Woodruff wrote: agentcom wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Can we get it out of the REJECTED area then, please?
Please read the introductory post.
I have. So there is no chance, based on the mass of C&A cases that this would actually relieve, for this to be accepted as a suggestion in some form? The idea that it will create rank segregation or somehow leave people with few too games or opponents to choose from (if done properly) has been thoroughly debunked.
This would be a tremendous boon to the C&A mods.
It is my understanding that lack has been against this idea from the start. You can see (in the edited OP) that he was against it 6 years ago, and I have no reason to believe that he has changed his mind. I believe that while I was merging these that I read through all 39 pages of this topic. I do not recall the "idea that it will create rank segregation or somehow leave people with too few games" being "thoroughly debunked." I'm not really sure how it could be debunked ... I'm not sure how you would even test that. I recognize that the proposition can't be proven either, but I don't think you can call it debunked.
As far as C&A cases go, the only ones that I see this helping are the ones where someone says "I can't control who joins my games." That's not an insignificant amount of cases, but the high profile farming cases of late have not been about this. Also, what if someone sets up games that only allow cooks through cadets to join? You'd have a whole new type of C&A case. If you implement the suggestion, so that can't be done, then you have to figure out where to draw the line. What if a high ranking officer sets up games with complicated settings, but only opens them for the levels right below officer? Would that be considered abuse?
The basic suggestion suffers from potential for abuse and potential for rank segregation. More complicated versions suffer from their own complexity and the potential for unintended consequences and new forms of abuse.
This suggestion is in rejected because in 6 years there is no indication that the owner of the website wants to do this, but also because his underlying concerns arguably have some validity. Unless there is some sort of sea change, that's where it's going to stay.
Personally, I've come out in favor of this idea. I don't really care too much about it (as in there are numerous other things I'd rather see coded in). But I understand the counterarguments, and I understand that the powers that be don't want this. As a moderator I'm basically just filing this in its appropriate place. So unless I'm told to do otherwise, this is where it will stay.