Triple-punishment after browser crash - ideas to mitigate punishment for tech issues

[Rukus McUallas]

I've tried to find something in the forums, but nothing really matched my issue. I joined a game and during the starting screen my browser crashed. I tried to return, but when I finally managed to reload, the other players had already expelled me. So for a simple tech issue I lost ELO, reputation and I have that one month timer going, looming like the sword of Damocles.

I know that there are ways to abuse a less strict handling. But after "2%" of the game being played (the others basically drafted 1 card each in It's a Wonderful World), I got heavily punished at a point, where I had no influence on the game at all. So quitting to "cheat" somehow wasn't even an option.

Here are some suggestions:

a) The loss of ELO should be minimized, especially when the game has not or barely started.

b) There should be a way to "heal" that "probation timer", like the reputation. I'm not saying it should be purged, but maybe reduce the timer gradually. Shortening the duration somehow.

c) If the "probation timer" is triggered by expelling a player shortly after going into negativ time, it should be shorter by default. I've seen people on the brink of being expelled almost instantly when going into negative time.

d) Just as there are people who abuse "dropping out", there seem to be player that are sort of trigger happy with the expel button. If it's not already, it might be an idea to monitor this. I'm not talking about punishing this (yet). But maybe there are statistics showing a pattern. I've expelled players myself, but only after attempting to reach them via chat and several minutes. Because many of those people actually return and appreciate it, when they don't get punished for technical issues.

Those are just some initial thoughts. I'm curious to read some opinions on this.

[Kayvon]

Option a promotes people quitting if they didn't get the starting hand or setup they wanted. That's certainly not something we want to encourage.

Option b is actually implemented already. You get credited additional turn time each time you take your turn. Over time, you can bank enough time to make up for small mishaps. If you're communicating well so other players know what's happening, you can also put yourself back in the positive if you've gone negative.

Options c and d are essentially the same: You want to prevent people from expelling a user who is out of time. I know it stinks when you run out of time due to a glitch that you didn't foresee. On the other side of the table, it also stinks to play a game with someone who committed to take turns within a specified limit, but didn't follow through on that commitment. If it only rarely happens, just take the loss and you'll recover reputation. If you see it more frequently or want to avoid it altogether, choose games with longer turn times. Actually, it seems like longer turn times would implement both of these suggestions you made.

[Rukus McUallas]

Option a promotes people quitting if they didn't get the starting hand or setup they wanted. That's certainly not something we want to encourage.

Option b is actually implemented already. You get credited additional turn time each time you take your turn. Over time, you can bank enough time to make up for small mishaps. If you're communicating well so other players know what's happening, you can also put yourself back in the positive if you've gone negative.

Options c and d are essentially the same: You want to prevent people from expelling a user who is out of time. I know it stinks when you run out of time due to a glitch that you didn't foresee. On the other side of the table, it also stinks to play a game with someone who committed to take turns within a specified limit, but didn't follow through on that commitment. If it only rarely happens, just take the loss and you'll recover reputation. If you see it more frequently or want to avoid it altogether, choose games with longer turn times. Actually, it seems like longer turn times would implement both of these suggestions you made.

Well, expecting the worst might not be the best thing. Punishing people with tech issues to prevent some bad apples from exploiting it ... not a fan. Also, in many games a "starting hand" is not even a thing. And having a barely started game terminated is less bad than a game thant went on for a while. If a person does it repeatedly, with my suggestions it still hurts.

Option b does not exist, I'm not talking about the ingame timer, I'm talking about the additional karma-hammer people get hit with, if they get expelled again within a month or so.

Option c and d might be similar, but it's a basis for discussions. Just options.

[Cerebrovore]

c) If the "probation timer" is triggered by expelling a player shortly after going into negativ time, it should be shorter by default. I've seen people on the brink of being expelled almost instantly when going into negative time.

d) Just as there are people who abuse "dropping out", there seem to be player that are sort of trigger happy with the expel button. If it's not already, it might be an idea to monitor this. I'm not talking about punishing this (yet). But maybe there are statistics showing a pattern. I've expelled players myself, but only after attempting to reach them via chat and several minutes. Because many of those people actually return and appreciate it, when they don't get punished for technical issues.

Especially as there is currently no option to join a game with a long move time. If you're playing with short average time players, you're stuck making multiple moves a day - which isn't helpful if you work full time.

Or if you have life issues like internet loss / cat being sick / that really weird neighbour that keeps asking to borrow your sugar.

This could be an ablative timer; I.E. If you've successfully played 100 games, your first Karma loss takes removes 30 of those games. Once you get to 0, then you start taking full damage.

I mean, generally, I can keep up with the games - but if I get stuck without internet somewhere and get expelled from 3 games - that's my Karma shot to pieces, and no way of getting it back - because smart people will avoid low Karma folks - regardless of how good or bad I've been before that.

It doesn't really help that the "whoops" screen is so aggressively written.

[Jest Phulin]

Punishing people with tech issues to prevent some bad apples from exploiting it ... not a fan.

Unfortunately, there is more damage done by the exploiters than is done by the occasional tech issue.

Also, in many games a "starting hand" is not even a thing.

But, in some games it is a thing. The rules need to be site-wide, not game-specific. Additionally, this would be exploited in situations where a certain player order has a perceived advantage, real or not.

It appears that this request is to circumvent the Terms of Service that state that the User is responsible for issues caused by malfunction, failure or inadequate performance of the operators used by the User to access the Services.

Yes, it happens. Yes, it's rough when you don't seem to have control of the situation. No, it's not the end of your life on BGA.

[Rukus McUallas]

Punishing people with tech issues to prevent some bad apples from exploiting it ... not a fan.

Unfortunately, there is more damage done by the exploiters than is done by the occasional tech issue.

Also, in many games a "starting hand" is not even a thing.

But, in some games it is a thing. The rules need to be site-wide, not game-specific. Additionally, this would be exploited in situations where a certain player order has a perceived advantage, real or not.

It appears that this request is to circumvent the Terms of Service that state that the User is responsible for issues caused by malfunction, failure or inadequate performance of the operators used by the User to access the Services.

Yes, it happens. Yes, it's rough when you don't seem to have control of the situation. No, it's not the end of your life on BGA.

Whoa, pause! Circumvent the ToS? I'm talking about mitigating harm to ordinary players. Seriously, assuming the worst is part of the problem.

And that the exploitation is a bigger issue than the damage done is a fact? Or also an assumption? I'm a fan of "innocent until proven guilty". If players keep exploiting such "aspects", there are other options. Like blocking them or reporting them etc.

[Jest Phulin]

Whoa, pause! Circumvent the ToS?

I'm sorry I failed to provide adequate punctuation when I quoted the ToS.

And that the exploitation is a bigger issue than the damage done is a fact? Or also an assumption?

Granted, and assumption. Based on years of statements by the staff on complaints of technical issues preventing access, of suggestions to change the punnishment system, and of the goal of the website.

If players keep exploiting such "aspects", there are other options. Like blocking them or reporting them etc.

Which involve staff involvement to invoke to be effective. Not only time to punish the offenders, but time to investigate all the false claims that will be made.

Also, the argument seems to be "mitigatiing damage due to technical issues." So can we examine the damage?

Loss of reputation: Easily gained back by finishing several short games.

Loss of ELO: Assuming a close to worst-case scenario, where the game was something like 7 Wonders with 6 opponents, there would have been 6 losses. But assuming that all players were equally ranked, it would be only 3 unexpected/unearned losses. Now, with a lower ELO but the same skill level, there will be wins against opponents where the ELO indicates there should be losses. ELO gains after this event will be larger, and losses less, until (after a small number of games) the reported ELO will once again match skill level.

The one-month timer starting. If technical issues are really that rare, this will not be an issue. An event that happens once in a blue moon does not happen twice a month.

[Rukus McUallas]

Tech issues of various sorts can happen all the time. Be it a computer or browser crash, instable internet connection or whatnot. Tech issues are not a once in a blue moon thing. And the chance of it happening again within this one month "probation" rises with more plays within said timespan.

So, I don't think that completely ignoring the issue is the best way. That's why I brought up some ideas for mitigation.

[Strode]

Well, expecting the worst might not be the best thing. Punishing people with tech issues to prevent some bad apples from exploiting it

I think you are underestimating the number of bad apples out there.

Tech issues Arne't unheard of, but I think they are far less common than "bad apple" type of stuff.

[Rukus McUallas]

Well, expecting the worst might not be the best thing. Punishing people with tech issues to prevent some bad apples from exploiting it

I think you are underestimating the number of bad apples out there.

Tech issues Arne't unheard of, but I think they are far less common than "bad apple" type of stuff.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean, that trying to mitigating punishment for tech issues should not be seriously discussed. Especially since the chance of (multiple) tech issues within the "probation" grows with the number of plays. So, potentially people who play a lot are more likely to face this issue.

And I'd say that expelling other players basically as soon as the timer goes into negative territory could also be regarded as "bad apple behavior" of sorts. I mean, it's winning by expelling players. This is not a one sided thing.