Forums

is there anyone left that don't quit

• TGor 313 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 2:30 AM

  andyson:

  Still waiting for you to put all your changes or guiding principles to solve quitting

  I have an idea similarly aligned with Greggatshacks' comments previously. Here it is.

   1. Require 1 credit (per opponent) deposit to play ranked multiplayer rounds.

     1a. If you don't have these credits, WGT "loans" them to you.

     1b. Each consecutive "quit" causes the deposit to double (per opponent), conversely, completed rounds will revert the "abuser'  back one incident.

   2. If you finish the game your credits are refunded.

   3. If you quit, your credit deposit is evenly split amongst your competitors.

   4. Now WGTwould have a mechanism for tracking repeat offenders because it just cost them. I would think not more than 3 strikes would get their attention real quick! - Just a thought. 

  Plain and simple... If quitting

• Greggatshack 21 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 2:40 AM

  Faterson:

  Once again: if you're left alone on the course by the quitters, you can quit that round without any penalty, because it's a single-player round by then. But if you abandon someone else on the course, you must choose between either finishing the round alone, or taking a small reputation hit. This has been posted here in all clarity since December 2009.

  Makes sense to me and I'd be very happy to comply with such a system. :)

• andyson 6,415 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 5:36 AM

  VanHalenLover:

  Could you please explain to me where this 75 word limit came from?

  It came from me.  It is a technique I learned in my 35 year career in engineering and management.   I've used it in many diverse situations, from interviewing job candidates to summarizing a product proposal.  I've found it very useful in leading problem solving sessions to bring focus to the real issue when there are several perspectives on just what the situation is, and how we should deal with it.

  Less is more.  You will find it challenging to write your summary without using pompous words and words loaded with positive or negative emotions. Those diversions only serve to obfuscate your points.

  Are you up to the challenge?

  VanHalenLover:

  Will you be asking that author to re-release his proposal in 75 words or less?

  No need to.  Faterson's lucid, concise 3 point proposal meets the criteria.

  

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 5:43 AM

  VanHalenLover:

  Can you PLEASE help me to understand the difference in those two comments? You know, the first one that said:

  "Victims are of course absolved from any obligation to finish a disrupted round;"

  .......and the second statement, that said:

  "Everyone should be forced to finish the round (later alone) OR voluntarily take a (small) reputation hit."

  There are actually 2 different people involved-the "victim" and the "quitter". (Quitter and quitee, if you will.) "Everyone"  refers to the quitters but does not include the "quitee". By Faterson's proposal the victim gets a pass while the quitter has the option to either finish the game or take the reputation hit.

   

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 11:05 AM

  Here ya go andy, enjoy:

  

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 11:08 AM

  YankeeJim:

  There are actually 2 different people involved-the "victim" and the "quitter". (Quitter and quitee, if you will.) "Everyone"  refers to the quitters but does not include the "quitee". By Faterson's proposal the victim gets a pass while the quitter has the option to either finish the game or take the reputation hit.

  Thanks YJ, nice to hear your interpretation of it, but I was looking for Alex's - not sure I am ready to equate 'Everyone' with 'Victims'; it's a bit confusing, if not at least poorly worded.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 2:54 PM

  That isn't "YankeeJim's interpretation" but it's exactly what I've been saying, in all clarity, all along for almost a year. Stop trolling if you will.

  Your "solution" is no solution at all but a ludicrous dictatorial suggestion to force people to do something they don't want to do. Users would abandon WGT.com by thousands every day if any such nonsense were implemented. It's similar to your other nonsensical and also dictatorial suggestion of WGT.com imposing ignore lists on users without their knowledge (!). Not even worth considering.

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 3:41 PM

  Unfortunately Faterson,

  you have still chosen not to address the very simple question of why your initial proposal included a differentiation between quitters and victims of quitters, while this last dissertation clearly stated that everyone should have to complete the rounds, or suffer a reputation drop. So yes, it IS YJ's interpretation, as you have not addressed it yet.

  Sorry that you feel that such a simple, effective, and common-sense solution is a ludicrous dictatorial statement, but I see it completely different. Again, this is WGT's sandbox, and if they implement this common-sense approach, it is simply another Term that members would need to agree to and get used to.

  Not unlike the topic of underage players; it might not be to your liking, but it certainly isn't dictatorial. You have unfortunately shown that your disapproval of the rules that WGT has in place justifies you supporting others who break those rules. Your personal belief that this solution does not fit your idea 100% is preventing you from seeing the  effectiveness of its' immediate implementation.

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 3:50 PM

  Stop trolling at long last. There is no "last dissertation/interpretation" and "initial proposal". There is and always has been only ONE proposal. Very sad to see WGT let you abuse these forums for trolling on a daily and hourly basis.

• VanHalenLover 1,422 Posts

  Wed, Oct 6 2010 3:55 PM

  Faterson:

  Not really, that would be needlessly dictatorial. Everyone should be forced to finish the round (later alone) OR voluntarily take a (small) reputation hit.

  Here is a little reminder for you. It isn't trolling, it is asking a simple, and very related, question.

  Your original post/solution differentiates between quitters and their victims, and this statement seems to go directly against that suggestion. just curious as to why the change in heart, or if it was simply stated incorrectly. Not really all that bid of a deal, and a simple question to answer, in order to put this behind us both.