Ladder Site Online...

[WhiteMage]

Nelson,
This is an outstanding catch. Prime example of multiple accounts and owner not even admitting it (unlike Leocrotta). So do admins ban both Cremember and Horde_King now, and Dauntless too, since why would they get different treatment than Leocrotta? As painful as it sounds this ladder has become corrupted beyond repair. A new ladder has become necessary. Using my outlined ideas earlier, others are welcome to contribute with refinement and more ideas. Those who prefer to continue to play the corrupted version may stay. Maybe even restoring all dupe accounts and all blocked players. At this point I have to question the validity of all Elo points reported, since the bias is so huge with thousands of rule breaking games already integrated into the Elo system. Dupe accounts accidentally popping up here and there, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. If the problem with the new ladder is the lack of a developer then perhaps we should advertise more for that on Wesnoth or please come forward and volunteer. We may give a chance to an enthusiast, who can change existing code (which does not sound so extensive to me). At some point I may be interested in looking at it myself as I developed several computer games before, but I admit that I did not spend much time on PHP and MySQL.

[Velensk]

Let's not look too carefully at #4 now....the entire top 5 might just be declared corrupt!

What I actually came here to say is unrelated to this current discussion (but relevant to the ladder) - that folks on the other forum should check out the map threads we've opened and share their thoughts.

By the way, I'd like to put Crescent Lake back in it. I have submitted my most recent version to the main thread. I think with the recent nerfs to cavalry one of the biggest problems it had will be substantially less of an issue though drake pushes on the second day are still something I'm a touch worried about.

[ElvenKing]

True enough, I probably would have left it at my last comment if he hadn't specifically asked me a question. Since I'm talking again though I'll add something else.

Personally, I cannot comprehend why anyone would have a problem playing non-ladder games if the point of the point of the ladder is to find skilled opponents. Once you've found them you should be fine just playing them even if you are not feeling like you're in top shape to compete and it's generally nice to know that it is them rather than ignoring an alias you were not aware of.

Of course if you regard the purpose of the ladder is to be a hyper competitive then I can see why you might rather that all games be ranked but in that event it seems like that would generate other reasons why having a second account is bad.

I like to play skilled opponents just as much as any ladder player (though I don't get frustrated by inept ones very easily unless they're on my team. As a result skilled players who are unwilling to play outside of ladder are an annoyance. It's even more annoying to know that they are actually quite willing to play games that are not for 'real ranking' but these games have to be on the ladder anyways.

The problem, at least I would say, is that there may be problems in playing a skilled opponent because they want to play ladder. It is all well and good to suggest that someone should play a non-ladder if they do not want to play seriously, but if all the potential opponents want to play ladder, one cannot not exactly get a game. Your analysis fails to take in to account that one player may be in a competitive mindset on the day while another is not.

[Velensk]

And so playing with an account which will give them less points when/if they win is a fair compromise, and which will not drag down the account which they are likely attempting to exceed anyway?

I'm done discussing this. I've already said everything I have to say (I think). I don't play ladder and I didn't even originally intend to get pulled into this (for much of this I've been checking around hoping to get new feedback on my campaign). I will stick by my opinion that use of multiple accounts is either mostly pointless or against the principles which appear to be the purpose of ladder to me but ultimately I have no real reason to complain if other people choose to interpret the purposes differently especially when my opinion on the purpose is a large part of the reason I don't participate.

[Insinuator]

Wow. I truly can not believe this.

I joined the Ladder about 4 months ago in an attempt to find players at my skill level. This flys in the face of that goal. I've watched the Ladder carefully and even began investing some pride in my status. I enjoy playing against challenging opponents and even losing to them. I enjoy watching my status change on the Ladder too. To find out that many of the top players have created multiple "dummy" accounts is horrible! But that's not the worst part!

What I really can't believe is the justification of it all! At the most basic level, when you join the Ladder, you agree to abide by the rules. The rules CLEARLY state you can only have one account. By breaking that rule, you're not just cheating at a game, you're breaking trust! I've trusted that every player I've competed against had an accurate elo rating, that I could base my skill against theirs. By cheating in this manner, no one can really be sure if they face an equal opponent.

But now prominent members of the Wesnoth community are stepping forward and DEFENDING CHEATERS, LIARS, and COWARDS! This has nothing to do with a stupid game! It has to do with the moral degeneration of the players here who would so casually cheat! I am ashamed to even associate myself with the Ladder anymore when such a prevalence of characters exist.

And to address those who think that multiple accounts aren't that bad: Fine. Then change the rules and make it clear that people will have them. Openly admit that those who are too afraid to lose their STATUS can make multiple accounts. Aside from accident, that really is the only reason to have another account. This is not a gray area right now.

[Faello]

The answer why ppl are playing under alias accounts is because they want a quality game, yet they don't want to risk their precious ranking position and this leads precisely to this situation. I don't buy the argument that "it's easier to get a quality opponent on ladder". If you want to play a quality, friendly 1vs1, you will play it.

Making excuses is just making excuses...

[tekelili]

But now prominent members of the Wesnoth community are stepping forward and DEFENDING CHEATERS, LIARS, and COWARDS! This has nothing to do with a stupid game! It has to do with the moral degeneration of the players here who would so casually cheat! I am ashamed to even associate myself with the Ladder anymore when such a prevalence of characters exist.

.

This is why I didnt create a 2nd account even when I was advised for a top ladder player that was a common behavior

I am against punish players that did it in past, but I also think is sad that those players didnt even think they were damaging ladder. It is pretty clear some ladders players feel treachered. Trust is something very fragile, and ladder need trust to work. Now we can lose players that wont ever trust ladder, and all players that created allias are enouth inteligent that they should have imagined this could happen.

No matter if you dont care your wife go to bed with lot of men, what cares is: "she would becomed damage if I do?"

[nebula955]

Can we stop making up these imaginary "damages" done to the ladder? Perhaps you can say that nani revealing the fact was damaging, but the fact that he aliased as Demo has clearly brought only positive impacts for the ladder in that another top player ended up playing more games on the Ladder as a result. If you disagree, please state actual negative impacts rather than theoretical ones that you're conjecturing. And no, the fact that it breaks a rule is not of itself a negative impact, as have already been explained.

[tekelili]

Can we stop making up these imaginary "damages" done to the ladder? Perhaps you can say that nani revealing the fact was damaging, but the fact that he aliased as Demo has clearly brought only positive impacts for the ladder in that another top player ended up playing more games on the Ladder as a result. If you disagree, please state actual negative impacts rather than theoretical ones that you're conjecturing. And no, the fact that it breaks a rule is not of itself a negative impact, as have already been explained.

I quit. Please Rigor, if it is possible, delete my ladder account.

[Scatha]

I haven't played nearly as much on the ladder as some of you, but I still thought I'd chip in.

(I'll note that this is my only account.)

To my mind Oook has made the most sense in this discussion. It seems to me that having multiple accounts bring various advantages, and also the distinct disadvantage that as it's against ladder rules some people feel betrayed by this. As it's a behaviour which will apparently be pursued by some valued members of the community even when 'disallowed', it seems fairly obvious to me that the best solution in terms of making the community more open and friendly, and more enjoyable to play in, would be to change the ladder rules to permit multiple accounts (but still disallow their abuse).

e.g. suggested rule: You may have more than one account on the ladder for different purposes. However if this is the case you may not play any of your accounts against each other, nor may you engage in any deliberate rating manipulation.

I'd love it if additionally people were encouraged (but not required) to explain which accounts were aliases for the same person, and what the purpose of each account was. Ideally there could be a small 'profile' section for each account where you could record a bit of information to make it publicly accessible (e.g. Demogorgon might say "This is an alias of Leocrotta for when I can't focus entirely on the game.").

[Quetzalcoatl]

I agree with anything that nebula955 said so far. Still its unbelievable that somebody thought that having open registrations and this little message: 'You can have only one account on ladder' is so incredibly lame . Cmon is this for real ? Anybody even thought it may work ? This makes discussion about whole topic pointless .

Btw: if you want to have one account per player you should try to beg I guess. You know put message like (next to register button): 'plz plz plz dont do this to us have only one account plz'. Maybe this will work as otherwise you cant expect anything more than you already have on ur ladder, and sry but banning nani was just an epic fail .

Anyways when it comes to deletion of ladder accounts that cant be done easily without messing whole ladder database so it isnt possible as _this_ would rly hurt ladder . Still if someone is going to do that pls delete my account also .

Cheers
Q

[Oook]

Nani, very sad news that you're stepping back from Wesnoth - we'll miss you! My earliest MP memories are playing isar's against you, way back before ladder days. MP won't be the same without you... Take care, and look forward to seeing you around whenever you're on

Velensk: I think two arguments were getting confused there. I was simply clarifying that having games split between two accounts would still lead to accurate elo transfer for people playing either. As to whether the splitting the ranking in this way leads to accurate *rankings* (not ratings), and should be shown in this way by the ladder, I can see where you're coming from, even if I don't agree. I'm happy to leave that line be (or continue via private message if you prefer). As to why people keep responding to you, my guess is because you generally have interesting opinions you've clearly put some thought into, so it's worth the time debating with you

Now, in response to Whitemage and Insinuator:

At this point I have to question the validity of all Elo points reported, since the bias is so huge with thousands of rule breaking games already integrated into the Elo system.

I've trusted that every player I've competed against had an accurate elo rating, that I could base my skill against theirs. By cheating in this manner, no one can really be sure if they face an equal opponent.

Did either of you actually read any of the posts where TBS, Dauntless and myself have explained (several times now) why having multiple aliases will not mess up elo ratings. The only undue effect on elo is a brief time when the rank is moving up (which is no different to a new player joining, so such effects are normal), or if the player deliberately loses some games to reduce the rank of one account (which no one is suggesting any ladder player has done). Unless you can refute our analysis, you need to stop claiming that aliases have screwed up people's elo.

At the moment, you're still arguing that elo rankings will be changed beyond repair and that an accounts rating won't match the skill with which it's played. This gives me the impression you don't really understand how the rating system works, or how it is affected by aliases.

The reason this is so important is I think it gives a clue as to why you're getting so worked up about some players having aliases, despite it currently being against the ladder rules. Are you angry because you felt people were gaining unfair advantages over you / others by their actions, or (as Insinuator claims), simply the fact that someone broke a rule that was part of the ladder signup? It would be helpful if you could clarify your views on each of these.

I'll look first at the latter: If the action was against the rules, but caused no (or negligible) harm, is it terrible that someone disregarded that rule? There are plenty of rules (read: laws, social conventions, rules in schools etc) that people readily ignore when they are inconvenient, and ignoring them causes no harm. Examples include: jaywalking when you can clearly see far enough in all directions that there are no cars, talking in a library when you are the only people there, and so on. Of course, some people might be offended by this, but society in general has decided these things are acceptable, and usually no action is taken.

This is because society recognises that rules are there to deal with potential problems, not for the sake of having rules. So most people only bother to enforce (or care about) rules that still make a practical difference. If a rule is not effective, or has become obsolete, it is ignored, even if it takes a while for the rulebook to get updated. If there was a rule saying you had to wear a blue hat while playing ladder games (and that was in the rules that everyone signed up to), would you feel shocked and offended to learn that some players broke that rule? If not, then you're actually arguing that aliases have damaged the ladder.

If you are claiming that this offends you, have you never broken or ignored any rule because it simplified things and did not cause any harm? If you haven't, then that puts you in a small minority at odds with most of society, and so I'm afraid you'll have to accept that you views will not be enforced.

So, let's look at the argument that people feel aliases have damaged the ladder, regardless of rules for / against. As I mentioned above, TBS, Dauntless and myself have demonstrated why other players will still be getting fair elo odds when playing against a settled second account. So there is no disadvantage to other players in terms of getting points. The main account does not directly benefit from the secondary account - nani got Leo to 2400 points by winning a lot of high level games with that account, not by any tricks.

Nani was not 'protecting' the Leo account. The games played by Demo were not ones that would have been played by Leo. They were games that otherwise would not have been played on the ladder. Thus having Demo there meant a net gain in utility for the ladder, since it added quality games to the list, and quality rating calibration.

So I think it's very unfair to call nani a cheat over this. He did not gain any unfair advantage from his actions, nor did he seek to. His sportsmanship in general is far better than most players with only one account. Insinuator in particular: given you told Gallifax that he takes his games too seriously, it's odd to see you taking the rules of the ladder (designed to facilitate fun, competitive play, which nani greatly contributed to), so seriously. Sure, Wesnoth is just a game, but the ladder is just a meta game. There is nothing real at stake, no prizes, no money. So why the huge difference in attitude?

With regards to conduct, trust etc: I really think that the spirit of the rules is far more important than the exact wording here. I trust the top players to not cheat in their games, and not use second accounts to boost their ratings or to sandbag to reduce others. I trust them to play games in the right spirit - most top players will offer a reload for misclicks before any combat has taken place, they'll not enforce petty '5 min gone and you auto lose' rules, etc. This is good conduct, that earns trust. On the other hand, I have come across people who stick to the rules very rigidly, but have very poor conduct - claiming wins on technicalities, refusing breaks in play etc. I have a lot more trust in the good conduct of the first group - I will trust them not to break any of the current rules in a way that damages the game.

I'm in favour of Scatha's proposed rule change, btw. Now this discussion has started, it makes sense to make a change if the majority of ladder players are in favour. From this thread, I get the impression that most are, certainly amongst the stronger players.

[Velensk]

Gah, just can't leave it alone.

I do not regard it as purposeful to debate with me nor do I enjoy it much. I explain my thoughts and then when they try to explain back my opinion isn't changed and since I don't seem to have gotten my point across I end up re-explaining it a different way. This repeats until one side gets sick of it.

I do not believe that any of the people mentioned have second accounts for the purpose of cheating. I do however believe that regardless the intent of use or the extent of damage that having a second account is cheating and that they are in no way obligated to do it to enjoy the game properly. It is the kind of breach in integrity that is so small that you can justify it all day long because it seems so small as to be insignificant but which when allowed to become commonplace does weaken the system especially if it comes with the lax enforcement of some of the nastier things one could do with these discrepancies come with it. A person pirating music might say "Well I'm not hurting the music industry any because I wouldn't buy this if I couldn't get it for free so they get the same amount of money either way" which might be true but it still does not change the fact that he is taking something for nothing, which did not take nothing to create, which the creator may not have been alright with him having and the creator (or in many cases the distributor) have rights and an important role to the system as well. People are no more entitled to a second Wesnoth account for when they don't feel like risking their points (and if not risking their points isn't the purpose then why not play all the games on the main account anyway?) than that person is to the music as both are against the rules that have been made. The ladder only allows you one account as a rule and there are a number of good reasons for this from slight discrepancies in ELO caused by idiotic things like wins against a player counting differently based on which account they're using, to more severe abuses, to simple confusion over needless complexity, to the fact that it is important if you want accurate information that everyone uses the same set of rules. Should a player who plays on only one account including all of his non-compeditive or bad days be punished in ranking against an equally skilled player who shuffles his loses onto a secondary account when he's not feeling serious when it is the first player who is following the stated rules? I think not.

Most of the advantages mentioned for using multiple accounts could be duplicated in a much simpler fashion by ladder players having the simple courtesy and sportsmanship to be willing to play non-ladder games when asked.

Alternatively you could rewrite the rules to allows multiple accounts and attempt to regulate it, maybe even putting casual alts in a different league or something but this seems like it would take a lot more effort for very little gain over the system we have now.

[Scatha]

Alternatively you could rewrite the rules to allows multiple accounts and attempt to regulate it, maybe even putting casual alts in a different league or something but this seems like it would take a lot more effort for very little gain over the system we have now.

I'll join the crowd discussing it directly with you, since you seem to want to find a rational answer to this.

It seems to me that in saying there would be "very little gain" you are really comparing it to how you think the system we have now ought ideally to be used. As it happens, I agree with you about the ideal way of using the current system, and that if it were used like that there would be little gain to changing (still some advantages and some disadvantages; I don't know which are larger).

However we have empirical evidence that the current system is not used as you hope it should be; moreover that this divergence is not due just to an isolated person, but to several of the people who help make the community friendly and worthwhile. My claim is that changing the rules to allow this behaviour that already occurs would make the ladder a friendlier place generally, as well (probably) as increasing respect for the other rules. I think that this would be a large gain over the current system as it is actually used.

Am I misinterpreting you? Do you disagree with that last claim of mine?

Best,
Scatha

[Velensk]

Such is my idealism that I would rather attempt to enforce the ideal system as it should be used than abandon it because it cannot be enforced properly despite realizing this.