Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that there should be a different penalty based on intent. That’s hard to prove, obviously. I was trying to agree that “point fishers” - those who jump in looking for some quick points via a draw, then disappear equally quickly once they realise it won’t be as easy as they thought - are actually just further disrupting the game and having excused missed turns in place from the beginning would further exacerbate this. All people like that do is slow the game even further by taking a position before someone who might otherwise have stuck it out.

I agree with that idea still and am fighting in your corner so to speak, I'm just against the idea of thought police establishing intent.

''Furthermore, does the penalisation deserve to be harsher than for original players? That is, instant CD and the penalties that come with that? Is the threat of a ban a proportionate response to a 0.3% failure rate?''

Definitely not and thats frustrating but could be solved.
Alas it looks like moderators get to many requests to solve this and that so it probably wont happen.

[quote=jmo1121109 post_id=210043 time=1610496392 user_id=72]
Once a game has someone go CD it has already been significantly impacted in a negative way with delays. If we gave people who joined the same delays back and it happened again, the game is in a really bad state. Taking over a CD position, even good ones, is free, and comes with the ability in point games to occasionally win a lot of points. The trade off is the expectation that you are going to really work hard to not disrupt that game any more than it already has been, and if you do, you are penalized for it.

If you don't have the time to keep up with a game then not taking it over is the right choice.

(Live games are harder to avoid issues coming up which is why those marks only last a month on your record)
[/quote]

Not taking a game up if you don’t have time to play it is good advice, but (hopefully) most players do that already. Excused missed turns are a recognition that real life occasionally takes precedence over a game, and that these temporary circumstances that may cause a delay are not foreseeable at the point you join a game.

The idea that not extending this protection to replacement players will be less disruptive to the game assumes that a) the majority of replacement players who miss a turn are more likely to then go on to CD so you may as well replace them now, and b) that waiting for another turn would be more disruptive than bringing in a whole new player. I would personally consider a delay to be an inconvenience that rarely affects the outcome of a game, while changing a player is the most disruptive act which can happen during a game, potentially overturning game-long alliances at a stroke and changing the established dynamic.

Furthermore, does the penalisation deserve to be harsher than for original players? That is, instant CD and the penalties that come with that? Is the threat of a ban a proportionate response to a 0.3% failure rate?


[quote=DrugTito post_id=210046 time=1610496613 user_id=9166]
''I feel that this should in fact be penalised - the player has decided to quit because they don’t like the position, just like the previous player.''

How would you differentiate a deliberate CD vs what happened to you that made you post this in the first place?
All CD's should be and are penalised equally, its better to reward wanted behaviour than to increase the penalty in a possibly unjust way.
[/quote]

You stated at the beginning of your first reply that you’d lost great positions in a similar way. Are you saying that you deliberately decided not to continue those positions?

In a literal way, I would differentiate between them by intent. The case you presented and I replied about was people who join a game, realise the alliance structure is fixed and that they can’t change it, so deliberately give up on the game and leave. What happened to me was certainly not intentional.

If you want specifics, I’ve been unwell for the last week following a chronic fatigue relapse, the turn processed at 11pm just after I had last checked and gone to bed, and in the morning I was barely well enough to call into work to let them know how things were going. I was up by lunch time, which was too late for the 12 hour deadline. Given I had managed to keep up with the game for the previous week, this was just a case of bad timing and poor health which has only cost me the game because I was a replacement.

In terms of how the site could differentiate, having excused missed turns be restored for replacement players after ~1-2 game years would largely separate out the people who can’t be bothered from those who just have life happen. All of the games I was ejected from, I was with them for a significant proportion of the game. In the World one, for example, I joined in the first year (maybe the original player just decided they didn’t like Australia?) and was put in CD only one year before the game concluded. I certainly feel as though I put the time and effort into that one.

That was an idea you agreed with earlier, anyway.

''I feel that this should in fact be penalised - the player has decided to quit because they don’t like the position, just like the previous player.''

How would you differentiate a deliberate CD vs what happened to you that made you post this in the first place?
All CD's should be and are penalised equally, its better to reward wanted behaviour than to increase the penalty in a possibly unjust way.

Aristocrat, I've seen RayJay quite a lot but last year I saw Gallahad far more often.
There is always competition between open position hunters I gather.

Once a game has someone go CD it has already been significantly impacted in a negative way with delays. If we gave people who joined the same delays back and it happened again, the game is in a really bad state. Taking over a CD position, even good ones, is free, and comes with the ability in point games to occasionally win a lot of points. The trade off is the expectation that you are going to really work hard to not disrupt that game any more than it already has been, and if you do, you are penalized for it.

If you don't have the time to keep up with a game then not taking it over is the right choice.

(Live games are harder to avoid issues coming up which is why those marks only last a month on your record)

[quote=DrugTito post_id=209882 time=1610484148 user_id=9166]
I've lost a few great positions as well in the same manner. And have taken over the one you are refering to, thx for the points what can I say..
...
Having said that, everyone is 99.7 RR player until one isnt, with 10 finished games you should only now get a concrete and real RR but thats another discussion.
[/quote]

The fact that you have experienced the same issue suggests this a problem that may have affected several people and could do with being looked at.

I’m not sure what the last statement refers to, unless you’re implying that I am an unreliable player and as I complete more games the stats are changing to show this?I have completed 49 games and, as I said in the original post, that rating is based on over 1300 turns processed during the last year, so I’d say it’s a fairly accurate rating.

My complaint is that I am being unfairly penalised for those few I have missed, as these have all been counted as unexcused missed turns and civil disorders where, had I been in the game from the start, I would have still had an excused missed turn available and thus been able to complete the game.


[quote=DrugTito post_id=209882 time=1610484148 user_id=9166]
there are often cases in which a replacement player joins with the idea of turning the fortunes, hits a diplomatic brick wall, and then goes into CD himself.
Its not unusual to see a country being controlled by over 5 players during the game (in low-bet public games at least). Imagine the time spent if every replacement had an extra delay.
[/quote]

I feel that this should in fact be penalised - the player has decided to quit because they don’t like the position, just like the previous player.

[quote=Claesar post_id=209943 time=1610487373 user_id=93]
[quote=Yonni post_id=209940 time=1610487103 user_id=110]
I think there should be a ranking in the hall of fame that counts the number of games taken over by people. These saints need the recognition.
[/quote]

We used to have yearly awards which also recognised the person that took over most CDs. Unfotunately, the admins are very busy. In addition, for some reason the CDs are no longer logged on our profiles :?
[/quote]

No need to do any analysis, it's RayJay.

[quote=Yonni post_id=209940 time=1610487103 user_id=110]
I think there should be a ranking in the hall of fame that counts the number of games taken over by people. These saints need the recognition.
[/quote]

We used to have yearly awards which also recognised the person that took over most CDs. Unfotunately, the admins are very busy. In addition, for some reason the CDs are no longer logged on our profiles :?

I think there should be a ranking in the hall of fame that counts the number of games taken over by people. These saints need the recognition.

Not only is taking over not unranked but abandoning a game and getting it taken over comes at no cost to GR - at least the way it was calculated before integration with the site.

[quote=Claesar post_id=209875 time=1610483488 user_id=93]
I might be mistaken, but I believe taking over is already Unranked in terms of Ghost Rating (which is what actually matters, to most).
[/quote]

It's not.

I've lost a few great positions as well in the same manner. And have taken over the one you are refering to, thx for the points what can I say..
Unfortunately, there are often cases in which a replacement player joins with the idea of turning the fortunes, hits a diplomatic brick wall, and then goes into CD himself.
Its not unusual to see a country being controlled by over 5 players during the game (in low-bet public games at least). Imagine the time spent if every replacement had an extra delay.
''Could the replacement player not at least regain those excused missed turns after, say, completing a few turns successfully?'' That sounds cool and would be a nice feature.

Regarding RR, players who suffer most are those who take over open positions exactly because of what you've pointed out as a problem, lack of delays.
Its infuriating that 4 missed turns can bring ones RR down to 70 percent, as when taking over a position every missed turn is an automatic civil disorder.
So it would be nice to have something like
A) replacement players dont suffer RR penalties (much to radical and unfair from a different perspective)
B) Replacement players get lower RR penalties for going into CD (life is happening and sometimes people get exhausted, fall asleep and miss a move, why immediately punish them so severely when they wanted to help the game carry on?)
C) taking over and playing through open positions provide faster RR boost (which would be a nice reward for taking over losing positions and could balance out the fact those elimination are influencing ratings, that would also be an incentive to take those positions for some).

Having said that, everyone is 99.7 RR player until one isnt, with 10 finished games you should only now get a concrete and real RR but thats another discussion.

I might be mistaken, but I believe taking over is already Unranked in terms of Ghost Rating (which is what actually matters, to most). I also believe the uptake of abandoned powers is currently near 100%, so in that sense no improvement seems to be needed..

That said, thank you for devoting your time to this task! I don't know the answer to your other questions/suggestions.

Following discussion with another player, another idea could be to allow replacement players the option to join as though it were unranked - this may improve the uptake of abandoned powers being taken up even if they are in hopeless positions. I know that I personally would like to help more but am reluctant to accept lots of “eliminated” results on my record as a result of doing so.

I often try to join games where a player has gone missing to help things along, sometimes even if the country is in pretty rocky circumstances. It probably doesn’t do great things for my WLD rating, but I enjoy knowing that I’m helping out.

However, the current policy of not allowing replacement players to benefit from the excused missed turns that a starting player would get is killing this for me. My base reliability percentage is pretty good at 99.7% - 4 missed in a year out of 1309 (one of which was a live game I mistakenly joined but continued in for several hours before unavoidably being called away for too long just before the end). Not that bad for a new dad working full time with chronic fatigue syndrome, I would say. However, since these missed deadlines were in games I had taken on as a replacement player, I was immediately ejected and am now told that once more will result in a ban for unreliability. Is that not a bit harsh for someone with a 99.7% completion rate?

Two of the positions I have lost through this were very strong - one ended shortly after as a majority partner in a draw on the World variant, the other is still ongoing but looks to either be a solo or largest in a 3 way under SoS scoring, so I’m particularly sore about those two.

I can understand that the point may be to avoid a cycle of “excused missed turn, non-excused missed turn etc.” that slow games down, but surely finding new players can do this too, and results in more frequently having to renegotiate with players who are less invested in the game?

Could the replacement player not at least regain those excused missed turns after, say, completing a few turns successfully?

In short, it feels like people trying to help out by joining abandoned games are being penalised for the unreliability of the player who left before them.