|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 20, 2006 11:25:30 GMT -5
The CIV4Players Admin Board is considering switching back to a private "invitation only" status, and I wanted to gauge the opinions of our members before doing this.
The problem is a handful of people who are not reporting and then once suspended rejoining the ladder (which is very easy as a public ladder) under a different name. Admins then have to catch them, after the fact, and penalize this 2nd account, and then they create a 3rd account, etc. etc.
If we were private, invitation only, we could screen each new applicant's email address and IP address. The people trying to skirt our rules on reporting would encounter an obstacle to rejoining.
On the negative side, it would create delays in joining for new members of 24-48 hours for admin review. And some people view "invitation only" as evidence of elitism. In fact we allow everyone to join, unless they have broken our rules in the past - but it's a perception problem.
Please vote and post your reasons why here. The Admin Board will decide this issue in a few days.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by yyrkroon on Jan 20, 2006 12:22:51 GMT -5
How would a new member be invited?
Who could invite a new member?
By what criterion would their application be judged?
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2006 12:24:09 GMT -5
IMHO, the current situation that is reaching new heights every day and is causing a considerable amount of work to track down the many duplicate accounts, especially of the people trying to circumvent the rules, makes this step a neccesary evil.
By being a open ladder for the first few months we have proven that we want to be the centre of gravity for the Civ4 MP community, but now a significant portion of the ladder is abusing this system and it's time to lower the hammer or our ladder will turn into the online version of the "wild wild west" and it will lose any relavence it once had.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 20, 2006 12:28:05 GMT -5
How would a new member be invited? Who could invite a new member? By what criterion would their application be judged? 1. All potential members would either email/pm an admin an will be told to email a formal request, or they can use the "auto invite" form that would replace the currrent "free signup wisard" on the ladder page. 2. Only Admins can issue a invite. 3. Potential new members would have there email/IP etc compared to our list of "problem children" and if we don't see a issue they will get a invite emailed to them in 24-48 hours. CS
|
|
|
Post by Magzi on Jan 20, 2006 12:40:57 GMT -5
Unfortunately, as always, it's the few spoiling it for the majority. I'm one that only plays a ladder game if I know the people or a civfr one isn't available ...and my french is terrible . I can see if the current system continues more decent players will avoid playing Civ. On another note, how much time do you admins want to spend trailing through new accounts for the few problem members? I can't see it being much fun. At least with an invite only ladder, screening can be done and should hopefully dissuade those attempting duplicate accounts from even trying.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 20, 2006 13:00:36 GMT -5
There are advantages to having people wait 24-48 hours to join. 1-The ones who apply and are willing to wait are usually more serious players, more experienced and hence more reliable 2-The way it is now any person who buys the game can go on-line and find themselves on the ladder literally 5 minutes after installation. These are our "problem" population
BTW-We are reviewing non-report policies and can tell you things are gonna get a lot tougher around here...so spread the word. Report or you will not play ladder, period.
|
|
|
Post by GERMANIA on Jan 20, 2006 13:15:06 GMT -5
hell yes, we need to get back how it was once, it cant be that you need to wait till the admins do the non reports and give you your reports from a week ago, its less fun for the player and waist of time for the admin! i always prefer a league with 250 real members who understand how the ladder works then instead of a league witch isn't a real league because no one holds the rules
|
|
Midgard
Worker
Captain of LoD
Posts: 103
|
Post by Midgard on Jan 20, 2006 13:43:50 GMT -5
It is due to the fact it is an open ladder that I barely play anymore, the fun has vanished that i found within c3c, too many rude ignorant mofo's are now on the ladder making multiple acothingys feeling they can get away with anything they wish, so I am in 100% agreement of a private ladder. Unfortunately this might diminish membership (which might be doubtful) but I am in the firm belief quality is more important than quantity.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Jan 20, 2006 14:17:46 GMT -5
I would at LEAST keep it "open" until the next patch/connection issues are fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 20, 2006 17:24:00 GMT -5
I agree,we're getting some great new players, but we're also getting the usual crowd who have no respect for the ladder and just join to get a game. Then they non report and you guys have to waste your time following up the player?
24-48 hrs is good, and the patch won't solve this problem. It isn't about the patch it's about the players. OK the patch sucks atm but that's not going to make a difference to the report situation or the trouble they cause. We all know this patch has ruined ancients, we all know it's also ruined most games but teamers, we also all know that once the new patch comes in there is no reason why the non reporters will change their ways.
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Jan 20, 2006 20:47:44 GMT -5
I say make it private. I play ctons with noobs all the time and on average maybe half of them report. That's just not an acceptable state of affairs. When I joined ladder I never filed any non-report claims because I don't care about rank. Then I decided to start filing them after a series of people quitting half way through and not reporting. Now I am so overwhelmed I have gone back to doing nothing. I realise that essentialy what I'm asking for is to have the workload of filtering losers taken off my back and put even more so on the admins...but isn't that what they're here for?
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Jan 20, 2006 23:07:14 GMT -5
It was inferred I was elitist by an administrator when I suggested this a few weeks ago after several frustrating reloads and nonreports. Hmmm, I see you've come around my friend to the north. Maybe I'm just a man ahead of his time.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 21, 2006 0:32:10 GMT -5
oh well I said it often enough and gona do it again: let the nonreporters play with other nonreporters and find a good game.
Sure invitation is better then this: - ah I wana play this game as no others are there - oh I have to register - f**k it why not - ladder .. what dumbasses - uh a chariot - f**k u - gonna leave this nuts
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 21, 2006 0:33:28 GMT -5
It was inferred I was elitist by an administrator when I suggested this a few weeks ago after several frustrating reloads and nonreports. Hmmm, I see you've come around my friend to the north. Maybe I'm just a man ahead of his time. Or more likely non-reports have increased by a factor of 10 in the past week and it is now time to act, it's still sad we have to do this but a neccesary evil. CS
|
|
|
Post by cantabrian on Jan 21, 2006 3:00:23 GMT -5
I voted yes as well, I always liked the way it took a while to join,makes it a bit more special when you do get to play ladder. There are lots more open games that they can play in and if they want to play in a league then a short wait won't kill them in fact i think it makes them respect the rules and the whole system a lot better than the instant gratafication of being able to join and play right away. Keep ladder games for serious players.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Jan 21, 2006 4:40:55 GMT -5
In the beginning all were invited. Those that abuse the system were weeded out to some extent. Civ4 was introduced as a multiplayer game and therefore it was right to have it public.
Now after, almost 3 months it is time to close our shores and scrutinize who we admit. If they can't wait 24-48 hours the chances are they wouldn't be good members anyway.
|
|
|
Post by WarningU2 on Jan 22, 2006 0:52:16 GMT -5
Thank you SPM for posting this poll. Suffice to say you know which way I voted. Just as an example of what is happening that may not be apparent to all . - I am getting about 15- 30 non reports a day. At one point over 3 days I actually had over 150.
- About 10% of these are disputed at any one time.
- Many non reports are filed almost immediately after the game. That's wrong.
- The majority of people filing non reports are the same people.
- Many non reporters don't report because they suspect others of cheating, or they think they have to only report to the overall winner of the game.
- Many non reporters continue to play games while in the box.
- There are some people who have 10 or more multiple accounts.
- Some are now in the habit of playing when not even activated. They can't report and you can't report to them. New to me was that you cannot detect this as a ladder player - they show as unranked.
- A very few are playing a game not reporting and withdrawing and renewing.
So tonight I have decided to get very severe in penalties regardless of what decision is made about going private or public 1) first non report - a warning a penalty on your record. Everyone makes a mistake 2) second non report - 7 days in the box and a bomb on your name. (used to be 3) 3) third non report - you get 90 days in the box or you're out and banned at the discretion of the admin. It used to be I'd give you 6 non reports with escalating penalties up to 31 days but if players are going to continue playing while penalized then there is no point to that. A player can always contact the admins and have their record wiped clean by being on probation for 90 days. They need to explain why they didn't report. I am for players that withdraw and renew causing the non reports to be assigned to the new account. Non reporting follows you. I am also getting very severe on multiple accounts. I would give some benefit of doubt but if I see a withdrawing, renewing, non report advoidance trend, I'm just banning them all. For players playing when their account is not activated, I was sending them an activation code and reporting for them without penalty but that stops after one person ignored the email (I know they received it) and carried on playing. I have now started to report on their behalf and remove and ban those users (oddly enough they are typically the multiple account holders) I have also started rejecting non reports that are filed the same day as the match. Sorry you MUST wait 24 hrs before you file. End of story. That gives someone to report or contest a match 4 days before non report penalties commence. If anyone here things its too severe ... let me know. I have not had it sanctioned by the other admins yet but I know they were calling for more severe penalties. I just made an executive decision tonight because of some individuals that are taxing my patience and at this point I consider this crisis mode. I would like to suggest that at this point some responsibility falls on the ladder players here too. Do not play games with non reporters. If you see the bomb on a player when you validate them, you've got a problem. Ask them what is going on. If you don't like the answer ... Do continue to play games with unranked players ... you will get the report regardless of their activation status. Everyone has to start somewhere. Do keep a mental list of players to play and avoid. We as admins do not publically black list anyone however personally the few games I play (and they are few now) I know who to avoid. Don't play a game with someone that you know doesn't report. It happens over and over with the same people and I have to question WHAT ARE THEY THINKING
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 22, 2006 1:30:59 GMT -5
File. File, File I know your intentions are admirable trying to spare a tired old man from his duties ;D But point is.... we need to see the names of non reporters come up so we may educate/suspend/ban them. Yes it is work..but we do not mind if it means a better ladder, a fair ladder, a ladder with integrity. So do your share please 1-File 2-keep screenshot of game final as proof if contested
I promise we will weed out the trash from there.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 22, 2006 1:41:55 GMT -5
It's so easy to report people. Go into direct Ip and load up the game. take the screenshot from the last autosave, my autosave is set on save every turn anyway. Then store it in a games outstanding folder for civ. voila any chance of a non report you have instant damming evidence. It takes like 20 secs to do this.
Even simpler move the autosave to games outstanding then delete it once all the reports are in? This isn't that difficult people?!?!? That takes 2 secs max.
|
|
redphoenix
Warrior
CCCAC Representative
Posts: 253
|
Post by redphoenix on Jan 22, 2006 4:32:24 GMT -5
Hey.
I agree that a system needs to be to prevent those same people joining again. Can there be no email, ip blocks on the cases inviting system that is now in place? It sounds silly if not.
I think in players being able to join like they can join now, we get a player base that will increase more. It is more inviting to new players and they will be more likely to try the ladder this way, if changed many new players or otherwise non ladder players, will not make the effort to try it out.
We lose a lot in that I think. Some people are elitist and say we don't need any noobs etc, been like that always. But we do need the noobs, everyone was a noob once. Most of them will become good or great players in a short time.
I hope we can keep the system as it is, but I do understand the need to keep out the bad people, is there no way that can be done inside the current system? (email, ip blocks etc?You do need to enter your email even to cases ...)
|
|