Schik wrote:
I don't know if sniped scores should just get an * next to them, or if we need a full page for sniping stats or what. I'm busy with some TCB tasks too, so this might have to wait a little bit.

KevG wrote:
I'd be interested in seeing statistics, but I'd be really leery of permanently marking demos that were "sniped" prior to the change. I'd be especially against labeling any demo where someone simply looked at a higher ranked demo before beating it. Looking at demos was a perfectly legitimate means of gaining information. I mean, if I knew my high scores would later be called into doubt, I wouldn't have done it.

If you only label those that have been "copied" you're going to end up unfairly accusing some people of cheating. For instance, Player B looks at Player A's demo which is one move better; turns out that they are essentially identical. Knowing he's on the right track, Player B keeps on working and eventually beats Player A's score. It's going to look like Player B copied although his work is entirely original.

I don't have a problem with labeling "sniped" demos going forward. But, retroactively changing the rules and accusing people of cheating for engaging in a legal, if arguably dubious, practice sets a really bad precedent.

Schik wrote:
Oh, I absolutely wouldn't do that. I don't even *have* all the historical data for sniping. Not even close. If they are somehow noted on the highscores page, it will only be those made later than a day or two ago.

I absolutely agree, and if I ever said that's what I was going to do, I apologize.

kzc wrote:
I am moderately gobsmacked to see that my demos have been downloaded 38 times. As I don't optimize at all, I can only conclude that they are being downloaded for the purpose of subjecting them to snide mockery.

Tahnan wrote, again:
we're talking about an actual issue here.

zex20913 wrote:
Now this is something I could live with. I still don't feel that sniping is too much of an issue (camp Maurog), but I much prefer protection on an individual's basis than from the top down, penalizing the LarryMurk camp. Especially because the "private demo" thing is mutual. The only thing I would ask is that the "No-watchy" list be non-permanent, just because permanence is risky business.

Of course, this is probably not too much fun for Schik to do

Ezlo wrote:
And now it's pulled a member from Larry's as well. Taking all things into account, and losing every #1 score from Master Locks Easy version, (The only reason I got them was because I was the first to play through the hold! ) I now understand the Anti-Sniping side of things, and this seems like the best compromise.

Schik wrote:
If it's mutual, then how would non-permanence work? By one requesting to lift the ban, and the other would have to agree? I'm not sure how mutual works in the first place. Perhaps it's not mutual, but you can see who has banned you, so you could ban them back if you want.

jbluestein wrote:

Ezlo wrote:
And now it's pulled a member from Larry's as well. Taking all things into account, and losing every #1 score from Master Locks Easy version, (The only reason I got them was because I was the first to play through the hold! ) I now understand the Anti-Sniping side of things, and this seems like the best compromise.

Not that it's fun to lose #1s, but when I look at the high scores for Master Locks, it seems like your demos have a high enough move count that losing the #1s was pretty inevitable. This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with sniping, at least not as I understand it.

Which doesn't mean you can't be anti-sniping, but saying you're anti-sniping because you lost all your #1s in this hold is kind of like saying you're anti-sniping because George Lucas ran out of fresh ideas in 1980.

Josh

eytanz wrote:
I think this is basically a very good idea. But I have two concerns:

1 - Implementing it may be a lot of work for Schik.

2 - This may lead to hard feelings - I really don't want to start seeing "why was I blocked from seeing X's scores!?" threads popping up all over.

michthro wrote:

Schik wrote:
If it's mutual, then how would non-permanence work? By one requesting to lift the ban, and the other would have to agree? I'm not sure how mutual works in the first place. Perhaps it's not mutual, but you can see who has banned you, so you could ban them back if you want.

I think it should simply be that if either player blacklists the other, they can't watch each other's demos.

Blondbeard wrote:

[Hiding history just to conserve vertical space...]

Click here to view the secret text

×

jbluestein wrote:

Ezlo wrote:
And now it's pulled a member from Larry's as well. Taking all things into account, and losing every #1 score from Master Locks Easy version, (The only reason I got them was because I was the first to play through the hold! ) I now understand the Anti-Sniping side of things, and this seems like the best compromise.

Not that it's fun to lose #1s, but when I look at the high scores for Master Locks, it seems like your demos have a high enough move count that losing the #1s was pretty inevitable. This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with sniping, at least not as I understand it.

Which doesn't mean you can't be anti-sniping, but saying you're anti-sniping because you lost all your #1s in this hold is kind of like saying you're anti-sniping because George Lucas ran out of fresh ideas in 1980.

Josh

I think you should read his post again, Josh

He says that he's from the Larrymurk camp, that is, he just plays for fun, and wants to have full accsess to other persons demos. He states that he understands the anti-snipers, not that he is an anti-sniper.

zex20913 wrote:
Of course, this is probably not too much fun for Schik to do, but I now firmly belong to what I will call the michthro camp. And it's already pulled a member from each of Maurog's and Schik's.

Blondbeard wrote:

jbluestein wrote:
Not that it's fun to lose #1s, but when I look at the high scores for Master Locks, it seems like your demos have a high enough move count that losing the #1s was pretty inevitable. This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with sniping, at least not as I understand it.

Which doesn't mean you can't be anti-sniping, but saying you're anti-sniping because you lost all your #1s in this hold is kind of like saying you're anti-sniping because George Lucas ran out of fresh ideas in 1980.

Josh

I think you should read his post again, Josh

He says that he's from the Larrymurk camp, that is, he just plays for fun, and wants to have full accsess to other persons demos. He states that he understands the anti-snipers, not that he is an anti-sniper.

eytanz wrote:
Player A snipes a bunch of player B's #1 scores. Then, player A blacklists player B. Player B cannot retaliate, but unless they think of counter-blacklisting player A, player A controls whether or not he can see player B's demos - he can unblacklist B whenever he wants, snipe more demos, then re-blacklist B.

Highly unlikely, but if I could think of it others can, and I'm sure someone eventually would attempt it.

michthro wrote:

eytanz wrote:
Player A snipes a bunch of player B's #1 scores. Then, player A blacklists player B. Player B cannot retaliate, but unless they think of counter-blacklisting player A, player A controls whether or not he can see player B's demos - he can unblacklist B whenever he wants, snipe more demos, then re-blacklist B.

Highly unlikely, but if I could think of it others can, and I'm sure someone eventually would attempt it.

hmmm.. Rather a big unless, no? It's the first time A pulls this stunt that's maybe a little worrisome, although that would be a really low move. If it's not too complicated, maybe once player A has watched any demo of player B for room X, A and B will always be able to watch each other's demos for room X.

eytanz wrote:
The one concern here is the following hypothetical situation...

Tahnan wrote:
The no-watch-list/blacklist idea ends up having, I think, the smallest repercussions to the community at large. If downloading statistics are available to at least a demo's owners if not to everyone, then people should be able to police sniping themselves. (For sniding, you're on your own.)

michthro wrote:
I believe that using other's ideas without permission is wrong....

ErikH2000 wrote:
I've talked to Schik about it a tiny bit, but not to give him advice, because he is much deeper into it than me or anybody else. The scoring system is really his baby. I trust him to listen, analyze, and at the least make a reasonable improvement. It's really up to him how the scoring system changes.

Schik wrote:
Mike (mrimer) expressed some very strong feelings against some changes I was considering, so I've turned the scoring system over to him - that control should probably be in Caravel's hands anyways. Just an FYI so people don't think they need to try to convince me of anything.

Blondbeard wrote:

Schik wrote:
Mike (mrimer) expressed some very strong feelings against some changes I was considering, so I've turned the scoring system over to him - that control should probably be in Caravel's hands anyways. Just an FYI so people don't think they need to try to convince me of anything.

Care to share with us what you were thinking?

Beef Row wrote:
My guess is he was thinking letting infinite monkeys run infinite forums on infinite servers, until one of them finds the perfect demo management system from among the infinite suggestions we had.

michthro wrote:


Go back to the old system, except that the following players can't watch my demos, and I can't watch theirs:
fratropea
Syntax
Maurog

That, with the option to add players to the list, is all. It's not ideal, but I'd be 99% happy with that. I'm including fratropea because in my opinion, to which I'm entitled, she's been sniping a lot.
_________________

You have removed me many #1 (also with 1 or 2 movements in less) and I have tried to resume them (but I not never have succeeded). For me was amusing to compete with you, but if for you it is a great problem to lose # 1, excuse. We do not watch more ours demo. Bye

---

[Last edited by fratropea at 03-01-2007 12:31 AM]

michthro wrote:
Go back to the old system, except that the following players can't watch my demos, and I can't watch theirs:
fratropea
Syntax
Maurog

jbluestein wrote:

Enhancements that occur to me: some sort of time delay. Either, once both sides have acknowledged, a one day delay before it goes back online, to keep B from acknowledging, sniping, reblacklisting.

Or, possibly better, once you unblacklist someone, some amount of time must pass before you can blacklist them again (one week?).

I'm a protocol guy. So every problem just looks like a nail to me.

Josh

×
First Delver! (I was the first non-tester/dev
to conquer TCB.)
d/dy