In here, suggestions, discussions, feedback etc can be placed, as a means to keep the respective report threads for reports and also to further improve the community / MT relation.
Thread is now no longer hidden and active.
I would like to propose to the MT the idea of a quick arena (QA) rating.
Fairway, are you suggesting MT put in a request to admins for this on the sites rankings or that it is manually done on the forums like kleir and nasf ranking?
I think Fairway means a new native, on-site feature. It is a wonderful idea. Everyone can agree on it. Why not separate the 40 pc and QA rankings?
Yes, that is what I mean. A separate ranking for full and QA games. I'm not sure if that is even feasible at all but probably worth a suggestion, right?
Gary, if its about cost for the owners, do you think something like this can be put together by us to make happen? I think even that is a long shot and I'm not even sure how much something like that costs but let's say a bunch of us donate 20$ or 50$ to the cause. Obviously the more people that would pitch in, the cheaper it would be for everyone. If nothing else, if we asked the owners about this, it may just be the thing to show them how serious we are and might just be what gets them to do it for us, all expenses paid.
Gary, if its about cost for the owners, do you think something like this can be put together by us to make happen?
One would think, Ryan. I wish I knew. Seems to me that the point people would have to be Dutch speakers. I'd definitely donate right along with you if that's what it took.
What do we need to do to find out if this could happen?
One thing to do would be to clarify goals. What are we after? It would be nice if a programmer didn't get the feeling he was entering an unrestrained buzz saw if we could get him to meet with a group of elected reps.
BEFORE implementing a proposal to pay for someone to program a separate platform for QA rankings...put together a proposal to collect funds to pay for a programmer to fix DOUBLE CHASE and DRAW REFUSAL.
Sorry...QA is nothing compared with these issues.
Gary, maybe we could find out how much it would cost to implement and QA ranking and fix the things KMC suggested. Maybe the owners would even pay for half of it. I think getting ANYTHING paid for and added is progress in the right direction. Momentum forward is by no means complacency.
This is just a thought but does anyone else think that all "renamed" accounts should also be banned or deleted game side? What's the point in them playing with a "renamed*/**/**" account. It only messes with their opponents being that it's next to impossible to keep track of the small difference. If they want an account to play with, they can choose an appropriate name and NOT being rewarded with a confusing "renamed account", that only hurts their opponents.
I agree Wogomite I was in match yesterday and got set up against one of these number accts. As I do often I asked who they were, it was the player renamed from Jeff Damler . In this case they let me know -- other players are indifferent and will not acknowledge. I just had with same issue with a player( What ????). I most definitely don't care for some usernames and wish the programmers would do some more work and not let it get as far as game side. MT and players should be able to focus on other matters.
On the other hand, by keeping the innocuous moniker "Renamed" on game-side, it may actually keep that player from creating a whole new account with a name equally if not more offensive than before. I am annoyed when I get matched with an account that has been "Renamed," but right there tells me something about my opponent and whether I want to stay and play, or sacrifice ELO points...I get to choose. It is better that a player with a renamed account keep using that one than "Trickz" it and create a legion of offensively named accounts.
If an opponent wants an offensive named account, he sure will keep creating them, instead of renaming it, we can delete it. If he wants to make a new one, we can delete that one too. Most people will stop trying, realizing it a lost cause. I don't want to have to choose to play an account that looks identical to many others or lose elo. I don't think I should have to choose between the two.
just for your info, the origin of the name change procedure was precisely started for cases where a player has an offensive name but has not committed any abusive behaviour otherwise. At that time we found that banning for 1 week or 1 month would not be useful for anything while permanent ban was to harsh and would require 4 votes. So immediate rename has been retained as the best option as it requires 3 votes only, is immediate and effectively if somebody has an acceptable behaviour on the game side he shall not be declined the right to play stratego just because his name is offensive. In order to distinguish between the various cases we decided for "renamed dd/mm/yy" but i agree this is a bit serializing the names and can become confusing if there are to much such names. I'm sure MT would appreciate any idea how else those offensive names should be renamed ... maybe assign them with insect names .... next one would be butterfly, then bee, then mosquito etc...?
In order to distinguish between the various cases we decided for "renamed dd/mm/yy" but i agree this is a bit serializing the names and can become confusing if there are to much such names. I'm sure MT would appreciate any idea how else those offensive names should be renamed ... maybe assign them with insect names .... next one would be butterfly, then bee, then mosquito etc...?
A little bit of creativity can go a long way to keeping things less confusing, a bit more colorful, and it might even reach the eyes of the offending party and help to edify them, as doubtful as that may be, anything is possible.
I would vote either a deletion or KMCs suggestion. Both extinguish the problem equally.