and giving everyone a chance to try it. Quite a few people like the FPL settings and wanted it to be used in the Ladle, finally it got nowhere so it was introduced with the FPL and everybody had a chance to test it. They tried it and I think didn't enjoy it as much as the original Ladle.

[kyle]

Would it really take a lot of extra time? Once you know the teams that have been seeded, you can just place the 4 seeded teams on the challenge board and then randomize the other 12.

It's not that simple, The script takes and randomizes the order of the teams, then it takes and places those teams into slots on the challenge board, what would ultimately happen is the seed spots will be overwritten with the regular team slots. Also we currently set the servers by hand before the randomization takes place, with seeding we cold potentially be giving certain teams a certain server, so those will have to be factored into the script.

And for those wondering this is what the current script looks like.

[sinewav]

Bumpin'

There are some things I'd like to discuss while we wait for the seeding advocates to straighten out their mess in that other thread.

I'm looking for some creative help with ideas for us to manage future Ladles. So far it looks like many of us favor monthly voting instead of quarterly (it should let us manage the Ladle as a group more effectively). And I think, personally, the rules could be a little clearer. That's easy enough to fix. But what isn't easy is working accountability into our new system.

Yes we can vote more often to keep things running smooth. Yes we can tighten up the rules. But, how do we ENFORCE them? Without a central body to hand out discipline, how can we manage ourselves? (I've said it before, but I personally don't like punishments. I think we should have a system that removes the incentive for wrongdoing - but that's rather difficult, eh?)

So, I have an idea and I want to see who agrees, who can make it better, or who can come up with a better idea. It is on the previous page and it goes along with monthly voting...

[These] threads can be used to sort out issues with "problem players." Rather than an elected group handing out bans, we can review evidence and vote on possible punishments as a community (think of it as a trial by jury)*

But this phrase alone isn't enough to make an effective system. There are questions that need to be answered. What is an appropriate "punishment?" A simple ban? How long? Is there something less harsh than a ban we can use?

So maybe we use the voting thread to discuss player discipline. How do we stop mob action or bias from taking over? I could say "so-and-so did this and they should be banned," and another person could say "yes, this happened and here is the evidence..." How do we keep the threads clear of inflammatory rhetoric? Does it even matter? Won't everyone have cooler heads three weeks later when voting begins?

I'm inclined to trust the community to make the right decision in a vote. Seriously, even a notorious troublemaker like jedi.swiss won't get kicked from a Fort server on most days. What if we say, in these votes, that a simple majority isn't good enough for a ban? What would be an acceptable vote? Unanimous? Something less?

We really do need a system with accountability. We have a poll system built into Armagetron. We could use something "built into" Ladle.

[Nelhybel]

Punishments are incentive for not committing wrongs - I'd like to agree that punishments and bans shouldn't really be involved here because very rarely will they be distributed correctly (punishing the correct people to the correct extent), but unfortunately I don't think there is a good way around it.

I think the "community jury" should be the team captains from the most recent ladle. What they vote on should require a majority vote (assuming 16 captains, then 9 votes), and bans should require a 2/3's vote rounded up (assuming 16 captains, 11 votes).

If it becomes apparent that a team captain who participates in numerous ladles is intentionally obstructing the system or causing other trouble with their votes, or receiving favors (bribes) from people who are "on trial" to be banned or receive other punishment, the rest of the jury could vote by a 2/3's margin to ban this specific captain from captaining any team for a certain number of ladles.

EDIT: corrected a typo.

[Word]

i like dlh's system more because if it's dependent on the entire community everyone just tries to get his team and his other dummies to vote here (btw, what are the final results of your survey?). Mob hysteria wouldn't be possible.

[sinewav]

i like dlh's system more because if it's dependent on the entire community everyone just tries to get his team and his other dummies to vote here (btw, what are the final results of your survey?). Mob hysteria wouldn't be possible.

Yeah, I've thought about that. I assume you are referring to the PM passed to certain people last week? Here are some reasons why this method is not ideal, IMO:

1. It requires someone to be in charge. I'm trying to think of a system that doesn't require a committee or someone to elect.
2. The people on dlh's list were mostly representatives from each team in L-36, essentially team leaders. It isn't even clear if these people represent an entire team or not. How to determine who get included?
3. PM's aren't transparent. And, they exclude people.

The reasons why I think the voting thread is the appropriate tool are:

1. It involves everyone, indirectly - just like all the other votes. Everyone who is on a team gets a say, through their team.
2. It's anonymous. We know the team's vote, but we don't know the individual's vote. Example: PRU votes to ban Player 1. However, we have no idea how Word voted. We don't know if their team voted unanimously or if the decision was split (what goes on in you team is none of our business).
3. It's self governing (no appointees). It's transparent (no PM's).

I feel like 3-4 weeks after someone calls for a ban will be enough time for people to cool off and vote reasonably. "Mob action" usually happens when people are overheated about a situation.

I firmly believe we need to write in a system of accountability. But I would like give as much advantage to the accused as possible. To me, any punishment (whether it's a ban or something else) is quite shameful. I'd like to see a system that makes it possible, but rather hard to punish someone; a system that overcomes any potential bias in the group.

[Z-Man]

[*] PM's aren't transparent.

They are. Read the poll again, there is a way for you to verify afterwards that your vote was not altered. For the rest of the issues, yep; but the votes done previously have the same problems. Someone needs to collect the issues and post the vote, and whoever collects them needs to check which of the votes should count. The only disadvantage of the PM vote that can't be fixed is that it's more work (everything apart from the actual vote collection can be handled publicly like previously), the advantage is the added anonymity; only the vote organizer knows who voted for what. It's really not important for your regular votes on the size of teams or holes, but for person related votes, like ban punishments, it can be vital; it's a good thing to be able to vote on bans without having to think about what others will think of you for voting the way you do.

[epsy]

They are. Read the poll again, there is a way for you to verify afterwards that your vote was not altered.

Unless fake voters are added.

[sinewav]

The only disadvantage of the PM vote that can't be fixed is that it's more work (everything apart from the actual vote collection can be handled publicly like previously), the advantage is the added anonymity; only the vote organizer knows who voted for what.

Thanks for pointing all that out, Z-Man. So maybe the two systems are comparable, and maybe one is easier and the other more secure?

Any other ideas on how to add accountability to the tournament? And if we decide to use the PM route, what kind of procedure is involved? Is it simply "A Ladle Enthusiast decides to make a PM and sent it to team leaders, collects the vote by a certain date, then posts the verdict?" I guess that would work.

[Z-Man]

Sinewaw: yeah, it's convenience vs. privacy, basically.

Epsy: We'll get a list of who could have voted and everyone who actually voted will see his votes over his secret vote key. The list of people who actually voted at all needs to be published. To check that no votes were added, everyone needs to count the number of keys and voters and every voter needs to check his key's vote. You can only add votes then if two actual voters voted exactly the same on all issues, then the organizer can give them the same key and invent another for a fake vote. Easy additional countermeasure for the future: a "pick a random number!!" vote item that decreases the probability of vote collisions.

[Word]

2. The people on dlh's list were mostly representatives from each team in L-36, essentially team leaders. It isn't even clear if these people represent an entire team or not. How to determine who get included?
3. ...And, they exclude people.

How about 17 randomized voters out of the development team and the teams* that took part in the ladle? The questioner has to be one of the team captains (or developers) that aren't involved in the problem (which means the bias argument is unnecessary).


*not all players who were signed up, but those who really played in the tournament

[Shock]

score_hole -1
score_suicide -1