Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Rules Discussions  (Read 2003 times)

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Rules Discussions
« on: 11 August 2017, 02:27:28 AM »
I have a lot of questions.

1.2 You also need an account with 20 rated games played (by September 15th).

How do I find out how many rated games I have under my account? I want to know what criteria will be used for the tournament. If I don't have enough, is it acceptable for me to just start a rated game and resign it just to get my numbers up? How will I know if some of my rated games get erased because I've inadvertantly played them against a troll account whose games were redacted?

1.3 Each person may only enter once.
1.4 Shuffle iT employees as well as people who have been permanently banned may not participate in this tournament.

How can these rules be enforced? I don't think it's a good idea in general to have rules that cannot be enforced. There is an "entry fee" in the form of the subscription requirement so perhaps this rule is redundant.

Also, it's been unclear for a long time what constitutes a Shuffle iT employee. I've already seen people sign up who have made several (very useful) posts here and elsewhere referring to Shuffle iT as "we" -- this should probably be more specific.

Will additional checks be made to see if these rules will be followed when people are actually going to receive prizes? What proof will I have to show in order to collect winnings that I have followed these rules? Will I need to share personal information? If this is the case, what will be done if someone has been found to be in violation?

3.2 Some players will receive byes in round 1

I assume the players given byes will be the ones highest rated on the leaderboard?

4.3 Both players get to start 3 games. Alternate the starting player after each game.

7.3 Play rated games for documentation purposes.

There is no way to specify starting player for rated games.

4.5 If the 7th game is a tie according to the dominion rules, the 2nd player in that game wins.

This rule is pretty awful. I'd suggest something different, but I know it won't go anywhere. Can I at least use rule 7.2 to ask my opponent to agree to something more sensible? Or does rule 7.2 only apply to other things in section 7?

6.2 If your opponent has not communicated with you before Wednesday, 12 UTC in the week you are supposed to be playing, please contact the moderators.

Will the moderators (not forum admins, but the people in charge of making decisions for this tournament) have access to PMs sent through these forums? If not, how will they be able to see who has attempted communications in case of a dispute?

Also, where can I find a list of moderators? I assume this post is the "official" list, but at the moment it doesn't match the moderators of this sub-board. Which one is the list? Can that list be changed after signups close?

8.3 Some games may be streamed by third parties.

I don't know what the intent of this rule is, but it's worded in a way that could lead to some really strange situations. This rule needs to either be scrapped or made much clearer. How can a third party stream a game if spectator mode is turned off? Will this be done even without the permission of the players? Where will they be streamed? Will there be commentary?

8.4 From Quarterfinals onwards, every match will be streamed. Organizers may influence the scheduling to ensure no overlaps.

Is there an expectation of cooperation from players who reach the quarterfinals? What is the nature of that cooperation, and what are the consequences if that cooperation is not given? Where will the match be streamed? What information about the players will be shown? Will there be commentary? Who will be doing the commentary? What visibility will the stream have into the game? Will spectator mode need to be enabled for these games? If so, what measures will be taken to ensure that one's opponent isn't "sniping"? Can players possibly be penalized for the extra constraints on when their match can be scheduled due to organizer influence to reduce scheduling conflicts? Are the "organizers" different from the "moderators"? If so, who are the organizers and what other roles can they play in the tournament?

In general, this section (section eight) of the rules looks like it hasn't been thought out very well. A lot more detail and thought needs to be given to this section because as I'm reading it right now, I don't really understand what it's trying to say. If I sign up for this tournament, I want to know what's expected of me instead of having a nasty surprise that isn't something I agreed to when I'm really close to the money.

There needs to be something at the very least addressing the tournament's stance on collusion during play; either with people in person (such as two people sitting at the same computer, making decisions together) or with people in the chat or other types of spectators. The tournament should have a stance on stream watching, and if that's OK or not. Whatever the stance is, it should just be made public and locked in before signups close.

10.3 [...] contact your moderator [...]

11.2 If there is a conflict, please contact your moderator, who will have the final say on the issue.

Will each player/match have a specific moderator assigned to it? Will the team of moderators have any outside influences? Particularly, will any Shuffleit employee be able to influence any moderator's decision at all, publicly or privately? What evidence will the moderators be taking into account when making decisions at any point? Can VODs of live streams or videos taken privately have any influence on this? Chat logs? If any of this can help the moderation team, it would be nice if that could be stated here so that I can be set up to have this if the need arises.

current moderators are: Deadlock39 and irrationalE

When will this group of moderators be finalized? When it is finalized, how will I know that it is finalized?


...


OK I think that is all of my questions for now. Thank you in advance for your answers.

Offline JW

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #1 on: 11 August 2017, 03:19:39 AM »
1.2 You also need an account with 20 rated games played (by September 15th).

How do I find out how many rated games I have under my account? I want to know what criteria will be used for the tournament. How will I know if some of my rated games get erased because I've inadvertently played them against a troll account whose games were redacted?

Under the "Leaderboard" page it shows a few rows with the inputs into your rating.  There's a row that says "Games" and shows a number of games. Presumably that is the number of games that count on your rating, and that's what will be used to determine eligibility.

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #2 on: 11 August 2017, 04:26:40 AM »
1.2 You also need an account with 20 rated games played (by September 15th).

How do I find out how many rated games I have under my account? I want to know what criteria will be used for the tournament. How will I know if some of my rated games get erased because I've inadvertently played them against a troll account whose games were redacted?

Under the "Leaderboard" page it shows a few rows with the inputs into your rating.  There's a row that says "Games" and shows a number of games. Presumably that is the number of games that count on your rating, and that's what will be used to determine eligibility.

Excellent. I assume it's only 2-player games that count? And that it's just a coincidence that I have the same number of games displayed for the 2P leaderboard as I have for the 3-4P leaderboard? Another data point on this to verify would be nice.

It says I've played 16 rated games. If I just resign 4 rated games against random people will that be acceptable?

Offline drsteelhammer

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #3 on: 11 August 2017, 04:39:26 AM »
Hi Adam,

I really hate partially quoting lots of comments that already have quotes in them, so I just refer to them by the numbers the question is about, I hope you don't mind.

1.2: The amount of rated games you played should be visible on the leaderboard. People signing up who don't yet fit the requirements will be informed about that. Playing against a smurf of yours to game the leaderboard is forbidden by the site, not the tournament.

1.3-4: It's not in my place to disclose how those people can be spotted, and you're right, it's probably impossible if they know what they're doing. However, the rule is in place to a) stop well-meaning people from doing it and b) to have grounds for disqualifying people should they be found out (our favourite troll isn't very secretive about their identity, for example).

Shuffle employees are either paid by Shuffle it and/or have access to the live servers. Currently that is Stef.

3.2: Yes, the bracket will be fully seeded, therefore the highest rated players will receive byes in round 1, should there be any.

4.3: I'm not a 100% about this, but I'm pretty certain you can do this when creating a table. I'll test it again tomorrow (or you're welcome to). It would be a pretty big oversight it that were true.

4.5: I'd be glad to hear about it!

6.2: I recommend saving your messages to your outbox if you fear you could be screwed by this. Usually the only ones that aren't communicating with their opponents aren't on the forum at all. And if a forum admin is needed to sort accusations out, I'm sure they'll help. After all, it's their tournament.

8.3: This isn't really settled yet, but it's possible that we're able to restrict the spectators to the streamer. I don't assume this will happen often if at all before the QF's.

8.4: The level of cooperation expected is that you'll find a time where the game can be streamed. Due to the few matches left at that point, there is a little bit more freedom possible in scheduling to compensate. This point is in the rules to clarify that this isn't optional. If there is no way to stop other spectators from joining at that point, we might have to cancel the stream, of course. Otherwise, it'll run with several minutes delay, so "sniping" doesn't contain any useful information.

Watching third party or your opponents stream isn't allowed regardless, I will add that to the rules. Consulting with other during your matches is forbidden aswell.

11.2 Having well documented evidence is great! Feel free to submit any of this should you run into an issue.

regarding moderators: They don't necessarily have to match the forum moderators, they're solving interpersonal issues two players have, that's all that isn't settled as of now. I can't promise you now when all moderators are known, it really depends on the number of signups. I wont be moderating, if that helps :)

Also yes, moderators will be assigned to games, so you know who you need to talk to.

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #4 on: 11 August 2017, 05:19:12 AM »
Playing against a smurf of yours to game the leaderboard is forbidden by the site, not the tournament.

Understood. This is not what I was suggesting though. I'm asking if it's OK for me to just automatch against someone in a rated game and then resign right away just to meet the requirement. Is this considered abuse? Should I just buy Estates and Curses until the game is over instead? I don't want to play rated games is what I'm getting at, and I'm going to do as little as possible to meet this requirement if I decide I want to play in this tournament. I also don't want to break any rules.

4.3: I'm not a 100% about this, but I'm pretty certain you can do this when creating a table.

If this is possible, then at some point before people start playing matches, it would help to have some directions on this. I looked for this feature for about 30 seconds and I didn't find it.

...but why is it possible to specify start player in rated games? I feel like that shouldn't be allowed and it can only lead to abuse. That's a different discussion though.

4.5: I'd be glad to hear about it!

I would suggest that if the seventh game is a tie, an eighth game would be played with the opposite starting player. As long as ties continue, more tiebreaker games are played and starting player alternates.

...but the real question I had here was about the clause in 7.2 -- can I ask my opponent to change stuff that isn't in section 7? Or are we only allowed to agree to change things in section 7? In particular, I'm concerned with the part about rated games; I don't want to play with cards that have known bugs or debilitating interface issues and I think the only way to do that is in an unrated game.

6.2: I recommend saving your messages to your outbox if you fear you could be screwed by this. Usually the only ones that aren't communicating with their opponents aren't on the forum at all. And if a forum admin is needed to sort accusations out, I'm sure they'll help. After all, it's their tournament.

What I'm worried about is exactly this situation: now a forum admin (someone who isn't a moderator) has a part in resolving this conflict because they are needed to gather PMs or something. If there are any circumstances where someone outside of the moderator list is going to have anything at all to do with resolving conflicts, then they should be put on the moderator list.

Seems like the obvious thing to do is to give tournament moderators forum admin access, is this possible? If that's not going to happen and other forum admins could have a part in resolving conflicts in the tournament, I want to know about it before I sign up, so that I can just not sign up.

8.3: This isn't really settled yet, but it's possible that we're able to restrict the spectators to the streamer. I don't assume this will happen often if at all before the QF's.

OK, an update on this when it's settled would be great.

8.4: [...] Consulting with other during your matches is forbidden aswell.

So this means that it's forbidden to sign up with my account, for example, and then have my friend sitting next to me, helping me out while I'm playing? If this is the case, that should be explicitly mentioned in the rules.

regarding moderators: They don't necessarily have to match the forum moderators, they're solving interpersonal issues two players have, that's all that isn't settled as of now. I can't promise you now when all moderators are known, it really depends on the number of signups. I wont be moderating, if that helps :)

It seems you know what my issue is here. If certain people could be moderating the tournament I don't want to be a part of it. If I sign up, and now I have my first matchup and all of a sudden there's a new moderator in town who I believe will not operate with integrity, then it needs to at least be OK for me to exit the tournament.

Also yes, moderators will be assigned to games, so you know who you need to talk to.

Will the moderator for a specific game be making decisions for that game by themselves, or could they be influenced by other moderators?

Offline Personman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #5 on: 11 August 2017, 07:49:37 AM »
Quote
If this is possible, then at some point before people start playing matches, it would help to have some directions on this. I looked for this feature for about 30 seconds and I didn't find it.

...but why is it possible to specify start player in rated games? I feel like that shouldn't be allowed and it can only lead to abuse. That's a different discussion though.

You're conflating "automatched" and "rated". You can't change any settings in automatch, but you can set any game created at a Table to be rated (a checkbox that becomes available once you click Advanced Settings). Thus, you can play a rated game with a fixed starting player, and with any particular cards you want. You can also change the sets from cards are randomly drawn. I don't believe you can exclude specific cards at the moment, which is pretty unfortunate. It would be great if this feature were added, so that players could agree to play matches that don't have Possession, for instance.

Offline markus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #6 on: 11 August 2017, 10:03:53 AM »
I don't believe you can exclude specific cards at the moment, which is pretty unfortunate.

A way to do this is the familiar cards feature. You would have to trust though, that your opponent doesn't mark cards unfamiliar that you want to possibly be included.
All this can be done when creating a Table using the Advanced Options.

Regarding game 7, I think that it is kind of a win if the second player gets to a draw. So I would be rather worried that it's too big of an advantage to be the (random) first player. But I don't think that there's a way around which doesn't involve potentially playing a lot more games.

Regarding the integrity of the leaderboard, I find it interesting when someone wants to give away some free wins to opponents but worries about setting the starting player.

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #7 on: 11 August 2017, 01:42:56 PM »
Regarding game 7, I think that it is kind of a win if the second player gets to a draw. So I would be rather worried that it's too big of an advantage to be the (random) first player. But I don't think that there's a way around which doesn't involve potentially playing a lot more games.

The game rules have called the result of the game a draw. I don't see why the tournament rules are attempting to change that. The tournament rules should reflect the game rules as closely as possible.

Any game with draws has the possibility of needing lots of games to break a tie. I think that the very small chance of this happening is worth the integrity you gain by actually respecting the result given by the game.

Offline jsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #8 on: 11 August 2017, 02:09:41 PM »
Regarding game 7, I think that it is kind of a win if the second player gets to a draw. So I would be rather worried that it's too big of an advantage to be the (random) first player. But I don't think that there's a way around which doesn't involve potentially playing a lot more games.

The game rules have called the result of the game a draw. I don't see why the tournament rules are attempting to change that. The tournament rules should reflect the game rules as closely as possible.

Any game with draws has the possibility of needing lots of games to break a tie. I think that the very small chance of this happening is worth the integrity you gain by actually respecting the result given by the game.

You should propose a better solution, then. I agree that it's not a perfect one, but I also don't want to play 8 or 9 game sets.

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #9 on: 11 August 2017, 02:19:06 PM »
Regarding game 7, I think that it is kind of a win if the second player gets to a draw. So I would be rather worried that it's too big of an advantage to be the (random) first player. But I don't think that there's a way around which doesn't involve potentially playing a lot more games.

The game rules have called the result of the game a draw. I don't see why the tournament rules are attempting to change that. The tournament rules should reflect the game rules as closely as possible.

Any game with draws has the possibility of needing lots of games to break a tie. I think that the very small chance of this happening is worth the integrity you gain by actually respecting the result given by the game.

You should propose a better solution, then. I agree that it's not a perfect one, but I also don't want to play 8 or 9 game sets.

I proposed what I think is the best solution. It prioritizes respecting game results over the extremely low possibility of having to play a few more games.

In terms of competitive integrity my solution is perfect. It's only an inconvenience in a really small number of cases that works against my solution, and this is unaviodable because Dominion has ties and the tournament structure does not allow for ties.

The current rule disregards the game rules/results. I fail to see how it is better.

Offline Ingix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #10 on: 11 August 2017, 03:15:46 PM »
3.2: Yes, the bracket will be fully seeded, therefore the highest rated players will receive byes in round 1, should there be any.

Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,

Offline funkdoc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #11 on: 11 August 2017, 03:44:45 PM »
in fighting game tournaments, it's normal for the byes to go to the top seeds in each bracket.  i have no problem with that because they've earned it through previous results.

also i'm with Adam on the tie issue.  they're so rare that it wouldn't add much time overall.  and hey, an 8th game would balance the number of starts again!

Offline dan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #12 on: 11 August 2017, 07:17:40 PM »
Playing against a smurf of yours to game the leaderboard is forbidden by the site, not the tournament.
Understood. This is not what I was suggesting though. I'm asking if it's OK for me to just automatch against someone in a rated game and then resign right away just to meet the requirement. Is this considered abuse? Should I just buy Estates and Curses until the game is over instead? I don't want to play rated games is what I'm getting at, and I'm going to do as little as possible to meet this requirement if I decide I want to play in this tournament. I also don't want to break any rules.

Well, I can't imagine anybody would encourage that!

The rated game requirement helps with the initial seeding.

And, with 7 game matches, 20 rated games is pretty modest (you already have 16)!

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #13 on: 12 August 2017, 02:33:17 AM »
You should propose a better solution, then.
Or if not him, someone should! I will be that someone.

I prefer playing the extra 8th and 9th and endless games, but I'm there for you with the tough answers, in this case to the question, but what if we really need to stop after 7 and compute a winner. Proposal crossposted from the discord thing where you've already seen it.

There are three tiebreakers:
1. fewest turns over the match wins the tie
2. most wins over the tournament, not counting game 7's, wins the tie (yes you can factor in draws)
3. highest rated player wins the tie

Fewest turns is the regular Dominion tiebreaker; people are used to it and everything. If a match ever comes down to this tiebreaker well it will feel as fair as not playing another game possibly could.

Failing that well if it's not round 1 then maybe one player has been beating other people by bigger margins. That seems reasonable in this desperate situation. If you have byes the fairest thing is to not count those rounds, though I think for Magic they treat them as sweeps. You got the bye because you were higher ranked and we're going to be down to that in a minute anyway, so maybe that's reasonable.

Failing that, we want a competition of the best players, and have more data we can draw from. The predictive value of ranking has gotta exceed the predictive value of who went second in a game with equal turns.

Stef sounded interested in these changes for a future tournament, but unconvinced that they were important enough to implement immediately. So there you have it.

There may be other issues I would desperately want to comment on if only I hadn't merely skimmed the rules and thread. Those of you who don't want me solving more problems can breathe a sigh of relief.

Offline drsteelhammer

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #14 on: 12 August 2017, 05:40:31 AM »
3.2: Yes, the bracket will be fully seeded, therefore the highest rated players will receive byes in round 1, should there be any.

Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,

That's a necessary consequence of a fully seeded bracket, so no, that can't be done. We could not seed the tournament instead, but that leads less fairness, in my opinion.

About the tie breaker:

Funnily, last year when we held a similar tournament I actually included your proposal Adam for the Quarterfinals and beyond. I chose to cut because I think it's actually less fair.

I don't have any data for this, but I think it's known to most people who played on a high level that 1st player wins more often than the second player, and even if the rules were changed that all current ties would be awarded to the second player, first player would still be favourable. (Wins 1p>Wins 2p +Ties)

I think that would still be true if the both players adapted to this rule change. Now, playing an 8th game instead of awarding the second player a win takes even more of their chances away to win the match. So this rule tries to give the coin flip who starts the game the least amount of weight, given a limited timeframe. My personal favourite would be to add two games every time until one set doesn't end 1-1, but I don't think we can expect anyone to play that much.

Personally, I'm not too invested about this, I just would like the disadvantaged person to have the smallest disadvantage possible. And I think playing an 8th game slightly increases that disadvantage over the current rule.

To DVX: Regarding your other tiebreakers, I don't quite follow why those would be better tiebreakers. The only thing I can think of is to avoid confusion about the Dominion rules? We have roughly a 52-46-2 % situation on our hands (maybe even worse for the second player). Why no just give this small possibility of a tie to the player who's being disadvantaged in that very game instead of picking a metric that didn't have anything to do with the match?

Back to Adam: The rules under section 4) should be the same for everyone, I'm afraid. We can gladly continue the discussion about the point above, though.