The Dustbin

[General Shapur]

The mechanics of choosing points before the battle will add another messaging step to what is already cut and paste intensive. My first choice would be to leave as is if increasing for all battles isn't on the cards

I generally end up setting up 80-90 percent of my games, so would it be OK set up as 1600 pointers and ask opponents to set up alternatives if they want to play meduim, I think this will save me time and messaging. I prefer larger games, most people don't like to initiate the set up.

[Najanaja]

I'd be happy with banning reloads in DL and tournament games altogether. I guess people on a half duplex line via a manual phone exchange in the Congo may not be.

Or if you live in the bush in Australia. Rely on a satellite and a an internet service that was bought second-hand from the Congo....

[stockwellpete]

The mechanics of choosing points before the battle will add another messaging step to what is already cut and paste intensive. My first choice would be to leave as is if increasing for all battles isn't on the cards

No, it will not. Players will express a preference for medium or large battles before the season starts. That preference will be shown in the first post of each "Arrange Your Matches Here" thread. Players will just match their own preferred size of battle with the preferred size of their opponent. If they are same size, no problem. If they are different sizes, the match will be played at the default size.

I generally end up setting up 80-90 percent of my games, so would it be OK set up as 1600 pointers and ask opponents to set up alternatives if they want to play meduim, I think this will save me time and messaging. I prefer larger games, most people don't like to initiate the set up.

Not necessary. See my previous answer.

[stockwellpete]

I'm in the camp of MikeC. Just allow instances of reloading to be included in the pop-up dialog at the start of your turn. Shift the onus onto the player to explain the reasoning. By having the info on whether a redownload occurred or not a player will be able to analyze the replay for the frequency of unusual event before beginning their turn. For example if it happens in the first turn or two then obviously it will have no impact on the game and lends weight to any excuse. But if it is at a critical juncture of the game and a number of outcomes go the way of the re-loader than it would not be unreasonable to be suspicious. In such a case I would support the position that a player whose opponent reloads at a point in the game that they feel may give an advantage will automatically be awarded a win if they request one. Yes it could of been due to one's daughter switching off the PC (happened once to me while watching youtube) but that is still no excuse for affording your opponent an advantage whether sort or not.

This is a great idea in my view. If an opponent has problems and explains it the other party could accept it, ask for a restart or if it was excessive ask for adjudication. At least it would be transparent.

It is not great idea for me though as I would have to directly intervene into the middle of a match (and possibly an argument) to resolve the situation. Also, please define "critical juncture". Players will have very different views on what this is within the context of different games and situations. Remember too, this season's FOG2DL had 983 matches scheduled at the outset.

[pantherboy]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

[harveylh]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

I agree, even one download can make the difference in a close game.

Harvey

[paulmcneil]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

I could live with this.

[paulmcneil]

I'd be happy with banning reloads in DL and tournament games altogether. I guess people on a half duplex line via a manual phone exchange in the Congo may not be.

Or if you live in the bush in Australia. Rely on a satellite and a an internet service that was bought second-hand from the Congo....

Exactly.

[sarmation]

Division C

sarmation phokian defeats mikemarchant asiatic greek 63-45

i finished all the games thanks to all the players i met

[stockwellpete]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

So a completely honest player, whose internet connection goes down for the first time in ages or who experiences a server glitch that is completely beyond his/her control, will have to forfeit a match if his/her opponent decides not to accept their explanation? Just imagine if this a crucial match towards the end of the season (and maybe the players have a bit of "history" between them too). What could possibly go wrong? And you are saying that the unfortunate player would not, in any circumstances, contact me to seek assistance?

[ianiow]

There is no adjudication by yourself Pete. Regardless of the reason for a download it gives that player an advantage which the game was not designed with the intention of. It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay. As such if you require a redownload then you have effectively forfeited the match unless your opponent is willing to give you grace with the expectation that in competition no such grace is required or expected. So critical juncture would be defined as the person deciding if something was fishy or not regarding an opponents redownload. They require no proof nor justification but simply to make the choice that assuages their conscience. I suspect that such a move will cripple cheating and also avoid the blame game especially if everyone agrees to abide by such stipulations prior to the tournament. If by chance you live somewhere that has a spotty connection or own a PC that is prone to crashing then you probably should be relegating your matches to friendly ones only as such problems are not an acceptable excuse for redownloading during a tournament without receiving an unfair advantage.

I agree with this too. Although if my electricity pay meter ever ran out during a battle I'd be p*****d, but would only have myself to blame.

[MikeMarchant]

It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay.

It's not like that at all. This example is of a situation where the player makes a move and then decides to make anothe rmove. It is intentional. The situation we're concerned with is more like playing at a tournament where a bystander accidentlaly kicks the legs of the table away. Figures, dice and terrain are all over the floor. Does the player who was in the process of taking his turn have to forfeit the match? Is he banned for evermore? Or should both players forfeit and be banned, in order to be 'fair'?

There is also an assumption here that a player having to reload, through no fault of his own, benefits somehow. That is not necessarily the case. The player might have worse results second time around. In fact, if the RNG is fair, that's as likely as the player having better results.

Penalising people for faults that are beyond their control is not fair. Nor is it fair to impose a system where innocent peoipel are punished to cover up the inability of others to establish guilt. It's like being back at school again, where an entire class is punished because a teacher is unable (or unwilling) to find out who drew the giant dick on the blackboard.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

It's not like that at all. This example is of a situation where the player makes a move and then decides to make anothe rmove. It is intentional. The situation we're concerned with is more like playing at a tournament where a bystander accidentlaly kicks the legs of the table away. Figures, dice and terrain are all over the floor. Does the player who was in the process of taking his turn have to forfeit the match? Is he banned for evermore? Or should both players forfeit and be banned, in order to be 'fair'?

There is also an assumption here that a player having to reload, through no fault of his own, benefits somehow. That is not necessarily the case. The player might have worse results second time around. In fact, if the RNG is fair, that's as likely as the player having better results.

Penalising people for faults that are beyond their control is not fair. Nor is it fair to impose a system where innocent peoipel are punished to cover up the inability of others to establish guilt. It's like being back at school again, where an entire class is punished because a teacher is unable (or unwilling) to find out who drew the giant dick on the blackboard.

Very, very strong arguments, Mike.

[pantherboy]

It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay.

It's not like that at all. This example is of a situation where the player makes a move and then decides to make anothe rmove. It is intentional. The situation we're concerned with is more like playing at a tournament where a bystander accidentlaly kicks the legs of the table away. Figures, dice and terrain are all over the floor. Does the player who was in the process of taking his turn have to forfeit the match? Is he banned for evermore? Or should both players forfeit and be banned, in order to be 'fair'?

There is also an assumption here that a player having to reload, through no fault of his own, benefits somehow. That is not necessarily the case. The player might have worse results second time around. In fact, if the RNG is fair, that's as likely as the player having better results.

Penalising people for faults that are beyond their control is not fair. Nor is it fair to impose a system where innocent peoipel are punished to cover up the inability of others to establish guilt. It's like being back at school again, where an entire class is punished because a teacher is unable (or unwilling) to find out who drew the giant dick on the blackboard.


Best Wishes

Mike

I see your point Mike but not sure if your analogy exactly fits as in said case both players are observers of the actual event so neither would be penalized and I am sure they could amicably come to a decision if reasonably minded.

As I said there is no assumption of guilt but under the current conditions there is no way to verify what happened. Only the player that may have legitimately reloaded due to something out of their control will know the true reason for it. If the reload is for nefarious reasons then more than likely the player was dissatisfied with the turns outcome due to instances of leader loss, double cohesion drops etc. so they decided to reload hoping for a better outcome. Since the player is reloading due to a turn of perceived bad RNG results then probability would dictate that the second attempt would be less likely to have the same or worse outcomes. Also redoing a turn would give a clearer picture of what could happen maybe allowing for more nuanced moves with anticipation of potentially bad outcomes or good that they didn't foresee on the first run through.

As far as penalizing someone for something beyond their control I completely agree that it is not fair. Unfortunately in such a case you are penalizing the opponent who did not reload their turn as much as you would be the player who had a legitimate reason. With 100% certainty we know the opponent did nothing irregular (unless they could remotely hack their opponents game and crash it as they were doing their turn) but we do not have an equal degree of certainty for the person reloading. Since the opponent has the option of not claiming the game it will come down to trust and consideration of the events in game by the only players baring witness to them rather than from any external source. I can only speak for myself but I would never claim a game if it occurred once while playing a battle. When you get to multiple attempts (maybe due to atmospheric conditions hampering connection) then I would think logically that player should stop playing and wait to another day when the signal is better to upload their turn. Now as colorful as your blackboard example is I don't really see how it pertains to this situation though I do understand the intent and agree with the underlying principle.

All in all I believe there is no right answer and Slitherine should be accorded the respect to come up with a strategy that matches their needs and resources. Slitherine simply wants to put quality games on the market that cover both niche and broad appeal. As a business they have to take into regard the current economic downturn and the threat posed by the current pandemic as well as juggle player satisfaction versus reasonably costed solutions. Such factors remove the clarity on this issue that we may feel we have. Unless made privy to factors such as marketing, manpower, budget, programming, sales, active player numbers etc. then none of us can do anymore than make proposals which may prove valuable to Slitherine's analysis. So from this point of view a robust debate devoid of accusations or insults serves Slitherine's and our needs best while fostering a stronger bond within the community. That last reference is not directed at Mike but at the overall tone of this thread with no particular individuals in mind.

[devoncop]

It would be like a player of a miniatures game redoing a move or turn. It is strictly forbidden unless your opponent says it is okay.

It's not like that at all. This example is of a situation where the player makes a move and then decides to make anothe rmove. It is intentional. The situation we're concerned with is more like playing at a tournament where a bystander accidentlaly kicks the legs of the table away. Figures, dice and terrain are all over the floor. Does the player who was in the process of taking his turn have to forfeit the match? Is he banned for evermore? Or should both players forfeit and be banned, in order to be 'fair'?

There is also an assumption here that a player having to reload, through no fault of his own, benefits somehow. That is not necessarily the case. The player might have worse results second time around. In fact, if the RNG is fair, that's as likely as the player having better results.

Penalising people for faults that are beyond their control is not fair. Nor is it fair to impose a system where innocent peoipel are punished to cover up the inability of others to establish guilt. It's like being back at school again, where an entire class is punished because a teacher is unable (or unwilling) to find out who drew the giant dick on the blackboard.


Best Wishes

Mike

"Pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire is reputed to have said about the British executing Admiral Byng for alleged cowardice in the Napoleonic wars.

Forfeiting a single game because of an internet glitch is hardly a firing squad and I would be perfectly happy to forfeit the game in such circumstances.

[SimonLancaster]

Amongst all the philosophising and theories I would actually like to hear from people who have had to reload their turn. Is this a really scarce occurrence? How often does this happen?

My own guess is that for people with slow internet connections and wireless internet it could happen like 1 in 50 league games or something.

[devoncop]

Amongst all the philosophising and theories I would actually like to hear from people who have had to reload their turn. Is this a really scarce occurrence? How often does this happen?

My own guess is that for people with slow internet connections and wireless internet it could happen like 1 in 50 league games or something.

Not if your name is dkalenda

[Athos1660]

"Pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire is reputed to have said about the British executing Admiral Byng for alleged cowardice

Actually it is what the hero of Voltaire's philosophical fiction, Candide, is told by an Englishman about the execution of the Admiral. It answers Candide's previous question : "You know England ? Are they as foolish there as in France ?"

[devoncop]

Indeed though the words were written by Voltaire and put into the mouth of his heroine so I will maintain he deserves the credit

On a serious note I have had to forfeit my last round of matches in the 20th Anniversary tournament (where I was in a personal best position after the second round) because I have lost faith in the integrity of competitive games for now so I really do hope this matter gets properly addressed.

[Badger73]

If my opinion has any bearing, I favor retaining 1200 pt divisions/options. I'm a relatively experienced H2H FOG2 player who intends to participate for the first time in the October 2020 DL. I find 1600 pt games too large for my tastes, especially if I need to finish nine (9) games in the allotted time-frame. I'm much more inclined to limit myself to the 1200 pt divisions instead even though I have great interest in the 1600 pt divisional army lists. I suspect most other newbies will concur. I am looking forward to joining DL play.