|
| Thread: Suggestion: To report Honor level when reporting a win or loss |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
posted July 29, 2001 12:57 PM |
|
|
Suggestion: To report Honor level when reporting a win or loss
The problem
I hang around the zone alot, and I see alot of people complaining that there are many players that dont play with honour, that its "all about the points".
The reason
All that shows on the record (for most people) is the points. All that is reported by the player population is the points. The points is the only official form of communication for the player base.
The solution
I would like to see a "report honour level" option when you report a win or a loss. You would get to report how honrourable your opponent was on a scale from lets say 1 to 10. Then the median or mean honour level would be put on record with the points and the wins and losses. That way players would have to be polite and honourable to their opponents, because they know that they will be able to make a subjective judgement of how honourable they were in that perticular game.
This would:
1. Give a somewhat accurate impression of how honourable the player you are about to start a 4 hour game with is in toh games.
2. In some cases, actually improve the honour of some players (the ones who are only interested in looking good). And when they pretend to be honourable, somewhere along the line they become honourable. You are the sum of your actions.
This is a suggestion to bring more honour into toh. There is alot of honour in the 1300+ area of toh, but try playing in the 1200- area for a while.. *shudder*
I think this, if implemented, would bring a new dimension to toh. This is, after all, a tournament of honour.
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
posted July 29, 2001 09:08 PM |
|
|
can be implemented
This can be implemented into the automation; however, I fear that anyone can report a 'honor level' when they are mad, or have different 'bias' as to how much an honor point should be given after they play. Would it be accurate?
Right now we have the honor medals, which are given out on occasion for very honorable players, usually through comments by others.
Should just any player submit honor 'points'? Or the administrators? Should this be part of the TOH rankings page?
If this is to be implemented, it needs to be addressed and finalized soon, for the automation is being worked on as we speak.
I like the idea, but I think it should not be something that accumulates in points, but acts as an average, such as 1-10. When a player submits another rating while reporting a win or loss, this average is modified. I also think it should be placed only on the player search & info, not the rankings pages.
Administrators could direcly modify this average as well, by bumping it up or down, through honor issues in the honor council, honor medals, and unreported games.
I like this bjorn idea the more I think of it, but we need other players' input on this before I rush out and tell the automation programmers to implement this.
____________
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2001 11:55 PM |
|
|
Well not to be a downer 
But I see alot of problems with this sort of ranking. I like things to be subjective, but if others are gonna decide wether they wanna play me solely on lets say a bad rating from someone that doesnt like me speaking in a game?
Or perhaps I had extreme luck and the other think I might be cheating?
Well I like the input from Ves that the administrator can cancel out bad ratings, when they are involved in a HC issue, but if u have a bad hair day and aint in the mood for extreme politeness. Lets say other guy keeps yaping in ur turn and u cant finish it on time coz u become stressed, and then give him a rude remark. After the game u get a big fat Zero on the honour rating coz he was insulted. Is that fair?
What one person perceive as being fair and square, others might find offensive.
But writing this post, actually makes me see what a good idea this may be. If used in the right way it can make TOH an even more polite and civilized community 
But I still dread playing a guy on 14 years, who becomes mad when I beat his stronghold with my implo. And proceeds to insult me relentlessly. And then again gives me a big fat Zero on the honor chart.
But hey I can live with that He gets a Zero from me aswell  lol
Defreni
____________
|
|
Maximane
Adventuring Hero
Pot Burner
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 04:31 AM |
|
|
Well being honourable is sort of sketchy, so it all depends really on the commentary. As long as the administrators have final control over the rating, it reallly goes on how other people have rated someone for it.
Of course things such as if someone got rated a 10 or a 1 by several people is a little suspicious, so that could be flagged for an admin to take a peek at. Good idea for control of abuse to the system.
____________
"Understanding is a three-edged sword..."
|
|
MidnightWraith
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 05:20 AM |
|
|
give it a try, could automate it so that everyone starts with an honour level of 5, but when it dips to 3 or less, u lose the ability to comment on other ppl's honour. Stops a few crazy buggers killing the system
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 06:33 AM |
|
|
It seems the problem with honor only applies when people don't have it. So instead of an arbitrary rating of 1-10(everyone would have their own criteria for grading honor which would give some people high scores and others low scores even if they play exactly the same game) I would propose a yes/no question when reporting wins.
Did your opponant play with honor? Yes/No
If you answer no you should give a brief reason why so that the administrators can choose whether or not to give a negative honor point.
Everyone gets 1 point per game unless someone gives them a no honor grade.
Soon you would have enough points to rate the honor of players. Player A played 20 games and has 19 honor points(which means 1 game he had a legitimate honor complaint) he would have a 95% honor rating. Player B played 10 games and has 6 points which means he only plays honorably 60% of the time. Then you can choose which person to play based on others past expirience.
Most people should have 100% honor all the time but thoose who choose to play without it will be known by the rating.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Melissa_X
Adventuring Hero
Tiffany Taylor
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 06:47 AM |
|
|
honor rating
I prefer oldtimers honor rating system. This way the more u play, the more the honor rating means something. But I wonder for those new plebes that come in if their honor rating would be 0 if they got a no for honor on their first game or does it start at 50% like the 5 average?
____________
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 11:19 AM |
|
|
Yes thatīs the problem
>>however, I fear that anyone can report a 'honor level' when they are mad, or have different 'bias' as to how much an honor point should be given after they play. Would it be accurate?
The problem is: Will angry losing players report an honor level of 1 when they lose?
Lets compare it to points for a while. Points are not created out of nothing. They and shifted from player to player as they play eachother and win or lose, but there is 10 points created in each game that goes to the winner and ups the total. Thatīs a great system, because its very cheat-proof. You cannot give or take points from others as you wish, because it affects your own points. Its real. The intended function is guarded by the way the system works.
Iīve though about ways to restrict abuse of the honor point system, and the easiest way I thought about was this:
To have 2 honor records. One is the average honor ppl have given you. One is the average honor you have given to ppl.
It would be 2 separate records, both given out on the search page. This way the honor you decide to give out will affect you too, wich will draw ppl towards giving the average 5 or maybe a 6 to look like normal people in the eyes of ToH. When they play someone they truly feel is honorable or dishonorable they can go out of their way to give them a higer or lower ranking.
Maybe if you reach an average of 2- or 8+ on the honor you give to players you should lose your honor giving priviliges as this seems like an attemt to abuse the system (or at least get a mail about it). This should only be implemented after giving 4+ honor reports (the number of the plebe), because there is a chance that you play a very honorable player in your first game or vice versa.
Also, if you see that someone you are about to play has given an average of 2.5 in honor, then you can see that he probably isnt very honorable himself. It also gives a good amount of control to you to know what to expect, wich I think is good for some ppl in toh.
When I first started thinking about the problem I didnīt know how to overcome it. But this solution to let the distribution of honor affect both you and your opponent, but in 2 different categories might work even better than the first system would do in a perfect world. It is also similar to your points system, wich has a similar safety function.
As for bias.. Yes it is a subjective system, but so is the experience of heroes for an individual player. Also, the effects of 1 extreme judgement will probably be very much reduced by the amount of fair judgements.
We canīt be sure how a system like this would work if it was implemented, but with a solution that makes honor reporting affect both the giver and the receiver I think it would work. If it doesnīt it could probably be taken out, but if it DOES work.. then it would be a great thing for the honor level of ToH and all its players.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 11:50 AM |
|
|
I got the math slightly wrong
Quote:
>>Maybe if you reach an average of 2- or 8+ on the honor you give to players you should lose your honor giving priviliges as this seems like an attemt to abuse the system (or at least get a mail about it).
Sorry, it should be 2- or 9+. I think its difficult for alot of us that the average on a 1 to 10 scale is (1+10)/2=5.5 and that in the absence of a 0 a the counterpart of a 2 is a 9, not an 8 =)
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 11:52 AM |
|
|
That is a very complex system.
How about if you give a person a no honor rating and the situation you describe doesn't warrant a no honor the -1 point goes against you. Reason being if you are mad and give out a bogus no honor rating it prooves that you have no honor. If you continually give out bad no honor points your rating will go down to the point where you will never get a game.
Easy system everyone is assumed to have honor. When someone is claiming a no honor game that game will have a -1 point and it will go to the person who is deemed to have the loss of honor. The chance of the penalty of false reports should make abusers of the system wary.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 04:06 PM |
|
|
I agree with Oldtimer
That seems the best way to combat false reporting. The only other option I can think of is if there is a 1-10 score with it showing up on Find players- if you have only 3 games and all three were honorable then you get 3 points, if one game someone thought you were dishonrable you get 2 points, so peopel can choose weather to play you or not based on that. If you have 12 games and only 7 points thats not very good. The added thing is the person who posts the dishonorable rating should also lose 1/2 point. So that would stop those who want to post dishonorable everytime they lose, and if you are honorable it's still easy to keep your 9-10 point score by playing a 2nd game with a nicer outcome. I think that any honor system should be on the Find player page for now, if it works out well, then maybe can add it to ranks pages with mabye something special for extra honorable players, like those you played 50 games and 0 dishonorable complaints by them or against them. Something like that. I myself would be willing to play people with 6+ honor points if they had only 10 games unless I saw 6 wins 4 losses cause then I know they had bad attitude probably on every loss. But let's say they are a plebe and play 10 games with 8 wins- they maybe didn't read rules and post 2 complaints over small matters against opponents they thought dishonorable, so that is -1, then they have some disagreements with 3 other plebe players. Not the best record, but also not terrible, it means they still had 7 out of 10 games they were honorable, and 5 out of 10 with both sides having fun. On a hard night to find a game that person isn't totally dishonorable so I'd take the chance and play them. If it didn't work out well, then I would take my 9 games and 8 points and make make it 10 games for 7 1/2 points(should be rounded up?). I still have a chance to show good honor in 1 or 2 games, but it also assures I be careful what exactly they did was so bad to make me report and lose 1/2 point of my own honor. Maybe encourage people to talk a little bit more before the game starts and prevent disagreements.
|
|
rychenroller
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 04:49 PM |
|
|
Problem....
Honour is subjective, people have different ideas about how "honourable" a person has played their match. So I think it needs to be simplified abit. How about we take the existing unreported win loss page, and implement that into an "honour system". My suggestion is we work backwards. Everyone starts with an "honour" rating of zero, and everytime they appear on the win loss page, they gain a point. Probably have to allow a day for being unable to connect to ToH site, or just plain forgetfulness (though I dont believe this should happen)But this seems a simplified and fairly workable system. Criticism appreciated :Þ
|
|
Maximane
Adventuring Hero
Pot Burner
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 07:41 PM |
|
|
Well the fact that every perceives honour differently is a good thing. If every perceived it the same, you'd always get the same results.
The simpler the system the better. The more complex a system is designed the more susceptable it is to bugs and errors.
K.I.S.
Keep It Simple
The easiest (and simplest) system would be by the Yes/No.
Oldtimer, your idea is great. Instead of 1/10 (where the variables are determined per vote) it would be based on Yes/No (where the variables are determined by all the votes). This greatly helps the defense against abusers and yet it really is not that complicated.
-Maximane
____________
"Understanding is a three-edged sword..."
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 11:05 PM |
|
|
Hmmm, I like the idea, but if Ves prediction is right, and there will be an influx of over 10 the number of games played pr day compared to today, I wouldnt be the administrator siting and reading all the post as to wether someone was honourable. Kinda takes the idea away from the automation, dont u think?
But good idea if it was possible to keep it automated, and above all simple. But heck as it is today its fairly simple to see if u will enjoy a game, just spend 5 minutes before u start to get to know eachother, and see if ur compatible.
Just my five cents.
Defreni
____________
|
|
MidnightWraith
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 07:45 AM |
|
|
what about quitters?
the most common complaint i've heard by newer players is the annoyance of ppl who quit when they realise they're losing. How does the proposed system allow u to identify quitters since they will not allow a win/loss to be reported?
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 07:56 AM |
|
|
If someone quits it should be counted as a concession. The player that quit should automatically be assessed a loss and the person who stayed gets the win. No arguements, no woulda/coulda/shoulda, you leave you loose.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
pluvious
Promising
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 09:29 AM |
|
|
Well Oldtimer...what if someone started mouthing profanity and being rude around the end of week 1? And maybe you are just in it for an enjoyable game...would you still continue playing? And do you think it fair that the other guy automatically gets the win? Even without someone looking into it first...
____________
...Pluvious...
-The Storm Before the Calm-
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 02:39 PM |
|
|
Simply put
I think allowing people subjective judgements on the sketchy thing of honour for an opponent is an idea fraught with problems. With that having been said, I also find it a great idea.
It's hard to be objective about the winner when you've lost a game...
I think the fact that the game is finished and the loser reports the game is honour enough. But one person may find a winner who used Hit and Run to be a dishonourable opponent and give them a rating of zero.
But should such a tactic be allowed judgement in a tourney which does not have such in-game rules? What happens when someone uses Solmyr as a secondary main and the loser causes a fuss? Allowing the loser to judge the honour of the other player is kinda like TOH agreeing with their assessment of the game. And if ToH agrees with their assessment, then surely this sends out a message about how ToH sees rules and stuff to the rest of the heroes fraternity?
I say everyone should start off with an honour rating of x and for every incidence of non-reporting or suspicious drops, the player should lose an honour point. That way, it can be left to the moderators to reinstate points using the current system, but allow definite means for loss of those points.
Oldtimer is right, we should keep it simple.
*smile*
|
|
dEth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 02:47 PM |
|
Edited By: deth8 on 31 Jul 2001
|
Honor Ranking - next season
This really should be on the general rules thread for next season.
I like the idea and am thinking something like the following as a simple check box idea on the win/loss submission page.
Rate the honor of your opponent (1 - 5). This has little to do with the game but rather their personal interaction and conduct with you.
1) Lowest Scum - Very Dishonorable.
-Mean, very rude, openly hostile.
-Curses at and/or belittles their opponent a lot.
-Never will want to see or play this person again.
-They owe you several apologies if you were never antagonistic yourself.
2) Dishonorable
-Negative or somewhat rude attitude.
-Argumentative or Whines and complains alot (more than just saying they are unhappy with a move they just made, etc.)
-Knitpick about all kinds of stuff and hard to even start a game with often.
-Hard to get along with because of their attitude.
-You don't think you want to play this person again, but you might if there was nobody else to play.
3) Honorable
-The way things should be
-Good attitude. Fair game.
-Works out starting game options fairly.
-Competitive but kind person.
-Will play again.
4) High Honor
-Above average.
-Great attitude, agreeable and easy to get along with.
-May offer to allow a turn repeated under certain conditions.
-"Helpful with things I didn't know."
5) Highest Honor
-Top 5% of all players.
-Easy to get along with.
-Humble, gracious, helpful, friendly, more than kind.
-Goes well beyond being fair to their opponent.
-Easily offers mistakes to be replayed even.
The players lookup page should display listings of wins, losses, and honor in a somewhat simple graph style possibly like this image that I made from a helloween site for rating songs on their album maybe? I think the rating in this form would be helpful for players to evaluate one another.
Of course some people might have different interpretations but something like this would work. The ebay system seems to get along just fine. One comment is not going to matter much, but the averaging of these ranks over a few games should give a good indication of what the person was like.
If there was some jerk ranking people low it would show up pretty fast in their postings for win/loss and might be disputed too. We could take care of them through their own honor ranking and deletion of all their data for honor ranking to others if needed. Maybe there should be a notation column that shows up if admin ever leave a comment if ever needed too?
|
|
Shae_Trielle
Honorable
Famous Hero
of Heroes
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 03:02 PM |
|
|
The problem with that
Deth, it seems that this whole honour ranking is about a player's interaction with the other player.
What happens when there isn't any? I know of many circumstances where I played a person who didn't speak any english. Indeed, one of the finest, most skillful players I ever had a game with didn't say much except 'Bye' at the end of the game. Now this person I would have ranked as a 5, but if I were to go by criteria, he would be a three, and for some people, he might even be a 2... I know that most people don't like the 'no talking' games and they like some interaction with the opponent, but just because there isn't any interaction, doesn't make the other person any more/less honourable does it?
Is there a system where language barriers can be accomodated?
|
|
|
|
