Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Games?

An informal group of proven reliable players attempting to avoid games spoiled by missed orders.

Moderators: Fatmo, JonS, Buachaille

Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Games?

Postby gareth66 » 23 Aug 2014, 05:14

An interesting and important question has been thrown up by a recent applicant for Aspiring membership. See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=551&t=46067

The question is, in a nutshell, when defining the two sets of criteria for admission to the Aspiring Tier, we differentiate between "4 or less games finished" and "5 or more games finished". By "games finished", do we mean "games that the player played in that have now finished", or do we mean "games that the player completed by still being in the game at the end"? The former includes games a player surrendered from, and is the statistic that is shown (for ranked games) when you view a player's statistics. The latter excludes games from which the player surrendered.

So, which one do we mean?

If we take Sind12's application as a case study (for theoretical purposes, I have in fact already given him the benefit of the doubt and admitted him), the details are that he has played in 6 norank games, surrendered from 5 and completed 1 to the end. The completed one happens to be the most recent of the 6 games that have finished. Is your gut feeling that a player with these stats should be admitted as an Aspiring Classicist or not?

On interpretation A, 6 games finished that the player was involved in, he would come into the "5 or more" category which requires a run of 4 games without surrender before admission.

On interpretation B, 1 finished game without a surrender, he qualifies for immediate admission.

Which way should we be looking at it, A or B?

Discuss for future clarification of how we interpret "finished games". (Discussion will have no bearing on Sind12's status).
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby Mortiferus Rosa » 23 Aug 2014, 05:43

Maybe the better way would to rewrite how we interpret Aspiring Classicists where only the FIRST 5 games count for the bracket and after that you are looking at bronze membership and up. (does that make any sense?)

It allows for new players to try to enter the group but prevents players that have a history of surrenders from filling the group because they didnt surrender their last game; and by that have NOT demonstrated that they have Classicist values. I think it deflates the value of not only Aspiring Classicists but Classicists as a whole.

I personally believe in interpretation A and that a player would not qualify for Classicist Membership (if another player in the same situation applied).


Also: I say that the player that stemmed this debate deserves a close eye for the next few games of his to ensure he doesnt surrender out of it.
R/,

Mortiferus Rosa
Gold Classicist
User avatar
Mortiferus Rosa
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 27 May 2011, 22:04
Location: It Varies...
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1115)
All-game rating: (1118)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby Gavrilo Princip » 23 Aug 2014, 06:15

Mortiferus Rosa wrote:
I personally believe in interpretation A and that a player would not qualify for Classicist Membership (if another player in the same situation applied).

Also: I say that the player that stemmed this debate deserves a close eye for the next few games of his to ensure he doesnt surrender out of it.


Totally agree. The whole point is to qualify players who have a clear behavior of NOT surrendering AT ALL. I also think both definitions A and B can be fused together. If you surrender from a game, then you haven't "finished" the game at all. It may end up on your "finished games" list (does it? I wouldn't know because I don't surrender!), but players should 't get the badge on a technicality.

Additional suggestion, since we're on the topic: Maybe instead of writing the requirement as a fixed number, i.e. "5 games," it should be expressed as a percentage: 95% of your finished games must have no surrenders; 95% of your moves without NMR—something like that. I know that doesn't clarify the definition of "finished games," but it does contribute to maintaining a culture of classicism.
~Gavrilo Princip
Silver Classicist
User avatar
Gavrilo Princip
Premium Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: 29 May 2014, 08:09
Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1214)
All-game rating: (1244)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby sinnybee » 23 Aug 2014, 06:45

I agree with what Mortiferus Rosa and Gavrilo Princip have been saying.

In my opinion, someone with an 83% surrender rate should absolutely not be allowed into the classicists (unless they happen to meet the rules of a bronze and up tier, including multiple recent games without surrender, not just one!)

Aspiring should just be for new players who have never surrendered, in my opinion.
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby gareth66 » 23 Aug 2014, 10:06

Yes, your instincts are all the same as mine (hence why I raised this one). As currently written, the criteria are not quite phrased right.

Interesting to see sinny refer to the surrender RATE, which you'd instinctively think should be important. But this opens up a wider issue, in that surrender rate is not actually something we use for any of the membership categories. Surrender stats are always considered in terms of games since last surrender. In other words, when considering surrenders we are only currently concerned with RECENT behaviour, with overall history being irrelevant. At the same time, however, when evaluating NMR rates, we are looking at complete history on the site and do not look at recent behaviour at all! This is a bit of a dichotomy really, and all very confused.

So...more fundamental question. When considering applications for membership, should we be looking at recent behaviour or overall history? The problem with only looking at the last x games is we can easily have a player (not mentioning any names) who could play hundreds of games very quickly and could over a month easily clock up a 60 or 70% surrender RATE whilst being clear of surrenders in, say, his last 15 games. So under current rules, that player is eligible for gold membership despite a high recent surrender rate. And the case of the player that sparked this thread is another example of the problem of taking last x games rather than overall surrender rate.

On the other hand, if we look at overall history, we could effectively be ruling out access to a player who, say, over a four year history on the site has a dreadful overall surrender rate but who in the last year has become a reformed character. And I think incentivising a player to change their ways and stop surrendering is an important role of the Classicists.

This is a really tricky one. We already have a situation where certain players are pretty much ruled out of access to gold and platinum membership by virtue of NMR rates that were tainted by early experiences on the site but who have played such a large number of games that there is no way they could ever get that rate up to 98%. Is this fair if a player has an impeccable record over, say their LAST 40 or 50 games?

So....should we be looking at recent conduct or overall history? If the latter, then we need to radically rethink the admission criteria when it comes to surrenders. If the former, then the 83% surrender rate of Sin12 is irrelevant if he has the required number of recent games without surrender (which as currently phrased is 1).
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby jakofipa » 23 Aug 2014, 13:17

This is an important question, and I feel that it partly applies to me, especially what Gareth brought up in his last post about NMRs.

What I would feel is fairest would be only considering activity in the last 6 months perhaps, and needing a certain surrender rate to be achieved in the last 6 months for it to be valid. It wouldn't solve the aspiring issue, but I think it should be for people with no surrenders and under 5 games finished (at least 1 game finished though of course!)

Of course using 6month data would need data to be presented differently by dipsy, including recent data as well as over all. Assuming that dipsy is too busy to set something like this up (it is probably quite difficult and further questions would need to be clarified on what counts as 6 months), the current limits are the best we can do. The aspiring should only be open to new player though.
Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Bronze member of the Classicist club
Member of the Students club
jakofipa
Premium Member
 
Posts: 465
Joined: 26 Jun 2008, 08:51
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 982
All-game rating: 989
Timezone: GMT

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby Mortiferus Rosa » 23 Aug 2014, 14:04

I personally think that the way we have it defined works well. NMR rate, while looked over your entire history has a FAR larger sample pool than the number of games you have played. Also, I fully believe that someone can change there surrender habits overnight if they want. There is no need to complicate the application process further by looking at their entire surrender history with a calculator. If there last X games were without surrender and they have a qualifying NMR rate then they fit the appropriate Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum tier.

In the previous example someone has a large number of early surrenders but in the last X games has none? Far as im concerned that is demonstrating a trend towards classicist values. We already have a reporting system in place (since classicists tend to play together) for players who do surrender from their game and if that happened in the previous example on game 16 then sanctions/demotion/removal would occur. And if it became a noticeable common occurrence with one or two players (i dont see it happening often at all) where they play a ton of games really quickly to get admitted and then surrender; we just would learn our lesson regarding them and just impose a permanent sanction/removal.
R/,

Mortiferus Rosa
Gold Classicist
User avatar
Mortiferus Rosa
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 27 May 2011, 22:04
Location: It Varies...
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1115)
All-game rating: (1118)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby Alman » 23 Aug 2014, 16:29

Awesome discussion!

I lean more toward the early posters and the idea that a heavy surrender history must at least be considered in some way. I do also agree with M.R. that someone who tries to game the system by playing huge volume will probably end up not staying a Classicist anyway (and probably won't last long on the site.) I also appreciate the challenge of what can easily be checked and verified.

First, in just general response to the OP, I think that "finished games" should be the ones that you were in, however you "finished". This would include surrenders since once you were in the the game, you are in. To not count surrendered games as finished games would defeat the purpose.

So now some thoughts on the issue of overall history. Don't know if this is valid. The Mods who verify & decide things know better.
Under "normal" circumstances, just the raw numbers from the stats should be enough. I see plenty of applicants who simply have no surrenders or have one or two easily explained from the start. Simple.

BUT, in situations where someone is coming in from "the dark side" with a hefty amount of surrenders, then an additional metric should be considered. At that point, I would think it should be important to look at the time issue. In most cases, just saying, the last X number of games is probably enough, but if volume means that he finished 15 today and surrendered 10 yesterday, a quick search of archived games will show that he had surrenders yesterday which should be disqualifying.

Looking at the current rules, there is already a time factor when it comes to NMR and Site Administrator Sanction. (I assume the Mods have access to stats that show this, since I do not know how you check that). If you just add the same to the surrender issue, it would pretty cleanly take care of those who aren't really avoiding surrenders while not discouraging those who once walked in darkness but have seen the light. ;)

THEREFORE, (boy this guy takes forever to get to the point), if the standards were simply ammended to add something like (my additions underlined):

Aspiring membership (for players who have finished 5 or more games)

No unjustified surrenders in most recent 4 games and/or w/in the last month.
No more than 5 turns missed in the most recent 5 games.
No sanction from the site admin for site rule violation within the last month.

Bronze membership

5 or more games finished.
No unjustified surrenders in most recent 5 games and/or w/in the last 2 months.
At least 90% consistency (i.e. no more than 1 in 10 turns missed).
No sanction from the site admin for site rule violation within the last 2 months.

Silver membership

10 or more games finished.
No unjustified surrenders in most recent 10 games and/or w/in the last 4 months.
At least 95% consistency (i.e. no more than 1 in 20 turns missed).
No sanction from the site admin for site rule violation within the last 4 months.


You get the idea, so I'll stop there.
Just checking Archived games and picking a couple of random players, it was quick and easy for me to see whether they had surrendered lately or when they last had since the games list chronologically.

I'll leave the NMR issue for a different post since that wasn't the focus of the OP. BUT to sum up (finally! :shock: ), I think a look at the recent history of surrenders, whether considered in raw numbers or percentage, should definitely be considered and that the Constitution should be clarified to make that plain. After all, it does say in the first Aspiring Members section that we are looking for a "historical compliance."

Hope this has contributed to the discussion.
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby sinnybee » 24 Aug 2014, 02:12

gareth66 wrote:Interesting to see sinny refer to the surrender RATE, which you'd instinctively think should be important.

No, it's not important. The point I was trying to make is that
sinnybee wrote:Aspiring should just be for new players who have never surrendered, in my opinion.

I only brought up the 83% to add emphasis--Sind12 has definitely surrendered before.
gareth66 wrote:But this opens up a wider issue, in that surrender rate is not actually something we use for any of the membership categories. Surrender stats are always considered in terms of games since last surrender. In other words, when considering surrenders we are only currently concerned with RECENT behaviour, with overall history being irrelevant.

Of course, that's how it's been for years and that's how it should be.
gareth66 wrote:At the same time, however, when evaluating NMR rates, we are looking at complete history on the site and do not look at recent behaviour at all! This is a bit of a dichotomy really, and all very confused.

Confusing? No. However, I've been a gold member of the classicists since before you joined the site. Maybe it is confusing to some new members, but I think that qualifications for bronze status and higher are great just the way they are--I was only posting in regards to the aspiring tier.

gareth66 wrote:So...more fundamental question. When considering applications for membership, should we be looking at recent behaviour or overall history?

Well, only recent behavior when looking at surrenders for the bronze and higher levels of classicist membership.
gareth66 wrote:The problem with only looking at the last x games is we can easily have a player (not mentioning any names) who could play hundreds of games very quickly and could over a month easily clock up a 60 or 70% surrender RATE whilst being clear of surrenders in, say, his last 15 games. So under current rules, that player is eligible for gold membership despite a high recent surrender rate.

They've changed their ways, good for them; sure, let them into gold, as the gold requirements currently allow for. In fact, I think it would be totally awesome if someone was inspired enough by classicist membership to get them to no longer swing their surrendering ways across the site.
gareth66 wrote:And the case of the player that sparked this thread is another example of the problem of taking last x games rather than overall surrender rate.

Again, I strongly believe that aspiring classicists should have no surrenders.

gareth66 wrote:On the other hand, if we look at overall history, we could effectively be ruling out access to a player who, say, over a four year history on the site has a dreadful overall surrender rate but who in the last year has become a reformed character. And I think incentivising a player to change their ways and stop surrendering is an important role of the Classicists.

Of course.

gareth66 wrote:This is a really tricky one.

I don't believe that it is. Don't think too hard, you might hurt yourself ;).
gareth66 wrote:We already have a situation where certain players are pretty much ruled out of access to gold and platinum membership by virtue of NMR rates that were tainted by early experiences on the site but who have played such a large number of games that there is no way they could ever get that rate up to 98%. Is this fair if a player has an impeccable record over, say their LAST 40 or 50 games?

Who cares? There is no gold/platinum classicist only lounge or gold/platinum classicist only games.
It's not like we have a choice anyway--stats give us the entire NMR history, not some smaller recent history, and I don't think dipsy needs to worry about putting it in.
If you or the classicist mods want to make an exception for someone who has clearly met the consistency rate for a certain tier over say the second half of their games, I don't have a problem with that, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to change the bronze and up tier requirements. Again, it's all arbitrary anyway when it comes to bronze and up, and basically arbitrary for aspiring vs bronze and up too, since there are so few strict classicist games.

gareth66 wrote:So....should we be looking at recent conduct or overall history? If the latter, then we need to radically rethink the admission criteria when it comes to surrenders.

No radical rethinking at all, in my opinion. Leave everything the way it is, except requiring aspiring classicists to have no surrenders.
gareth66 wrote:If the former, then the 83% surrender rate of Sin12 is irrelevant if he has the required number of recent games without surrender (which as currently phrased is 1).

Yes, it is irrelavent... as you'll kindly notice the whole sentence that I wrote, not just the percentage:
sinnybee wrote:In my opinion, someone with an 83% surrender rate should absolutely not be allowed into the classicists (unless they happen to meet the rules of a bronze and up tier, including multiple recent games without surrender, not just one!)
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby Bwlvych » 28 Aug 2014, 21:04

For me it's A ... he's played 6 games and surrendered 5.
"I am Oswin Oswald. I fought the Daleks and I am human. Remember me."
User avatar
Bwlvych
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: 05 Mar 2011, 17:01
Location: Very Rural, North Devon, England.
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1017)
All-game rating: (1059)
Timezone: GMT

Next

Return to Classicists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests