Wordfeud League of Honour

ATTAINS , I have sympathy with your view on LoBot. The system was a lot less troublesome before the auto alerts were introduced but I can see that they serve to raise players´ awareness. I think the content could be better as the message just advises players to post the state of play. I think the advice should be around submitting shots of time elapsed between moves, chat encouraging an opponent to finish etc.. I definitely don´t think that LoBot should be overruling itself in terms of auto results which are part of the rules. I go back to players taking responsibility within their group to flag up an issue etc.. As you point out ATTAINS, there are a lot of groups and I don´t think we should expect someone from the WLoH team to wade through them all and LoBot´s alerts are posted well over 24 hours before a season´s deadline and the paradigm may undergo a considerable shift in the meantime.

I criticise nobody because I very much appreciate how difficult table judging can be! I do, however, have a concern that if shots are submitted the state of play is given to much weight rather than who is trying to get the game done. I will give 2 practical examples of how a situation can be turned on it´s head in very swift time:

1) my opponent got off to a flying start and I was working hard throughout the game to catch him/her. I was still about 40 behind with 7 1 pointers, 0 in the bag. A bingo in my rack but nowhere to play it. Opponent kindly opened a TW and out I went with what had looked to be an unlikely win.

2)same start as above but had managed to claw a nearly 300 lead back to 100+. Right towards the end with the board very tight/closed , to my utter amazement and joy my opp bust the board open for the sake of 12 points??!! I played HAZ(i)NGS on 2xDW with the Z on a DL. I was in contention but realised my opponent had the advantage because it was their play. They took increased their, by now marginal lead but opened a TW and I was out with a win.

Suffice it to say that both players concerned were underwhelmed. @captainkos they may benefit from some advice from your coach Monty:) On a serious note I was trying to stress that the auto result thing should be about efforts to get the game finished and not whether or not a lead appears to be ´unassailable´.

Finally returning to player responsibility.... in my group, div 5 group 6, as it stands relegation may be decided by auto result. This has been the case for a while. No idea why LoBot didn´t pick up on it but in any event, hopefully the final game will finish.

I can´t remember the exact groups I saw these incidents in before as they took place in lower divisions. There are far too many groups at those levels for me to try and find them. However, I have looked through all the 3rd division groups in each language for the previous season. Two incidents stand out.

US

Season 109 - Division 3 - Group 3

Prior to the scores for the incomplete games being set, the table looked like this:

Name/Played/Points

patron-86 8 10

Feline Freak 8 10

ericjohnsonchips 8 10

Mr. Handy 7 8

debigG 8 8

berm 7 8

Master Ed 8 4

radcliffelisk 7 4

esco682 5 2

patron-86 had completed all of their games before the deadline and had the highest spread.

Mr. Handy went on to win the group after being awarded a 150-0 win against esco682.

It is most likely esco682´s fault that the games weren´t complete as they had three incomplete games, while nobody else in the group had an incomplete game with anybody other than esco682.

Mr. Handy should not have been promoted though as he only finished top due to the 150-0 win for an incomplete game giving him a higher spread. To make matters worse, Mr. Handy admitted that he was losing to esco682 before the deadline.

I´m not saying it happened here, but giving Mr. Handy the win in this situation is encouraging people in his situation to make sure the game isn´t completed before the deadline as that 150-0 win will secure promotion.

The second incident I found was:

French - Season 94 - Division 3 - Group 2

Prior to the scores for the incomplete games being set, the table looked like this:

Name/Played/Points

zorglub94 7 14

CaptainSpeaking 6 8

danydu13 6 6

pastaciutta 5 4

Erinette 2 2

Julien 5 2

parissaka 5 2

Vaibreyshun 2 0

Both Erinette and Vaibreyshun are playing slowly. LoBot even warns these two that they can´t gain an advantage by not completing their games. Perfect. They both go down right? Unfortunately not.

LoBot decides that parissaka should be relegated in place of Erinette.

parissaka had managed to complete five games. The only games they hadn´t finished were against Erinette and Vaibreyshun, both of which were the two slowest players, only managing to complete two games each.

One could argue here that parissaka has gained an advantage by not completing these two games, but in all likelihood it is not their fault. Both Erinette and Vaibreyshun have only managed to complete two of their games, suggesting that they have been playing slowly in the majority of their games.

It is also entirely possible for Erinette to be at an advantage by not completing her games. If she knows she´s losing them all, she may as well not move in them so that she can remain above Vaibreyshun and parissaka in the table.

There doesn´t seem to be any consistency between these two situations. In the US example, promotion is determined from the table after the 150-0 scores are set. In the French example, relegation is determined from the table before the 150-0 scores are set.

I appreciate that it´s hard to know when people are playing slowly in order to manipulate the tables, but those finishing all of their games should be rewarded, while those who can barely finish any should be punished. The two examples I gave show that the opposite is taking place at present.

On a general note... I firmly believe that players should take responsibility. I always flag up and/or email if I am in danger of having an unfinished game that is going to affect promotion/relegation. We play for free in a well run and regulated league and the WLoH team do their stuff in their own time. If it takes players a little effort to check out their group from time to time during the season I don´t think that is too much to ask:)

Describing ´Fast´ and ´slow´ players is usually too simplistic, that is dictated by opinion and perception. Using your description though I have known many players who are fast become slow when they think it may benefit themself to do so. It is the responsibility of all players to highlight potential issues re fairness, if you don´t want to make the effort to do so why do you think anyone else should in a league which is free of charge?

I would be interested to look at the situation you have seen in your example. Please state a season, division and group which are relevant to your alleged observation.

If a board looks something like this:

Name/Played/Points

Glen 7 14

Jane 6 8

John 6 6

Paul 6 6

Mark 7 6

Rosa 6 4

Slow 2 2

Tony 6 0

Slow should be singled out as, once all of the 150-0 scores are set, they will be occupying a relegation zone. However, in situations like this, I have seen Rosa singled out instead. It´s not Rosa´s fault that Slow is playing extremely slowly but, if she doesn´t comment, she gets relegated while Slow is reprieved from relegation.

I´m not so sure that asking people to comment here to save themselves is the best solution either. I usually don´t visit the site unless it is to register my scores. Unless Rosa finishes her game with Slow, it is likely that she won´t visit the page in order to see the comment. I know we get an e-mail as well, but several people use multiple e-mails and their e-mail address associated with WordFeud may not be one that they check regularly.

If a player is so slow that all of their 150-0 defeats cause them to occupy a relegation zone, they should be relegated. Unfortunately this isn´t happening and the slow players are finding themselves rewarded.

For example:

A slow player is only able to complete two games, winning both. Their other five games are scored as a 150-0 defeat and they finish with four points.

Another player in the group finishes all of their games, apart from the one against the slow player, but they also finish on four points.

Why is the other player relegated in this scenario? It´s not their fault that they haven´t been able to complete the game against the slow player.

It is important that players respond to that post. Currently you are not in danger of relegation.

IMCOST and HELENJOY are tresourous people of a kind you would not believe existed, people who out of their pure generousity donate to WLoH and keep the site running.

The winner gets promoted, the two last players will be relegated. With this many fine players it is hard to tell you who wins, but I guess kathyh1 will top the table at the end of the season.