[Rules] Redefinition of the farming rule

by **MichelSableheart** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:26 am

This suggestion is based on the thread "rethinking the farming rule". I am creating a seperate thread because I want to make a specific suggestion, whereas the quoted thread seems to be an open ended brainstorm.

Concise description:

Change the definition of the farming rule from "systematically farming new recruits" to "systematically playing against a specific group of players with the intent of taking advantage of them."

Specifics/Details:
Examples would include:

systematically sending invitations to privates with no experience on the chosen maps and settings, because that gives you the best winchance.
systematically joining games last when there are only new recruits signed up, because they are likely to deadbeat.
systematically foeing everyone who manages to beat you in order to guarantee that you'll only play against players you can beat.
systematically creating 5 player standard feudal war games, with the intent of getting new recruits to join.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

In general, behaviour such as listed above will create a rather poor game experience for the players being targetted. If they decide to unwaringly accept the game, they end up on a map and setting that they have virtually no chance of winning.
Furthermore, this behaviour will make the scoreboard even more unreliable, because a players score will be based mostly on very specific opponents.
The change as suggested no longer treats new recruits as a special case. It therefore creates more consistency in the rules, and captures behaviour that many members believe to be shady.
In order to accuse someone of this, it needs to be made plausible that the accused is systematically playing against a specific group of players.
Ways to recognize this would include invitations sent, determining who initiated contact, etcetera.
Note that playing games on specific maps or settings would not constitute farming, only targetting specific groups of players would. If someone doesn't try to influence who joins in any way, then it's up to those who join to decide whether they want to play that map and those settings. The exception to this would be games that are open to new recruits, because those can be argued to be targetting a specific group of players.
Also note the requirement of the intent of taking advantage. A series of 1v1s between a cook and a general would not be farming if they can be shown to be held with the intent of improving the cook's play.

by **Herbas** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:12 am

I agree with this.

by **anonymus** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:14 pm

i agree with most of this

/ :?:

by **jgordon1111** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:15 pm

good call sable

by **Woodruff** on Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Great suggestion. But it has one flaw. You used too much logic.

by **cookie0117** on Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:30 am

This seems to be what most people want to see and what pretty much everyone would see are fair. The element about specificly targeting a group of players, should really be the definition of farming. Also a definition which give the boundaries of the evidence required to prove intent.

by **greenoaks** on Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:57 am

i don't agree with this.

by **denthefrog** on Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:30 am

what about team freestyle on oasis for example, some manual deployement
and plenty more i m sure look at the first 4/5 pages of public games most of them could be considered farming games, what ever u do somebody will always found a way round it

by **MichelSableheart** on Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:59 am

@greenoaks: why?

@denthefrog: If a player only plays on a specific (difficult) set of maps and settings, his behaviour is significantly less harmful then the examples I'm listing. Because the players choose to join, they can be assumed to want to play on those settings, which significantly reduces the risk of a poor game experience. Furthermore, this player risks running into a specialist team on those settings, which will keep scoreboard problems in check. At the least, his rank will reflect his ability to play against ANY opponent on his chosen settings, rather then his ability to play against poor opponents which you would get if he was allowed to play only a certain group of players.

Another reason not to take specific maps and settings into account is that a player may simply enjoy playing and becoming good at a certain type of game. Limiting players in the maps and settings they want to play reduces their fun, which is something you want to avoid.

by **Woodruff** on Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:13 am

greenoaks wrote:i don't agree with this.

That's quite the job of providing justification.

by **cookie0117** on Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:47 am

denthefrog wrote:what about team freestyle on oasis for example, some manual deployement
and plenty more i m sure look at the first 4/5 pages of public games most of them could be considered farming games, what ever u do somebody will always found a way round it

If you set 50 games as an individual on freestyle oasis and mostly ?s you are farming. If you make them team games you are not, even if the same people join in teams.

by **chapcrap** on Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:45 pm

cookie0117 wrote:
denthefrog wrote:what about team freestyle on oasis for example, some manual deployement
and plenty more i m sure look at the first 4/5 pages of public games most of them could be considered farming games, what ever u do somebody will always found a way round it

If you set 50 games as an individual on freestyle oasis and mostly ?s you are farming. If you make them team games you are not, even if the same people join in teams.

Well, ?s aren't allowed to join freestyle games unless they pay for premium or are invited. So, I don't know about your example.

by **greenoaks** on Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:09 pm

every game i play i intend on taking advantage of them. some maps & settings i have an actual chance of doing so.

i am against this because this rule stops me from playing almost everyone on this site on Realms 2, Manual, Freestyle, Nuke, Foggy.

no one is forcing the low ranks to join those games. they choose to do so.

by **chapcrap** on Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:26 pm

greenoaks wrote:every game i play i intend on taking advantage of them. some maps & settings i have an actual chance of doing so.

no one is forcing the low ranks to join those games. they choose to do so.

I can't argue with that, but I don't think that's what this suggestion would prevent you from. It would just prevent someone from intentionally getting the same group of players. I don't think that would happen with you. And you aren't joining games against a specific group. You are creating public games for fun.

I do not think that you would be under any scrutiny if this change took effect.

by **mjs28** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:17 am

that sounds like an improvement on the current rules

by **Jippd** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:37 am

MichelSableheart wrote:[*]systematically creating 5 player standard feudal war games, with the intent of getting new recruits to join.[/list]

I don't agree with this. It is fun to play with 5 players on maps like feudal or pelo. In the example of feudal epic or pelo playing five players allows you to each start with one base and have 3 neutral bases, which encourages people to attack more.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:16 am

As of right now, we are talking about something behind the scenes involving this. I mean, nothing, move along, nothing to see here.

by **cookie0117** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:36 am

greenoaks wrote:every game i play i intend on taking advantage of them. some maps & settings i have an actual chance of doing so.

i am against this because this rule stops me from playing almost everyone on this site on Realms 2, Manual, Freestyle, Nuke, Foggy.

no one is forcing the low ranks to join those games. they choose to do so.

The moral line is crossed when you actively seek them by invite.

by **s3xt0y** on Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:15 pm

TheForgivenOne wrote:As of right now, we are talking about something behind the scenes involving this. I mean, nothing, move along, nothing to see here.

I have seen this before in a DH thread from last year, really discussing eh?

by **oran0007** on Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:43 am

I agree with this. On a side note, why did greenoaks have to say why he/she disagrees if those who agree did not have to state why they agree. If the intent of the thread is to gauge interest, simply disagreeing helps with that. It just doesn't help the op change the suggestion. If one does not like the suggestion at all, they may see no way of improving it, and therefore not waste their time explaining why they disagree just to start an argument.

Back on topic, I think that this would be great because it would make me less wary of joining games on maps I am unfamiliar with, without having to wait for the last spot to ensure I don't lose to someone who spends all of his/her time on that map. I don't mind losing, I just want to be able to get a feel for a map before I play the sharks.

by **eddie2** on Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:59 am

s3xt0y wrote:
TheForgivenOne wrote:As of right now, we are talking about something behind the scenes involving this. I mean, nothing, move along, nothing to see here.

I have seen this before in a DH thread from last year, really discussing eh?

was this the same thread where certain maps were meant to be added to the ban list for new recruits ?????

by **barackattack** on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:11 am

How do you prove intent?

by **MichelSableheart** on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:45 am

Proving intent is impossible, of course. However, that doesn't mean that intent can't be determined. Contents of pms, invitations sent and talking to the player will give quite some insight in the intentions of a player. And if there's doubt wrt intent, the player can be requested to stop the suspect behaviour without punishment.

by **MichelSableheart** on Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:51 am

Jippd wrote:
MichelSableheart wrote:[*]systematically creating 5 player standard feudal war games, with the intent of getting new recruits to join.

I don't agree with this. It is fun to play with 5 players on maps like feudal or pelo. In the example of feudal epic or pelo playing five players allows you to each start with one base and have 3 neutral bases, which encourages people to attack more.

If those are your reasons, then you don't have the intent of getting new recruits to join, which means that you wouldn't be in problems given the rule as proposed. However, you might be asked to organize those games as private games through callouts to show that systematically playing New Recruits indeed isn't what you're after.