Had a guy give me the good old AFK treatment from turn 4 until end of game because he was losing in champs.. He came back momentarily for turn 11, 13 and 16 for some smacktalk. It's possible that he watched my stream and saw me leave my computer and decided to try to inflict damage while I was away. But he were throwing red dice blocks like a muppet.
Either way, not a lot of fun, and I think it at least should be counted as a concede on his record. Preferably I'dd like to see some sort of punishment for this, i.e. banned from the next season of champs.
Coach name was ******

Admin Edit: removed the name of the coach. We're taking care of him. Please send a PM next time.

Contacted the guilty bastard person in question.

No 'naming and shaming' on the forum.

@murlocjoe said in AFK Concede:

Either way, not a lot of fun, and I think it at least should be counted as a concede on his record. Preferably I'dd like to see some sort of punishment for this, i.e. banned from the next season of champs.

I think maybe a warning the first time an then eviction from the current season might be a better way to go. Yes, it's a douchey thing to do, but it's always best to let people know that they're doing something wrong on the chance they don't realize it (they had to put warning on dish soap that it wasn't for drinking, after all). By "wrong" I mean "against the rules" not "being a dick" because really, the latter is just modern society.

@voodoomike said in AFK Concede:

eviction from the current season might be a better way to go.

Agreed.

Yes, it's a douchey thing to do, but it's always best to let people know that they're doing something wrong on the chance they don't realize it (they had to put warning on dish soap that it wasn't for drinking, after all). By "wrong" I mean "against the rules" not "being a dick" because really, the latter is just modern society.

No, it's not always best to let people know they're doing something wrong before punishing them for their wrongdoing.

In the present case, banning the offender from CCL for the current season seems fair to me as it doesn't prevent them from learning from their errors and also let them continue playing in COL.

I'd be more lenient in COL. There I'd advocate for a warning first.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

No, it's not always best to let people know they're doing something wrong before punishing them for their wrongdoing.

You'll make a lovely parent someday, naissun.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

In the present case, banning the offender from CCL for the current season seems fair to me as it doesn't prevent them from learning from their errors and also let them continue playing in COL.

It's a video game... I think we can err on the side of cutting people some slack rather than treating the community like The Hunger Games or something. I'm a laissez-faire kind'v guy, though.

@voodoomike said in AFK Concede:

You'll make a lovely parent someday, naissun.

I'm more lenient with kids, don't worry

It's a video game... I think we can err on the side of cutting people some slack rather than treating the community like The Hunger Games or something. I'm a laissez-faire kind'v guy, though.

Going AFK in a 1 to 2 hours long game is being a dick. I'm not saying we should burn coaches doing so at the stake but it's a comportment we need not to let proliferate, even in Open Ladder.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

I'm more lenient with kids, don't worry

How do you know that this isn't a kid?

@darkson said in AFK Concede:

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

I'm more lenient with kids, don't worry

How do you know that this isn't a kid?

I'm more lenient with kids IRL.

I believe before any punishement, You first have to leave the person a chance to give his or her version of the fact and it is always better to issue a warning before, especially when you may intend going strong.

I have left a league only for that reason : they did permanently ban a player without warning and any discussion (for what was in my point of view was a minor thing). I wouldn't want to continue to play in COL or CCL if such a dictatorship approach was implemented.

Nobody's perfect, we all can have a bad day and one day do a stupid mistake, we at least should be given the chance to apologize if it happens.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

Going AFK in a 1 to 2 hours long game is being a dick. I'm not saying we should burn coaches doing so at the stake but it's a comportment we need not to let proliferate, even in Open Ladder.

Oh, I agree AFKing is a dick move... I just think we need to be 100% sure that people know that they're doing something that won't be tolerated in the environment before we censure them, and we need to allow for the fact that some people are either so stupid or so selfish that they don't really "get" that they're doing something worthy of being kicked out of the season. Being officially censured, especially by trivial people (which, lets face it, all game-related people are in the life of anyone who isn't a troglodyte) is pretty offensive, and I wouldn't be shocked if it led people to blowing off the game as a whole.

It's easy to take the standpoint of "it's obvious what one shouldn't do", but do keep in mind that by the very definition of average, half of all people are of below average intelligence. We (sadly) need to make allowances for the dunce squad in all sorts of design, from interfaces to rules. Hand-holding and teeth-grinding patience are sort'v the necessary norm.

@jrco said in AFK Concede:

I believe before any punishement, You first have to leave the person a chance to give his or her version of the fact and it is always better to issue a warning before, especially when you may intend going strong.

This is part of it too... nobody likes to be wrong, which is why its best to double-check things to be sure we're not rushing to conclusions that may be incorrect or at least incomplete. We can make an error in either direction: letting it slide leading to the person repeating it and ruining another match, or punishing someone arbitrarily and having them be angry enough to ditch BB2 altogether... the former seems like the less severe consequence (to me, anyway).

@jrco said in AFK Concede:

I have left a league only for that reason : they did permanently ban a player without warning and any discussion (for what was in my point of view was a minor thing). I wouldn't want to continue to play in COL or CCL if such a dictatorship approach was implemented.

Yeah, I tend to hold grudges against overbearing moderation too, though I haven't run into it in these games (I've run into it in MMOs and such, certainly... and in how people try to run forums, etc). I think most inexperienced authority imagines people are eager to please them and will learn their lesson after a few firm applications of the rod... when in reality most people are more likely to say "screw you" and simply become hostile toward the people who officially censure them... and no few people are willing to go out of their way to cause more problems in response.

@jrco said in AFK Concede:

Nobody's perfect, we all can have a bad day and one day do a stupid mistake, we at least should be given the chance to apologize if it happens.

Expecting apologies from people is generally a bad idea - at its core its expecting contrition, which is an act of submission. There's no real benefit to that other than to make us feel satisfied that we've won something... when what we really want (or... what we really should want) is for the future to be better than the past.

I do agree that we need to make some allowances for variation in people's attitudes and behaviours.. or at least we can benefit from doing so... but not so much that we let the environment go to hell. Where's the middle-ground? Your guess is as good as mine, honestly. Easy questions all have answers already

@voodoomike said in AFK Concede:

I just think we need to be 100% sure that people know that they're doing something that won't be tolerated in the environment before we censure them, and we need to allow for the fact that some people are either so stupid or so selfish that they don't really "get" that they're doing something worthy of being kicked out of the season.

No. I respectfully disagree.
Not understanding the gravity of an action does not absolve you of your full responsibility.

I agree this is trivial and just a video-game but it works both ways. Being banned from playing in one of the Cabalvision Official ladders for a season is a trivial punishment.
It doesn't prevent the offender from playing in other leagues or against the AI. It just protects other coaches in the league from the annoyance.

As I said, in Open Ladder I can understand the leniency (warning first), especially since the victim of the player going AFK can concede without much loss.
In CCL, conceding means a lot more.

I'm not saying we shouldn't explain to the AFKer the reason for the ban, I'm saying the explanation can happen at the same time or after.

Let's also not forget, an admin will always review the case before making a decision. I'm against automatic punishments as some rare but extreme circumstances can explain, excuse or justify someone going AFK.

So, when I'm advocating for a ban (for the current season) to all AFKers in CCL, I realize there would be people behind the decision, judging if the ban is the correct solution to the issue.

Taking a stance and ruling that the regular punishment for going AFK is a ban would serve as:

• A deterrent to the comportment
• A limit of punishment
• An appreciation of the seriousness of the offence
• An acceleration in proceeding obvious cases

@voodoomike said in AFK Concede:

I wouldn't be shocked if it led people to blowing off the game as a whole.

That's a serious concern.
Losing coaches/customers is something Cyanide & Focus surely don't want.

Although, when I see many companies permanently banning cheaters, griefers, and such naggers, I wonder if the loss of these players isn't beneficial to games in general.

A ban for a season in a specific league in BB2 doesn't seem so severe in comparison, especially when it's already a punishment one can suffer from 5 network connection issues in CCL.

Therefore, I think the ban rule would be a good solution to players going AFK.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

No. I respectfully disagree.
Not understanding the gravity of an action does not absolve you of your full responsibility.

I agree in some contexts, but we're talking about an optional leisure activity here, not capital crimes. We're not absolving them of responsibility, we're being lenient in our treatment of their misdeeds because, ostensibly, we understand that people are maybe a bit more lax in their pro-social behaviour when it comes to trivial areas of their life like video games, and we don't want to run them off without giving them a fair shake.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

I agree this is trivial and just a video-game but it works both ways. Being banned from playing in one of the Cabalvision Official ladders for a season is a trivial punishment.
It doesn't prevent the offender from playing in other leagues or against the AI. It just protects other coaches in the league from the annoyance.

I don't think it does work equally in both directions, actually... at least not in how people will react. They may feel its all fun and games when they do something crappy in a game... but won't feel its all fun and games if you turn around and kick their team out of the league; the trivial nature is likely to amplify the negative response not mute it.

In the grand scheme of things its a trivial punishment, but people typically don't look at things in "big picture" terms, they look at things in small-and-focused-on-themselves terms. That's why the best solutions to social problems serve the big picture, but do so by appealing to people's sense of self-interest.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

Although, when I see many companies permanently banning cheaters, griefers, and such naggers, I wonder if the loss of these players isn't beneficial to games in general.

Typically those companies are those with games with huge player populations, and they're banning people who are indisputably using cheats to gain an advantage in their competitive settings. When games do large-scale banning, or even threaten to do so, over anything less than clear cheating there's typically a major backlash, and being that they're typically big name games, the backlash spills into gaming media and such.

What we're talking about here is not cheating, its just being kind'v a dick. It doesn't make people lose the game, it just bores and annoys them while giving them a guaranteed victory. I absolutely think its something that needs to be discouraged on a community-wide level, but it ain't cheating of the sort that needs an instant and massive response.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

A ban for a season in a specific league in BB2 doesn't seem so severe in comparison, especially when it's already a punishment one can suffer from 5 network connection issues in CCL.

Again, that's big picture thinking... people won't see it that way when they themselves are on the pointy end of the stick. I don't disagree with the idea that it's big picture trivial, just with that in any way diminishing the negative reaction we're likely to see from people who get banned without having been warned first... and I'd rather we not run people out of town when our town's population is already pretty small.

@voodoomike said in AFK Concede:

we're likely to see from people who get banned without having been warned first...

Of course, Focus/Cyanide would've to emendate the EULA to ensure everyone is, or at least should be, informed of the rule before enforcing it.

I'd rather we not run people out of town when our town's population is already pretty small.

Me too, but people going AFK could also piss off other coaches and causing them to play less or even stop.

And how can we know banning a player from CCL/COL for a season would stop him from playing BB2 altogether?

I'd be quite interested in knowing if banned coaches generally quit BB2. Do we have any data about that @dode74?

It would also be useful to know if going AFK is a common behavior (not from my experience but small sample and confirmation bias, yada yada...) so we'd know if those committing the act are numerous enough for us to be concerned if they were to quit the community.

I believe they are not but obviously can't prove it as I have no access to relevant data.

@Darkson By the way and about not being lenient with kids online, I just read that only adults are supposed to subscribe to BB2 online services, or at least one has to be responsible for all use of the service by a minor.

It's not something I've looked at. As and when I get time I will do.

@dode74 Thanks.

I thought it was said before that going AFK is not against any rules so therefore would not be punishable.

@Naissun

Warning First would be in your Mind a lenient approach ?!

I can tell you as a Manager I have already have to issue warning to some people and I can tell you they didn't feel it was something to take lightly, nor they felt it was lenient. A warning is a serious Stuf, trust me. If one day you receive one, you will understand what I am saying.

@vejeta said in AFK Concede:

I thought it was said before that going AFK is not against any rules so therefore would not be punishable.

That would be interesting. Where did you see that?

@jrco said in AFK Concede:

Warning First would be in your Mind a lenient approach ?!

Context.

In comparison to what I propose for COL and what is already in place in CCL, it can be considered a lenient approach.

Let me explain:

Losing your network connection 5 times during a season is worth a ban in CCL.
The voluntary act of annoyance towards other coaches that is going AFK is a worse deed than losing your connection 5 times.

In CCL going AFK is more serious than in COL as if the victims concede they increase their chance of being banned for the season and lower their chances of qualifying for the play-off.

Considering this, ruling that the general punishment for going AFK is an immediate ban for the current season is fair.

I won't repeat what I already wrote about how a proper rule is to be interpreted by the judge (league administrators) and what would be the usefulness of it's institution.

I can tell you as a Manager I have already have to issue warning to some people and I can tell you they didn't feel it was something to take lightly, nor they felt it was lenient.

...Good? Why should they feel otherwise if one of the points of a warning is preventing a repetition of the offence?

A punishment is not lenient by itself, it's lenient if, among other examples, an harsher one could've been used in its place.

trust me.

No disrespect but why should I?

If one day you receive one, you will understand what I am saying.

Do we know each other?

If you want to discuss which of a warning or a ban is more appropriate in our case, I'm glad to do so but your assumptions about my person are not a proper argument.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

Of course, Focus/Cyanide would've to emendate the EULA to ensure everyone is, or at least should be, informed of the rule before enforcing it.

It's a bit harder to formulate a good description of the behaviour than it is to talk about excess concessions. No doubt it can be done, but.. what we're talking about is taking "excessively" long on your turns with the intent of griefing.. intent is a hard thing to judge. Also, how much AFKing during a match is required to qualify as griefing? In the OP's example the guy didn't completely abandon the game, he just let most turns run down the timer.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

Me too, but people going AFK could also piss off other coaches and causing them to play less or even stop.

Oh, I'm not saying let AFKing slide... I'm all for cracking down on it and have been since before they quietly changed their stance on it (originally hero-dode said he refused to address the problem unless Cyanide wrote activity monitoring into the game). What I am saying is that one warning per coach wouldn't be letting the behaviour slide... it'd still result in a firm crackdown on it, but one that might result in less banning of people.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

And how can we know banning a player from CCL/COL for a season would stop him from playing BB2 altogether?

We can't know, but we know that censured people tend to react severely to censure, especially when the activity they're censured in is not a required one for the upkeep of their daily life (and a lot of them even if it is). There's also a difference between "people who get banned for any reason" and "people who get banned for a single action without warning" as far as how just or unjust they are likely to perceive that punishment.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

It would also be useful to know if going AFK is a common behavior (not from my experience but small sample and confirmation bias, yada yada...) so we'd know if those committing the act are numerous enough for us to be concerned if they were to quit the community.

You should totally hit up dode to investigate that. Maybe you can get the same number of pages of excuses I did back in December, 2016

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

I believe they are not but obviously can't prove it as I have no access to relevant data.

You do, in fact, have access to the same data anyone else does. Mordrek makes all the CCL and COL season data available for download on his goblinSpy website. The question isn't access, it's are you willing to put in the work? Most people are not.

@vejeta said in AFK Concede:

I thought it was said before that going AFK is not against any rules so therefore would not be punishable.

That was yesterday. CCL admins, like women, are allowed to change their minds and act like they've always been consistent on the matter. Honestly, so long as their minds change in favour of doing the right thing, they can be as fickle as they'd like.

@naissun said in AFK Concede:

A punishment is not lenient by itself, it's lenient if, among other examples, an harsher one could've been used in its place.

Heh, we should cut off their hands and point out that it's a lenient punishment given that it could have been death! I'm not sure "it's all relative" works to assuage people's angry reactions to punishment, especially when received by people they don't honestly recognize as authority figures, like volunteer video game moderators... who are literally just other gamers.