Fed up again!

Post Reply
psunuke
Active Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:34 pm

Fed up again!

Post by psunuke » Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:08 am

I love to play hearts. I have learned to deal with people who don't take my competitive nature nicely, and call me names. The name calling of cheater in partners, etc, but I just cannot take the kick/ban ability as it is anymore. Please Please Please consider revising this user ability. It is abused all the time. If someone gets stuck just once, often due to a connection problem, the kick/ban is invoked so often (and sooooo often successfully). While it is just a card game and such, we've come here to play here and enjoy ourselves and don't deserve to be kick/ban for one issue w/our "slow play". The last time it happened to me It was actually voted down and immediately revoted and I was kick/ban. I can bet why, because I spoke my mind and said please people, don't use the kick/ban, there is no need to ban, just kick. For some reason people HATE when I say this and there went the vote and i was gone (mind you after I was already playing again, telling me the code logic is a bit flawed as I was not still "stalling" as it most likely classified me as still doing. Give people at least one issue related to stalling. I had gone to www.speedtest.net and my connection was fine, yet could not ping in the hearts game. I knew I'd come back and it would be okay as it happens maybe every 20 games or so once. Often during that once I'm kicked, but in between I vote down the kick/ban of others for the same time and again. It is not fair. There is no right to kick people out. If someone is repeatedly causing a problem, then a counter can be started where they are stalling multiple times and when the counter reaches 2, or 3, or whatever (just please please not 1), maybe then allow the ban, until then, kick should do just fine as the person can come back to play! If they have problems again, the counter can be held in memory and then the ban feature come up. It isn't that hard!

psunuke

User avatar
la24philly
Active Poster
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:57 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Fed up again!

Post by la24philly » Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:07 pm

or maybe we can have the game removed from the person ratings. Is there a chance the servers, or and adminstrator could have that game removed if your kicked / banned due to non fault of your own.

One thing i don't like is when Say i loose power and obviously i can't continue an then a incomplete game is charge to your rating.

I know it would be a headache for jason and other ADmin to change ratings all the times lol. But prehaps their is a chance the server could do it automatically.
your main man louie lou rocking the 3rd shift for all you full time vampires

User avatar
Sailing_Away
Guide
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:44 am
Location: Perth, ON

Re: Fed up again!

Post by Sailing_Away » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:08 am

I know what you mean, but I don't think the server would have any way to know why a player was no longer there (power/service outage vs quitting by clicking the X).
-Brian

"Come Sail Away with me...."

User avatar
PandoraEllen
Active Poster
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Fed up again!

Post by PandoraEllen » Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:58 pm

a player may not be kicked until he is gone 2 min and that vote is usually by 3 players as they are tired of waiting.

if disconnected from server 4 what ever the reason if u get back quickly enough u may rejoin game. if it continues to happen they will prob use kick/ban as it is annoying to the other 3 players...when u get back to game check ur ping b4 u join a game ..

it is better to get an in complete then take the loss as if u quit. :D
Image







The Joy is in the Journey!

psunuke
Active Poster
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:34 pm

Re: Fed up again!

Post by psunuke » Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:59 am

I believe that this is quite a bit off on the point I was trying to make. I am keenly aware of the following:
(1) The rules of the game
(2) The implementation/coding of the current kick/ban usage (or so I think I am)
(3) Reasons why it may be useful (that being the kick/ban feature)

I still however STRONGLY disagree with this implementation for the following reasons:

(1) It was made aware that the 2 minutes considered away during a game is cumulative. That means if during the coarse of single hand (13 cards) I am to wait 2 seconds to play each card, then 26 seconds are accrued as "away" time. . . add in say 2 seconds to pass and you have 28 seconds . . . pretty close to 30. Four hands in I'd be at 2 minutes w/out ANY stalling. If this is truly the case I think this is horrible logic in my opinion.

(2) Too much power is given to a player. This causes dissent. In the event someone is lagging on a single play or 2, they get kicked/banned and they can't come back.

(3) I think that the usage of Pause Game is not really tied to the timeout feature whatsoever, yet they are tied together with the algorithmic structure of the game here. Pause game is a 3 minute one time pause in case something comes up. Why not have this wait time reduce the pause amount you have remaining. Not only that, if timeout truly is a feature to stop stalling, why then is kick/ban available? Just give the host the ability for a shorter timeout option or something.

I fully support the implementation of kick/ban in the following contexts:

(1) Before a game starts the host can kick/ban anyone he chooses.

(2) Any/All watchers can be kick/Ban as they are not part of the game

(3) Any repetitive staller. This is more difficult to define so I will attempt. If a player is repeatedly stalling how does one determine this. The current method (as to my knowledge) is to accrue a counter whereby when the counter reaches 2 minutes, the player is stalling. As shown above, this can easily be problematic. One perhaps better method would be to have a cutoff criteria for the counter such that the time is only added to the counter if the stall time is greater than say 5 seconds or 7 seconds or 10 seconds. Some meaningful interval of time, not 1 second or 2 seconds as people can be thinking. Another can be the use of kick only for the first stalling offense (and can be combined with the new counter idea). This way the person will be in effect, warned. Yes, that may mean some people will have to wait an additional few minutes which is why I'd probably be more inclined to accept the revised counter alone.

I hope this make my position more clear.

Post Reply