I just got kicked and my points stolen. I really don't care about the points, but I really hate players who are not here to play but get points. I posting this so other players would be aware of this point farmer. I believe people like this are destroying the quality of the game. Below is the screenshots of the chat log, showing how childish this person is.

madmike and other victims: Please maintain the games in your archive so that the replays can be reviewed for the upcoming WWPA blacklist.

make sure you blacklist his account so we know who he is if he changes his name. Thanks for the heads up

speaking of point farmers... hugger is one. I archived the game, it's http://weewar.com/game/17711

I guess I don't understand what a point farmer is.

they kick you even if you are winning to get points

How do they kick you?

lol, if someone takes up more than the time that is set at the beginning you have the option to kick that person

Oh, the trivial way.  I thought there was some secret to which I was not yet privy.

Question though, can only the game initiator kick or can any player kick?

In Torrent's case, I was playing with him and hugger. I had stated "that on weekends we hardly play and that we will continue on Monday". This is because the time limit was set to 1day per turn. We actually made some moves on Saturday, but come sunday I saw Hugger kick Torrent and surrender so he would not lose points. In a previous game with Hugger, he told me he accidentally click the wrong button. Now that I've seen him do it twice, I would recommend him to the Blacklist.

Any player can kick. if the time has expired.

Atleast he kicked you guys with style lol. I found the little role play he did amusing.

Have y'all noticed the inverse relationship between the aggressiveness of a player's name and his game skill.  The nastier the name the less skillful the player.

that´s not true....

first of all when we set a time limit, we should try to stay in this limit.

i´m not waiting until anyone makes his move and the person is over his limit.

it´s just a game but i´m tryín to win...

hugger: You can play however you want, and that's your business, but to get WWPA certification, and to stay off the WWPA blacklist, you have to follow certain rules.  You don't have to follow those rules -- but then that also means your reputation with respect to the WWPA will be affected.

Deathskull change name to Genesis

hugger,

if you were winning I wouldn't care, except I was CLEARLY winning. Two battleships and a destroyer and a submarine. you made no attempt to communicate with me and what you did was cowardly. I find that this is very unsportsmanlike, but as Pistos said, this is your business. The WWPA's business and duty is to alert our fellow good sportsmen to the ones that may not be as keen to allow an extra 12 hours or so.

the problem with the points system is that

A) they rarely are an accurate tool in determining the skill of a player

Ugh Deathskull, FireSkull, Maby, thejudge...whatever you want to call yourself.  I think you need to get your facts straight. I didn't picked the map, I didn't start the map with 3 players. You need to ask rooz7937 why he did all those things. Plus, I even asked to restart the map, but everybody kept playing their turns. No one responded to my question about restarting the map.  You are the unsportsmanlike player here. By the way Deathskull new name is Maby.

Evidence #5

You go madmike!  

I've been booted from a game that I was obviously going to win.  Even so, I can see both sides of this.  On one side, you have the players that are waiting and also that know if they don't boot the eventual winner then it is their neck on the line.  On the other side, you have someone that couldn't make it before the time limit for whatever reason and lost a game he obviously was going to win and spent a lot of time to get to that point.  I was in Round 29 of the game I was dominating, and although pissed about it, I started the game and set the time limit, so am I to blame as much as anyone?  Since that game, any games I start are 3 day limits instead of 1 day- if I don't want that to happen to me again I can't rely on others, I have to rely on myself.

Personally, I try to give people some extra time, and maybe even try to communicate with them in hopes they can give me an idea on how they'd like me proceed, because that is what I would want them to do for me.  But if we are going to have time limits and then not follow them, what is the point?  Most users aren't aware of the WWPA, the blacklist, and they figure there is a time limit for a reason.  I guess I am confused as much as anything, I agree with the WWPA practices, but just because someone booted me after a time limit that is a feature of the game we are playing, should they be blacklisted?  Is it really wrong?  It's like if I don't want my dog to chew on my brand new shoes, then I shouldn't leave my shoes where he can get to them.  With WeeWar, if there is a time limit and it's possibly too short for me, then I have to be smart and not play that game.

@ smoscone [TheTorrent]

yeah ok, right you were winning... to my apologies. i didn´t recognized you will be back after 24hrs so i kicked you. the problem is i´m not very patient and i think it should be possible to take a timeout (if somebody goes on holiday e.g. ; or something else...)

in fact i´m tryin to earn some points if i cannot win, so i make it for everybody as hard as possible to kill me... but in my eyes there are rules and one rule is when you are over the time i´ll kick you/everybody. it´s war (just weewar but war) and i think everything is allowed. i know you and others has a codex (an other opinion).

i made a mistake before in another game. mr. x wrote me something and after my turn i read his message... and said sorry. i make it short because of me  (notme alone) there is now a blacklist and many threads.
to improve  and avoid such situation i will try to help... maybe (i read in another thread about it) contact users directly and maybe some timeout system could be installed . i mean  2of3 or 2of4 or 3of4 players agree to take a timeout and you should be informed about it via email.

oh i read something now... luckymustard had the idea before (thread: Weewar Players Association)

Sorry Hugger.. I think you are good player, but as I remember we had an opportunity to kick you, and we didn't. You even apologized for being away for a long time. I was upset that after we gave you the benefit of the doubt, you went and kicked the player who was winning. According to your own statement "one rule is when you are over the time i´ll kick you/everybody", you did not even bother try and wait to kick me. You immediately surrendered after you executed the kick. If you want really want to apologize to Torrent, invite him to a game and lose the points you gained from him.

Anyone ever been in the situation where a person seems to have abandoned a game, but if they were removed it would be to your disadvantage?

I'm in that unfortunate situation - the blue player is AWOL but if he was gone then Red and Yellow would fight it out over his bases, which I have no way of getting to, ending up with one or both of them having (even more of) a monetary advantage over me.. this sucks

Surrender or go out with a bang and direct your left over forces to the lesser of two evils

I can't go out with a bang - it's not my turn

I could surrender, but I'm not feeling a need to clear the game-space (yay pro-ness) so I may as well leave it there in case the guy ever comes back

That said, his last login was 50 days ago... give or take 20 minutes

lol... he is not coming back.

yeah right i left the game after i kicked him, because i don´t saw the chance to win...

i think about the idea, of inviting him to a game

I think "blacklisting" is a bad term to use here. The point of the WWPA (IMO at least) is to give us a clear understanding of what type of WW player you are.

1. Do you believe that the time limit is a contract that must be strictly followed or else you lose the second you go over? These types of players are not "bad". They are just playing WW for the points...and will gain those points at any cost. Whether it's beating up on noobs, Droning two or three accounts (ok THIS is bad), or waiting for the exact moment a player goes over time to boot them, these players are out for points and little else.

And face it...being on that Top Ranked Players list (currently #4) is pretty cool! You can't blame these guys for wanting to be up there with all us cool peeps.

2. Or do you take a much more relaxed approach to the timer. These players are alot more interested in making friends and having fun. Status is good, but it's not fundamental reason for them playing.

With this said...the WWPA should not be some sort of witch hunt site, but a place where if you are the 2nd type of player, you can find other players with the same type of relaxed, friendly mentality for the game...

I don't think the first type of player is unsportsmanlike...they just have a different goal than me. if you are on the blacklist...i may play you, but I am giong to be ALOT more careful about the timer...because i know you won't show me any mercy.

heh, maybe a second player group will pop up for the first type of player - certifications for people who adhere strictly to time limits (both on playing their turns and kicking others who over-run) and a blacklist for all the "weak" players who are just in it for the game and don't care if they're fouling up the scoreboard with their non-warlike concepts of sportsmanship and fairplay

Super-King, I can see your point, and I am ok with having to kick base on a time contract. But, I wonder if someone like your player 1 group would kick if there was no award for kicking? In the early version of weewar, there was a voting system. Every player had to agree to vote an AFK person. The problem with this system was that it did not work when all the other players were AFK. I was in a 3-player game where both my opponents had not return for 12 days. I could not vote off the next opponent. The devs then updated the system to where anyone could kick a person who has exceeded the timelimit. This fixed the sitituation I was in, but introduce a new type of player. your player 1 group. So, the sole purpose of kicking a person is to continue the game, not to get points. Maybe the devs could change the system to where, kicking a person resulted in that person losing points but not award the lost points to the opponents.

If that change did happen, would Hugger have kicked torrent and then surrendered? I think not.

an establishment, somebody like a judge or members of the WWPA who not in game could help to fix this problem... they could kick players

i don´t know who and how this could be realized....

I can agree that perhaps "blacklist" might be too strong a term.  All the WWPA is trying to accomplish is to describe some agreeable rules of fair play, and then helping the Weewar player base at large to identify who abides by and who violates those rules, and even perhaps to what degree.  WWPA members are like-minded in that they think that the rules do indeed describe fair play.  Those who violate those rules either (1) don't care about being fair or (2) have a different definition of fair play.

Nobody has to be a WWPA member in order to play Weewar, but, just like dpache1 said, the WWPA blacklist and member list are there to help current and prospective WWPA members identify "nice" people to play against.  If you care about the WWPA rules, then I should hope that the lists are helpful to you.  If you don't care, then the lists are meaningless and can be ignored.

hugger: I've already asked that some sort of human moderation system be put in place.  We'll see what the Weewar devs bring to the table in the coming releases.

@madmike: I see where you are going with the idea that kicking a person would not award points, but doing this would just create a bigger problem:

With this modification, any player that is losing or about to lose a game can simply stop playing and force the winning player to boot him. The winning player although he won the game will gain no points for his efforts. This may sound spiteful for the losing player to do, but i wouldn't put it past people.

And there is no way for the system to calculate this accurately enough.

The system is good the way it is. Luckily, Pistos came up with a great idea of the WWPA. With this tool I know that i can find players who won't boot me for the points. Playing people outside of the WWPA is a risk we all just will have to take.

anecdotal game policing story:

the host of one of my early games got booted by the next player down. he came in to vent his annoyance. next player down missed his go on the subsequent turn, so, an eye being roughly equal to an eye, I gave him the boot. I subsequently came in second. 

What is ah *Pointfarmer?*

a point farmer is someone that plants and grows points

well someone that uses any means possible to get points.

I have nothing to add to the argument above, but I myself was surprised to find out that you loose points when you get kicked. What's up with that? Dont the other players profit enough by you not being there anymore? Why gain and lose points in the process? I dont see the point. literally

I guess it's to discourage someone who's losing from just not doing anything to hold up the game - if there was no penalty you could do that and avoid the point loss of losing

hmm..... That actually makes sense.

That explains the loss, but the gain of points is not nesessary

Streen: Same issue.  Someone who is totally owning someone else should get the rightful points for the win on the kick.  Human moderation FTW!

Maybe award/deduct points based on your score in that game? Like have it based off of total income earned and spent.

Pistos: I see your point, but personally I rather not have the points then have someone kicking me just to get points.

So there is no way to make it real fair. Like life itself

Then I guess this WWPA is the only way to protect yourself from farmers and there is no improvement to the game that can help on this issue.

hmmm... BUT, a solution might srtill be possible. You are worried that folks dont play in fear of being defeated anyway, so maybe a system could be implemented that checks if you have been logged on to your weewar account since your turn started or something....

I think something that would help a lot is human moderation.  Moderators that we can turn to to submit accusations, cases and claims, moderators who can adjust points manually as they deem fit.

I like that you guys have set up this whole WWPA thing, but I fail to see your point on the time limits. In 5/10 minute or 1 hour games I usually give extra time in case they lost internet for a while, or have something to do, even if they don't say anything. That's fine, things come up and short games become hard to manage. If however, it's a 5/10 minute pace game and they're gone for 2 hours, time's up. However, in a 1 or 3 DAY limit game, if the person does not come in the room to state that they will get to their turn soon and have been busy or whatever, they WILL be kicked by me soon after that limit expires. There's no reason you can't pop in the room before bed or something and say you haven't had time to play lately. This isn't point farming, this is removing slow players so the game can continue. If I'm playing a short game and I have to go for a short while, I ask if they will wait for me, but if I'm going to be gone for a while, I surrender because YOU SHOULDN'T START/JOIN A SHORT GAME UNLESS YOU PLAN ON PLAYING FAST. If you only casually play and don't log on at least once a day, you should only start/join 3 day games. By your rules, I should be on your greylist, but I can guarantee I'm not an "unfair" player. And I certainly treat any other player as I expect to be treated, which is why I consider very carefully how long I may have to wait between turns BEFORE joining a game. Others should show that same amount of consideration.

As a matter of fact, I think it's more rude to join a game with a certain turn length and not mention that you won't be able to take your turns in a timely manner. You're forcing people to wait when they joined the game with the intentions of playing the game within the specified time limit. Other players shouldn't have to do you a favor by extending your time limit if you don't tell them that you may be playing slower than the time limit allows.

That is why WWPA membership is optional. You're free to do whatever you wish after the time limit has expired.

However, those in the WWPA prefer to not kick a person, and wait for the game to pick up again. It's been argued that blacklist/greylist is too harsh a word for the list of people who are known to not play in the way favoured by the WWPA.. it hasn't been changed yet, but that's what it is - a list for the use of people who want to play WWPA-style, to warn them that certain other players are stricter on the time limits and will kick as soon as they are able.

Not all of us kick as soon as we are able. Giving people a little extra time is fine, but giving them 24 hours over their limit is ridiculous. The WWPA shouldn't be allowed to label people at all. If they want to play a certain way that's fine, and they can say that when they start a game. If they don't lay out certain rules when they start a game, however, then actual weewar time limit rules should be followed. People shouldn't be allowed to go around labeling people just because they don't play the way the "WWPA" wants them to. Now, if in the beginning of the game the person who started the game says something like "This game will be following WWPA rules" and THEN someone doesn't play by your code, then it would make sense to blacklist them. But WWPA rules are not actual weewar rules, so you should not be allowed to put people on a list just because in a normal game with no special rules they decided to play by those actual rules.

As I said, I don't play by these WWPA rules, but I am also not a point-farmer or an unfair player. So according to that I should be greylisted for trying to get a game moving.

I don't understand your point. As far as I'm aware, the WWPA greylist was established so that WWPA players would be aware of other players who boot unreasonably or who cheat with pre-alliances going into a multiplayer game. I see nothing wrong with an outside organization labeling players based on their actions so that other players who want to know this information are aware of what may happen in a game with these labeled players. Yes, these labeled players are not doing anything against the rules, but they did enough that the labeler and the WWPA reviewer(s) (you have to submit the game link for review) found their actions unreasonable and want to share this information with the community which can voluntarily access this information. Might you suggest a better way for players to be aware of point farmers and cheaters?

Sure, we all should know that we shouldn't join games that we don't expect to keep up with, but life happens and some players would like to know they have a low chance of getting booted if something happens that prevents them from signing on (internet loss, game bug, emergencies - personal and business, oversleeping, and for smaller time limit games - bathroom, food, other personal needs) and most players would like to know that they won't get booted for missing the time limit by a short time. In essence, some players want to know who will be nice/reasonable to them, who will give them a second chance, who wait some time and give fair warning of booting if the player doesn't play (, and who don't cheat, etc.).

Again, I see nothing wrong with labeling players as players you don't want to play with and believe others should avoid too. It's as if I listed on my Weewar profile all the players who I prefer not to play with and think others shouldn't play with, the reason why I don't play with them, and proof. People can come to my profile to see this information *if they wish* and can see what has happened in the past as a sign of what may happen in a future or current game with the same players. The WWPA greylist is essentially a way of aggregating all these individual lists so that players who want to know of significant events of interest in past games with certain players, can know.

Also, just to note, I agree - 24 hours over the limit is unreasonable, but I believe the greylist does not contain players who waited that long before booting, and if they do, it must have been an exceptional case. (Pistos, correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

Yeah.. that's the other part of it - not every person who ever kicks a player is on the greylist, only people who repeatedly kick as soon as it becomes available, even in cases where the other person had some reason for not being there

That's not how it works based on the "Games where evidence is shown" on the greylist. Someone booted someone after they were 12 hours over the 24hr limit. If I were to take that long to get to my turn, I would EXPECT to be booted. I'm saying the WWPA rules are unreasonable to me. Players shouldn't have to go out of their way to let someone stay in the game if they're a slow player, just so they won't get greylisted. I'm not gonna spend 24 hours trying to contact you. I post a message notifying if you don't start your turn soon, i'll boot you around the 3 hour over mark ( on 24 hour games) There's no reason I should have to wait 24 hours for them to reply. THEY should be the one making an effort to let me know they will be getting to their turn and have just been busy. Based on the "evidence games" that is what it looks like is expected. Perhaps if they had more than 1 game as evidence for me to view, it would be different, but at least one of them is someone who waited almost 12 hours over the 24 hour limit. If you can't take your turn or AT LEAST notify the other players that you will be playing very slowly, then you SHOULD be booted. NOTE: I'm saying more responsibility lies with the person who is playing slowly, not the other players who are playing at the predetermined speed. There is no logical reason why players who are trying to play a game should go out of their way to make sure someone who can't even log in once a day(say, for 5 minutes before they go to bed, to pop in and say "hey, I won't be able to get to my turn, could you wait for me?" I am almost positive everyone sleeps at least once a day) gets to take their turn.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong about how someone gets on the greylist, but based just off the evidence games, that's not how it looks.

Actually, on one game, it even looks like the winning player removed someone and is now on the greylist for it. If you're winning and someone is playing slowly, there's definitely no reason you shouldn't be able to remove them. Based on that, it appears that anyone who is in the WWPA who gets removed gets preferential treatment if they want someone on the greylist.

Ok.. I was typing then suddenly for no apparent reason Tangler booted me back to the login screen... don't know why but I lost my post

Gist of it was that unless you intend to play WWPA-style, the greylist is pretty much irrelevant to you - being on the list (if anyone does decide you should be) won't cause you any harm or difficulty, might even help you avoid a game where the other person will be offended if you kick them. Just ignore the WWPA... no-one's enforcing this stuff on unwilling players.

yeah tangler used to do that to me everytime i logged in

I have brought up some time in the past whether to adjust the 24 hour wait period.  My proposal was to change it from "24 hours after time limit expires" to "24 hours notice", period.  That would allow people to boot earlier, such as by saying right at the beginning of a 1-day-limit game "Hey, if you don't give me any warning, I will boot you if you don't take your turn." or on a 12-hour game, booting 12 hours after the limit goes.

If people would like to see this change, I can adjust the WWPA rules.