New Ladle Rules (Split from Lade 37 discussion)

[Word]

i just feel like my own cause is championed well enough...

[sinewav]

well i don't see any reason to say what i really think of this whole rules-changing situation

I suspect "what you really think" has more to do with rule-changing in general rather than these specific changes, correct? If that's the case, then you're probably right to keep quiet. But if you see a problem with specific new rules/procedures, and have a alternate or better suggestion, then please tell us what you think. You definitely seem interested enough to post a few times. Maybe make a meaningful contribution?

[Goodygumdrops]

well i don't see any reason to say what i really think of this whole rules-changing situation

Maybe make a meaningful contribution?

[Hoax]

I'm surprised there isn't more feedback on the rule revisions. Really surprised. Should there be a new thread for it? Is this catching people's attention? Can those who have read them, spread the word?

Probably because there was only one team to not understand the guidelines of the ladle last time and their team leader was involved in these rules
As for spreading the word simple bullet points of the new rules (minimum of 4 players needed etc.) will do when the next ladle topic and sign up page is created
And the fact that only team leaders can edit the wiki now. This seemed restrictive at first but makes sense

[noob_saibot]

I'm surprised there isn't more feedback on the rule revisions. Really surprised. Should there be a new thread for it? Is this catching people's attention? Can those who have read them, spread the word?

Probably because there was only one team to not understand the guidelines of the ladle last time and their team leader was involved in these rules

Yeah that seems to be about right. Makes no sense...

[gawdzilla]

good job, I like it

[sinewav]

Probably because there was only one team to not understand the guidelines of the ladle last time and their team leader was involved in these rules

Yeah that seems to be about right. Makes no sense...

The purpose of the revision was to add clarity. It's obvious the problem in L-36 happened because of differing interpretations of the rules. Having Flex participate in the revision is actually the best thing we can do. If two camps with opposite views can come to agreement, isn't that auspicious?

Plus, we had problems in L-35. I think a rewrite was inevitable. But I guess I'm glad to hear most people are in agreement.

[1200]

Mkay1 wrote:
I don't think the maximum number of players per team should be 11.
All of the newly proposed rules are there to subvert the practice of team-swapping. Think of it as an added measure to stop two teams from signing up in the same slot. It really shouldn't affect anyone adversely, but if found that it does more harm than good we'll surely do away with it.

Is there any advantage of two teams signing up in the same slot?? I don't see a point for any team to do this. Surely if two teams were to list all their player's on the same spot the best thing they can do is to form the strongest team out of all the players listed. The way i see is that by not allowing 12 you are kind of saying if you have 12 then you should sign up on two slots but since turnouts are usually not guaranteed you usually need more than 12 to ensure you have 2 full teams on the day of the ladle. I don't see any reason to put a cap on the number of maximum players. A clan that has 30 players should be able to list all their players and be able to select any given 6 on the day of the tourny imo. They can even assemble an all American team for matches on an American server and all European team for matches on a Euro server, but this limitation would not let them do something like this.

Also why is it that only the team leader has to sign up with the global ID?
If the players (other than the captain) that are listed are aliases, then you are just leaving loop holes for teams to get around rules 3,4 & 5.
If all players that are signed up for the ladle are not signed up with the global ID i don't see the reason for every player to be authenticated during the ladle because if they are aliases they can get anybody to play for them.
If it was intended for players to be able to play under aliases then i would say to allow them to play under different name from their global ID.


As for rule #11, is there going to be an admin (global moderator) for every match to enforce this? I've played in a plenty of matches where there were no admins. If team captains have the admin powers to start matches and one of the captains force starts the match while the other does not agree so the other captain decides to re-start the match afterwards what happens? (This i have seen on multiple occasions, usually people just play on grudgingly) Did anyone violate any rules?
How do you prove that 10 mins have elapsed, especially if both teams are late? Also i think the team thats engaged in a match past their next scheduled match should have some kind of grace period of like say 5 or 10 mins to get their teams again/take a break before the next match.

If an admin (global moderator) sabotages a match by either re-starting a match or kicking/silencing an opponent player intentionally or accidentally what happens?
I don't think something like this should wait til the end of the Ladle to have to be voted upon.
Maybe there should be rules for what Global Moderators can and can not do if they are also team captains.

[Olive]

++ for 1,2k. You can still pull off a 'flex' by signing 2 aliased teams.

[1200]

Actually having thought again even if all players are signed up with global IDs you can still get around rules 3,4 & 5 by having multiple global IDs.
Yes it does violate rule #6 but i don't think there's a way to prove that two global IDs are the same guy even if it has the same IP because two or more people could be sharing the same IP. So i don't know what can be done to stop something like this.
But at least by enforcing everyone to sign up with their global ID it makes it a little more difficult and i think its better than not enforcing everyone to sign up with their global ID.

[Olive]

Or people should realize it's not cool to switch teams.

[sinewav]

[Is there any advantage of two teams signing up in the same slot?? I don't see a point for any team to do this.

Admittedly, this is one of the weaker rules. But I the reasoning is related to the alias problem. Some people want to know who they are going to play (this is why signing up with aliases is frowned upon by some). Restricting the number of players who could be on a team creates a clearer picture. Does it work in practice? Maybe, maybe not.

Also why is it that only the team leader has to sign up with the global ID?
If the players (other than the captain) that are listed are aliases, then you are just leaving loop holes for teams to get around rules 3,4 & 5.

Yeah, we're aware of the loop holes. But the alias problem doesn't have an easy solution. I think eventually we'll need a system where we have a specific Ladle authority (like @ladle) and full GiD signups. But what a pain in the ass that will be.

However, now is a good a time as any to discuss the alias problem. We've already voted that aliases are allowed in game. Authentication for Ladle is there to protect you and your teammates from having an impostor play for you - but doesn't give you any information about a fully aliased team. So, what else can be done?

As for rule #11, is there going to be an admin (global moderator) for every match to enforce this?

It would be awesome if we had GM's for every match. But if a team wants to start, and it's clearly past the reasonable amount of time a team should be ready, then yes - start it up. If the other team complains after, we can check the logs. Remember, time management has always been a problem in Ladle. We all need to do what we can as players to make it smoother. (Also, 10 minutes is plenty of time to use the restroom and grab a drink/snack between finals - and still have time to join a server and shuffle.)

Thanks for the feedback 1200. Let's keep it rolling.

[Mkay1]

Just saying... These rules kinda **** open teams. Maybe add a footnote for some of the rules that you can only add players if you are an open team. But this would be hard to um...enforce, and moniter.

since I was once an open team leader, so I have a soft spot in this area, off you will.

[sinewav]

These rules kinda **** open teams.

I know. One of my first ideas was to make an exemption for open teams, but it fell through. But we did our best to find a balance. Remeber, you can still make player changes up to one hour before Ladle.

[sinewav]

Update: Ok, I killed the rule about 11 players max. We can always add it later if we need it.

Anything else? I get the feeling most people are Ok with this Ladle revision, and it will pass in a vote.