New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Discussion about fairness-stuff. Advices of breach of rules and so on.

Moderators: systemmods, fairplaymods

Post Reply
team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by team fl » Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:11 pm

This thread is where you can discuss the New Fairplay Solution (NFS), state your opinion about it and make proposals. It will be open until Sunday, 22 January 2023.

Please keep in mind, that not every single proposition/opinion may be included in the NFS eventually. Anyway, we thank you in advance for your efforts.

For this discussion, the usual code of behaviour for this forum applies. If you want to discuss a certain aspect of the NFS, please indicate that clearly. Thanks!

- Link to the NFSC

- Link to the poll: tba
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Schnuggeritos
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:37 am
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Schnuggeritos » Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:43 pm

Hiho,

first of all, I would like to thank you for the presentation and effort you put into the NFS.

There is just one thing I'd like to point out. This is about the penalty system.
The following principles shall guide any decisions:
- Financial advantages gained from fair play breaches shall be reversed through a fine that exceeds the advantage gained.
- Advantages gained unfairly in a race shall be reversed through time penalties or IS/KOM penalties, if that is possible in a timely manner during a stage race. In extreme cases, palmarés entries can be revoked.
- Offensive language and technical cheating shall lead to fines and, in extreme cases, to bans.
- If fair play violations are repeated, or if a player honestly (believably) regrets his fair play violation, that shall be considered in the decision making.
In my opinion, there should be an overview of the possible penalties, including financial ones - depending on a level of severity.

If we are talking about financial benefits from an attack that was not in accordance with the rules, it is clear that the money gained from it will be taken away. The additional part of the penalty should at least be defined with a range and weighted more harshly depending on the severity of the case. There are different levels depending on the offence. eg. Level 1 = minor and Level 3 = major.
I was thinking of a percentage based on the sum of the current balance and the sales price of all the drivers in the team, so that it affects everyone in the same way. The current sales price can be found under Market -> Own Riders.

Because I haven't received any penalties yet, I can't say what will be confiscated if the rules are broken. This should therefore be discussed by a certain group.

lennylenny
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:22 am
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by lennylenny » Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:39 pm

Schnuggeritos wrote:
Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:43 pm
Hiho,

first of all, I would like to thank you for the presentation and effort you put into the NFS.

There is just one thing I'd like to point out. This is about the penalty system.
The following principles shall guide any decisions:
- Financial advantages gained from fair play breaches shall be reversed through a fine that exceeds the advantage gained.
- Advantages gained unfairly in a race shall be reversed through time penalties or IS/KOM penalties, if that is possible in a timely manner during a stage race. In extreme cases, palmarés entries can be revoked.
- Offensive language and technical cheating shall lead to fines and, in extreme cases, to bans.
- If fair play violations are repeated, or if a player honestly (believably) regrets his fair play violation, that shall be considered in the decision making.
In my opinion, there should be an overview of the possible penalties, including financial ones - depending on a level of severity.

If we are talking about financial benefits from an attack that was not in accordance with the rules, it is clear that the money gained from it will be taken away. The additional part of the penalty should at least be defined with a range and weighted more harshly depending on the severity of the case. There are different levels depending on the offence. eg. Level 1 = minor and Level 3 = major.
I was thinking of a percentage based on the sum of the current balance and the sales price of all the drivers in the team, so that it affects everyone in the same way. The current sales price can be found under Market -> Own Riders.

Because I haven't received any penalties yet, I can't say what will be confiscated if the rules are broken. This should therefore be discussed by a certain group.
I would like a system of fines as flat value (that is actually % of 20M) or same % of actual team value, whichever is higher as the base fine

If there is financial gains from illegal actions in a race i would propose a fine of race income (not profit) times x + base fine
Obviously also needs to consider further possible gains in tours which could be harder, i guess slight overestimation is fine here

If there is financial gains from obvious bug abuses fine of amount gaines tines x + base fine

All the x % of and times x depend on severity and type of violation

I would also suggest to double the x for every penalty of that type from the same team (so first time x1, second time x2, third time x4 and so on)

I also think warnings should have some well known consequences, i can think of two ways for that:
Option A: a warning is a times x multiplicator on all fines for that team
Option B: y warnings (probably 1 or 2 at max) without consequences, y+1 warning = 1 week ban, y+2 = 1 month ban, y+3 = 3 months, y+4 = permanent ban, circumvention of any temporary ban = permanent ban (obviously amount of escalations and duration of permanent bans can be adjusted)
Spelling mistakes are Special functions Like bugs that are functions of the game

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by team fl » Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:33 pm

Thanks for your input, Schnuggeritos and lennylenny. Penalty guidlines are indeed a thing we have to look on. Context of a case will be taken into account for sure when deciding about a fine or other consequences.
This should therefore be discussed by a certain group.
The guidelines will certainly be discussed internally by the FPC, once the NFS is adopted. But then again, the revised thing might be open for discussion in the community as well. Anyway, no matter in which direction it goes(short or long leash, absolute or relative fines, etc.), there should be a certain consistency.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Robyklebt » Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:20 am

Finally something moving...

But it's a bit complicated, when all really was needed common sense. Of course without the balancing act by Gipfel "we don't have a mandate" for this, but no worries about mandates about others stuff it would have been even easier. But of course even with him shooting himself and more importantly the game in the foot, all that was needed really was common sense. It's not only about fairplay, but about mandates, legitimization in general.
But Buhmann stated in 2016 regarding the transition from Flash to a new technology that “it is not little work. If we do it, we should combine it with some other changes in terms of graphic or/and playing. Otherwise, it is not very motivating just to translate it”.
Legimitiziation in general, which you clearly understand, but why "sneak it in" in a fairplay solution discussion? Just make it general. And no need for some indirect mandate from Buhmann either really. Straight talk beats weaseling each time.

The common sense argument is very short and concise, very un-RKL-like:

Past situations:

Buhmann owner+gamerunner. Leso helping sidekick.
Buhmann owner. Luques gamerunner with explicit mandates, no sidekick (big mistake)
Now:
Luques owner+holy trinity as gamerunners without clear mandate, beyond deflashifying the game.

Now after a few months the situation of the status quo the situation becomes clear: Luques is an absentee owner. That means that the gamerunners automatically get a mandate. They can run the game as they see fit. Main work still react, but also stuff like NC and FPC clearly part of their implicit mandate. And that includes new developments too (Mostly in the future due to the ongoing react work) Of course the average user will hope that they will run it in the same spirit as Buhmann but also Luques, that means keeping the community involved, getting ideas from the community, check with the community if anybody sees problems, has a better solution. While Buhmann and Luques of course still had the last say, took the final decisions. But that is the holy trinity's choice now, if they want to run it differently that's their prerogative. What shouldn't happen though is introducing something and only mention it in some race chats.... as already has happened sadly.

But common sense (sadly lacking in at least part of the trinity) says they are the game runners and don't really need votes, legitimation for every little thing.

But ok we have it for the FPC: Let's see what we can find to complain:
Note: As developers, we plan a long-term solution, in which team attacks are automatically detected and/or automatically resolved by the game’s km-by-km progress.
Who wrote this post? FL is not a developer. As for automatization, I see it as very super hyper mega low important. Or possibly not needed. Make players take responsability too some times. Team attack, don't just whine and whine, if the perpetrator doesn't react put a guy in tempo for the good of the game and fairness.

FPC work etc:
FPC Members have several rights (and duties) to enforce fairplay rules. They may open a fairplay thread, moderate a fairplay thread, propose a penalty and vote for a penalty. The game developers generally follow the FPC discussions and execute its decisions in the database. They also preserve the right to halt, postpone or veto a decision in the exceptional case that it cannot be implemented technically or poses problems for the game’s existence or further development.
Basically that means the holy trinity takes over the job from Leso/Luques? Pushing the final button and having veto right? The system doesn't change? IMO a good system actually, possibly see problems with 2 of the developers being members of the FPC too, the double role is a bit weird.
- Hearing: The FPC opens an ingame hearing for the involved parties in which they can give their opinion/view about the fairplay issue.
That's new right? So far was forum only. Correct?
- Decide about a fairplay case: As soon as possible, but within 7 days, a decision is made by the FPC internally and then communicated in the respective fair play thread.
While I see the point in making the whole thing faster than it used to be, I'm not completely sure if a hard deadline is always sensible/possible. Members on holiday that can't fulfill their duties, a complicated case...



What is missing in the mode of operation part is: (or maybe some other parts)
-FPC members keep the votes of other members internal, they don't divulge FPC discussions to others. An unnecessary rule you'd think, but since we had Gipfelstuermer going public with things he didn't agree with TWICE it's definitely necessary to write it down. Ok, now that he has 1/3 of the veto power as well maybe he'll get his way and won't feel the need to break the trust of his subordinates, oh sorry, colleagues anymore.
- FPC members are required to be active in the forum. In the old FPC you only ever heard from Gipfel, for the rest you never got any comments answers etc.
- Changing, re-appointment of members once a year? Like Luques I think tried to do for a while? Or when, how often, how? (Appointment by the holy trinity IMO makes sense)

Members: I could start objecting, but for the moment let it be....

Nice to see that FL has agreed to put laziness aside and accept an official role in the FPC! Had just written a long text why he should be in, but then realized he actually is.... good good!
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

User avatar
flockmastoR
Posts: 3112
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by flockmastoR » Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:27 pm

Basically that means the holy trinity takes over the job from Leso/Luques? Pushing the final button and having veto right? The system doesn't change? IMO a good system actually, possibly see problems with 2 of the developers being members of the FPC too, the double role is a bit weird.
About the 2 developers being members of the FPC: I see the double role also critical. From my side, I plan to be an active FPC member as long as it is necessary to reactivate it. I am totally fine with other active users replacing me in the near future.
- Hearing: The FPC opens an ingame hearing for the involved parties in which they can give their opinion/view about the fairplay issue.
That's new right? So far was forum only. Correct?
There is a new feature implemented by Alkworld. When a case is opened, all concerned teams are involved in the hearing and can discuss with each other AND all members of the FPC in a fairplay case chat. The FPC has a seperate chat to each case were a discussion about the case/possible fines are held and a voting system about a proposed solution is given. I think the in-game solution is good, because users that have no forum account (yet) can easily state their point with the FPC. So see it as an additional feature. If a user wants to open a FP case, the process is the same as before, he/she can open a thread in the Fairplay section of the forum to provide details of the case. A FPC member then opens the case internally. So both options are given: the whole community can discuss about the case in the forum, the involved teams can discuss in-game and the FPC can discuss in-game and decide and post the decision in the forum topic. I am not sure about what was the case before as I was not a member of the FPC for a long time. Earlier there was a case management/fine voting system in game but I don't think that there was a hearing for involved teams (pls correct me if I am wrong).
- Decide about a fairplay case: As soon as possible, but within 7 days, a decision is made by the FPC internally and then communicated in the respective fair play thread.
While I see the point in making the whole thing faster than it used to be, I'm not completely sure if a hard deadline is always sensible/possible. Members on holiday that can't fulfill their duties, a complicated case...
From my perspective, the FPC shall always be capable of acting within a week. That doesn't mean that every member has to be involved in every FP case discussion/voting but that a majority decision can also be executed if not all members are voting. That beeing said, a softer formulation would probably be beneficial.
-FPC members keep the votes of other members internal, they don't divulge FPC discussions to others.
Would make sense imo
- FPC members are required to be active in the forum. In the old FPC you only ever heard from Gipfel, for the rest you never got any comments answers etc.
From my perspective, they don't have to be active in the forum. At least one has to be active to communicate the decisions. But it is beneficial, if the members are active in the forum.
- Changing, re-appointment of members once a year? Like Luques I think tried to do for a while? Or when, how often, how?
How was it handles before, was there a fixed appointment to this? For the moment I would say, try to get 6 active members and get it started again. Replace inactive members with new ones. If a fixed term (or let's say a maximal concatenated period) is realistic why not, but like in the duration: is a hard deadline always sensible/possible?
Boaz Trakhtenbrot:
  • Winner Giro 2022
  • 10 GC wins
  • 16.609 Eternal Points
__________________
Schrödinger's Dogs: Alive & Dead

Chense
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Chense » Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:29 am

All in all its good that things are moving here!

I also agree with most of the concept just those points (that partly have also been mentioned already):

- Game developer as part of the comitee: Here i agree with AAD - Yes in the beginning until things are running. Later on i would replace them two through other players and just keep them in as readers but not able to take part in the discussion or the finding of a fine. Maybe as a back instance if a decision is appealed

- Rules for the FPC Members: Two important things have already been mentioned but i would also one thing. Every member commits himself to clearly state if he is personally involved in a case and therefor not able to find a neutral decision. In this case he shall not take part in the discussion and decision. (We had also that case before you know)

- Time guidelines and decision finding: In general yes its a good idea to try to make it fast and i think most decisions can be taken in such a time. But there might be more complicated cases and we should not try to force the comitee to find a decision then before everything is open. Remember some multi cases. If a decision had been taken there under time pressure maybe it would have been worse. Better give some possibility to overrule this guidelines by application (e.g. from the majority of comitee members).

- Penalty guidelines: I agree to not set a fixed penalty for everything and not to be to open about those guidelines to the public as cases might be so diverse. But i would like to have some very general guidelines open to all sth. like Multi = Ban, Gaining money by unfair behaviour = Profit + x to y% of team value, offensive language etc. is x to y% of team value (and yes i like that % of team value thing!) But make that span wide! Dont say e.g. 3-5% if indeed some special cases could lead to 2-6% -> Say 1 to 7% then to leave some scope!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by team fl » Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:16 am

Thanks for all the input. This thread will be closed until the adapted NFS will be presented.

In the meantime, a short collection of the brought up points / whishes (merged some points if redundant):

- Penalty Guidelines: Present a general overview for the public (not going into details though)

- Include the team value when giving financial fines

- FPC members secrecy clause

- FPC members should be active in the forum

- Replacement of FPC members periodically (?)

- Role of game developpers in the FPC should b restricted.

- FPC members stay back from a case if biased personally

- No time pressure for the FPC if a case is complicated
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Quick
Posts: 1462
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:55 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Quick » Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm

I would like others opinion on the chained attack team rule.

Currently on >=4 a teamattack is allowed everywhere in every circumstance.

This year at the tour(iirc) we had a fierce fight for yellow until the last stage between schartner and joy riders. Now on the last stage there was a unique attack by schartner. On an early 4 or 5 he attacked with his usual guy(knowing I was hanging with my green leader) with green intensity, so everyone was able to follow. He put his entire team there - joy did not. In the end I don't think he won the GC.

Now while that attack was perfectly fine under current rules, I thought about the intention behind the rule because what's the difference between 0 and 4?Was it because 4+ is more selective? Then attacking green there basically goes against it. Was the rule never adapted because it was invented when we only had red tempo? Or should that still be allowed?
J-Czucz hype train

User avatar
flockmastoR
Posts: 3112
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by flockmastoR » Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:09 pm

Quick wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:42 pm
I would like others opinion on the chained attack team rule.

Currently on >=4 a teamattack is allowed everywhere in every circumstance.

This year at the tour(iirc) we had a fierce fight for yellow until the last stage between schartner and joy riders. Now on the last stage there was a unique attack by schartner. On an early 4 or 5 he attacked with his usual guy(knowing I was hanging with my green leader) with green intensity, so everyone was able to follow. He put his entire team there - joy did not. In the end I don't think he won the GC.

Now while that attack was perfectly fine under current rules, I thought about the intention behind the rule because what's the difference between 0 and 4?Was it because 4+ is more selective? Then attacking green there basically goes against it. Was the rule never adapted because it was invented when we only had red tempo? Or should that still be allowed?
Good point (which in my opinion should be a bigger discussion seperately from the NFS)

We should probably start a discussion about what the rules are made for, if they work the way they were planned for also considering changes of the game since the last adaption of the rule.

Apart from the "being selective" intention (don't know), the rule itself allows groups with 9x riders from 1 team + 1x rider from 3 different other teams and that is pretty dump in my eyes.

Can remember another situation were I was in a race (sitting) with Hansa were we long discussed about the " end up in the same group." part of rule 2 as well. Cannot fully remember but I accused Hansa of a team attack there (Which I still think it was regarding the intention of the rule)
Boaz Trakhtenbrot:
  • Winner Giro 2022
  • 10 GC wins
  • 16.609 Eternal Points
__________________
Schrödinger's Dogs: Alive & Dead

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Robyklebt » Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:15 pm

Little change of topic, even if the one you were discussing is clearly more important than my contribution.
- Voting amongst FPC member: Each FPC member has the duty to vote for a proposal. A proposal that gets the majority of votes will be the preliminary judgement. The result of the vote will not be made public.
Funny. How the bloody fuck are you going to tell anybody if he/her has to pay a fine or not? By not making the result of the vote public, you keep the result secret, the result being the judgement.. .so you're not going to implement the judgement? Or are going to, but without telling anybody? Ok ok, I think I know how it's meant.... not divulging internal information, (at least I hope that's that sadly necessary addition) but the word juggling wasn't at its best in this instance.


To AAD: About the double role before: In the end it's not different than Leso's role before, the one thing that sort of makes me find this weirder than the leso case is that you are 2. Out of 3... So if you are in agreement, you can basically reverse a decision (like leso) by cancelling out Alk's opinion. Just that is somewhat werid, even if it's not really weirder than leso alone having the power to overrule, just feels stranger because you are 3, and 2 are doubled. But no need for any action at all on that thing.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by team fl » Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:01 pm

Robyklebt wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:15 pm
Little change of topic, even if the one you were discussing is clearly more important than my contribution.
- Voting amongst FPC member: Each FPC member has the duty to vote for a proposal. A proposal that gets the majority of votes will be the preliminary judgement. The result of the vote will not be made public.
Funny. How the bloody fuck are you going to tell anybody if he/her has to pay a fine or not? By not making the result of the vote public, you keep the result secret, the result being the judgement.. .so you're not going to implement the judgement? Or are going to, but without telling anybody? Ok ok, I think I know how it's meant.... not divulging internal information, (at least I hope that's that sadly necessary addition) but the word juggling wasn't at its best in this instance.
Wrong wording it seems: not the overall result, but the individual votes will not made public. Thanks for the notice, will be changed.
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

Gipfelstuermer
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:43 am
Location: Weltenbummler
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Gipfelstuermer » Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:08 am

NFS now also online in-game (under 'Manual').

Do we want more references to it, e.g. in Sign-Up, Inscription or Race?
GIP MASTERPLAN
Gameplay: Flexible Min-Tact. Improve Sprint System. Windkante.
Marketing: Re-attract old players. Advertisement. Social Media.
New Players: Fair Start Budget, New Tutorial.
Fairplay: Improve FPC features, Fair Prize Money Disribution.

schappy
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:10 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by schappy » Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:56 am

I have a little suggestion.
If an hearing come for a Player, maybe it is good, when he get a massage. I often dont logout and then it is not good to see.
I´ve got the magic in me

Alkworld
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: New Fairplay Solution (NFS) - discussion

Post by Alkworld » Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:13 pm

schappy wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:56 am
I have a little suggestion.
If an hearing come for a Player, maybe it is good, when he get a massage. I often dont logout and then it is not good to see.
At some point, this issue will be solved when the session management comes back (not yet very high on my list) and you'll automatically be logged out after a certain time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests