Tired of this

Locked
User avatar
omni_555
Grand Master
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by omni_555 » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:42 am

Just_Ice and Vidurr, I hope that I am not being unclear about my position on this debate. I FULLY AGREE with you both that the host DOES have the RIGHT to bot the seat, and that IMHO the Guide taking action in such cases is questionable (even tho I would like a Guide to take the action that Nana3 did in her situation).

However, the simple fact that a player or a person has the RIGHT to do something does not make it the CORRECT or MORAL or ETHICAL or JUST thing to do.
Vidurr wrote:And if HW were to address some of the concerns with a software update, then it would no longer be a Guide issue, there is no inconsistency !
...The ONLY practical way to resolve this issue. And let me further state that I would accept EITHER way that this would go - either make provisions for a sub to be allowed, or else totally ban subs from participating in a game, or anything else in between. My only request would be that the decision be applied uniformly across the board.

As to your questions, Ice, Vidurr has answered them perfectly as far as I can see!

And XtesterX, I can only repeat my previous statements that situations like YOU are describing would happen with such a low incidence that they would not be a real problem. The point being, is it fair to have a rule that allows YOU to avoid playing ONE game with ONE person you dislike while inconveniencing DOZENS of players who end up getting stuck with bots as partners? Hmmm... YOU having to play a game AGAINST a player you dislike, or ME being stuck with a bot as my PARTNER for an entire game??? At least in YOUR case, YOU have a chance to get a little REVENGE against this person you despise so much, whereas I am relegated to playing out a game that I have practically NO CHANCE to win. AND you still have the partner of your choice playing WITH you!!!

WHICH of us is being more selfish here??? 8)
Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily. 8)

User avatar
Tater
Active Poster
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:41 am
Location: At the computer

Post by Tater » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:28 pm

Omni, I not questioning moral, ethical, or whats right or unaceptable opionions. That debate would end in a stalemate. I am asking that if it is permitted, and is an opition why can a guide enforce thier personal opinion? Guide A feels, 3 minutes, Guide B feels in his/ her opinion 5 minutes is proper, Guide C finds it totaly improper.... why do they have the right to enforce their opinion, regardless of the TOS, or options allowed by SCE?
Last edited by Tater on Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

XtesterX
Active Poster
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by XtesterX » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:42 pm

and guide d says your totally within your right to bot the seat

User avatar
grandmaS
Grand Master
Posts: 5705
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:23 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Post by grandmaS » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:52 pm

Well guide gS says it doesn't say in the TOS you can or can't thus leaving the situation up to guides a through z. The option is there to bot the seat, one because there are cases where there is no one available but a bot to fill the seat and heck how many games would end if we didn't have some option for those times.

However, we do come on line to play with people if we just wanted to play with bots we would all be playing off line.

Its kind of like that credit card commercial, where the guy keeps trying to get through to a person and has to keep answering ?'s to the computer that have nothing to do with the problem he is calling about, when he finally gets to a person one way or another he loses connection. I WANT TO TALK TO OR PLAY WITH A LIVING BREATHING PERSON lol...............
Image

I am woman I am strong

User avatar
omni_555
Grand Master
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by omni_555 » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:10 am

Tater wrote:Omni, I not questioning moral, ethical, or whats right or unaceptable opionions. That debate would end in a stalemate. I am asking that if it is permitted, and is an opition why can a guide enforce thier personal opinion? Guide A feels, 3 minutes, Guide B feels in his/ her opinion 5 minutes is proper, Guide C finds it totaly improper.... why do they have the right to enforce their opinion, regardless of the TOS, or options allowed by SCE?
The answer is really quite SIMPLE, Tater!!! SCE has given the Guides certain discretionary powers in taking actions that will hopefully be for the betterment of the site. I say "hopefully" because, as you say. different Guides will have different views on how they feel decisions should be made.

This is not necessarily a BAD thing - although it WOULD be nice to have some ruling passed down from SCE and put into writing so that EVERYONE can enforce the "rule" in the same way.

However, as it stands now, although we may sometimes not AGREE with a decision that a Guide makes, unless it is an UNCONSCIONABLE decision we must learn to live with it, and if we feel that a Guide has overstepped his/her bounds then we should communicate that fact to SCE and let THEM make the final decision.

After all, if you have a friend who got off with a traffic violation a few days ago, and then today YOU get NAILED for the same violation, you will not LIKE the decision that police officer made with regards to YOU, but you must still accept it, and if you feel the officer was acted improperly then there are channels through which you can file a grievance.

Give SCE the same latitude, and things will work out MUCH better! 8)
Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily. 8)

User avatar
Tater
Active Poster
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:41 am
Location: At the computer

Post by Tater » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:51 am

Omni, ole buddy... You loosing this one, bottom line = a guide does not have the right to force their will on others. 9 times out of 10, I play an 'anyone rating', whether I have 1510 or 1610.... 4 games or 400... But until SCE deems otherwise when I host a table, it's my choice. Thems the rules.
Image

('note' Edit====>) This entire thread would be eliminated if peeps finish the game they start. It goes back to snipe hunting. And yes after 5 years you can tell the diff between a quitter and a disconnect. If you ever play live Spades, no player can just throw down thier cards and leave the table, expecting some one to cover their a**
Image

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:45 am

Tater wrote:a guide does not have the right to force their will on others.
A guide currently DOES have the right to dictate how players handle disconnects. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with HOW Nana handled the situation at your table. That's NOT what I'm saying. I think people should wait for a fair amount of time in most cases, and I do in most cases.

If guides ALWAYS handled it just as Nana did at your table then this wouldn't be an issue. Some generic, uniform procedure is all that's needed. One that all guides agree on and enforce the same way.

When I was a guide I did not handle it this way. I know others who do not either. I left it up to the host who could bot or not bot a chair, as that is what the software allowed. As far as I knew it was not a violation of a rule to immediately bot a chair. Sure it was RUDE, but it's not against the rules. I told the players it was rude but I did not force them to do something the software legally allowed them to do. I remember Jonas telling us (guides) only to kick a player or bot as a last resort. If that has changed, and guides should kick bots and force the table to wait on a sub, then so be it.

But, convenience should never be the issue; it's not that in one situation there's a player ready to sit, but at another table there isn't. That shouldn't be what sets the standard whether you kick a bot or not from table to table. It has nothing to do with it. Either it's right or it's not.

Tater, you were wrong to respond the way you did on multiple levels. Nana was patient with you for how you responded, whether you agreed or not. All I'm saying is if Nana's handling of your table was textbook, then that's how it should be ALL the time. Sure, maybe different situations require a different solution, but if that's what a guide should look for going into the situation, then all guides should. If I was a guide and learned this is how we are to handle these situations, that's how I would handle them. I think it's fair and promotes good sportsmanship.

If SCE says that in normal situations players should wait 3 minutes before botting a disconnected player's chair, then that's how it should be. It doesn't have to be in the TOS, and it doesn't have to be a software change. Currently, it's the guide's decision, so at your table SCE said to wait 3 minutes. That's not in question. I just think it can EASILY be more consistent.

User avatar
SybiL
Grand Master
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by SybiL » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:44 am


I think that no matter what, a guide's job should always be to try to make games more fair to all players.

Since quitters are penalized by losing points, and since the ones that stay don't get affected by the quit, but instead they still receive points if they win and lose points if they lose, then why on earth bot a seat and directly affect a player that stayed in the game?

You are not punishing the player that left, he doesn't care one bit if you bot the empty place, the one that stays is the one paying big time when you bot it, and you end up getting easy points. I'm sorry, to me that is too darn close to cheating.

Forcing someone to pard a bot, in order to receive easy rank is not in my list of good actions, but instead sounds like someone trying to get a free ride, no matter how unfair it might be for the player who did nothing wrong but decided to stay and face it.

You don't lose a thing when a player quits in your game, people yell and insult and call names in lobby, get so darn angry about it, but get real, you lose NOTHING if he does that, you still play your game and get your points as if he was still there. Why then get rude and bot it and get a free ride? Wouldn't it feel better to play a fair game and wouldn't it feel good to win an honest game?

As for guides, if they don't allow this to happen, and they make the game more fair, then hats off! I think that's how it should be.

Should it be written in the rules or not? Well, you can suggest that, sounds fine. But taking someone's points by forcing them to pard a bot, just cause someone else quit, and just cause it is not written in black and white in TOS, that doesn't make it right at all.

Vidurr
Active Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Vidurr » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:51 am

Since quitters are penalized by losing points, and since the ones that stay don't get affected by the quit, but instead they still receive points if they win and lose points if they lose, then why on earth bot a seat and directly affect a player that stayed in the game?
1. Because TOS does not have a rule that applies to BOT/SUB.

2. Because the HW software allows the Host to rightfully BOT.

3. Because the opponent who left or even the remaining partner was so rude or obnoxious that was why they quit.

4. Because we have already had 3, 4, 5, ... SUBS sit.

5. Because we have already waited 1 minute, 3 minutes, 10 minutes.

6. Because the last time a Guide came and I inserted a BOT; they said it was OK and the right of the Host to do so.

7. Because I don't want a 1900 player subbing in a 1500 game.

User avatar
SybiL
Grand Master
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Post by SybiL » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:03 am


As far as I know, it's the host's table until the game starts. Once game starts it's everybody's game, not the host's.

If you have waited 3 or 5 minutes and no players subbed, thats the only moment where I would see it sorta fine. I still wouldn't do it unless the player that stayed asked me to bot it, otherwise, it is not right, the way I see it.

Now, if the player that stayed was rude, or used foul language, then that is something different. In that case I wouldn't have waited till the player left, but instead I would have called for a guide in lobby when such behaviour started.

So yes there are reasons out of the ordinary, in which botting would be the option, but in normal cases, just insert a bot cause a player left, just like that, that's when I disagree.

To do something just cause it's not stipulated in TOS that you can't do it, that doesn't make any sense. Gotta use common sense sometimes, and do what's right, don't do what you know it's wrong just because you can.

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:55 am

I wonder how many times a guide asks why there is a bot. Does a guide take the time to ask questions each and every time? Or, do they just jump in the table and kick the bot?

I've seen both.

If they jump in and "shoot and ask questions later," it will be unfair some of the time. It has happened to me. All I'm after is a consistent way to handle it. It doesn't matter to me how it's implemented, TOS, software change, or general rule for the guides to follow. But, there should be some questions asked before you just bot a chair.

Then, there's always what a guide should do when conflicting stories are given. If a guide is forced to believe one side or the other they will be wrong some of the time. This was another reason I didn't unbot a chair as a general rule.

No system will be perfect. But, I don't see the logic for not WANTING it to be more consistent. Not unbotting a chair until you see evidence that it's right in that situation is the best way to be sure you're being fair under current guidelines.

Currently, isn't the host the only player who can bot a chair?

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5343
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Post by Dust In The Wind » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:13 am

In the situation that was described here with a waiting player to fill the seat I would have done the exact same thing.

I have read through this thing from beginning to end and see all the sides and hear the logic, but when it comes down to fairness of the player and ethics I agree with how it was handle.

So I guess I'm also a Guide GS.....


JUST DUST GS
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

XtesterX
Active Poster
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by XtesterX » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Tater says it best
Tater wrote: ('note' Edit====>) This entire thread would be eliminated if peeps finish the game they start. It goes back to snipe hunting.
Amen Brotha

espeacially hera
Tater wrote: And yes after 5 years you can tell the diff between a quitter and a disconnect. If you ever play live Spades, no player can just throw down thier cards and leave the table, expecting some one to cover their a**
I hate to flog a dead horse....

BUT.....

User avatar
Cadienne
Active Poster
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Louisiana

Post by Cadienne » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:33 pm

I vote for software change so you have to wait a certain amout of time. It would be one less problem for guides and players.
Just my opinion.
If you want the rainbow, you have to pass through the rain.

XtesterX
Active Poster
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by XtesterX » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:52 pm

changing software so players must finish game once they started before joining another gets my vote as well

it would also save alot of problems for both players and guides

Locked