Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)» Forums » Play By Forum

Subject: Cheating on the Waitlist? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Anton Chukhnov
Russia
Saint-Petersburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
May I asked you the question, guys - if someone adds himself in the middle of the Waitlist to be closer to his friend he wants to play with, is it cheating or not?

Shouldn't they both go together to the bottom if they want to play together?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ru
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
In my opinion, it's simple: when you join a queue, you join at the end, not halfway, regardless of who may be waiting there. Same applies to the waitlist.

If you really want to play together, let the friend halfway join you at the end of the waitlist. An easier option may be to start your own game with an external moderator, allowing you both to play together instantly.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Evans
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
www.evanswhanau.co.nz
badge
...um, not really.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or find some other friends, and just create a game off list.

But, never, never, push into a queue.

Who knows what might happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Thisisnotmylastname
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think the other person should get bumped, but it is DEFINITELY unfair to join the middle of the waitlist just because you want to play with your friend.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Woodham
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Anton is talking about my friend, who added himself next to me so he could play. However, he's enormously dropping the context, not to mention providing misinformation (I hope mistakenly).

When my friend added himself next to my position, we were...

A) Both much closer to the bottom than we are now. After Anton deleted him from the list, he rejoined many days later when I had progressed to the halfway point of the list.

B) Signed up for the Dances with Dances !only! variant, which would make placement nearly irrelevant anyway considering how close we were to the bottom when he added himself originally.

But because the rules did not specifically mention this possibility, my friend took the time and effort to contact the original administrator for instructions on what he should do to ensure that he would be in my next game. Unfortunately, this original administrator appears to now be inactive. After receiving a deletion email from Anton, he forwarded the message he had sent earlier to both me and Anton. I am happy to forward the email my friend sent as evidence.

Since my friend had no idea how much ground he had lost at this point due to the mis-communication, he added himself next to my spot, which was not far away from where the bottom of the list was the last time he added himself.

So the issue is clearly not what Anton claims it is- whether somebody should be able to climb halfway up the vanilla list.

Instead, the two issues that need to be resolved are:

1) What system should be set up to allow players who want to play in the next game together?

2) How does my friend reclaim his original place after he has been deleted?

Here are a few thoughts on the two.

For #1, the idea that I should have to drop to the bottom of a waitlist doesn't seem fair, since it punishes me from having any choice regarding future games.

The only problem with splitting the two people is that it can create busywork and coordination mistakes by mods. However, this is the most viable of the options I can think of so far.

The third option is to move the bottom player to the top player's spot. However, this can be an issue if allowed to be the norm, due to the race to the bottom (top) effect.

As for #2, we fortunately have the wiki page that lets us look at past edits. However, I certainly have no time or responsibility to look through that, and neither does my friend. If anyone should look through it to reclaim my friend's proper spot, it should be Anton, because he shot first and asked questions later by deleting my friend from the list before sending a warning message.

If we had a moderator for this thread, that would be nice. My friend has, as I stated above, been unable to contact the original moderator and is trying to find some way to figure out what it is he needs to do to ensure that he plays with me in his next game.

Let the discussion commence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Thisisnotmylastname
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you want to play a game together, but are at different places on the waitlist, you have 3 options

A) Once one of you gets to the top, wait for the other
B) One of you can start a game as a playing moderator, I would be happy to be external mod for you guys
C) Move the TOP player to beside the BOTTOM player.

Regardless of the situation, a player should never be added into the middle of the waitlist, no matter what preferences were listed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Thisisnotmylastname
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter099 wrote:

When my friend added himself next to my position, we were...

A) Both much closer to the bottom than we are now. After Anton deleted him from the list, he rejoined many days later when I had progressed to the halfway point of the list.

B) Signed up for the Dances with Dances !only! variant, which would make placement nearly irrelevant anyway considering how close we were to the bottom when he added himself originally.

But because the rules did not specifically mention this possibility, my friend took the time and effort to contact the original administrator for instructions on what he should do to ensure that he would be in my next game. Unfortunately, this original administrator appears to now be inactive. After receiving a deletion email from Anton, he forwarded the message he had sent earlier to both me and Anton. I am happy to forward the email my friend sent as evidence.


Also, it says in the forum rules to add yourself to the bottom.
When you are in line at a restaurant, you don't get in the middle of the line, so what's the difference here?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Dave
msg tools
I would vote to abandon the waitlist as it is and instead start a "players volunteering to external mod"-list (a simple thread may be sufficient for that purpose).

Then, everybody who wants to play a game, should start a game. The first 5 people joining that thread play in that game. You only need an external mod (from afore mentioned list/thread) and you are ready to go.

I dislike the waitlist. It is just a huge monstrosity nobody is really responsible for and is hard to handle and maintain.

Has nothing to do with this thread's topic, I guess :D
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Woodham
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
angryelf97 wrote:
If you want to play a game together, but are at different places on the waitlist, you have 3 options

A) Once one of you gets to the top, wait for the other
B) One of you can start a game as a playing moderator, I would be happy to be external mod for you guys
C) Move the TOP player to beside the BOTTOM player.


Option A isn't valid, because passing on a game is a strike against you. Option B is good, unless you don't have the time and interest in being a moderator.

Option C suffers from problems inherent in the waitlist. Since it takes a couple of months to get through the waitlist, schedules may change and the friend you wanted to play with can be too busy for the game. Also, an excellent game may present itself as an opportunity in the meantime, and if you were higher in the list you would have the flexibility to take that option and not play with your friend that time around. A mixture of the two above reasons could also occur. It's also not currently doable in the present situation without extra work thanks to the problem #2 I mentioned.

angryelf97 wrote:

Also, it says in the forum rules to add yourself to the bottom.
When you are in line at a restaurant, you don't get in the middle of the line, so what's the difference here?


I mostly agree, but the difference is that my friend and I are int he same party. When you stand in line to purchase tickets at Disneyworld, somebody grabs a place in line while the other person finds parking. That would be the rationale for tying your "party" to your spot in line. It's the concept of a placeholder; I would be punished by having to drop down in positions, despite arriving to the line before the people I have to drop behind.

Regardless, that's not what my friend did, since he specifically contacted the original creator of the list to ask what he should do, while tying himself next to me so that he could be easily identified. Please carefully re-read my post and base assertions on the facts of the case, not the OP's arbitrary assertions.

dave42 wrote:
I would vote to abandon the waitlist as it is and instead start a "players volunteering to external mod"-list (a simple thread may be sufficient for that purpose).

Then, everybody who wants to play a game, should start a game. The first 5 people joining that thread play in that game. You only need an external mod (from afore mentioned list/thread) and you are ready to go.

I dislike the waitlist. It is just a huge monstrosity nobody is really responsible for and is hard to handle and maintain.


I agree. There is no easy way for people to play together without being penalized by the system's rules.

More discussion, please.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Woodham
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
An update:

To resolve the current issue, I have added my friend to the spot he should be at based on the date he originally added himself and received no answer from the creator of the list on what to do. This should be in line with the consensus thus far that players intent on playing in the same game should add themselves to the bottom of the list and the players higher in the list should simply wait until the lower player reaches their position.

Unless there is a change in this policy, I think this is a fair solution, especially considering that my friend has shown good intentions by contacting the moderators on the day he added himself, but to no avail.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Thisisnotmylastname
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter099 wrote:
angryelf97 wrote:
If you want to play a game together, but are at different places on the waitlist, you have 3 options

A) Once one of you gets to the top, wait for the other
B) One of you can start a game as a playing moderator, I would be happy to be external mod for you guys
C) Move the TOP player to beside the BOTTOM player.


Option A isn't valid, because passing on a game is a strike against you.


Passing a game is not a strike against you.
You are allowed to decline a game. You only get a strike if you ignore the invite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Thisisnotmylastname
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dave42 wrote:
I would vote to abandon the waitlist as it is and instead start a "players volunteering to external mod"-list (a simple thread may be sufficient for that purpose).

Then, everybody who wants to play a game, should start a game. The first 5 people joining that thread play in that game. You only need an external mod (from afore mentioned list/thread) and you are ready to go.

I dislike the waitlist. It is just a huge monstrosity nobody is really responsible for and is hard to handle and maintain.

Has nothing to do with this thread's topic, I guess


You don't have to join the waitlist. You can make your own game as mod (or playing mod) and invite random people, ignoring the waitlist if you want to.

The waitlist is good, because it keeps the number of games per player more balanced.
For example, if you had someone who logged in all the time, he would get more games then the rest of us.

I understand complaints about how slow the waitlist is, and that it SUCKS waiting forever to get to the top. The only suggestion I have for this is to start a game as mod, and that will get 6 players ahead of you out of the way.

I know you have said you don't have the time to be a playing mod or a mod, in which case you should try to be active in the forum, look if anyone ever needs a replacement, in which case, jump right in, you will get bumped to the top, and then get the game of your choice.

Good luck
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex WolfandDragon
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
dave42 wrote:
I would vote to abandon the waitlist as it is and instead start a "players volunteering to external mod"-list (a simple thread may be sufficient for that purpose).

Then, everybody who wants to play a game, should start a game. The first 5 people joining that thread play in that game. You only need an external mod (from afore mentioned list/thread) and you are ready to go.

I dislike the waitlist. It is just a huge monstrosity nobody is really responsible for and is hard to handle and maintain.

Has nothing to do with this thread's topic, I guess

I'd like to jump in on this. In my opinion, the problem is not the waitlist by itself but instead the extreme discrepancy between players who simply want to play and those who like to act as mod. Given a standard 2nd ed. game one mod can make six players happy, but the ratio is much, much worse which leads to the current situation (please take this conclusion with a grain of salt as I am rather new myself).
It would indeed be much, much easier if more people decided to mod, or in case they want to play, act as playing mod. Doing so in conjunction with the usage of the online-map which everyone can update results in only a bit more work for the playing mod. Of course you need an external mod as well, but that can be found rather easily.

So the real question is why there are so few mods. From my very limited experience, I must admit that modding is a real pleasure if the players act reasonable and responsible, perhaps even entertaining you by sharing their plans and thoughts with you. It is definitely no fun at all if you have to constantly nag people to pay attention that is their turn. It is neither fun if players fail to stick to the rules (which makes me ask myself sometimes if they even read them), from which the most important is the format in which orders / bids should be sent. Most mods I know serve as mods in multiple games (including myself), and in order to keep at least a bit of an overview we need that very precise topics (addionally, I use mail filters and read the messages as mails which makes the automated sorting even more important).

But again, that went a bit off-topic, so back to topic: As mod, I tend to exclude players who know each other from invitations to my games. Why? Well, it is an unfair advantage compared to people who do not know the others, even if they are not cooperating, simply due to the fact that both know each other well. What I would like to do though (and what I will do rather soon when Anton has updated his moderator's rating) is to start a team game where teams of two houses are pitted against each other. This would be an environment where I will gladly, heck even preferrably invite people who know each other and want to play together.

So, Robert, expect to hear from me rather soon
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.