Draw Rule

[FadingSuns]

So if you want to save ELO for your teammates just leave the game voluntary (or cause a fake disconnect to hide it better) - you only lose 6 additional ELO compared to your 3 teammates who even get 3 ELO also if its a lost game, can be easily abused as you see in Donbola case

I totally agree with this. Lets analize the "oportunity cost":

* Leaver = -21 Elo DC pen. Total result: he loses just 6 more elo than he would (-15 for losing game)

* Rest of the team of the leaver = +3 Elo DC Pen. Total result: They gain +18 Elo than they should (+3 DC pen and they dont lose the 15 they would lose)

* Other team = 3 Elo DC pen. total result: They lose 12 Elo (+3 DC Pen and they dont win the +15)

2 Week ban should be added to this cases. Appart the "opportunity cost" mentioned above, it was disrespectfull in terms of wasting time of rest, not letting a fair win by the other team, and even to his teammates.

I dont pretend to judge the case in particular, it has already been judged and punished. Just would like a higher punish in these cases, to avoid this to happen again...

[FadingSuns]

Yes, i know and that's also why I post this. At the moment this happened, how could we know it was pp or not? This decision could not be made in game. So the draw rule imo is fine as it is. The rest has to be handled after the game

I was on that game and i can tell you it was not a pp. But in any case we are talking about different cases. U talk about the grey area, where is not easy to determinate the voluntarily of the person. Im talking about such clear cases as this, it was even announced by the player that it was a rage pp.

TBH, we can all pass for a moment like this, when you want to leave the game just because you are fked (not talking about real life emergency that makes u leave). When a case is as clear as this, punish should be very high, at least we would have the people pull the plug or invent an excuse next time, but this way was just too rude...

[Jamo]

I totally agree with you. I just mention our case, because it shows that it is not always as clear as in Don's case and the decision about drawing has to be made in game, not later.If the player writes that he is leaving or not, does not change my personal view on the draw rule. Without actually playing the game to the end, it's just not 100% sure to tell who would have won, so I am fine drawing this game, because it ruins the game for both teams, not just for the opponent team. And since you opened this thread in the first place because of the wording of the draw rule, I wrote my opinion about drawing.

But at the same time, I totally agree that such behvior of course should be punished harder than a normal dc penalty.
Imo, only cutting elo doesn't help, because who cares about 15 or 30 elo... A ban like already suggested should be implemented (2 weeks or so?). Hopefully, such ragequits just don't happen then. And if this happens more often, I think everybody agrees this should result in a long-term unvouch. To egalize your mentioned opportunity costs, maybe only the opponent team gets the 3 elo (or whatever) from the dc pen, when there is such a clear case. Which would be fair even if the other team still had like 1% chance of winning.

[dweiler]

A two week unvouch would be too much for a one-time ragequit. It can happen to everyone sometime, maybe he had a bad day in real life, or he did something stupid on the spur of the moment. Punishing with a ban for 2 weeks for that is just ridiculous, we all play this for fun. Everyone can make a mistake sometime. If he does it more often obviously we punish harder, because it should not become a habit. That is why I gave a 3 day ban now (+dc penalty) and warned him that for the next time the ban will be much longer. I don't see why this would be a bad decision.

Reason for drawing is mentioned above. Also, it would be highly inconsistent to make an exception on a rule based on a violation of the rules.

[TinSoldier]

The only reason donbola was penalized with a ban in this case was because he was stupid enough to admit and type "i will just take the DC penalty".

Handing out people harsher penalties for these cases is definitely not going to the solve the problem because the person will simply have to pretend like it was a connection error in which case the mods cannot prove one way or the other.

@archol personally I really appreciate the effort you put into modding for the league. Sure I don't agree with many of the penalties you give out but its a matter of perspective. I would compare unvouches to the american prison system. Harsher penalties does not lower crime rates and the same i think applies for lihl since the enforcement of the rules allows for so many technicalities and shady methods to bypass punishment.

In this case, there is no way to combat the issue except to rely on the honesty and integrity of the players in the league. The post I made about Donbola wasn't to see him punished at all; but just a little public shaming because at the end of the day i think reputation > elo.

[FadingSuns]

A two week unvouch would be too much for a one-time ragequit. It can happen to everyone sometime, maybe he had a bad day in real life, or he did something stupid on the spur of the moment. Punishing with a ban for 2 weeks for that is just ridiculous, we all play this for fun. Everyone can make a mistake sometime. If he does it more often obviously we punish harder, because it should not become a habit. That is why I gave a 3 day ban now (+dc penalty) and warned him that for the next time the ban will be much longer. I don't see why this would be a bad decision.

Ur explanation seems fair and aquitable, and yes, everyone can have a bad day, i agree on that. Fine, 3 days seems enought as first offense.

Wasnt trying to judge ur decission at all... Also wasnt trying to judge Donbola on this matter, just hipotetic situations for future. Even tho, i think that if this is clearly stated that those situations will end on a 2 weeks ban, it will be more difficult to find them on future. Was not about to reopen a processed case. But ok, lets say that we all can have a day like Michael Douglas had on "Falling Down" XDD.

Cheers

[FadingSuns]

@Tinsoldier, for me at the end is not a question of reputation or ELO, is more a question of respect. In this kind of leagues, a basis of behave is pressuposed, and im not talking about calling noobs or minor unsults to others...

In any case, I can take words from @Mick about having bad days. But also words from @Archol, aplying different penalies to different cases. I like more to review case by case (if possible) and give a penalty based on the exact case more than aplying a general rule.

The DC rule is fine for most of the cases, since you cant prove if a DC is intentional or not on 99% of the cases, those 99% can be threated with the basic rule. But the other 1% can be perfectly handled on a 1 by 1 basis.

Cheers

[archol]

Handing out people harsher penalties for these cases is definitely not going to the solve the problem because the person will simply have to pretend like it was a connection error in which case the mods cannot prove one way or the other.

Indeed, a grey area which will be hard to prove if it was a disconnect on purpose or really a technical problem. Though in case of Donbola it was a clear matter, might be happened due a bad moment at that time or on purpose and take the ban as the leaving has more benefits than the punishment.

For his defense he did it on a honest way than hiding it under a fake disconnect. Still he did it on purpose and knowing the full consequences of his handling

@archol personally I really appreciate the effort you put into modding for the league. Sure I don't agree with many of the penalties you give out but its a matter of perspective. I would compare unvouches to the american prison system. Harsher penalties does not lower crime rates and the same i think applies for lihl since the enforcement of the rules allows for so many technicalities and shady methods to bypass punishment.

Theres a reason why i hand(ed) out such long bans and not going 100% by the rulebook - in the case of LIHL nearly all players here are playing it for fun and joy, and not for greed and most not for the only purpose of competition compared to real life. Now assume a player who plays there frequently gets banned for a long period of time, then he/she has few options left.

1) Take the long ban and learn from the mistakes ...
2) ... and thus doing something different at that time than playing LIHL.
3) Appeal, because it was not stated in the rules (due the fact it was not written clearly or wrong handled) or/and to lower the duration

Point 1 - Worked in the cases which didnt got appealed. For example in the case from Don_Killuminati there was a huge uproar after i banned him (whereas many players threaten to leave the league) yet i didnt see him insult any players since that day. Dont think that would happen with that low ban-durations and the several warnings he received before. Another example would be Rolders, who failed a screenshot-test several times already before and finally decided to learn it after my 2 week-ban (with an appeal though).

Point 2 - There i see a huge difference. Players who play here frequently will take a ban way harder than players who dont play that often here. Thus they are likely not to do the same mistake again as they did in the past

Point 3 - Because for most players Point 1 and Point 2 is a no-go, they rely on Point 3 which works in nearly all the cases here.

[dweiler]

@Archol , I agree sometimes hard punishment is needed if someone does not learn from his mistakes. But I think we do that already, think of Shrimp, Ship_, HBC, Drahque. 99.99% of the games go well in the league and everywhere in life sometimes things go wrong. I am sure Donbola learned his lesson in this case, and if he did not I already said in the unvouch that the unban will be much longer. It's not good to put really harsh punishments on people for their first unvouch, it's just a necessary evil if they refuse to better their ways.

I don't know if the Don_killuminati case is a good example, because both players haven't really played any games in weeks. Also with no punishment they would not have any more fights, because they are simply not here anymore.

[archol]

What i forgot to mention was the purpose of detterence for future cases.

If players see that there was a long punishment for a (similar) case then they will also know the consequences if they broke the (same) rule in future. I also think that Donbola learnt his lesson, though thats not my intention here

Lets assume there will be a similar case like Donbola in future - now a rethoric question: Will the player get a similar ban like Donbola or a higher one? I think players will get more frightened in case of a higher ban duration

[aRt)Y]

Lets assume there will be a similar case like Donbola in future - now a rethoric question: Will the player get a similar ban like Donbola or a higher one? I think players will get more frightened in case of a higher ban duration

If that example goes on and on tho, you will enforce punishments which are not in proportion with the violated rule.

We dont "execute" players to prove a point. We've guidelines to _orientate_ yourself at to keep the balance while not relying on static and inflexible ban durations. It's important to keep that in mind.

[dweiler]

The DC rule is fine for most of the cases, since you cant prove if a DC is intentional or not on 99% of the cases, those 99% can be threated with the basic rule. But the other 1% can be perfectly handled on a 1 by 1 basis.

I guess that is a good conclusion. Cases like that are (luckily) pretty unique and need it does need the discretion of the moderators. I learned a lot from this and I thank every body for their contributions. Also @archol, don't stop moderating rulebreaks. I know we think differently about it often, but if we both take a middle way it will be fine!

[Dong]

So, the conclusion is, that nothing will be changed, and things will stay the way they are, because cases like in this situation have allways been handled on a case by case scenario, correct ? but what a nice loong topic anyway

#Dong Donged.