View Single Post
Old July 5th, 2005, 19:14   #71
Hit Me 4 DigiPoints!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Send a message via ICQ to DragonHawk Send a message via MSN to DragonHawk Send a message via Yahoo to DragonHawk
Originally Posted by Duckman
so we alienate these people with a potential for no redemption? not so much forever but that scenario has potential for a relatively longer term punishment.

could there be potential in a mandatory prepay imposed on those people with known pattern of truency in order to get a spot in the game until they're percentage gets better? but then that adds more burden on an organizer. where's the balance?

now...putting the guys that do it maliciously(sp?) aside. the arguement on an individual standpoint is that ultimately it's "my time and i'm gonna do what i want with it". short of banning them entirely from games there's no real fool proof way of dealing with it.

with prepay you have people that really dont care about the 10-20 odd dollars and will give it up. really it's not THAT much money when you think about it. and what about the people that dont have paypal? personally i disagree with prepay to a certain degree because of the extra logistics involved for the orgs.

i'm prevvy to public humiliation for those that would affect those with the integrity to sign up and actually show up on a regular basis. most people dont really want their reputation smeared under any circumstance whether it be personal, dboard, work, whatever. call it a virtual flogging or display before being burned at the stake. obviously not to that extreme but you get the jist of it i hope.

*edit* sorry. first part of this post was kinda directed towards lisa and biff.
Sorry, usually I don't enter much discussion, but I was thinking this might be a bit extreme. The 'no redemption' thing was what caught my eye.

To me, any rating system is not there to govern who can come to the game in an automatic sense. It's still up to the host to make the decisions. For a 'regular' pickup game, it wouldn't be as critical as for a planned and propped operation. I don't think the point is to automatically reject players from going to games; the point is to give the host more information so they can decide whether an unreliable player is filling a critical spot or whether they don't care.

I see this as not primarily an initiative to punish players who don't show. The idea is to give the hosts a better idea of real numbers. The absolute number of players doesn't matter so much (sometimes) as the last-minute changes.

Anyway, in short, I think it would be a useful tool assuming someone wants to put it together. I don't think it's applicable to every game, but it seems like there is a tendency towards bigger and planned games, so maybe I'm just living in the past.
DragonHawk is offline   Reply With Quote