FG: Gladiator VI - The Unbearable Lightness of Fighting

[Kassiopeia]

And you are only annulling victories cause Sheep has zero points (he lost all four matches).

I am not, but then, I do not have any way to prove that, no.

Or rather, perhaps he didn't lose them, but was cheated as he stated.

We may disagree on how the situation will be dealt with, but I will not GM any further if you seriously believe I would cheat. I find that insulting to my GM'ing integrity, and I can not run a game if people think I cheat. I find it very unfortunate that a single, completely baseless accusation launched on nothing but misunderstanding has made this game go to where it is now.

[Ljube]

I was just joking, like Sheep was Kassi

Nobody has accused you of cheating. In fact, it would be quite pointless here since there isn't any way to prove it

I was just trying to get the number of the players that are hurt by your rulings above 50%

[DrSpike]

Kass:

Please reconsider, because I don't think you initially understood my point.

Removing Sheep entirely is not a fair outcome, because the best the other players yet to play him could have done is beat him and get the same 3 points I did. Equally they might lose or draw.

By wiping out Sheep's results and replacing him with Sparrow you are handing the players that have played him a no-win card, because the best they can do it win again and get the 3 points back, but they may also lose.

Compare that to the other suggestion of letting Sparrow play Sheep's remaining games. It's not perfect, but unless you believe that Sparrow has a very different chance of winning or losing compared to Sheep had he played his remaining matches then the outcome is reasonably fair. I submit that Sparrow as a new player is a good and fair replacement for Sheep for the remaining matches.

That is eminently preferable to robbing the players who beat Sheep of the chance that the other players would lose or draw against him.

[Kassiopeia]

Ljube:

DrSpike: Considering that the majority of the players seem to favour just having Sparrowhawk replace Sheep for only the remaining games (at least only one person opposing it has managed to air his opinion), I'm going to go with that. I do think I'm doing something wrong if the most words from the player side are opposing the ruling.

So Sparrowhawk will only have to fight in three battles this turn. Sparrow's chances to get to the semis are slim, so consider it a learning experience.

[DrSpike]

Thanks for being rational enough to reconsider. Top GMing.

[Jamski]

So... is it decided yet? Do I send in orders?

-Jam

[Kassiopeia]

Yes, it's decided. Sparrowhawk replaces Sheep for Round 3 (and possibly onwards). Send! (unless you don't play against Sheep this round and have already sent in orders)

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
So Sparrowhawk will only have to fight in three battles this turn. Sparrow's chances to get to the semis are slim, so consider it a learning experience.

Actually I had neither the hope nor desire to qualify for the semis (though if I did or still do I will play of course).

My main hope in volunteering was to fill in for Sheep and allow the game to continue uninterupted, and to gain some understanding of this game while I did so.

Its all good though, and I will happily help however I can, and sign up for the next game with a better chance having gained from this experience.



/me

[DrSpike]

Um, bump.

[Kassiopeia]

Waiting for orders from Drogue. Already harassed him with a PM.

[Spaced Cowboy]

That still leaves us without a solid way to handle dropped players for future games.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
That still leaves us without a solid way to handle dropped players for future games.

There isn't one. There are actually many things to consider:

1) Dropping a person can change the ranking of players. Say if 2 players are dropped, and player A had beaten them both, and player B lost to both. Now player B has an advantage, which is inconsistent with the spirit of the game since A has performed better.

2) Veterans base future orders on past results. Player A may have sent in more conservative orders because he had a comfortable lead. If he was behind or even he may have taken some risky maneuvers against other opponents.

3) The feelings of the players, since the point is for them to have fun. As GM this should be your paramount concern.

I would say random numbers or forfeiting all future matches are probably the best outcomes in such a circumstance. Also in later games the GM should state at the beginning how he intends to resolve dropped players before completing the sign-up, as well as agreeing on set punishments. I'd say:

Dropped once: Banned from next game, unless was due to circumstances beyond control;

Dropped twice: Banned permanently from gladiators.

[DrSpike]

I agree on 1 - 3, though the 'least unfair' solutions presented aren't correct IMO. Forfeiture is bad since players yet to play the player that drops get a free win. Random orders will always be easy to counter, giving exactly the same effect.

The solution is to underline to players at the start (as I tried to do this time) that they have to send orders every 48 hours and if they drop they can screw up the game.

If that fails no solution is good; there should be one agreed beforehand though, because an 'unfair' solution that is agreed beforehand is better than one decided on after it is clear who is disadvantaged.

[DrSpike]

Btw I did try last game to encourage defaults. If there were enough of these to cover rounds left then it could work acceptably. Probably those that play after the player drops get a small advantage, and of course submitting lots of default orders would be a pain.

[Theben]

IIRC everyone who fought against random orders last game lost each time. so I don't understand how you get 'an easy win' for future players.