Discussion in 'OOC' started by AdmiralJCJF, Jun 22, 2018.
Yes, just check out @Luisjoey
Tell me if you think the rating for his only report is fair.
You are correct, that report definitely deserves a higher rating than it currently has, and it got a better rating from myself yesterday already :-)
But damn, that's a shame to see, why are people that pitiful even this early in the campaign -.- I can maaaaybe understand it when near the end emotions boil and people do crazy shit, but I mean come on...it's bloody day 2!
Hope this doesn't continue, and I can promise I'll continue to rate all factions reports fair to my standards.
That's all I've asked anyone to do.
And I don't think it's unfair to point out that some high profile players may get negative downvoting just because they draw more attention.
Nobody is being asked to upvote reports that don't deserve it, just to maybe take an extra minute to read and rate a report that may be getting unfairly hit where they can.
Please people understand the first and foremost part of the whole affair.
It is supposed to be an event to have fun, alienating people will not help in having fun or showcase the community in general.
Also if you feel something is wrong in reports please feel free to PM me.
Oha, this is interesting, I assumed you had nothing to do with the campaign "directly" and that this would be a case for contacting BoW Staff.
So if people suspect unfair voting on battle report one could contact you as well? Nice to hear! :-)
This year we have a moderation team for Kurage Crisis if anyone feels something is strange they can PM me and we will investigate.
And remember we are watching
You know, the whole play fair thing shouldn’t need to be said at all. Everyone should be playing that way and doing their best to have fun.
There will always be bad apples in every event open to the public. It is just what is gona happen. What I don’t understand here is why people are arguing about fair play... just go play and have fun! We play with toy soldiers and throw dice because we enjoy it.
Let CB and BOW sort out all that other stuff. They do the best the6 can to manage this group of crazy’s
@Maloc I can't speak for anyone else, but I was never arguing about fair play, I was arguing that without an additional clause the ambiguous terms would lead to people being nasty to people that aren't playing their idea of fair. Sadly looking at the comments on @Luisjoey 's first report complaining that it wasn't played after the campaign started, some even using the hash tag, that does seem to have been the case, at least for the vocal and toxic minority.
As an example "don't spam reports" can be taken several ways. I think the vast majority of us would agree that hoarding reports to post in the last hours is wrong, indeed the results from Wotan would indicate that the AI historians (or at least the organisers) agree to some extent. There was a suggestion last year the there should be a limit of as low as 3 reports per week, does being able to play more than that make it spamming?
If we as a community agree on what is definitely unfair, and we have polite and reasoned discussion about the grey areas, without resorting to the name calling and outright mockery of players we saw last year, then we can eliminate the root cause of the toxicity. It's probably too late for that this time, as people's bias of how factions appear to be performing will undoubtedly colour the discourse, but if we can all come back in August or September once we've had a chance to digest the full results then some basic guidelines on conduct can be agreed upon, and the system Itself will curtail attempts to gain unfair advantage.(nb some factions have an advantage already, that does not mean that it's unfair)
Does anyone else think it's worthwhile exploring this option later?
No community code, no matter how clear, is going to avoid the issue you saw with @Luisjoey
Some will ignore it, and others will use it (against all intentions) as a cudgel to beat on people they don't like.
That's why I disagree on making things specific, I see that as much worse.
To be honest there's no point with this because BoW/CB doesn't "play fair" due to obfuscating the actual method they use for determining how the campaign shakes out. They're allergic to accountability.
Or simply would love to not have certain participants game the system even more than before.
Like lets say the previous two campaigns, so yes there are several reasons why we would keep some parts hidden under the hood and not been "allergic to accountability".
In an ideal world "don't be a git" is enough, but then someone acts like a git towards someone because they thought that person was being a git...
There are always idiots, but with their excuses removed and a clear statement to report rather than lambaste we'd at least see less of them.
The problem with ambiguity is that someone will eventually take it as specific EG "There are two teams red and green by shirt colour" seams easy, but then someone on the green team starts cheat calling because of a burgundy or its-not-pink-its-light-red shirt. The solution is to ad enough detail to prevent it eg " two teams of any shade of red and any shade of green by shirt colour"
We don't need to actually make the guidelines specific, just less ambiguous.
Even if that were 100% incontrovertibly true, a little reminder of the spirt we want to play the game in isn't bad. It can have some downsides if its handled wrongly, but the principle is solid.
I think a lot of people here (myself included from time to time, and maybe occasionally CB/BoW) need to understand the difference between "advantage" and "unfair advantage". An advantage is agnostic its there, it's happened it's done. Everyone can use advantages potentially, but some might not be able to in reality. It only becomes an unfair advantage situationally.
I'm pretty much in line with everything @cazboab said.
You can't be the one bending the rules by prerecording batreps (as well written as they are) and expect people to like that. You can ask them nicely to give you some leeway, but you can't sit here and complain people don't feel like they're okay with it.
Personally I don't mind. But who am I to demand everyone has to agree with my opinion because it is the "fair" one?
If BoW/CB explicitly defined what was allowed and what wasn't, instead of cryptic and draconian "AI Historian" stuff, I'd take that more seriously.
If they did this then people would post the bear minimum in order for a report to qualify. That's gaming the system and this reasoning was explained several times in the last campaign as well.
I also don't see how the AI historian can be cryptic or draconian when it's an algorithm free of bias or personal motivation. You don't even know how it works, are you making assumption based on your own bias?
And it's still not a good reason. If the "bare minimum" was a level of detail that satisfied you guys, then nothing would be lost by making the requirements public. Trying to inspire people to write "better" reports by keeping them in the dark about the threshold at which their efforts will be discarded does not make for happy players. Then again, neither do negative-sum games, and that's what B4ckd00r was, so perhaps that's not a priority for CB (and their partnets). There's a certain personality type that gets a smug sense of self-satisfaction out of that kind of thing, so perhaps it's worth it to them in that way.
>can't be cryptic when you don't know how it works
Yo I thought English was your first language.
I would be careful with this line of reasoning. There's no kind of algorithm that could sort legit reports from fake ones without some kind of machine learning or training involved, in which case the algorithm would inherit the bias of its creators. Its much more likely someone is going to look at the reports and remove the ones that look low effort or fishy .
i.e. there's no algorithm
No, that means there is an algorithm, but there's also a team to manually verify things that the algorithm has missed and tell it what to look for in future.
Yeah, hence the algorithm inherits the biases of the humans teaching it.