Forums

Punish Quitters

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 8:42 AM

  VanHalenLover:

  I'm betting that the number of games that apply to this scenario (where ALL members except one drop) is very low.

  You've got to be kidding.    That is the no. 1 most frequent scenario, that you want to play a multi-player round, but are left alone on the course instead. That's why we've been seeing the endless quitters threads in these forums. This vital concern finally needs to be addressed, but your proposal fails to do so.

  (x1524807, if you do not consider the last person on the course to be "forfeiting" a round when he/she quits it, then that's fine. The cardinal problem with WGT.com's 1st failed attempt at implementing reputation tracking, was that they did consider that to be a forfeit.)

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 9:03 AM

  Faterson:

  You've got to be kidding.

  Nope, not kidding at all. That might be the case for you, but have you ever considered that this might not be the case for everyone else having this conversation? As I stated, no one but WGT would have the actual numbers on this, our estimations are no more than, well, estimations based on our experiences. You have no data to draw that conclusion from, just like I do not.

  You can bet that this happens to a lot of players.

  You can bet that there are a lot more that don't post about it on these threads.

  You can bet that there are a lot of games where 1 or 2 players drop, leaving 2 or 3 left in the game to finish.

  What we don't know, is the numbers to these scenarios. As much as you desire to be right, neither of  know these numbers, only WGT might.

  The difference is, I am able to be objective about it, and present my options based on a scenario that applies. You choose to shove this down all of our throats like it is an absolute, and we are making a drastic error by not implementing your ideas immediately, lol.

  Faterson:

  (x1524807, if you do not consider the last person on the course to be "forfeiting" a round when he/she quits it, then that's fine. The cardinal problem with WGT.com's 1st failed attempt at implementing reputation tracking, was that they did consider that to be a forfeit.)

  This is a good example of that. The last user on the course has a choice: quit or continue alone. Just because YOU think it wrong to continue on your own does not make it WGT policy. I happen to think it SHOULD be punished to leave in this scenario. It is an inherent risk when playing this online game, and you knew it when you joined, or at least, very shortly after. Plead your case all you wish, and let your desires be known, but please stop with the 'we told them so and they didn't listen' drivel. If your idea was that good, they would have implemented it.

   

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 9:15 AM

  VanHalenLover:

  You choose to shove this down all of our throats like it is an absolute, and we are making a drastic error by not implementing your ideas immediately

  At this point I'd be happy with any attempt to address the issue. Faterson seems to have a reasonable approach whereas opposite points of view seem to be more of put downs and personal attacks rather than constructive idea exchanges. You have to admit, he has an answer for everything. 

  If I am last man standing in a match I wanted to play with someone else I'll write that round off and go get another. For this I should be whacked? I don't think so.    :-)

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 9:33 AM

  I'd be interested in hearing what part(s) of the other suggestions you do or don't like YJ. I'm not sure of what you mean by the other points-of-view being put downs or personal attacks. It's easy for you to come here to scratch F's back, and at the same time ignore the fact that he was the one who started with the name callling and derogatory comments; such as:

  Faterson:

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

  "

  You might have noticed he chose not to respond to the direct question about his use of the Dave Lindsay account, even after addressing it to the point of calling names about those questioning him about this.

  We WERE trying to get beyond this, and stay on-topic related to quitters (thanks to Ellis Spice). Now that you have opened this back up, and are accusing others of using put downs, I feel justified in showing you how your mentor has actually started this behavior here, and you follow suit by jumping to his defense. Unfortunately, all to predictable and expected.

  YankeeJim:

  If I am last man standing in a match I wanted to play with someone else I'll write that round off and go get another. For this I should be whacked? I don't think so.    :-)

  Agreed, IF WGT allows the option for all players to reconnect and continue. Those who then choose not to, should be punished (by being forced to finish the round solo). WGT has not implemented this same technology, and I think it is safe to assume they will not. This is what I base my suggestion on, although I would certainly rather see the same option to resume the multi-player game in EVERY ranked round..... If that happens, it gets a lot easier.

   

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 9:44 AM

  VanHalenLover:

  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?

  Then explain this totally unrelated, unsubstantiated  and uncalled for bit of whatever.

  FYI, Nivlac had 2 IDs in the end-one for moderating and one for playing.

  What is odd about wanting this forum to run as effeciently as the other one?

   

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 9:59 AM

  And again YJ, none of this was an issue until F showed up here throwing out accusations and name calling, all in a deceptively created guise of making a quitters suggestion. He can make all the suggestions he would like, as long as as it doesn't involve name calling and shrill tactics.

  Once he starts, all bets are off. If he chooses not to answer what his involvement is with the Dave Lindsay account, that is his choice, but I feel it important to make the point that one of the most vocal WGT members, in regards to using multiple alias, won't answer a simple question about his potential 2nd alias on wgtls. Unfortunately for him, he has chosen to not-so-cleverly address the questions by not answering them directly. He gives the impression of claiming that he is not the user of that alias, without ever answering. I normally wouldn't press someone this hard, but when it involves someone who has accused me, and others, of using multi-alias, I welcome the opportunity to expose his hypocritical nature. Fortunately for us, he can not delete the thread that exposed him, like he was able to do in wgtls.

  If that is the case, and he has one ID for playing, and one for moderating, why the secrecy? why deny it? If he would just answer the simple question, it would be done. But to continue to accuse others, while refusing to answer the same inquiries into his accounts, seems a bit odd........

• Snaike 3,678 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 10:03 AM

  Faterson:

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

  Those delusional wackos, according to Mr. Faterson, are:

  • Mark (MWH65) owner of the Ladders site,
  • EllisSpice, Moderator of the Ladders site,
  • and many others who were there in the beginning.

  This is not an attack.  Just a simple statement of facts.

  These statements will be made available for all interested parties to read in the very near future.

  YankeeJim:

  FYI, Nivlac had 2 IDs in the end-one for moderating and one for playing.

  Yes, and there was never a denial from Niv that he was a moderator.

  The point above is not that someone has a moderating identity separate from their playing identity (even WGTSky has a playing identity), the point is that when that playing identity can slander and libel other players, and then hide behind their moderating identity to protect the slanderous and libelous statements.  All the while denying any wrong-doing, or yet even HAVING said identity.

  That is the point.

• EllisSpice 871 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 10:05 AM

  COUGH

  Please VHL, YJ and Snaike, stay away from the Faterson/DaveLindsey topic. After all, this thread is meant to be about punishing quitters...

  And as for my opinion of the matter: Personally, annoyingly, I have to agree with Faterson on this one. He seems to have thought out a good solution. Of course, the karma solution on WGTLS (made up by none other than me) works as well, but make not work on WGT itself, with it's larger community.

  And Faterson and VHL, can't you just agree to disagree? You have 2 different opinions, and neither is going to change theirs. Leave it at that, OK?

• andyson 6,415 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 10:06 AM

   

  VanHalenLover:

  These attempts at de-railing are getting old.

  VanHalenLover:

  It's easy for you to come here to scratch F's back, and at the same time ignore the fact that he was the one who started with the name callling and derogatory comments;

  This is your typical tactic to try and put the blame on someone else after you derailed it by going off topic with the Faterson/Lindsay multiple ID on another site attack.

  If this thread gets locked its on you VHL.

  I find it incoherent that you don't think single players left alone after everyone else quit is the biggest cause of quitter posts.

  There are many similarities between what Faterson espouses to end quitting and what you believe.  Making people complete disconnected MP rounds is one of them and not penalizing players due to a game crash is another.  There is probably a common ground to be found if you'd be more open minded.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Aug 31 2010 10:10 AM

  Absolutely, Ellis and Andy, you're correct.    (As to DaveLindsay, I repeat for the umpteenth time that Faterson obviously is not DaveLindsay; it can't get any clearer than that, can it?)