Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by kyle »

One thing i don't like about sinewav's proposal is, If a player is banned for 1 ladle, they play that ladle they are banned for, then they only are banned for the next ladle? it should be Restart that ban and allow for up to 12 more ladle bans
Image

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

theo wrote:What if there are several infringements at once. Like playing for two team by not being logged in?
We can make it say "<player> is accused of <violation(s)>..." And lump them together. Since everyone places their own value on rules, each voter can declare the severity of the crime when issuing the ban number. A ban of 6 months means "I think this is terrible" and a ban of zero months means "meh, no big deal." The median of all ban numbers will determine how the community feels at that time. Note: there is no way to eliminate favoritism. In fact, there has yet to be a single system of justice in human history to be perfectly non-biased. This is why I propose a cap on the maximum number of bans (probably 6-12 months).
kyle wrote:One thing i don't like about sinewav's proposal is, If a player is banned for 1 ladle, they play that ladle they are banned for, then they only are banned for the next ladle? it should be Restart that ban and allow for up to 12 more ladle bans
Good point, kyle. What if we just double it? Or send that person to trial immediately?

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by takburger »

I think that we are missing one point thought.

People were mad about Liz and wanted to punish her badly when she had not done any wrong doing for years. Why do you think they are so willing to punish her hard then ?

My guess is that because she is banned and has been banned repeatedly from other dominions of the game. People then have anger toward the player and the system is not enough for them because they feel this issue.

The solution would be to link punishments among the different games played.

For instance, a repeated offender in pickup would carry warnings in competitions that would be triggered in the case of an offense.

Its like you are in probation coz you drove after drinking, and then you steal someone. You get bigger punishment as a recurring offender. Or you're Suarez biting in the world cup and get suspended not only for world cup events but also for national ones.
Image

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by blondie »

you are all letting the cheaters off incredibly easy.

imagine if Arjen Robben got plastic surgery and played for Germany tomorrow. It's much worse than Suarez biting someone. That's what were dealing with here. It's irrelevant whether you like Arjen Robben or not. It's irrelevant what existing rules say. You don't make rules for things like this. A 1 ladle suspension is an embarrassment. Seriously imagine if that happened IRL. We'd be talking lifetime ban, and honestly I don't understand why we're not.

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by Gonzap »

kyle wrote:One thing i don't like about sinewav's proposal is, If a player is banned for 1 ladle, they play that ladle they are banned for, then they only are banned for the next ladle? it should be Restart that ban and allow for up to 12 more ladle bans
Good point, kyle. What if we just double it? Or send that person to trial immediately?[/quote]
I think we should send that person to trial again not allowing the ban to be lower than the original ban. For example, if a player is banned for 6 months and is caught in, let's say, month 4 then that person is sent to trial to extend the ban to a minimum of 6 months more, up to 12.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Sounds good Zap.

"If a banned player is caught playing during Ladle, a Global Moderator should kick/ban them immediately. The player in violation must be retried immediately and given a ban greater than the previous one."

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

I have made several changes to the wiki for review. Most of it is the Warnings & Penalties rewrite, but I also added a few lines for Global Moderators since we plan of shifting some Team Leader responsibility to them (access to /OP).

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by blondie »

made some revisions to ensure transparency

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by kyle »

Most of your changes, Blondie, actually harm the system. Votes were supposed to remain anonymous. The To field actually does not work, It sets up for people replying to all, when the votes still should be just to the person issuing the vote, Votes should remain private, but the ladle enthusiast shall give the voters a unique ID for validating that their vote has been cast. Results shall be posted with unique ID. Like the example thread.

One other slight change i was thinking of, max ladles to be banned shall be 12*(number of potential infractions).
Image

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by blondie »

a private vote opens up the possibility of foul play.
Last edited by blondie on Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by sinewav »

blondie wrote:Considering team leaders vote on behalf of their team, there is no need for privacy, and the existence of it is therefore suspect.
That's a pretty good point. I'll back that up. Let's see if we can get more feedback on these changes. Anything else to address while we are at it? I think this is pretty good for now.

User avatar
dlh
Formerly That OS X Guy
Posts: 2035
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:05 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by dlh »

The results can be anonymous and verifiable, and teams aren't the only ones who get a vote.

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by blondie »

I don't see any benefit to anonymity.
Last edited by blondie on Tue Oct 07, 2014 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by Gonzap »

I think concord has a really good point right there. I'll also support a public vote in this kind of event.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1866
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 83 Rule Change Discussion

Post by kyle »

I just feel that public votes lead to the Mr. agreeable situation. once one posts most copy, could also let people back out in stating their vote if they see a lot of people voting a different way than what they want. Keeping in private kind of forces you to vote because you don't know what the outcome will be fore sure.

As dlh mentioned you can keep it fair and anonymous, 1 by having a list oh who voted and 2 by having a list of unique ID's, they ensure two things, one each voter knows their own ID, so they can verify their vote. 2 would enforce that people voting alike don't get the same ID to try to rig the results.

Just my thoughts, (still I really don't care if we use ID's at the end could just use names) I just think there should be an anonymous period. I think of the primary elections in the US. Since it is spread out over months by the time they get to Indiana for presidents, The race has already been won, making it almost pointless to vote for that.
Image

Post Reply