[Rules] Deadbeat Extra Point Penalization

[.SCuD.]

Mod Edit: This topic is a compilation of all suggestions for deadbeats to lose extra points, whether it be a set amount such as 50, 2 or 3 times the points they would normally lose, losing points to non-deadbeats as well as the winner, or some other method or mix of those previously stated. This also includes promotion of the loss in specific game types, such as speed. Keep in mind this is a time when the site was booming, and most deadbeats were New Recruits who joined the site but didn't end up coming back, so a lot of relevance (if there was any in the first place) behind this suggestion has come to pass.--JamesK

OK, this is the point, deadbeating is bad, deadbeating is evil.

I understand why people don't get given a deadbeats points when winning a game as it took no skill to win over them. My problem is that the deadbeat doesnt lose out, they really really should!

I woudl suggest that deadbeating a game results in an automatic loss of points, these points wouldnt be given to the winner, just deducted from the player.
This could be done in two ways.

1. Deduct a fixed amount (say 50pts) with 2 games "grace" so that players don't run away straight away!
2. Deduct an escalating amount (say zero points first two times, then 20pts for the third then 25 etc etc)

[Black Jack]

A hefty points penalty would be just the thing... for deadbeats.

Also, add them to your ignore list.

[SprCobra]

I said to lack when this problembfrist arised we should get thierpoints and everyone agreed but it turned out they didnt lose any point which is totally stupid(i said that fordoublegames where the aprntersstill gotpoint i said it should turn out like a 4 man standard if he went deadbeat thats it)

anyway i agree

[nhulbert]

Not only that, I'm wondering what would happen if the following were to take place. Three player game, red and green are friends and decide to gang up on blue until he is out. Blue is now out, and they want to be able to split the points, so they leave that game and forget about it, intentionally leaving it so that they both become deadbeats at once. I think they both should lose their points and it should give the default to blue, who was the only one that played fairly.

[Hoff]

Not only that, I'm wondering what would happen if the following were to take place. Three player game, red and green are friends and decide to gang up on blue until he is out. Blue is now out, and they want to be able to split the points, so they leave that game and forget about it, intentionally leaving it so that they both become deadbeats at once. I think they both should lose their points and it should give the default to blue, who was the only one that played fairly.

That sounds like it would be hard to prove who played "fairly". Much more work then its worth. Deadbeats should lose points, even if its a doubles game and their partner wins.

[Jota]

Deadbeats losing points makes sense, but it does raise one important question: where do those points go? At this point in time, the Conquer Club scoring system is a zero sum game. It'd be nice if that didn't have to change.

Silly thought: a deadbeat pool. All points lost by deadbeats funnel into a special tally that any player can view. If the tally ever reaches or exceeds the number of active players on the site, everybody gets a point from the pool for free.

[kingwaffles]

Or why not split up the points among the players of each game?

[lackattack]

Silly thought: a deadbeat pool. All points lost by deadbeats funnel into a special tally that any player can view. If the tally ever reaches or exceeds the number of active players on the site, everybody gets a point from the pool for free.

Interesting idea. I have a review of the scoring system scheduled as the next improvement after player reputations. I'm open to ditching the zero-sum game notion but maybe I won't need to.

[Hoff]

what do you mean by zero-sum scoring?

[kingwaffles]

I believe its the idea that there is a certain amount of points in the system and they circulate around. So you can't gain more than someone else is losing and others can't lose more than you gain. Something like that. Essentially everyhting comes out to zero.

[Fieryo]

or everthing comes out to 1000 since that is the base number of points

[Hoff]

oh i see. thats pretty cool, thanks

[kingwaffles]

or everthing comes out to 1000 since that is the base number of points

Right, I just meant after games and such the points added and subtracted from each person total out to 0.

[max is gr8]

or if the points go over 100 have an official tourney and winner takes all but without gaining/losing points during the games.

[Banana Stomper]

I think a deadbeat penalty should be put in place. Take a look at this sad, sad sight. I suppose a problem could be if all members go deadbeat, does the last person to go get points? I put out a lot of effort to take one out before they went deadbeat, but alas, no such luck.

2006-04-30 15:11:58 - Banana Stomper won the game
2006-04-30 15:11:58 - ToiletBrush was a deadbeat
2006-04-30 15:11:58 - bethanyblueberry was a deadbeat
2006-04-30 15:11:58 - Convert was a deadbeat
2006-04-30 15:11:58 - Banana Stomper gains 0 points

[colin cool]

the problem is people cant always take there turns for example if there on a trip, sick, their computers broken, or there just busy so its not really fair.

[Banana Stomper]

Three 24 hour time windows to move is more than fair. I've missed a turn due to being busy, but missing three? Thats a bit excessive.

[UTGreen]

I'd have to presume (I don't have any stats on this, but maybe someone wants to test a sampling) that most deadbeats are people who stumble across this site, set up a couple of games, and then get bored or forget to come back. Now maybe it is a conspiracy to just not play to avoid losing points when you get dealt a seemingly bad hand, but I can't imagine doing that. Anyway, you can't punish people who browse in and then leave in boredom, cause they don't care about their scores, because chances are good they'll never be back anyway.

What needs to be done in those cases is an automated gentle reminder after missing their first turn imploring them to come back and play and soon become addicted to CC instead of raising their stupid kids or being a productive member of society or whatever else that's so damn important to them.

As far as a penalty goes, why not just make it 3 points per opponent, and divide it among the people playing? For instance if you're in a 5 person game, you'd lose 12 and everyone else would gain 3. You'd preserve the zero-sum without fractional points, and you'd lessen the incentive to sit out a bad hand but wouldn't make it so punative that going on vacation would drop your score into the doldrums. Granted, you'd lose more points for forfeiting a bigger game, but you presumably played for the bigger payout and you also are likely to have more time pass before 3 turns are up than in a smaller game.

You could also bring back the "drop game" button, but only make it available after the deal and have it incur a smaller penalty than deadbeating (2 points per opponent). That way if you hated your hand and weren't planning to play anyway you could walk away a bit cheaper without making everyone wait 72 hours on you.

Would any of that address any of the deadbeating problems? Anyone out there who's a reoccuring deadbeater who can tell us how large of a penalty you'd need before you'd start playing unwinnable games? Would it be alright if we had a drop game button ONLY to be used before you take your first hand, so that you could let a grey neutral opponent try his luck with your spread out, undefendable, mess you've been dealt?

[gouverneurcc]

I'd have to presume (I don't have any stats on this, but maybe someone wants to test a sampling) that most deadbeats are people who stumble across this site, set up a couple of games, and then get bored or forget to come back. Now maybe it is a conspiracy to just not play to avoid losing points when you get dealt a seemingly bad hand, but I can't imagine doing that. Anyway, you can't punish people who browse in and then leave in boredom, cause they don't care about their scores, because chances are good they'll never be back anyway.

What needs to be done in those cases is an automated gentle reminder after missing their first turn imploring them to come back and play and soon become addicted to CC instead of raising their stupid kids or being a productive member of society or whatever else that's so damn important to them.

As far as a penalty goes, why not just make it 3 points per opponent, and divide it among the people playing? For instance if you're in a 5 person game, you'd lose 12 and everyone else would gain 3. You'd preserve the zero-sum without fractional points, and you'd lessen the incentive to sit out a bad hand but wouldn't make it so punative that going on vacation would drop your score into the doldrums. Granted, you'd lose more points for forfeiting a bigger game, but you presumably played for the bigger payout and you also are likely to have more time pass before 3 turns are up than in a smaller game.

You could also bring back the "drop game" button, but only make it available after the deal and have it incur a smaller penalty than deadbeating (2 points per opponent). That way if you hated your hand and weren't planning to play anyway you could walk away a bit cheaper without making everyone wait 72 hours on you.

Would any of that address any of the deadbeating problems? Anyone out there who's a reoccuring deadbeater who can tell us how large of a penalty you'd need before you'd start playing unwinnable games? Would it be alright if we had a drop game button ONLY to be used before you take your first hand, so that you could let a grey neutral opponent try his luck with your spread out, undefendable, mess you've been dealt?

Some of those ideas are good, but for a person who just vomes upon CC and than joins games and quits they should be punished for quitting such a great game and points should be taken away. I personally hate deadbeats because they take away from the fun and over 75% of the deadbeats I have come across are higher ranked players than just new players, which means most likely they just don't play because they are going to lose.

[UTGreen]

Some of those ideas are good, but for a person who just comes upon CC and than joins games and quits they should be punished for quitting such a great game and points should be taken away.

I know and if I ever run into these people on the street, I'll totally run them down with my car... but alas, I just don't think that casual players or people who aren't coming back would be punished very much by a point deduction... even if it would make us feel better.

...and over 75% of the deadbeats I have come across are higher ranked players than just new players, which means most likely they just don't play because they are going to lose.

Again, if you've got more than 10 games under your belt then maybe there should be a small (6-15?) point penalty for deadbeating. But it would be curable if you allowed a pre-game "end game mulligan" that cost a couple of points (4-10?) but allow you to walk away from a guaranteed loss (though I don't think there is such a thing) without wasting everyone's time.

Of course, if you hate deadbeats wasting turns and your time, you could just pony up the $20 and play as much as you want.

By the way, cool Ultimate avatar... yay hippie sports.

[Opera Man FL]

Mod Edit: This topic is a compilation of all suggestions for deadbeats to lose extra points, whether it be a set amount such as 50, 2 or 3 times the points they would normally lose, or losing points to non-deadbeats as well as the winner. Keep in mind this is a time when the site was booming, and most deadbeats were New Recruits who joined the site but didn't end up coming back, so a lot of relevance (if there was any in the first place) behind this suggestion has come to pass.--JamesK

I'd like to ask that when a player is removed from a game for being a deadbeat, that they receive a significant point penalty, say 100 or more points, given to the winner. Seems that something in this directions might deter some from leaving a game when they decided their position is hopeless. Leaving the game prolongs the action too much for more responsible players. Just a thought. Please comment if you believe the penalty should be more, less, or if you disagree with this idea. Good luck always to all conquer club members.

Opera Man FL

[pevanelagas]

Sounds a little steep, but yes I think they should be penalized.. Maybe double what his teammates lose? (if its on team) or double what whoever loses the most loses.

[Marvaddin]

Guy, we have already tons of topics about this. Could you search for one of them? But I disagree you.

1) If a player is in a hopeless position, and miss 3 turns, he will still lose points, since he has played turn 2 or a later turn. So, unnecessary punish them... 100 points is madness. Great punishments would become easy to get really low scores, then win 2000 points in a game.

2) If the deadbeat is a new player that dislikes the site, why punish him? He doesnt care anyway...

And, as lack already said, is unfair gain points from a player that doesnt play. You need no effort... so I think is decided already no one will gain deadbeats points... although they still can lose, but I believe its unnecessary.

[britarmy]

I agree new players there is no need for punishment but people that keep offending should be punished maybe it would wake them up a bit

[Fieryo]

i agree that they should be punished, but not 100 points. just the normal amount so they will learn that deadbeating gains you nothing