Regarding Forced Maps

[Threevenge]

Most of you know I tend to be pretty level-headed and mellow when I'm playing in ladder or at least I try to be. However, in between rounds today a vote for Doodle was called and reached only 70%, below the required percentage to cause a map change. Calling a vote for Doodle is of course fine, community votes and the results happen.

The vote was called yet again, which sometimes happens when people want to troll and I accept that as just part of everything. I accidentally voted yes expecting a random vote, fine, that's on me. But before the results even show up it was forced as the next map of the round.

This is bull****.

I don't care if it's the majority of the vote, if it isn't a large enough percentage to meet the requirements to get it as the next map, don't force it. Don't change the standards of ladder without changing the rules and posting them. If you want it to be that a majority vote is enough, change the server to reflect that.

Yeah, I know I'm an admin and have the ability to change it back, but I'm not going to start a war back and forth changing maps. We have a system set in place for picking maps and the only reason I can see that a map should be changed by an admin is if a person leaves the game at the very start of a match.

[elixirwithani]

This is a problem I can solve!

I'll go ahead and delete all admins.

ANARCHY

ANARCHY

ANARCHY

[TheLastPhonePhreak]

honestly, how does this not result in a ban for soccer? if someone gets banned for spec chatting, which has such a minor effect on player experience - then isn't this infinitely worse? i think the admin term for this is a "flagrant violation."

this is half a troll post, and half a serious request. i hate how strict the rules are. apply the same ridiculous strictness to yourselves.

[elixirwithani]

Originally Posted by TheLastPhonePhreak

this is half a troll post, and half a serious request. i hate how strict the rules are. apply the same ridiculous strictness to yourselves.

Not the worst point that's ever been made.

[soccernamlak]

Originally Posted by Threevenge

Most of you know I tend to be pretty level-headed and mellow when I'm playing in ladder or at least I try to be. However, in between rounds today a vote for Doodle was called and reached only 70%, below the required percentage to cause a map change. Calling a vote for Doodle is of course fine, community votes and the results happen.

The vote was called yet again, which sometimes happens when people want to troll and I accept that as just part of everything. I accidentally voted yes expecting a random vote, fine, that's on me. But before the results even show up it was forced as the next map of the round.

This is bull****.

I don't care if it's the majority of the vote, if it isn't a large enough percentage to meet the requirements to get it as the next map, don't force it. Don't change the standards of ladder without changing the rules and posting them. If you want it to be that a majority vote is enough, change the server to reflect that.

Yeah, I know I'm an admin and have the ability to change it back, but I'm not going to start a war back and forth changing maps. We have a system set in place for picking maps and the only reason I can see that a map should be changed by an admin is if a person leaves the game at the very start of a match.

I have found in my pursuits with women that whenever one is blamed for something, regardless of how I feel about the situation or whether it's something I should be blamed for in the first place, that it usually better in the long run to apologize first (thereby acknowledging that the other person has an issue) and explain second.

So while I know you are already engaged 3V and are not female (I assume based on your deeper voice in Mumble), I feel (and have found) that this approach works wonders in many facets of life other than relationships. So, that being said, I apologize Threevenge that my actions that upset you last night.


That being said, as I stated earlier in Altitude PM, I am the tendency to state what I think, for better or worse. I call things the way they are, which is why I gave you a choice and heads-up in Altitude PM on whether you wanted an "I saw your post. Ty" acknowledgment or whether you wanted an actual response. Since you chose the latter, here's my side of things and why I feel that you basically threw things completely out of proportion, and why for someone who claims to be pretty level-headed and mellow made a mountain out of a molehill.

First, let's approach this idea of consensus. I won't try to argue that 70%>80%, but I think you'll have to agree that there's a fundamental difference between choosing a map that 70% want versus choosing a map that 1 single person (perhaps 5%?) wants. Now, while it doesn't meet the criteria for a vote custom start as you pointed out, ladder, like the real world, isn't black & white. There's a bit of grey involved. Just because something isn't right doesn't necessarily mean it's completely wrong. Which is why earlier I wanted to clarify that the points I'm bringing up are just my thoughts on the matter and not necessarily the complete 180 degree counter-argument for a 2-sided coin, where if I'm not with you I'm against you. In general, that's a narrow-minded mentality and is only used by people who fail to acknowledge that people's viewpoints can be slightly skewed from their own without being the complete opposite. But that's off-topic. My point through this segment here is that there should be (and is) a range at work here (scales of grey if you will), but it seemed at the time that it was a black & white / night & day issue to you. I'm hoping that's not the case, but if it is, I do think you need to re-evaluate the situation, as again, the world operates in 50 shades of grey or something.

Moving on.

My second issue here is why you felt that this was bull**** and a cardinal sin against humanity. Because you're playing a map that you and <30% of the others voted no to and did not want? Would you have played if it was passed? What about full random? You stated clearly that the second time you voted 1 assuming full random, so I'm making the sweeping assumption here that start_random would have been fine. What if Doodle came up as a full random map? It is in the rotation. Would you have complained then?

No. In the first case (if it passed), you would have mumbled under your breadth about how >80% of ladder players are trolls. Or maybe you just wouldn't care. I don't know you well enough to assume anything here. But if you did complain, it would have been directed at those >80% of players.

In the second case (full random vote to ball_doodle by ladder server), again, if you even complained about it, it would either be to the ladder server itself for being ironic or you'd blame elixir for even putting the map in rotation in the first place.

But here's the thing which, I'll admit, makes me shake my head. You're complaining about a map being chosen that you didn't want to play, or that even the minority (but large minority according to ladder) did not want to play, assuming they actually cared and weren't voting no for the hell of it. BUT, when the voting the first time came about for Doodle, and you saw it was Doodle make no mistake, you stayed up and did not spec. You had the conscious choice to spec if you didn't want to play the map, but you didn't. Which meant that while you might have not liked the map, you accepted the fact that if >80% voted yes, and you were selected to play, you would.

To continue on this conscious choice part, you accept the fact that when start_random is voted, that ANY map can be chosen. By playing ladder, you agree that if you are selected to play, you will play whatever map ladder server bestows on you and your team. Whether it be asteroids or doodle, you're going to play or risk getting banned.

In both cases, you made a conscious decision to play. And in the full random case, EVERY PLAYER that stays up in a full random agrees and accepts the fact that they will play maps they love and they will play maps they hate. They will be put with teammates that they love, and that they will be put with teammates they hate.

By playing ladder, you agree and accept the fact that you can be chosen to play the map you absolutely despise with 5 incompetent teammates, and that you will play that game to the very 6-0 losing team end.

So to wrap up this point, you were willing to play doodle via full random or popular vote, but not when it's chosen manually? You can see where some might call this a bit hypocritical. And yes, I get that I didn't give full random a chance to pick non-doodle yadda yadda, but hopefully you still see my point in this case.

To continue on, you were selected to play the game, which is why I think this was still an issue, as I doubt you would have felt this way if you spectated (I'd imagine more relief than anger). It is your right as a player, especially at the beginning of a 0-0 game, to vote stop tournament if you wanted to. We'll get to the admin stuff in a minute, but let's assume you had no admin powers. We only ban for votes by spectators and players if they're calling votes as a distraction measure when the other team is about to score, constantly doing it, etc. But at the beginning/start of a 0-0 game? No issue.

But you didn't. Instead of doing something that you are allowed to do in ladder to voice your opposition to the map, you decided to play it. That's pretty much you accepting the map choice sans opposition or complaint. So complaining about it afterwards is like using a full bottle of shampoo and then complaining to the company that it smells really bad and you want a refund. In my mind, it's a bit like voting. If you vote and your candidate loses, you have every right to voice your dismay. But if you don't even participate in the voting process? I feel that you have less grounds to stand on.

Bringing this back to Altitude, you had the option for expressing your opposition to the map choice that you had every right in doing, but failed to do so.


In wrapping up your first few paragraphs, you state that this is "changing the standards of ladder rules" and that I should "change the server." First, being pedantic here, there's nothing in the rules in the Official Ladder Admin Thread that state that only maps with >80% approval get to be played. It's coded in the server, yes, but it's not a rule. I expand more on this "rule-breaking" in my response to TheLastPhone below. Further, I'd hesitate to call it a "standard;" quite honestly the standards of ladder aren't high in some areas to begin with (but that's neither here nor there). Despite what you want to call it, it's not against any written rule. Common practice, "it's always been done this way," etc. does not qualify as some sort of quasi-binding contract. We'll ignore all the stuff about this being a private server where there's more of a dictatorial hierarchy in place vs. some democratic institution. Further, I assume you are using the term "you" in the last part as a general "you," because you know damn well that there are very, very few people that have access to the code of the server, and even less that have access to change it, and that I'm not one of them. So I don't see your point of telling me to "change the server to reflect that," at least as a direct command anyway.

Continued below.....

[soccernamlak]

To finish up with regards to the admin point, do you really think that I would start a map_change war back and forth with you if you decided to just go ahead and stop tournament, as you do have admin powers? I mean I know I haven't been around as long as some people in this game, but by gosh I would hope for ladder's sake that when Nobo or Lamster or Mike or whoever picks admins for ladder that they would pick people who don't act like a spoiled child. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I daresay that your thought I would engage in a "war back and forth" was emotionally driven and not based on any sort of sound logical or historical backings.


Basically, I would hope that even if you didn't know me, that if you decided to stop tournament with admin powers that it wouldn't result in a back & forth that would cause ladder to die that night.


Finally, regarding when you think a force change map should be used, I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion. I have forced a custom start_random a few times in the past when there is, for instance, constant vote spamming of certain maps that always result in 0 or <10% by a few players preventing an actual match from starting. Or, for example, when certain players pick no to any map to troll and there isn't enough yes votes to force >80%. I've done it a few times when ladder was close to dying (12/13 people only in there) to hopefully prevent people from leaving while vote is going on because they're bored of waiting for a map to start.

The whole point of being an admin in any online situation is that what we're given is guidelines, and it is up to our discretion to act on these guidelines accordingly to ensure a certain level (whatever that may be) of playing experience. Or community experience. Again, I expand on this a bit more below.

Ultimately, even if you feel that this goes completely against the standards of ladder, I feel that you completely over-reacted to the situation, where apparently complaining in Altitude and Mumble wasn't enough but that you had to take it to the forums to display your disapproval. I feel that there are many grey areas in admining and ladder as it is, and that on the scale of things one should be pissed about, this isn't even in the Top 10 for ladder issues. I feel that you lose further ground in your position when you consider the shear percentage of people that wanted to play AND the fact that you consented to playing ball_doodle not once, but twice. Your argument weakens further when you decided to only voice your issues verbally rather than taking any sort of action in game at the time, which you had all right to do as an admin and as a player.

So to conclude, while I clearly differ from you in the perspective of how "wrong" this was, and I obviously have many issues with your basis for complaint, I still offer my apologies. I am only human, I make mistakes, and I try my best to make ladder as enjoyable as possible for the majority of people who play it.

[soccernamlak]

Originally Posted by TheLastPhonePhreak

honestly, how does this not result in a ban for soccer? if someone gets banned for spec chatting, which has such a minor effect on player experience - then isn't this infinitely worse? i think the admin term for this is a "flagrant violation."

this is half a troll post, and half a serious request. i hate how strict the rules are. apply the same ridiculous strictness to yourselves.

For a few reasons.

The first being what rule was broken here? The only thing an outsider could even attempt to argue is Rule 12, being a catch-all for negative experience. However, as stated above in my response to Threevenge, by virtue of ladder itself there will always be unhappy and happy people every single game, before it starts and after it finishes. An admin could sit back and do nothing, and there would still be people who complain about the map choice.


Continuing on Rule 12, at what line do we consider "negative experiences for other players?" Is it just 1 person? Is it the majority? Does it matter if it's a positive experience for someone else? And what things do we consider "acceptable" here? Search through the forums. You'll find many-a-times where someone has complained about something, but nothing is done regarding it because it goes against the current status quo of ladder. This is more of an issue with ladder in general, I believe, but moving on. The point with this rule is a catch-all for admins to use when a player does something that disrupts the flow of ladder that has a negative impact on their team, the opposing team, or spectators. In this case, only 30% of the people total were potentially impacted (assuming they actually cared), and from that even less actually played. In comparison, this is the rule we use when someone just circles in front of their own goal the entire game with the ball, which I think you'd agree affects practically all 12 players on the field (5 more than most).

But even then, the first step admins take is not always an outright or immediate ban. Often, admins use some sort of warning, whether via PM or All-chat or server-chat, to let the player know they are committing an action against the spirit of ladder and need to correct said action. As I've noted in the ladder admin thread, while warnings are not required, they are given more often than not before a ban issued.

Let's assume for hypothetical sake that we can stretch Rule 12 to cover this, and in my mind that's a huge stretch, would this not be something that considers a warning? Or is it on the same line as throwing a game via showboating requiring an immediate ban?

Within this, I of course make the assumption of the small impact of this action. The same way you make the assumption that all chat after spec chat has been called is a "minor effect on player experience." However, the difference is clear: you have no idea what the 12 players are thinking; it could have a huge impact on their focus. Maybe not to you, but everyone is different. HOWEVER, the vote alone showed that 70% were perfectly acceptable with the map choice (whether because they wanted it or didn't care), while only 30% max would actually consider it a "large impact" on their playing experience. Realistically probably less, but even as max, 30% vs. 100%. So, again, while I admit I am making assumptions here as much as you, I dare say I have a bit more concrete data to back up my point. So no, it's not infinitely worse. In fact, it's potentially over 3x smaller of an offense on player experience.

To respond to your final point, every admin has their own style on how strict/lenient they choose to be. Some might ban on first spec chat broken, others let obvious bigotry/racism slide. But, this isn't a democracy nor are these rules set in stone per se. Admins have discretion. That being said, if you break the rules, you have to expect the full consequences of said action. For a real world example, it's like jaywalking. You can't jaywalk in the United States. It's against the law. But it's only, dare I say, slightly enforced to the full extent, and more often that not you'll get a verbal warning if anything. Back to ladder, in all fairness, I'd actually argue that the rules and enforcement are less strict than they should be, not more.

So going back to me again, to the hypothetical, if I apply the same thing to myself as I do to other players, more often than not I'd give myself a warning first. And since I did not do it the rest of the night, that is that.

But again, that goes back to the hypothetical, and since it's a catch-all admin discretion rule as it is, and I feel that it's not a violation of Rule 12, then I wouldn't even warn myself or even another admin if they did it once or twice in a night. So by my standards, which based on my past bans and ban-ees(?) is pretty strict, I wouldn't even ban myself as another admin.

In conclusion, you fail to form a conclusive or strong argument that supports why I should be banned, and the evidence you give is emotionally-driven and lacks any concrete proof to back up such a demand.

[Kafka]

Soc if you ever write a manifesto, I'll be the first to read it

[some poor soul]

i think we should remove all maps except doodle from the ladder pool

[Slender]

Originally Posted by some poor soul

i think we should remove all maps except doodle from the ladder pool

I agree with the man right here, since Maze is included there. You all lost the $50 paypal I was offering!

[drunkguava]

soccer has been banned from ladder until further notice

[TheLastPhonePhreak]

soccer you missed my point. i get that forcing a map can be the appropriate thing to in certain instances do but this was not the time or map to do it with. the force didn't seem necessary by any means at the time and why not just force random instead of forcing doodle? And just because it could have came up on a start random doesn't mean that the voting system should be ignored; one of its main purposes is to protect against disliked/controversial (for the lack of a better term) maps like doodle. As a player in that match it seemed like you were just being a troll, you even lol'd in response to hearing that 3venge was mad. while i think rule 12 is a joke i don't see how arbitrarily forcing, of all maps, doodle, fails to violate it.

[soccernamlak]

Originally Posted by TheLastPhonePhreak

soccer you missed my point. i get that forcing a map can be the appropriate thing to in certain instances do but this was not the time or map to do it with. the force didn't seem necessary by any means at the time and why not just force random instead of forcing doodle? And just because it could have came up on a start random doesn't mean that the voting system should be ignored; one of its main purposes is to protect against disliked/controversial (for the lack of a better term) maps like doodle. As a player in that match it seemed like you were just being a troll, you even lol'd in response to hearing that 3venge was mad. while i think rule 12 is a joke i don't see how arbitrarily forcing, of all maps, doodle, fails to violate it.

Interestingly, I think you missed some of my points as well. Regardless, I'll address your new concerns.

Regarding the force not being necessary. Of course it wasn't necessary. Neither is using server chat 90% of the time that it is used by admin. Neither is adding in bad maps to the map pool. But we do it anyway because it gets a laugh. Or because it is fun to "abuse" admin powers. Or to poke fun at maps and or players. Us admins are all still human playing a 2d shooter. It's not like we suddenly turn off fun mode and go 100% serious by the letter of the law after promotion. So on a scale of no damage to the ladder ecosystem to pissing off every Altitude ladder player ever, I'd say this ranks pretty low. Which goes back to my point with 3V about how this is being blown out of proportion for what it actually was. A map got started that most people wanted. It's a crappy long game map. Everyone knows that it was just put in rotation for fun or trolling. That's it. Nothin more nothing less. Why this suddenly necessitates me responding to bull**** claims and bans on admins I really have no idea.

Regarding laughing when I heard 3V was mad, yes I did. Because to me, again, the response was completely unexpected and disproportional to what happened. I won't make a bad analogy here, but suffice to say I thought the outburst, especially from 3V, was completely against his or even the majority of player's behavior in general.

Regarding Rule 12, it's far from a joke. It's a necessity as we can't or won't write out every single little infraction that can cause you to get warned or banned in ladder. It's in place so people can't skirt around the other 12 rules and then claim that we were unjust after they got banned, because hey it wasn't in the rules. With Rule 12 we allow future flexibility of bankable offenses and a reduction in the amount of headaches we have to deal with. Plus some things like playing 1dm in Ball is not covered in the other 12 rules.

Also I won't hash it out again, but I believe I was quite clear on why I believe this doesn't violate Rule 12.

[soccernamlak]

Originally Posted by Kafka

Soc if you ever write a manifesto, I'll be the first to read it

Indeed, because even I wouldn't read it :P

Originally Posted by drunkguava

soccer has been banned from ladder until further notice

Good; now you can pick up on banning for once slacker.

[Tekn0]

guabaaaa...

Now slightly off-topic;

The next altitude patch should prevent voting in the results screen. It's just bloody annoying.

[Aki1024]

Originally Posted by Tekn0

The next altitude patch should prevent voting in the results screen. It's just bloody annoying.

That isn't Karlam's code to prevent that. That is ladder's code.

[Threevenge]

I was debating whether or not to add anything more to the conversation, but I will just make a brief wrap-up. As I told soccer with PMs in Altitude I did come off as more aggressive than I needed to, I was in a competitive focus due to a small slump and his decision to force start a map at that exact moment was unfortunate timing. I am a bit irked with a few parts in his response but probably deserved and also not worth blowing this up any further. Consider it closed.