Ladle 57

[vov]

You can't punish a whole community for the actions of a few.

It's not punishing the honest, committed players (who won't have any problem coming up with six to kick-ass with). I'm not sure it reduces the access to Ladle either, and might actually increase the number of teams. The biggest hurdle any new team faces is commitment, so unless you have that, it doesn't matter if there are 20 people on your roster. I guess we can restrict the sign-up to 7 so each team has a sub for themselves, but the sub should be committed to that team only.

The only thing we can do is try new systems. We don't 'punish' people here. Besides, this is just a proposal and it would need a lot of support to enact it.

You would punish players who have to leave in the progress of the tourney. Me for example. But well, I played for Baylife, I know you'd like to punish me for idontgetthereason . (btw: my original team had only 4 players on ladle day... legit reason to switch imho... problem?)
I can't read insa's+fofo's minds but I guess the smurfing was just for the big surprise; which totally failed, wap was logged in as wap@ct and over+elmo guessed our roster in semis ^^
We did play and win, if you didn't like our names, fine. If you don't like what we "did to our clans" (in my case: have a team of 3 instead of 4, wow, great difference), that's clan business. SP made it to finals without insa and fofo, mind that.

@"@ladle":
As you simply cannot prove one's identity over the internet, nothing can really stop smurfs. When names can be uncertain or shared, GIDs can too. And so can e-mail addresses. IP address checking as the strictest solution I could think of would also not work for everyone; as some have dynamic IPs (me for example... the reason why people can't bookmark my homehosted server ^^). Those players could play twice or whatnot. TBH I don't like stats either but heh, some do (just having stats might give those a reason to not alias).

It will be as safe as an @forums account... I mean well, you can do it, but I don't really see the use of it. However, requiring a valid GID to play which was created e.g at least half a month ago (you can check it here) could be helpful though to avoid changing around everything on ladle day.
BTW: Remember TST; epsy's @x authority was already made for tourneys afaik... maybe build it on that if you like

P.S: Page break! Yay!

[ElmosWorld]

Titan how would you ensure players didn't have multiple @ladle authorities?

Edit: oops didn't see vovs post. But yeah that.

[sinewav]

Wonderful. It's now clear some of the top players in Ladle are so unabashedly un-scrupulous that deception is considered no big deal, because no one cares about Ladle, and everyone's "been there, done that" (even though at least half of Ladle participants haven't).

So now the community must make a choice: Try to resolve this issue, or watch Ladle turn into WST. All aliases, all the time -- and no "teams" win, just loose collections of players that change from event to event.


@Speeders: I'm sorry you got dragged into this. But, this originated from your players and ultimately the actions of Baylife benefit your team even though you were eliminated in L-57. Sadly, it's your burden.

@Titan: I don't think a separate authority will do any good because there is still no way to ensure 1-player = 1-GiD.


Other than devising some sort of "software key" for players, there is no alias solution that I can see. I guess those who are disenfranchised can always play the Spoon, where you get to pick what teams you'd like to play, or play them at all. There is always room for a concurrent event too. It's not like Baylife are the only good players; not even a high percentage of the all-stars in this game.

[Mecca]

So now the community must make a choice: Try to resolve this issue, or watch Ladle turn into WST. All aliases, all the time -- and no "teams" win, just loose collections of players that change from event to event.

I don't think those are the only two possibilities.

As long as players play on one team during the ladle, I don't see a problem.

Why do you need to broadcast your identity?

The competition is the same.

[Titanoboa]

@Titan: I don't think a separate authority will do any good because there is still no way to ensure 1-player = 1-GiD.

When is the last time someone has played under alias and we haven't found out who it is after the tourney?

and @vov: well, the purpose of the @ladle wouldn't be to stop smurfing. If that's all we wanted, we'd just make a "no smurfing" rule, and nobody would get away with it. It's not like an "all-star" player under alias could get away with saying he's new.

@all: none of you helped me list pros and cons

[þsy]

I think one advantage of having a small community is that we can be flexible with rules, and don't need a rigid framework legislating what can and cannot be done

It's by no means ideal, but surely agreeing amongst ourselves not to play with aliases in ladle will suffice? If this agreement is broken, we can then allow for an appropriate consequence to be decided by the community (such as a ladle ban, or something else)? As has already been noted, nothing gets away unnoticed in this community, so holding each other to account isn't too difficult

Essentially any potential regulations enforced would ultimately be subjective (what is an alias? What constitutes smurfing and what doesn't? - my real name isn't þsy or ogopogo, believe it or not). Therefore, I think it would be best to acknowledge that any decision-making is inherently subjective; at a decision-making level, and leave any consequential actions to be made as a result of poor conduct - from particular players - to be decided democratically either by the whole community or a select group of players

(EDIT: That sentence isn't so easy to get your head round haha, sorry non-native English speakers)

And I can assure everyone that SP would much rather Revolver had won than this whole Baylife mess. By designating the "burden" to us, you assume that the 3-in-a-row means something to us. It appears to mean something to insa and fofo (though maybe not), and maybe it did to Revolver too. But unless it means something to SP, there is no benefit gained from Baylife's actions (though I can understand why people feel we're partly to blame)

[sinewav]

Not to get too nostalgic. The passion for Fortress and the Ladle dies when the honor dies. And while I'm at it - clans are the living, breathing entities of any community. People need to join clans or at least proper stable teams with at least some attachments and promote growth to excite the outsiders which in connection comes from competition and competitiveness!

[-*inS*-]

@Word
Wrong ladle, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the past, let's keep it to ladle 57 here. (though feel free to resurrect the ladle 36 thread if you want to have a discussion with me about that).

@Dreadlord
Actually this was planned before Revolver existed, stopping you guys from winning was merely icing on the cake. Funny to see you try and guess at my intentions though.

@lisa
lol this thread wouldn't be complete without you.

@Titan
Interesting idea, it wouldn't really help with the alias "problem", but it would definitely have other uses. I'd be in support of that.

@Sine
I don't understand where this pessimism is coming from. You're basically using this as an arguement that now EVERYONE is going to do it. Note: This isn't some mindblowing innovation, wasn't there a pokemon team aliased last ladle (Just pointing out it has been done in the past).

There are two centric ideas in your ladle fantasy.

1. A clear abundance of aliases
2. People intentionally abusing those aliases to ruin the ladle.

Now there's a large gap between steps one and two. While we were aliased, we didn't sign up 2 teams or any other of your nightmares. You are making a rather large jump without any justification to it. Honestly we don't even know if the first part of your fantasy will come true, so how about you stop worrying about the second and watch it play out? Relax.

[Concord]

you lied to everyone

[Titanoboa]

Essentially any potential regulations enforced would ultimately be subjective (what is an alias? What constitutes smurfing and what doesn't? - my real name isn't þsy or ogopogo, believe it or not). Therefore, I think it would be best to acknowledge that any decision-making is inherently subjective; at a decision-making level, and leave any consequential actions to be made as a result of poor conduct - from particular players - to be decided democratically either by the whole community or a select group of players

Coincidentally, the @ladle suggestion I formed deals with this. You can change your name once a month if you want to, but for more than that you'd have to make a secondary account and that'd be cheating. And, of course, the name change history for each account would be public.

[-*inS*-]

you lied to everyone

Where?

[sinewav]

I don't understand where this pessimism is coming from. You're basically using this as an arguement that now EVERYONE is going to do it. Note: This isn't some mindblowing innovation, wasn't there a pokemon team aliased last ladle (Just pointing out it has been done in the past).

Code: Select all

Pokémon (Blastoise (ItzAcid@forums), snorlax, Lapras, machop, Gyrados, Professor Elm, Dragonite, TBD, TBD) 

Let's take a look at the differences:

#1 The Team Leader isn't under alias. It's Acid.
#2 None of the players on that team were signed up under other teams.

Why does this matter? Because when a player is signed up on two teams under different names that player has a choice the other players don't. That player can say "I would like to play on this team because I have a better chance of getting further up the bracket." This is essentially the same thing that led to the rule changes after L-36: we don't want teams or players to choose where they start. It's unfair.

Potter, slash, and vov were signed up under two teams. It's clear from you and Fofo that this was premeditated and they didn't just "sub-in" at the last second. You guys broke down the honesty and trust this tournament relies on to be successful. And worst of all, you think you are above all of this -- which is exceptionally insulting.

It's Ok if you want to play under alias, but the least you could do is cover your ass by ensuring players aren't signed up on other teams. You failed to do this, and rules were broken. A price must be paid or we can't move forward. Unless this is handled now, I can't see how teams won't just sign up 2 or 3 or 4 bogus accounts and take their pick on Ladle day. Those players will have a choice: to play against a known team they can beat or take a chance against an unknown team. The weaker teams and the honest teams will suffer, and the Ladle will suffer.

This is the example you've set. Congratulations.

[ElmosWorld]

Potter, slash, and vov were signed up under two teams.

Potter was added after ladle started.

It's Ok if you want to play under alias, but the least you could do is cover your ass by ensuring players aren't signed up on other teams. You failed to do this, and rules were broken. A price must be paid or we can't move forward. Unless this is handled now, I can't see how teams won't just sign up 2 or 3 or 4 bogus accounts and take their pick on Ladle day. Those players will have a choice: to play against a known team they can beat or take a chance against an unknown team. The weaker teams and the honest teams will suffer, and the Ladle will suffer.

This is the example you've set. Congratulations.

http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php/ ... _Penalties

sine, would you like to start a voting trial for slash and vov? It seems to be the only way to determine if slash/vov should be punished.

As for signing up aliases, lets say R signed up 4 aliased teams and waited til ladle day to decide which to play. It should be quite obvious that it was R that had signed up the teams as R would not have a team on the challenge board. Then you could start another voting trial for the members of R.

[ppotter]

Although yes I (or "my" alias) was added to the challenge board during/after the ladle, I did know about the team etc. So if you are going to admonish vov/slash, then I deserve as well (if not more so, when I got home I did consider playing for both Baylife and uNk).

[Concord]

whoever signed the team up is also liable, as well as anyone else who knew about the doubling and made no effort to resolve it.