Forums

Punish Quitters

• ALByrd60 224 Posts

  Mon, Aug 30 2010 11:21 AM

  I hate being in a round and the opponent quits in the middle or near the end like everyone else, what I have found is to play a round with three players as the chance of two players quitting is rare and you can finish the round.

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Mon, Aug 30 2010 7:29 PM

  CRH,

  There are two issues that I see with any punishment system:

  1) tracking the reason for a disconnection. It isn't feasible, and will cause way too much post-work for WGT. Too many valid scenarios for disconnects where users should NOT be punished.

  2) even if you DO find a way to address #1, there is another larger issue. Raising someone stroke count or average is EXACTLY what some of the sandbaggers want. You would be rewarding them for quitting.

  Some quit to keep averages low, and progress too quickly and others quit to prevent low scores; to protect against a higher average and tier advancement. That is the problem, sandbagging works in both directions, and no score related punishment will address it all.

  Allowing one to quit allows them to avoid posting scores that might help to identify sandbaggers. WGT has been more active lately with addressing sandbagging as per score history, and posting all scores is the only effective way to identify this behavior, and to take action.

   

   

   

   

• CharlemagneRH 1,054 Posts

  Mon, Aug 30 2010 10:56 PM

  VanHalenLover:

  1) tracking the reason for a disconnection. It isn't feasible, and will cause way too much post-work for WGT. Too many valid scenarios for disconnects where users should NOT be punished.

  It would be automated, not done by hand, and it would take almost no CPU-time.

  It would also only be applied if the user selected quit/forfeit to mainmenu, whereas a player that wanted to finish the hole or even the entire round, in single-player mode, would not face any consequences.

  VanHalenLover:

  2) even if you DO find a way to address #1, there is another larger issue. Raising someone stroke count or average is EXACTLY what some of the sandbaggers want. You would be rewarding them for quitting.

  Some quit to keep averages low, and progress too quickly and others quit to prevent low scores; to protect against a higher average and tier advancement. That is the problem, sandbagging works in both directions, and no score related punishment will address it all.

  It's not time-efficient to sandbag in multiplayer rounds, and it messes up your reputation on top of that.

  Even if you're doing single-player ranked rounds, it's not time-efficient to exit to the mainmenu, start a new game again, and then wait for the course to load when you can just pull out your putter and putt the ball 1-2 ft once or twice to get the same effect.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 3:17 AM

  CharlemagneRH:

  It would be automated, not done by hand, and it would take almost no CPU-time.

  You're absolutely correct, Charlemagne.    Some folks will just keep regurgitating that fallacy ad nauseum, even if you explain to them a hundred times that they are wrong.

  Part of the non-resolution of the quitters issue is that there are dozens or hundreds of simultaneous "quitters threads" in these forums, and the forum management still hasn't merged all the quitters threads into a single comprehensive quitters thread. Hello WGTsky, I hope you get my drift.  

  This is a standard measure in any well-functioning discussion forum: every controversial issue must have one central location where it is discussed and where the solutions to that issue are proposed and discussed. The issue will never go away if you allow for it to be discussed in dozens of simultaneous places, so that people just keep reposting whatever (usually totally wrong) they have been saying for the last few months.

  Take the cheating issue and the outstandingly functional Ladders forums. The very first thing that Mark, the Ladders site owner, did almost as soon as the cheating issue raised its ugly head a few weeks ago, was that he founded a new special section within the Ladders forum, called Cheating. Any and all discussion on cheating must now take place only in that forum subsection; if a user starts discussing that issue elsewhere in the forum, that thread is promptly transferred to the correct subsection by forum moderators.

  That way, the forums are kept clean and functional, and the proposed resolutions of the cheating issue may be calmly, politely and rationally discussed in the Cheating forum subsection only.

  It's essential that the same thing happens here in WGT forums regarding the never-ending quitters issue; and it's a critical issue for the future well-being of the WGT.com golf game. I don't think we need a new forum subsection to deal with quitters; that would be overkill; but these forums desperately need one central thread to deal with quitters; no other quitters threads may be permitted to be posted elsewhere, and if they are, the posts can simply be merged with the one and only permitted quitters thread.

  These are basics of forum management. However, I'm sorry to say the previous forum managers completely ignored crucial tasks such as this one, although I've been saying much of the above for many months. I do trust WGTsky can improve things a lot in this regard.

  So, to sum up the current status of the quitters issue: I do believe WGT.com is on the right track in wanting to implement reputation rating for site users. The first attempt to introduce reputation rating, about half a year ago, was a total failure and had to be recalled after 24 hours, because WGT.com developers had completely ignored player feedback given to them in these forums well before they first introduced reputation rating.

  So yes, reputation rating can be implemented fairly and accurately for all site users, and it would resolve the quitters issue once and for all. Very few additional resources would be needed from WGT.com; it's all easily implementable. As to (approximately) how reputation rating should be implemented, see here.

• zagraniczniak 1,984 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 4:48 AM

  Well, folks, any day now we'll see what WGT is rolling out to deal with all these issues. Let's check it out and give is a while to see how it works, shall we?

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 6:31 AM

  Thanks for the reply CRH,

  CharlemagneRH:

  It would be automated, not done by hand, and it would take almost no CPU-time.

  My guess is that even an automated system will not work. There are simply too many variables.

  ie. Many here have professed a desire not to continue in solo mode, even after a 'valid' disconnect (like the game client crashing). This forces them to continue in solo mode, or suffer a reputation drop.

  I'm not worried about CPU load here, I'm concerned about the flood of requests WGT will be inundated with. 'please restore my reputation to xx%, my disconnect on mm/dd was not my fault! I don't like the idea of a reputation feature OR a punishable average connected to dropped rounds for the same reasons. Removing the quit option is a much more efficient and labor free method that could be implemented TODAY.

  CharlemagneRH:

  It's not time-efficient to sandbag in multiplayer rounds, and it messes up your reputation on top of that.

  Players manipulate ANY ranked rounds, simple fact. The fact that it isn't time efficient doesn't stop it from happening.

  CharlemagneRH:

  Even if you're doing single-player ranked rounds, it's not time-efficient to exit to the mainmenu, start a new game again, and then wait for the course to load when you can just pull out your putter and putt the ball 1-2 ft once or twice to get the same effect.

  This is exactly why removing the 'quit/end round' option is perfect. Once the option to quit is gone, players will no longer quit as there is no way out of the round. Forcing a manipulator to mark the entire score every time will make it easier to track scoring patterns, and to identify sandbaggers.

  That said, if WGT had an option for each player to RESUME a multi-player round in multi-mode, I'd be all for punishing someone who chooses not to continue. Until then, I am not convinced that any punishment system will work. Time will tell.

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 6:44 AM

  Faterson:

  You're absolutely correct, Charlemagne.    Some folks will just keep regurgitating that fallacy ad nauseum, even if you explain to them a hundred times that they are wrong.

  How does one automate the user requests that challenge an incorrectly automated decision about a rep %'age? Some of 'us' also have a little more vision than others, and are able to think about the long term effects of some of these ill-advised ideas.

  Faterson:

  This is a standard measure in any well-functioning discussion forum:

  Is this your rule, or Dave Lindsays, lol ?? These forums are functioning fine, Faterson,  your issue with them is that they are not functioning under your control. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that the Forum you cited  (and moderate, under a 2nd alias) is run just fine, while the one you were denied moderation duties on is in need of such repair?

  Faterson:

  I do believe WGT.com is on the right track in wanting to implement reputation rating for site users.

  Disagreed, but only time will tell. I am, however, glad that WGT allows our thoughts and input on this important issue, however, and hope that they consider this valuable user feedback before making any decisions.

  Faterson:

  because WGT.com developers had completely ignored player feedback given to them in these forums

  That is a completely unsupported statement. Perhaps the model just wasn't valid? They didn't ignore the users here, they tried something that didn't work. Now they are making changes, and I'm betting they are considering user input on this when making these changes. I'm guessing they are also soliciting input from exitgames, who would have a lot more pull than every user here, combined.

  I'd also like to point out the fact that you are using and moderating a site that seemingly supports sharing of cheats. I'm very sure the majority of the users do NOT, but the site seems to support sharing of this info, as seen below.....

  

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 7:08 AM

  First, as is obvious, Faterson is not DaveLindsay, although there may be delusional wackos who'd like to claim that.  

  Second, if you have concerns about the Ladders site, you might wish to address them to Mark and the moderators team there. I fail to see what that screenshot has to do with this site.

  VanHalenLover:

  They didn't ignore the users here, they tried something that didn't work.

  They absolutely did ignore us here in the forums, leading up to the failed first introduction of reputation tracking. A number of us had specifically warned the anonymous person(s) who posted here under the name WGTadmin or WGTadmin2 or whoever. We specifically warned the person(s) that they simply must not lower the "reputation tracking" for anyone who is left alone by the quitters on the course, and they must not force anyone who wanted to play a multi-player game, to finish the round alone.

  WGT.com didn't give a damn, and they went ahead, disregarding all such warnings. And 24 hours later, they had to recall the feature. Because, of course, if you're punishing the victims of quitters, then it's no "reputation tracking" at all, but a parody of that feature – its reversal into the exact opposite. I'd be the first to volunteer to lower my "reputation tracking" to 0 (zero) and keep it there forever, to protest against such insanity. No reputation tracking is definitely better than that absurdity they attempted to bring into life the first time around.  

• EllisSpice 871 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 7:18 AM

  May I actually talk about WGTLS, seeing as I am actually a moderator there?

  That section you pointed out there VHL is the 'Courses Hints and Tips' section. And yes, I can't agree with the part that says 'Even cheats' on the description. But that part was only added in jest. We don't actually expect any cheats there (well, not 'proper' cheats anyway), and if a proper cheat did turn up, we would delete that post ASAP.

  Also, the part you have cut off shows how often that section is used. That section of the forum has been there for half a year, and it has 25 topic. Hardly even a topic a week. And, as of yet, no-one has posted a cheat there.

  As Faterson said, if you do wish to talk about WGTLS to one of the moderators, please do come to either me, mwh65 or jollygreen. I'm sure we will be able to answer all of your questions!

  Now, back onto the topic of punishing quitters?

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 7:22 AM

  Faterson:

  First, as is obvious, Faterson is not DaveLindsay, although there may be delusional wackos who'd like to claim that.  

  I don't think the name calling is necessary, unless you are looking to get this thread locked and deleted for some reason. I would like to ask, because you avoided answering that question on the wgtls forums until it was deleted, are you claiming that you have never logged in to wgtls using the Dave Lindsay alias? As asked there, as simple yes or no will suffice.

  Faterson:

  Second, if you have concerns about the Ladders site, you might wish to address them to Mark and the moderators team there. I fail to see what that screenshot has to do with this site.

  I will not participate on wgtls, based on your participation there. if you wish to bring this to Marks attention, you are most welcome to proceed any way you see fit. Being one of the most vocal against cheats, I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in using a site that seems to promote cheat sharing for WGT specific courses. Something like that seemed important for WGT to see as well, as well as other users that might participate against wgtls members. 

  Many suggestions are made in these threads, sir, and many are not implemented. To turn that into being 'ignored' seems to be more about your ego than trying to constructively suggest your ideas. We have different ideas about this very subject, but that certainly doesn't make either of us right or wrong. It also doesn't mean that WGT is ignoring us, just that they have chosen not to implement our ideas.