Messages

Edit by Stef: I removed the rest of this thread. It resulted in public name & shame, which is against the policy as pointed out by Adam.

I am sorry to those who experience bad behaviour, but name & shame is not an response I believe in.
In my personal experience the bad behaviour is rare but maybe I got lucky. It also seems to be happening more among lower ratings.

Please try to minimize the impact. When at all possible, try to let it go. Put them on your blacklist. We are already monitoring who is on how many blacklists, so if they're real jerks we'll be on to them soon.

If it goes beyond that, send a PM to one of the moderators (LaLight, drsteelhammer, Watno) or one of the admins (Philip, Stef)

Hello Stef, can I do this after I lost? I would be absolutely fine with that. I will try that out.

Only if you accept you lost before it actually happens. Once the game is finished, you'll have to take LaLights route.

You can also type /undo and then click on the first dot in the log. It's not the same as one button but should get you what you want.

Edit: posts like these that mention names really should be removed from these forums. There needs to be a way to easily report these people and it needs to be private.

Yes I agree, I redacted the post. I'll also ask the other mods to remove or redact posts that explicitly mention people.
You can report people privately by sending a PM to one of the moderators or administrators on this forum.

I hate people misbehaving, but I don't believe in public name & shame at all.

Thanks for putting more thought into this. Your posts contain some suggestions that certainly make sense.

The lower initial phi of 1 instead of 2 seems good. It now seems to needlessly penalize new players. But can you back it up with some argument/example? Suppose a new account does pretty well on its first day, an 8-2 record against various random opponents, what would the resulting rating be for these two options?

I'm uncertain about using (mu - phi) over (mu - 2 * phi). While there is no need for quick degeneration of levels, I do actually believe you get worse at Dominion if you don't play for a while, and I don't want people that haven't played for half a year to still be near their old rating/rank.

I am tempted to change the system to immediate updates over daily updates. Not that I really prefer that myself, but people seem to like it and it prevents some questions about the current leaderboard.

----

Most of all I don't want to introduce new rules/parameters too often. Ideally you or someone could compose an actual short list of proposed changes and when there are no valid counterarguments we just do that. That would require filling in some more details.

Missing the most?  A "May Edition" of 'missing the most.'  :)

No sorry I'll skip a month with this thread. Already plenty of work for May, and I'd rather ask again when there is a reasonable chance the answers will determine what we're going to build next. Only asking when it actually has impact will hopefully keep people motivated to provide feedback in these threads.

I could argue that the longer I spend taking my turn, the more time I have to think and the more likely I am to make the optimal choice.  Therefore I will always take the maximum amount of time that the rules allow.  When do you draw the line and call it abuse if it's well within the rules and I'm simply exercising my right to taking my time?

It's not withing the rules to slowroll.

Not on this site, as I already stated it has been and will continue to be grounds for banning.

Not in the rest of life either. It's about an unwritten contract between all human beings - if you want to have fun together, like playing a game, then you will have to take each others feelings into account. If you haven't already learned that from the rest of life, it's a big problem. Not the kind of problem that gets solved with an additional rule.

I don't believe in a (simple) time limit to stop slow rolling.

In some games you just need to think, and however long that is, it's way longer then the acceptable time between playing coppers for your opponent. Possibly with a more advanced clock you could do something, but as long as it's just one timer setting it to some other timeout won't solve much.

I hope the blacklists will help, possibly we need to do more, and at some point we'll actually have that more advanced timer.

I stand somewhere in the middle here...

I think the problem might actually be a lack of automatch options. You left that previous table because of some reason (opponents rating too high?) that the client currently doesn't let you express. If it was truly because he's a jerk then blacklisting is indeed a perfectly adequate solution.

You are probably right, expecting some chivalry is so last century.

Expecting chivalry is totally fine, even though what it actually means is a bit vague. And of course you're entitled to come up with your own definition and put everyone on your blacklist that doesn't live up to your expectations.

But please be aware that that's what they are - your personal expectations. For example I don't agree with your definition here. I think it's fine if people just want to play one game and leave after that, assuming they end the game in a somewhat respectful manner of course. In my book just leaving after one game is fine, whereas after player a couple of games I would expect you to say some form of goodbye. Regardless of the number of games and/or who won them, you're never supposed to play another game if you don't feel like it.

1) is doable and sounds like a good idea.

2) is really complicated and I think you've only touched the tip of the iceberg on the edgecases.
All on-buy/on-gain abilities on cards, all on-play abilities on treasures, ...

Recently I was playing a game with Ghost Ship and Apothecary (and Wishing Well).

After my opponent played a Ghost Ship I have to top deck cards from my hand.
The order that I would put cards back in my deck in that case is quite important so I can get my copper back with apothecary or wish for a card etc.  Currently I can select cards I want to topdeck and I think the order I select them is implied by the order I clicked them, but it definitely isn't clear whether that is the case or not.

It's indeed the order you click them, and I also agree that could/should be more clear.

[Version 1.2.4]

Version 1.2.4

• you have a personal blacklist; you can find it next to your friendlist.
• after a game you can directly add players as friend and/or blacklisted
• "rated games" & "replay" exclude eachother
• 3/4P rated games now show 3/4P ratings in the log (was 2P ratings)
• friend list tab looks nicer
• new sound when it's your time to act

When you blacklist a person, you will not be automatched with them, they cannot join tables you're hosting and they can't see your online status (even when they befriend you and you allow followers to see your status).

I think that replays should never be rated.

agreed... I just didn't think about this the first time around but in 1.2.4 "rated game" and "replay" will be mutually exclusive.

I can't see that Trader's reaction ability connects to this either, so I'm still confused about what this has to do with Trader.

Trader and Possession are the two cards in Dominion that respond to "would gain", and when they do their thing in fact the original gain gets cancelled entirely. Like you say it has nothing to do with lose track.

Develop used to do something with the gained card (to determine the 2nd question) which was wrong; now it does something with the card you clicked on, which seems to be correct.