Conquer Club

Should there be a tally or a auto feedback issued to those that are kicked out of a game due to missing to many turns? Post your oppinions and or excuses as to why you feel one way or another...

No- Sometimes stuff happens why label it

my feelings should be obvious deadbeaters are like mean people they suck and a record should be present on how often a player does it

trackersdream wrote:my feelings should be obvious deadbeaters are like mean people they suck and a record should be present on how often a player does it

Yeah, and thats why we have feedback. If someone deadbeats, everyone in that game has a right to leave negative feedback for him. We don't need labels on people because they deadbeated.

AK_iceman wrote:

trackersdream wrote:my feelings should be obvious deadbeaters are like mean people they suck and a record should be present on how often a player does it

Yeah, and thats why we have feedback. If someone deadbeats, everyone in that game has a right to leave negative feedback for him. We don't need labels on people because they deadbeated.

but then you have those that leave retalitory feedback for those that recieve legit factual feedback, then you have to jump through ten hoops to get it removed so you create more work then system generated feedback stating that the person was kicked out of game due to missing to many turns, which I might add takes away from any one person having to be the bad guy or actually good guy whom warns others that this person does this and if you want a game that will not drag or be crippled due to a misbalance of troops

Soloman wrote:

AK_iceman wrote:

trackersdream wrote:my feelings should be obvious deadbeaters are like mean people they suck and a record should be present on how often a player does it

Yeah, and thats why we have feedback. If someone deadbeats, everyone in that game has a right to leave negative feedback for him. We don't need labels on people because they deadbeated.

but then you have those that leave retalitory feedback for those that recieve legit factual feedback, then you have to jump through ten hoops to get it removed so you create more work then system generated feedback stating that the person was kicked out of game due to missing to many turns, which I might add takes away from any one person having to be the bad guy or actually good guy whom warns others that this person does this and if you want a game that will not drag or be crippled due to a misbalance of troops

Wow... Do you know what a run-on sentence is? I honestly couldn't understand your whole post.

Soloman wrote:

AK_iceman wrote:

trackersdream wrote:my feelings should be obvious deadbeaters are like mean people they suck and a record should be present on how often a player does it

Yeah, and thats why we have feedback. If someone deadbeats, everyone in that game has a right to leave negative feedback for him. We don't need labels on people because they deadbeated.

but then you have those that leave retalitory feedback for those that recieve legit factual feedback, then you have to jump through ten hoops to get it removed so you create more work then system generated feedback stating that the person was kicked out of game due to missing to many turns, which I might add takes away from any one person having to be the bad guy or actually good guy whom warns others that this person does this and if you want a game that will not drag or be crippled due to a misbalance of troops

I see your point, but the problem with that is, again, things happen. I could be incredibly busy and completely forget about conquer club because I have more important things to do, like writing a term paper, or something like that. System generated feedback would just label someone who usually takes their turns on time a bad guy.

Perhaps the first one or two could be forgiven. I don't get the people who use the excuse of more important things to do. How long does it really take you to take your turns? If you're in a reasonable number of games it shouldn't be a problem imho. Not when you've got 24 hours to play.

If nothing else, people could just drop in, deploy their guys, and then leave. What's the big deal?

The problem with a system generated feedback is that its system generated. Its a black mark, where even if you explained an absence to every person in your game and everyone was cool with it, you still get dinged for it.

Then of course, you have the problem that not everyone hates deadbeats. They aren't fun, especially in a team game, but in a regular sequential game, who cares if someone deadbeats? Really? Is it a time factor, because honestly, if it is, what about someone who always takes 23 hours to take their turn, aren't they just as bad as a deadbeat?

i think the problem I see is alot you guys are responding about 24 hours we are talking about feedback for those that lose and are booted from a game after 72 hours of not playing. It takes three consecutive days to get a boot from a game not just 1 turn, if you have 2 people deadbeat in sequential you can add an additional week to a game before they get booted on average if 1 deadbeats on a sequentiial non real time game it takes 5 days. I mean come on once every 3 days is all it takes to not get boot if you get booted you should get feedback saying that period.

Doesn't change the fact that it happens. As I explained in the other thread, I deadbeated some games because I went on vacation even though I made sure I did not join any new games for an entire month prior to going. Sometimes games run long, sometimes things happen. Not all deadbeats are people trying to screw up games.

You know what... I'll change my mind on one condition... it has to be a neutral feedback, not negative.

Ishiro wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it happens. As I explained in the other thread, I deadbeated some games because I went on vacation even though I made sure I did not join any new games for an entire month prior to going. Sometimes games run long, sometimes things happen. Not all deadbeats are people trying to screw up games.

You know what... I'll change my mind on one condition... it has to be a neutral feedback, not negative.

pnly if neutral feedbacks become part of the immediatlydisplayed facts like positive and negative have it like inbetween them, that would be the only way it would still be effective

Never mind then.

If it displays, then it becomes just as bad as a negative feedback. If a deadbeat actually ruined your game, give them negative feedback. Having it be automatic is lazy.

I wonder if any of the people voting no have had a perfect record or if they are just defending the fact that they Deadbeated and caused at least 2 if not more people to be inconveinced by there actions and do not wish to hold any accountablity for it.

I have not missed a single turn and have completed over 100 games. I voted no. Sometimes things happen. Internet goes down, computer is on the fritz. Some people might think that cramming for an exam should be a priority. Death happens to people we know. Vacations where internet is not available. Not to mention some people use missing a turn or two as a strategy. Just leave them negative feedback if it puts your shorts in a knot.

I think the label should only be applied if there is a strong occurence of deadbeating. If the player deadbeats in say, more than 20% of his games, then the label is added. However, if he plays more games and doesn't deadbeat, the label is removed (kinda like rankings).

I think it should only be seen by how many games they are kicked out of for missing too many turns because sometimes they just can't go on cc. Also there should be an auto-negative-feedback after being kicked out of like 3 games or something that says has deadbeated x times and would increase each time they are kicked out.

Risktaker17 wrote:I think it should only be seen by how many games they are kicked out of for missing too many turns because sometimes they just can't go on cc. Also there should be an auto-negative-feedback after being kicked out of like 3 games or something that says has deadbeated x times and would increase each time they are kicked out.

Not a bad suggestion and that is the area I am talking about I am not just talking about missing 1 turn I am talking about being booted from the game and be labeled yes they were booted from this game for missing too many turns they can respond with whatever excuse or situation may have occurred just like any other feed back...

bumping

I think the difference between occasional deadbeating and persistent deadbeating is important.

I haven't deadbeat once yet, or even missed a turn (that I know of), but I'm sure it will happen. Like people have said in this thread .. stuff happens.

But persistent, deliberate deadbeaters really are a pain.

Please see my suggestion in this forum - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18125 - and give it your support if you think it should be adopted.


cicero

Generaldisaster wrote:I have not missed a single turn and have completed over 100 games. I voted no. Sometimes things happen. Internet goes down, computer is on the fritz. Some people might think that cramming for an exam should be a priority. Death happens to people we know. Vacations where internet is not available. Not to mention some people use missing a turn or two as a strategy. Just leave them negative feedback if it puts your shorts in a knot.

again you are talking about people miss turns as strategy but they are not booted from he game so to make it clearer for you if they are booted from the game for missing to many turns then should rightfully labeled as a deadbeater on that game number by the system. If it is system generated then there is no debate or reatlitory feedback and the person who recieves can leave there excuse in the response section of feedback.

safariguy5 wrote:I think the label should only be applied if there is a strong occurence of deadbeating. If the player deadbeats in say, more than 20% of his games, then the label is added. However, if he plays more games and doesn't deadbeat, the label is removed (kinda like rankings).

Love this idea. Or as another option you can have it shown as a percentage. This will help differentiate between the chronic deadbeats and those who were just unfortunate (for those who are using the s*it happens excuse). The people who have hundreds or thousands of games will probably have extremely low deadbeat percentages unless they deadbeat a bunch of games but that's kind of the point.

O and I realize that the new recruits and some privates will have an inflated deadbeat percentage even if they only deadbeated one game so maybe its best to start recording after a certain number of games....maybe 15?

some new player deadbeat because they dont have net at home or frineds, etc.... but most of them try to take their turns, exceptions those who dont really understand the game and quit instandly.

i almost deadbeated my first game twice , its a miracle i wasn;t kicked out but now i have net at home so taking turns isn't a problem

ps i managed to win that game

I don't think anyone is expected to make 100% of their moves. Everyone should try and if they can, great.

I'd rather see the percentage of how many moves they've made. So if someone had 100 moves to make, and they missed 6, they'd have a 94% move rate.

Just show people the move rate of a person as part of the feedback. Its not labeling, its just showing the facts. If someone is chronic, it will show.

The follow-up question then becomes, no matter what system you put in place -- percentages, labels, brands, chop off a hand, what do you do with that information? Do you want the system then modified to allow minimum qualifications for entry into games? Do you just want the option to see it and decide if you will play with that person? If so, all that the person with chronic missing disorder needs to do is be the last person to join the game and you're stuck with them.

About those with CMD just being the last to join the game, I guess this would be used in conjunction with the ignore list. I know it isn't possible to block everyone with a high deadbeat percentage(well it is but no one would go through and block them all) but if you happen to come across someone with a high deadbeat percentage then you could add them to your ignore list and move on.