" it frankly doesn't make sense to the nature of the website. "
" a player should be refunded anything less than 10 , regardless of their in-game behaviour.That way, players can start with the ability to join one game and work their way up. "

These 2 sentences clarify that, since you signed up last January, you haven't made any effort to learn what the nature of this website is.
You being the only user having issues with CD-non-refunding policy should have already suggested it to you.

That said, instead of typing here that CDers shouldn't be punished, why don't you use your time to fix your variant? It would be good, if it hadn't two dozens of errors...

"Ending up with players with 0 who are unable to join games might seem great to your right-wing agenda, but it frankly doesn't make sense to the nature of the website."

Politicizing this issue isn't the way to go Synapse to help your case here.

Oli already mentioned that the mods have the ability to grant points to a player in such extreme circumstances, so no one is really 'stuck' at 0, and as Guaroz described (and others pointed out before), it takes some serious neglect to get into the situation you are in, and so we've set up the system such that it takes some demonstration of renewed commitment to work your way out of such a mess. CD's, even for 'you were gonna die anyway' situations, are not a casual thing and we've chosen a system that punishes such an attitude.

Complaining that the system is flawed, rather than that you made a mistake and need some assistance to get yourself out of the bind, is doing yourself a disservice.

Motherlanguages explain it best!
+1 Leif.

This isn't about my personal situation, so thanks Guaroz. I won't get into a position of 0 , obviously. But even having the system in place that that can occur is absurd. This is a public gaming website, and there are conventions to go with that.

You can't get banned from signing into Runescape when you run out of gold. Your WoW character isn't banned from playing in the servers because you suck and got your whole team killed. Any game website has a certain obligation (in b4 this isn't a democracy) to allow people to play. YES, you CAN technically break this, but it makes the website look inclusive and shitty.

This isn't a personal issue for me but there cannot exist a system where players can screw their ability to play. No other system has this for a very good reason; it's absurd. It seems to me that this IS a very political decision come from people complaining with a very hardline stance, yes I know the "nature of this site" and webdip's attitudes to CD. But this is exactly why websites like this aren't democracies. I'm sure WoW players would like to ban people who get all their team killed, but that doesn't mean its' acceptable policy.

And there is the secondary issue that if this was stated in the rules, I (and other players) would feel more obligation NOT to CD. Oli is going to correct this as the rules said that you would not lose anything under 100 when I signed up at least.

Guaroz; as a side note I am currently writing a book and do not have time for my variant, I have handed it over to Captainmeme who is making a version 2, so please address your complaints to him. ;)

Synapse, our point is that you can't end up with 0 without total incompetence, (barring a massive emergency or something that keeps you away from the site and you CD a ton of games as a new player). In such cases of complete negligence and disregard for the community (absent of course the extenuating circumstances), we'd very much like to discourage such an individual from attempting to play at our site. Still (and especially in the case of extenuating circumstances), all that is required even for a negligent player is a petition to the mods and points can be granted to allow such a player to once again join games and have another chance to demonstrate competence. Obviously the mods would think twice about letting such a player have a 3rd chance if they somehow AGAIN managed to get to 0 .

Seeing as someone ending up with 0 has (to my knowledge) NEVER happened, the situation you describe is absurd, and there is thus no point in changing our policy to be 'acceptable' in your eyes simply because of appearances. The community policy is indeed exclusive (which is what I think you meant instead of inclusive?) in the sense that it can discourage some uncommitted players from sticking with the site (but the mods never kick them off unless they disobey the site rules). That said, the policy's main purpose is to encourage people to have an appropriate attitude about CD's, but to allow players who have CD'd to repair their lost reliability rating.

I do agree Leif, I hope you can see where I'm coming from. It's more the principle that a player can in fact ban themselves sheerly through a position of negligence that strikes me as unorthodox.

There are several approaches that websites use to seperate the "horde" of new unreliable players with the old elite. Some have a newbie area or a elite area and keep these two seperated. I think that the buy-in system already regulates this - if you don't want to play with unreliable players, increase your buy-in to an amount new players don't have. But to have the buy-in system you must have a system of unlimited points, unless you want a system where you buy points with your credit card, but let's not delve into that...

I will bet that Kestas never even thought about your outlying situation as a possibility when he was programming the site.

"...the principle that a player can in fact ban themselves sheerly through a position of negligence..."

That's exactly the point (though as pointed out, there are legitimate ways out of such a bind and that such a result isn't necessarily final). It may be the only (or at least one of the only) systems like that out there, but seeing as we aren't in any way trying to make money on a game or product (like Runescape or WoW are) and don't care whether we inadvertently chase a few people away because they don't care to stick with their commitments and perceive the site to be unnecessarily restrictive, I'd say it's rather effective in dealing with a phenomenon (a big shortcoming actually) of western individualistic society (or at least the current generation specifically in relation to the online community) whereby commitment to one's word is not exactly always upheld as a virtue.

Sorry for blowing up on everyone, I'm just sick of the webdip crap trickling over here. I've clearly not cheated on this site so get over yourselves. I'm sick of the "you haven't cheated yet" key word "yet" I have no intention to cheat nor need to cheat. So unless you know the exact details of the case, shut ur traps, that's all I'm saying....regarding the points going to 0, that is pretty darn hard to do and I can only echo what everyone else is saying.

OT: Language issue.
Sandgoose, I think I got what you mean (I'm not motherlanguage), but I in his place I'd have used the same word. I guess it's a matter of words' shades. So my questions are:
1. would "until now" have been less harsh?
2. if not, what would be a softer expression to replace "yet"?

Thanks in advance to everyone who'll help me improve my english.

Thanks for all your comments.

remove it in its entirety. Derrrr.

Sandgoose, from what I've observed it is you who keep bringing up 'webdip crap' in this forum. I don't really give two tosses about the politics of webdip, but when a player comes here with a track record of multi-ing it would be negligent of the moderators NOT to keep an eye on that player to make sure they don't break the rules here as well.


The mods almost never make mistakes and are very lenient. They gave you multiple chances and you cheated multiple times. You have yet to cheat here, so we wont take action against you, but stop trying to justify your actions on webdip, you cheated, you got caught, you got punished. End of story.

^for Guaroz,

SG is objecting to the perceived expectation that he will cheat by the use of the word YET "You have yet to cheat here", by interpreting this to mean: We expect you to cheat, but haven't done so far.

However for me I read this as saying:
'You have not cheated, we expect you not to cheat, but we want to remind you that we are keeping an eye on your actions'

@sandgoose, maybe take the "I'm not a multi. Lol" off your profile too.

I for one, never knew you on webdip. I took a year or so off, apparently when you were active. So when all of the recent drama surrounding your potential reinstatement surfaced, I was intrigued. Enough so, that when I came here I wanted to you to be in my first game. My first impression of you was a positive one. You play well and are a good communicator. Maybe it's time to drop the webdip history and just let people judge you by your playing, like I now do. I'd gladly join any game with you, regardless of your history on webdip ... Which btw, was when you were still a bachelor! Marriage matures people! Granted, you've only been married for a couple of days, but still ...

Guaroz, your English is fine. No one would no that you're not a native speaker/writer if you did not mention it. There may be times when the odd word choice carries a different meaning, but your command of English vocabulary is superior to most native English speakers here. Stop apologizing! You're being too nice to the trolls.

Kaner has clearly illustrated the situation with Sangoose from the perspective of the site moderators here for anyone to understand. The fact that he keeps protesting his sanction at another community in spite of the fact that no one has restricted him here is befuddling. It's likely 90% of the players reading this wouldn't even know of his multi-account behavior at WebDip if it wasn't for him constantly discussing it. His persistent denial of said offense is a rather Shakespearean irony.

Philcore I get married Saturday so not quite yet!!! So close! Ill put pictures etc when I get the chance

Oh I thought in the other thread you said "I GOT married on Saturday" I looked again and it was "get". I also thought that's why you needed a sitter last weekend.

@Sandgoose: Pictures... now! :-)

We demand Photos!!!

Yeah, we too! :P

I want in on this!

This needs updateing:
Points

•What happens when I run out?
◦You can't run out: Your total number of points include the number of points which you have 'bet' into games you're currently playing in, as well as the points you have in your account. Your total number of points never falls below 100; whenever it does you're given your points back.

To put it another way; any player who isn't currently playing in any games will always have at least 100 , so you won't run out!

Might I suggest a feature?

When you complete a game and your total points < 100, you gain 10 back on top of whatever winnings you made, up to a maximum of 100. So if you have 50 and win a game worth 12, you earn 22 taking you to 72. If on the other hand you win a game worth 57, you would only get your 57 winnings. Does that make sense?

This means that you can earn your way back to 100 in a few games without missing turns.