RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

Members can make suggestions for improving the site and improving the forum as well as submit bug reports to be reviewed by our support team here.
Message
Author
Claesar
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1450

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#21 Post by Claesar » Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:34 am

I'm fairly sure the mod team catches and bans almost all new players that re-register under a different username. I don't believe this to be a significant thing.

Though you may be correct that many new players *think* their RR doesn't matter because they could create a new account, until they try and run into a mod.

Wusti
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 154

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#22 Post by Wusti » Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:39 am

I confess to being a bit flabbergasted - this was posted in the correct section of the forum and not a single mod or dev has deigned to respond in any fashion at all.

Is there a problem with raising the whole RR issue again?

Wusti
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 154

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#23 Post by Wusti » Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:40 am

Claesar - I happen to agree with you on that score and I'm not sure anecdotal evidence is worth much in this argument.

Is the success or otherwise of the RR changes something you guys have looked into at all, or are prepared to engage on? If not, why not?

Johnny Big Horse
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:36 am
Karma: 327

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#24 Post by Johnny Big Horse » Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:13 pm

At least shorten our punishment period

Chaqa
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 7658
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:33 pm
Location: Allentown, PA, USA
Karma: 4478

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#25 Post by Chaqa » Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:28 pm

Wusti wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:39 am
I confess to being a bit flabbergasted - this was posted in the correct section of the forum and not a single mod or dev has deigned to respond in any fashion at all.

Is there a problem with raising the whole RR issue again?
The mod team was very busy earlier in the year, unclear if that's still the case.

I think shortening the time CD stay on the record to 6 months would go a long way, even if the penalties were slightly increased (say 6% instead of 5% per) or something.

Claesar
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:34 am
Karma: 1450

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#26 Post by Claesar » Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:15 am

Wusti wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:40 am
Claesar - I happen to agree with you on that score and I'm not sure anecdotal evidence is worth much in this argument.

Is the success or otherwise of the RR changes something you guys have looked into at all, or are prepared to engage on? If not, why not?
Don't know; I'm not an active mod. The fact that I still have the tag makes me think the team is very busy.

bo_sox48
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:01 am
Karma: 2283
Contact:

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#27 Post by bo_sox48 » Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:51 pm

Wusti wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:39 am
I confess to being a bit flabbergasted - this was posted in the correct section of the forum and not a single mod or dev has deigned to respond in any fashion at all.

Is there a problem with raising the whole RR issue again?
The moderators are extremely busy and shorthanded. I cleared a months-long backlog the other day and despite that the active moderators still have a lot to keep up with. We don't have the ability to do any major development right now for reasons that are going to be good for the site in the long run. The admins all have busy lives and I know personally the webDip forum isn't my first stop every day anymore believe it or not.

Can you clarify what your question is aside from changing the amount of time it takes to forgive missed turns? Six months is very short. That means that a player who is habitually unreliable and is barred from joining new games by our system for a long period of time due to their unreliability can come back to a nearly or even completely clean slate with perfect reliability again and ruin more high quality games. We aren't going to open that door. It's a shame that it has to be done that way since it can affect experienced players who came up on a rough patch and deserve the benefit of the doubt but there are other experienced players, some that have participated in hundreds or even over a thousand games on this site, that think that quitting when they're behind or joining live games when they only have an hour to kill is okay. The rating is tiered so that the most recent missed turns are weighted most heavily to try and mitigate the issue you face, but an automated system can't ignore those games because it can't differentiate between one-off mistakes and habitual unreliability on that small of a scale.

The last time I responded to a thread of this tune I noted that placing the old system versus the new system is not a cogent comparison. As you pointed out yourself a 96% reliability rating under the old system and a 55% reliability rating under the new system aren't necessarily that dissimilar. The stigma that surrounded a reliability rating of, for example, 70% under the old system is ridiculous under the new one. A player with a number of games under their belt and a 70% reliability rating is generally very reliable. A player with a 55% reliability rating isn't untrustworthy either. They're two completely different systems that prioritize, penalize, and allow one's rating to recover differently - that was the point of the overhaul in the first place.
5

Wusti
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 154

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#28 Post by Wusti » Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:01 am

Thanks for replying Bo, and taking the question the way it was intended.

A heavier time-based weighting might be a possible resolution, but the problem isn't a one off effect, it is a cumulative one.

Looking back I probably should've appealed for clearance or forgiveness of the CDs at the time, but I dare say like many people, I personally, have a hard time asking for things like that. My standard response to myself, is that I knew the rules and shouldn't make excuses.

That is the case even if I actually do have a really good excuse - when in those situations it is a pretty natural response to take it on yourself and not seek assistance.

Its only when they all added up forcing it down below the 60% mark that you have an "oh shit" moment, and realise you can't join decent games anymore. Then you re-check and have another "oh shit" moment when you realise hey guess what - this will stick with me for another 6 months.

I also take your point about automation. The problem is that automated systems don't and can't discriminate. Certainly they can't differentiate between the player types you mentioned, without ridiculously complicating the code.

The other part of the question was also about the impact on CDs since the changes and whether you had any data on it, such as total games v total CDs in a given time period. Ultimately, I am sure these changes weren't about punitive measures, but making a better experience for the community, and I was wondering if anyone had gone back to measure it yet.

Johnny Big Horse
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:36 am
Karma: 327

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#29 Post by Johnny Big Horse » Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:44 pm

I am good with Bosox's response. It sounds like they really put a lot of thought into this. I guess, sometimes, when life gets in the way, we have to deal with it.

Wusti
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 154

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#30 Post by Wusti » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:03 am

That's cold Johnny.

Also Bo's premise that the two systems cannot be compared goes against actual behaviour - the preponderance of games requiring 80% + RR has not diminished at all so the entire argument falls over.

The stated aim and premise on which this is based is not reflected in new game creation which is kinda the whole point.

bo_sox48
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:01 am
Karma: 2283
Contact:

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#31 Post by bo_sox48 » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:45 pm

I don't think we should just say "the admins and developers have put a lot of thought into this; thus, it's okay" in any instance. I'm happy to consider improvements and jmo is as well. But we have to play the unbiased observer card and qualify every idea, not to mention that we are in the truest sense volunteers and can't just knock something big out at a moment's notice.

I don't know how to change user behavior, but I believe the 80% RR requirement is a default value for users with 100% RR. Assuming that's the case, whatever algorithm we use to populate that field should be changed in my opinion.

Wusti
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:12 pm
Karma: 154

Re: RR Feedback & Review - have changes achieved their aims?

#32 Post by Wusti » Tue Sep 28, 2021 6:43 am

I 100% Agree it should be based on data not "time spent" or convoluted thought processes.

What about just reverting the RR itself to be reflective of actual propensity to CD (the old RR%), but institute a separated penalty for consistent CDs?

The thing is with the old system if you set a minimum RR it had some justification in expected odds of completing the game - this new RR doesn't and I think that is what causes the disconnect between "expected" behaviour and actual behaviour because most people don't look at it that way no matter the intent of the system.

Anyway thanks for thinking about it and potential solutions.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests