[Rules] Redefinition of the farming rule

[Woodruff]

Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.
How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

I agree with what you say here, but I still maintain that it is irrelevant. If the rule has no teeth, no actual punishment, it is irrelevant. So someone is forced not to play newbies...does the player have any actual incentive NOT to play newbies? No...not that I can tell. As far as I can tell, this rule ENCOURAGES people to play newbies, because it formalizes that there is no actual punishment to the action. Yes, I am serious.

I can't say that I fully disagree with the sentiment. If I decided to start farming, then I would get a warning and a subsequent NR ban for the second time. It stops the farming, but I could have a real nice go of it first.

Exactly. You understand my point perfectly, I believe.

[natty dread]

We have a current situation where a very high-ranking player who has made a serious habit (19% of his games, I believe) of playing against ?s AND has joined games even at the explicit request of these players that he not join them.

We already have a foe function. If the new players don't know how to use it, then maybe the easiest, least restrictive solution would be to inform the new players on how to use the foe function?

[natty dread]

Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.
How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

I agree with what you say here, but I still maintain that it is irrelevant. If the rule has no teeth, no actual punishment, it is irrelevant. So someone is forced not to play newbies...does the player have any actual incentive NOT to play newbies? No...not that I can tell. As far as I can tell, this rule ENCOURAGES people to play newbies, because it formalizes that there is no actual punishment to the action. Yes, I am serious.

The problem is, that it's not always easy to determine whether someone is "farming" or just playing games that happen to have lots of NR:s. Since there's no clear treshold for how many NR:s you can play, nor is it really feasible to determine such a treshold; if there was a strict punishment for farming NR:s, this would result in more unfair judgements of those who may not necessarily be intentionally "farming".

[Woodruff]

Those rules have no actual teeth. There is no actual punishment for wrongdoing. It's akin to a bankrobber being caught and having the punishment be "you can no longer enter banks". Big flipping deal.

It can be more liberally used. And it already was used in the case that you spoke of earlier.
How many people are actually farming? Not a lot. There's a lot of people bogrolling and go after lower ranks. But not many actually farming.

I agree with what you say here, but I still maintain that it is irrelevant. If the rule has no teeth, no actual punishment, it is irrelevant. So someone is forced not to play newbies...does the player have any actual incentive NOT to play newbies? No...not that I can tell. As far as I can tell, this rule ENCOURAGES people to play newbies, because it formalizes that there is no actual punishment to the action. Yes, I am serious.

The problem is, that it's not always easy to determine whether someone is "farming" or just playing games that happen to have lots of NR:s.

Yet sometimes it absolutely is, particularly when invitations to NRs is happening. As Michael pointed out, sometimes intent really IS obvious. I believe I can speak for most when I say that we're primarily concerned about the plainly obvious cases...which there are enough of to make a point of it.

[BadgerJelly]

How about changing the "Scoring" system?
Seems to mean absolutely nothing so people cheating this system are doubly stupid

Also I do not understand why so many games start with Flatrate placement of 3 units on each territory? This generally causes luck to factor into the game play too much. Don't get me wrong Flatrate Placement is great sometimes but only in specific set ups.

[Woodruff]

How about changing the "Scoring" system?
Seems to mean absolutely nothing so people cheating this system are doubly stupid

Also I do not understand why so many games start with Flatrate placement of 3 units on each territory? This generally causes luck to factor into the game play too much. Don't get me wrong Flatrate Placement is great sometimes but only in specific set ups.

You can elect to play "Manual" setup games which do not start with 3 armies on each territory and you can place them where you want.

[BadgerJelly]

Yeah that takes for ever though. I'd rather be able to place 15 troops at the start and have all territories randomly assigned with 1 army on. Is that possible here?

[natty dread]

That's basically what manual is.

[Woodruff]

Yeah that takes for ever though.

No it doesn't.

I'd rather be able to place 15 troops at the start and have all territories randomly assigned with 1 army on. Is that possible here?

You just described what I was telling you about...manual deployment.

[Gillipig]

Not sure I agree with the foeing part! The other things sound valid but just think of the implications of proving someone has foed all the good players. You'd have to get testimony from lots and lots of good players at a certain map/setting that they're on his foe list.

[BadgerJelly]

Yeah that takes for ever though.

No it doesn't.

I'd rather be able to place 15 troops at the start and have all territories randomly assigned with 1 army on. Is that possible here?

You just described what I was telling you about...manual deployment.

Yeah sorry getting words crossed with another site

[Gen.LeeGettinhed]

notes:
-keep The Farming Rule basically as is -- purely related to taking advantage of unranked ? new recruits
-foster the grouping of other things as Ranching, etc. -- or NEAR-Farming, there are HUGE differences: or Farming in the second or third degree
-if you go after 1v1 ranchers, then before that, go after 3v3 and 4v4 that is even harder for lower ranks/lesser experience to win against

before you change ANY rule:
-FAIRLY take into account loser/winnerx20 pts that causes this behavior
-talk to LARGE sample of people that "have been taken advantage of", group by farming/ranching and type, etc. see how they REALLY feel, not how haters THINK they might feel
-talk to people that leave CC, see if it's due to farming/ranching (difference) or low access to RT games (that ranchers give them)
-check into and see how many PAID players played after being talked into it by farmer/ranchers sometimes they are talked into it -- you'll be surprised.
-think about making a Power rating IN ADDITION to score. changing Scoring now is like changing Basketball layups to 1 point after the fact.

Just a few thoughts shooting from the hip