Gameboy

http://www.winbolo.net/gamelog.php?mode=logfile&key=88e05b971f1cb234f0620ffc4b242f3e

Banned for go jumping. In the west, he starts full on in the trees next to his base. I know gameboy knows the rules, so at this point he's simply ignoring them.

Sorry, your ruining the game for everyone else.

Min

Gameboy has refused to accept the rules. So, at this point, he'll be banned until he can follow the rules.

Min

Seems he's agreed to play by the rules, he's been unbanned.

Min

I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but i think he should deserve a penalty time. If i wanted to blatantly ruin a game and did so knowing all i had to do was apologize and be let back in 30 mins later, i would probably do it again. Hence game boy's multiple bans and overall dislike by all players.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with knuckles except it would be unfair to all of a sudden change the rules. I suggest we make some sort of rule regarding bans. for example: first ban = banned until apologize and agree to follow the rules. 2nd ban 1week ban + the usual agree to follow the rules. 3rd = 1month ban or something. what do you think min? I think we need a standardized way or making sure this doesnt continue

for me it would go:

first time: apology...let back in

and thats it....

if you have clear evidence of donig BS again....it should be an ip ban for at least 6 months....that would send a clear message to his kind.

heh, well first things first. I haven't had to deal with any repeat offenders since I started enforcing the rules. If repeat offenses do occur, I'll handle it when it happens, it will probably involve banning for a longer period of time. Banning is a stop gap anyways, it shouldn't be required, and its a pain to upkeep. So I'd rather not have to ban anyone. Working on that.

Min

Losing access to minbot doesnt mean you cant play winbolo, it simply means you cant join minbot generated games. As i asked min not too long ago, do we want players who repeatedly disregard the rules of winbolo? general opinion seems to point to no. including min himself. So, logically, i support the idea of extended period/lifetime bans. More importantly, i would support it being solely min's decision, seeing as he owns and pays for the bot. As i would for any bot owner, provided it is done in a justified way

The key to all of this is to provide a method for self regulation. Provide a way for you guys to prevent a player from playing in your games should they continue to screw things up. Once you have that ability, the community becomes self regulating. For example, if you could kick a player from your games before starting. Then if that player joined, you could simply kick them, lock, and start playing. If you had to do that every game, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. And eventually that player would learn to follow the rules or they wouldn't get to play.

There are lots of ways to make this stuff self regulating, we shouldn't need to have to ban anyone. I'll be implementing something soonish hopefully. We'll see how this summer goes.

Min

It should be easy to develop something like a switch that one or more player hits that sets the screen to a countdown. When it stops it is GO.

I saw something similar the other day on one of the maps.

Another Bolo variant - which I'm forbidden to mention on this forum - defaults to freeze action at the beginning of a strict or tournament game. It enforces a fair start for everybody.

I prefer the classic Bolo/WinBolo approach, however. It makes it far easier to get your team bunched into position and it works just fine if everyone in the game is honourable. Game logs display the cheaters for all to see and they soon gain the bad reputation they deserve.

What's needed is not a countdown, but a method to ban obnoxious jerks. I'm convinced that many more newbies will stick with Bolo if we become a friendly, fair, fun community.

Cmdr_X wrote:

Another Bolo variant - which I'm forbidden to mention on this forum - defaults to freeze action at the beginning of a strict or tournament game. It enforces a fair start for everybody.

Well, freezing action at the beginning of the game is definitely not a solution. Whoever made your 'bolo variant' should have put some more thought into it. Since they were programming it from scratch anyways. Would have been the perfect time for a good robust solution.

Cmdr_X wrote:

I prefer the classic Bolo/WinBolo approach, however. It makes it far easier to get your team bunched into position and it works just fine if everyone in the game is honourable. Game logs display the cheaters for all to see and they soon gain the bad reputation they deserve.

Make the game prevent 'cheaters' and suddenly everyone gets to be honourable. Its really quite simple. Getting your team positioned is something that should be fairly easily accomplished with code.

Cmdr_X wrote:

What's needed is not a countdown, but a method to ban obnoxious jerks. I'm convinced that many more newbies will stick with Bolo if we become a friendly, fair, fun community.

This statement is somewhat astounding to me. Banning obnoxious jerks is hard to accomplish. Alot of those jerks can simply change their IP address and get back in. Takes them about 5 seconds. "banning" is ineffective that has been proven many times. Providing players with a way to regulate themselves prevents abuse, and allows the players to deal with their own problems without needing someone around to 'ban' people for them.

On your other points. Bolo is like any online gaming community of this era. It will never be 'friendly'. Jump on xbox live and play some games, you'll find little kids swearing at you in no time. For a friendly community, you need more mature players. We don't have mature players.

Min

For a friendly community, you need more mature players. We don't have mature players.

I'm a mature player. I don't hack, jump go, cuss or belittle newbs. And I'm not alone. Many other players share these ethics and when we play together bolo is tremendously fun.

In fact, I don't think mature players are a minority. It's just that 'a bad apple spoils the bushel.' If we can fix things slightly so that bad behaviour has stronger consequences and also continue to provide forgiveness and positive reinforcement - like you've already been doing - things will improve.

Doesn't matter what is done there will always be 'bad apples' :roll:

this is still a competition. with any kind of competitive game people are going to get frustrated and cuss at you, blame shit on you, or yell at you to some extent.

you shouldnt let it mess your day up, or kill your joy for playing bolo. its kind of a nessasary evil i guess. i do think i get out of control sometimes but i am no way in the minority.

people are also going to try to get any edge they can to win, be that pre-farm, jumping go, deforristing ect... i am glad Min is actually starting to enforce these rules.

most of you guys (new players) need to check in to irc and team speak to find out who we really are and how we play, but more importantly how to GET BETTER. there is many times where someone can help you out, tell you different ways to handle situations, or where you fucked up after a game. but i never see any after game pointers i myself relied on to get better. Thats a shame because it helped me so much and inturn play more and get a lot more enjoyment out of bolo. instaid of just losing all the time.

personally i wish there was a kick/ban function on a gamely basis. say i spawn a map, we get teams and someone is idle, since i spawned the map, i have power to kick and lock out someone for the duration of that game only. or at least till maybe a first pill is taken, this way i cant kick someone just because they are winning. but if they get a base or 2 i can still boot them out. also maybe a lock function that lets me client lock a game i spawned without everyone needing to be locked.

i would like to try it and if its horridly abused, kick it back out but i feel its worth a try.

i wish there was a kick/ban function on a gamely basis

That sounds like a useful feature, FUBAR. We have it in the other bolo version I play, but I don't know if it's effective or not. There are too few players and we all know each other.

I, too, think a game-based kick/ban would be worth a try. Perhaps a voting mechanism?

As to bad apples being everywhere, KAOS is correct. But if you have some tools to make their bad behaviour counterproductive, they either leave or reform. I prefer the latter, of course.

I agree fube that sounds like a good idea. a kick/ban function in the game menu under allow players to join or something. that would mean bot owners like min wouldnt have to spend their valuable time chasing players ip's around and banning them. also it would stop the arguments and endless explaining to people who join and start early. id say that it would definatley have to be the map spawners power only to do this aswell as anyone who wants to ruin games could abuse this function.
min said he was going to work on something when he gets the time.
goodluck min. it'll be a good edition to the game.

All these options have been previously discussed at length. This isn't the first time its come up.

The ideal solution, and the solution that is most likely to occur, is a mini chatroom before the game starts. Used to select teams, and start locations. In that mini chat interface, kicking/banning from that particular game will be an available option. So if someone joins than screws off before you start playing, they can be kicked. Once everyone is ready to play, they hit a ready button and the game will start. It will select your start locations appropriately and call the game for you.

Pretty simple, but it will take a bit of code. There would be additional considerations for things like dropping from games and holds.

Min

i wish there was a kick/ban function on a gamely basis

The current server release has the option to kick, but not ban. Jason8 should have the TCL script if Min wants to add it to MinBot.

I'm not a fan of how he implemented that option. If I add that option to minbot, it wouldn't be much use anyways if only 'op's' can use it to prevent abuse.

Min