Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Perhaps use a clock to get an idea how long each player is taking rather than using it to enforce time limits.
It would be a chess clock in reverse. If a player needs to question rules, then the clock is stopped. If there is a debate for 25 minutes, it would not be allocated to either player. But by the end of official game time, you will have an idea of who took the most time.
Reecius wrote: Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.
It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.
If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.
Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!
Are you accepting external input/ideas, Reece?
I was putting something a bit more comprehensive together, but, if you've already got over 200 people doing so i'll probably hold off continuing.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.
A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.
Which is why the second my opponent touches a dice, paper, book, measuring tape, whatever.... I'm bouncing the clock to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/23 10:56:53
Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you"
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Slow play isn't subjective at all. What turn did the game get to when it ended? Did they make it to Turn 5, or did they only make it to Turn 3? That right there is an objective measure. You need to make it to Turn 5 by a certain time limit, but failed to do so. If they only made it to Turn 3, then which player took up the most amount of time? That's the player engaging in slow play. When one player spends an hour on a single turn in a 2 1/2 hour game, that's clearly the player engaging in slow play.
The solution to that is easy, though. Put a clock on each player. Although I'd suggest giving each player a single allotment of time, rather than giving them a specific time limit per turn. First turns typically take longer than final turns, after all, as you likely have your whole army or a good chunk of it on the first turn, while large portions of it are probably gone by the last turn. My suggestion to that is for each player to have a clock and be allotted 75 minutes to play (Assuming we're going for 2.5 hour battles). The player hits the clock before they start their turn, take their turn, and then pause the clock when they finished their turn. If their clock runs out then they can do nothing else, so it'll encourage them to play at a reasonable pace. So for example...
TURN 1 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used up 18 minutes, leaving him 57 minutes.
TURN 2 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 17 minutes, leaving him 40 minutes.
TURN 3 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 13 minutes, leaving him 27 minutes.
TURN 4 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 10 minutes, leaving him 17 minutes.
TURN 5 - Player turns on the clock, does all his stuff, and pauses the clock. He's used 8 minutes, leaving him 9 minutes.
So if one player actually takes an hour on their first turn, they'll only have 15 minutes left to use on subsequent turns, so they won't be able to slow play the game so that it can't get past Turn 3, while the player who's more frugal with their use of time can get repeated turns against their opponent unopposed. Slow play would come to a dead halt if that were implemented.
The problems with this have been beaten to death in another thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/760214.page Since this is a back and forth game a single player's turn isn't done in a vacuum. There is room on both sides to abuse the clock and cost an opponent time.
A better solution would be better monitoring by the judges, but that could require more judges and a change to how tables are positioned within the space, which may wind up placing a cap on the max number of players.
Which is why the second my opponent touches a dice, paper, book, measuring tape, whatever.... I'm bouncing the clock to them.
Yep. The other player wants to contest something while you're taking your turn? Stop the clock and they start theirs. They're now using their time to contest something.
njtrader wrote: Game size for competitive play should be 1,500 pts with a turn timer.
Don't be an donkey-cave is and always should be rule #1.
Neckbeard asshats are -not- welcome.
Agreed, njtrader.
But not a Time Turner. The chess clock works really well on managing & eliminating Slow Play. I've used them in all my games for over a month (still looking for a decent phone app chess clock before I buy another accesssory to haul around along with dice and models). Many others at my LGS are using them. It is the Silver Bullet to solve the problem. Ask a War Machine player or TO.
I am a slow player (read: incompetent, dithering idiot). I stopped playing eldar last winter because I would barely get to Turn 4 with the tons of shooting, Psy-phase choices, all that. So I ran khorne daemon bombs throughout spring, eliminating psy and shooting; low and behold, I was finishing games! Losses mostly.
I am now running Dark Eldar. My 2nd turn takes forever because it's 27 wyches, their raiders (charging & assaulting with all of that), the 3 characters that disembark and assault with them. Plus 17 to 25+ Lances and blasters. If I deep strike 3x5 scourges, that's more time.
The chess clock is making me play faster. And when I run out of time, as I have on two occasions, I helplessly watched my game become a loss, because I used up my half of the game's allotted 150 minutes. 'Tis perfect for stopping time between both players for rules check (which usually gobbles the one player's time, not a Total Stop). And being responsible for your own time, Slow Play is only a problem where Chess Clocks aren't being used.
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
But not a Time Turner. The chess clock works really well on managing & eliminating Slow Play. I've used them in all my games for over a month (still looking for a decent phone app chess clock before I buy another accesssory to haul around along with dice and models). Many others at my LGS are using them. It is the Silver Bullet to solve the problem.
The chess clock by chess.com is a great app. It’s what I use for chess.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity lasts forever.
Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war.
Reecius wrote: Hey everyone, just as an FYI, the community of ITC event organizers is indeed working on a set of Floor Rules that can be used by any event organizer at their discretion.
It provides a system of guidelines for player conduct and judge responses. It is being actively worked on by over 200 judges all of whom are experienced organizers.
If you are an ITC event organizer and not in the FB group, please email me (don't PM me on Dakka, I haven't checked those in years) and I will be happy to help you out.
Thanks to everyone contributing to this effort as it will help a great deal to standardize tournament play and avoid situations that can cause conflict and controversy. It will also help to recognize and reward exemplary sportsmanship, too!
Are you accepting external input/ideas, Reece?
I was putting something a bit more comprehensive together, but, if you've already got over 200 people doing so i'll probably hold off continuing.
The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Crap! That leaves me out of it!
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Crap! That leaves me out of it!
As always, any unreasonable content can be posted to DakkaDakka as per tradition.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Reecius wrote: The more the merrier, honestly. We do want to keep it to TOs though as that is who will be using the document but honestly, any reasonable input is welcome.
Crap! That leaves me out of it!
As always, any unreasonable content can be posted to DakkaDakka as per tradition.
Reecius is there going to be any punishment for LVO or ATC or everybody starts with a clean slate when you release your floor rules?
Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!
Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."
"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."
DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.
Reecius wrote: Clean slate. That is the only ethical way to handle it.
Once we have some guidelines in place we all agree to, then we can enforce it fairly moving forward.
You can grandfather in existing bans/DQs (within a certain statute of limitations) if patterns of behavior become part of the final document. Breaking your rules or breaking someone else’s is cheating either way, and ignoring the actions taken by TOs between now and then is opening the door for a lot of bad blood within the community since I imagine this policy will take some time to become finalized.
You’re confusing “ethical” with your own definition of “fair”.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
I think it's reasonable to not retroactively apply penalties once the doc is out. IF once it's out, it is regularly enforced. It being "official" provides no excuse for not following it, so if folks see it, and implicitly agree to it by signing up for the event (something of a common disclaimer easily added to the registration), then if they still pull their usual crap they deserve the strongest punishment under the rules.
It is unethical to create a rule then go back in time to apply it selectively to individuals who were acting under a different set of rules at that point in time. That undermines the entire point of a rule.
I mean, that is also unfair but it is definitely unethical. If you create a rule you must abide by the rule fairly to all parties or why bother? You break trust. People who agree to participate within the scope of this document need to trust that it will be used fairly.
To grandfather in existing bans in a fair way we'd have to go to literally every event in the ITC in what, the current season? Then, we'd somehow have to fairly and accurately aggregate all of the data on sports issues then we'd have to sift through it and try and determine which issues violate the new document and then apply punishments retroactively and evenly. That's not a realistic, or probably even an achievable goal.
You can't just use the rules to target specific people/teams (even if they happen to be very unpopular at the moment) as then your rule is an excuse to attack someone, not an actual rule worth abiding by.
I fully understand that many folks are on the warpath against specific teams right now, however, if we want to do this correctly we have to do it in an ethical (and as you noted, fair) manner to build trust or--as I stated above--why bother?
If folks don't abide by the code of ethics going forward then they know what they're getting themselves in to and they will receive appropriate repercussions with no excuses or room to argue that they are being treated in a biased or unfair manner. And, the rest of the community can have the peace of mind of knowing that we did things the right way. Rest assured that anyone that continues to conduct themselves in an unsporting manner is just tying their own rope. You just have to sit back and let them do it. Those that decide to clean up their act can do so and hey, that is also a win for the community.
Plus, what we're building in to this is not just a system of punishment, I really don't want everyone to focus on that as that's not the big picture. We also want to recognize great sportsmen and women and put the spotlight on all the awesome, nice people that play, too.
Anyway, a bit long winded there, but hopefully that explains things a bit better.
I always thought the prize support should be given to best sport and best army while the trophy goes to best general. You still get your glory for victories but there is no monetary value for it. For example, winning the ITC season currently rewards a player with a lot of cash if I am not mistaken, maybe add a sportsmanship rubric in addition to battle points that is tracked publicly as well and give the money to the overall best sport at the end of the year. Incentivizing winning alone is a terrible thing, as has been demonstrated it encourages more gamesmanship including poor play and less sportsmanship. Best general should play for bragging rights only, which admittedly should be tough since we already recognize Franky as the best player in the world
Clear cut cheating should be delt with swiftly, severely and publicly. I am not advocating caning and zero forgiveness for things like illegal lists, but trophys should be removed and the person should be in-elligable to win ITC points for the remainder of that year. They can still attend future events so long as this doesn't become a pattern, they just have to focus on the other elements of the hobby for the rest of the season. This lets them continue to be a member of the community and forces them to grow.
If they cheat blatantly or cross the line for the event I think the punishment should be much more severe.
Great to see and hear that you folks are not ignoring positive sportsmanship in this endeavor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 18:48:42
Red Corsair wrote: I always thought the prize support should be given to best sport and best army while the trophy goes to best general. You still get your glory for victories but there is no monetary value for it. For example, winning the ITC season currently rewards a player with a lot of cash if I am not mistaken, maybe add a sportsmanship rubric in addition to battle points that is tracked publicly as well and give the money to the overall best sport at the end of the year. Incentivizing winning alone is a terrible thing, as has been demonstrated it encourages more gamesmanship including poor play and less sportsmanship. Best general should play for bragging rights only, which admittedly should be tough since we already recognize Franky as the best player in the world
Clear cut cheating should be delt with swiftly, severely and publicly. I am not advocating caning and zero forgiveness for things like illegal lists, but trophys should be removed and the person should be in-elligable to win ITC points for the remainder of that year. They can still attend future events so long as this doesn't become a pattern, they just have to focus on the other elements of the hobby for the rest of the season. This lets them continue to be a member of the community and forces them to grow.
If they cheat blatantly or cross the line for the event I think the punishment should be much more severe.
Great to see and hear that you folks are not ignoring positive sportsmanship in this endeavor.
The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 21:07:36
The 40k competitive community is really laser-focused on intent when it comes to cheating, so people will always argue if it's "clear-cut" or not. Did you mean to change that wound die? Did you just forget you were using wargear you didn't pay for? Did you really mean stall when you took 60 minutes deploying a small Eldar army?
Personally, I think this is misguided because the practical effect is that cheaters can hide behind intent and escape punishment because "we can't really be sure" they were cheating.
@Reece - while that sounds good, it's not like certain players and teams aren't coming as a known quantity with a history of bad behavior. As a private entity, you are free to start them off with a prior warning, or simply disinvite them as a matter of course based on actual behavior to date.
Are you of the actual opinion that their behavior warrants no penalty before your new code goes into effect?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 08:34:10
Ordana wrote: The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
Seriously (not serious), it's like you're asserting that players would approach the tourney like they're archons plotting the over throw of a rival.
I won my fair share of Best Sports, like 10 or so for RTTs, over 3 years or so, and no. It's not like that at all. Your assertion is the antithesis of players who earn these awards.
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
There is a belief among some 40k players that all tournament players are inherently immoral. And it is just a matter of time before their masks slip enough to reveal the rotten truth.
That might be somewhat true for the really competitive guys that get the publicity, but the guys who come in for fun and play the bottom tables are almost always nice guys
It is unethical to create a rule then go back in time to apply it selectively to individuals who were acting under a different set of rules at that point in time. That undermines the entire point of a rule.
I mean, that is also unfair but it is definitely unethical. If you create a rule you must abide by the rule fairly to all parties or why bother? You break trust. People who agree to participate within the scope of this document need to trust that it will be used fairly.
To grandfather in existing bans in a fair way we'd have to go to literally every event in the ITC in what, the current season? Then, we'd somehow have to fairly and accurately aggregate all of the data on sports issues then we'd have to sift through it and try and determine which issues violate the new document and then apply punishments retroactively and evenly. That's not a realistic, or probably even an achievable goal.
You can't just use the rules to target specific people/teams (even if they happen to be very unpopular at the moment) as then your rule is an excuse to attack someone, not an actual rule worth abiding by.
I fully understand that many folks are on the warpath against specific teams right now, however, if we want to do this correctly we have to do it in an ethical (and as you noted, fair) manner to build trust or--as I stated above--why bother?
If folks don't abide by the code of ethics going forward then they know what they're getting themselves in to and they will receive appropriate repercussions with no excuses or room to argue that they are being treated in a biased or unfair manner. And, the rest of the community can have the peace of mind of knowing that we did things the right way. Rest assured that anyone that continues to conduct themselves in an unsporting manner is just tying their own rope. You just have to sit back and let them do it. Those that decide to clean up their act can do so and hey, that is also a win for the community.
Plus, what we're building in to this is not just a system of punishment, I really don't want everyone to focus on that as that's not the big picture. We also want to recognize great sportsmen and women and put the spotlight on all the awesome, nice people that play, too.
Anyway, a bit long winded there, but hopefully that explains things a bit better.
Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand. The only way to go forward is to have a clean slate and go forward from there.
That being said, some of the worst people involved in the tournament scene are pretty well known at this point. My suggestion would be for anyone who ends up playing them in a tournament setting to watch them like a hawk from here on out, and possibly request a judge to babysit those games (And given the stormcloud of drama that seems to follow these individuals, one would hope that tournament judges would be happy to do so, to nip things in the bud early and avoid a cloud of drama tarnishing their event. Or maybe TO's could even take the initiative and assign judges to their tables at all times. That seems like the best option, to avoid the "big story" coming out of your tournament being yet another cheating scandal). If they play fair, then great. It'd be interesting to see if they can still win without cheating, because as far as I'm concerned, all their previous victories are now suspect. But if they don't, then anyone who plays them needs to make sure to let the judges and TO's know that their opponent stepped out of line so they can be dealt with according to the rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/27 05:39:43
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Chief Librarian Mephiston wrote: Yeah, there's really no way to make it retroactive and punitively punish people under a system of rules that they didn't agree to beforehand.
Disagree. Known cheaters are still cheaters, and should not be welcome. Taking an illegal list or whatever was still against the rules of the game they were playing, even if no formal punishment was stated at the time. So why should a TO trust a known cheater and invite the cheater to their event?
I’m with peregrine on this one, these people cheated and know they did it, they knew the social convention and ignored it purposefully and apparently several times at that.
It actually reminds me of something from another thread where someone claimed a top player had a 94% win ratio, to which another person replied that if that’s the case they are clearly cheating, the team happy scandal now makes me believe this could possibly be true, it throws doubt on EVERY top tourney player and that is the problem.
There are reasons that NASCAR has so many rules.... Some people will always look to gain an advantage.
Like this guy:
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Ordana wrote: The moment there is monetary rewards for best sportsmanship you get people that will give their opponent a bad score while trying to extract a high score for themselves rather then people actually trying to have a good time.
Seriously (not serious), it's like you're asserting that players would approach the tourney like they're archons plotting the over throw of a rival.
I won my fair share of Best Sports, like 10 or so for RTTs, over 3 years or so, and no. It's not like that at all. Your assertion is the antithesis of players who earn these awards.
Was there significant prize support attached to these awards?
Because yes I agree, they are really fun guys to play with and they are there to have fun. But when you take the prize support from winning and move it to sportsmanship your going to get the dicks who just want to win at all costs involved in a prize that is about the very opposite.
Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
