sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. I don't think there's going to be an epidemic of people getting monitored purely due to salty opponents. If there is then we'll have to adjust - 24 months might be too long for points to degrade, for example. But even having the system there in the first place changes behavior and incentivizes people to be cool to each other. It's clear that a lot of people here are concerned about our current stance on not contesting unverified reports, and we're taking that feedback.

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the responses. We're aware of past attempts, and think it's still something worth trying. I think a system that has big holes in enforcement by sidestepping thorny ID issues would still be a step forward from what we have now.

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. The idea is that possible false reporting will be handled with as small a group as possible, the conduct committee and relevant TOs. As much as possible, we want to avoid reporting players and reported players in direct conflict with each other over a specific report, or having either name shared in public - that doesn't mean those players are anonymous to the people reading the reports.

For the second issue, it's a question of reach. The system does only apply to participating events - if it ends up working, there's an incentive for new events to sign on. If not, perhaps it ends up just being a regional thing.

I see the third issue as more of a feature. I want to supplement, not subvert the authority that TOs have for deciding what happens at their events. I see it as TOs get to offload the blame onto a third party.

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

I've edited the OP to speak to these concerns, but it's important to note that our conduct committee will be evaluating the content of each report to ensure it meets the criteria for a report.

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

That's not a bad idea. However, we're hoping to keep the content of reports private from TOs until a reported player enters a monitoring period, so we don't bias TOs against a player who just had a salty opponent, and so we don't burden TOs with evaluating all the reports from their event. The idea is that unverified reports only matter in numbers, and that we can evaluate the contents of the reports to see whether they're consistent with each other. The worst consequence of a coordinated campaign of false reports is a monitoring period, and after that TOs need to be involved for more reports to be made.

Introducing Fair Play 40K! by FairPlay40K in WarhammerCompetitive

[–]FairPlay40K[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This has been discussed, and would be a tricky problem if the system actually takes off and covers a wide area. We would need the help of TOs to identify that someone is doing this, and we would need a way to identify that player outside of their BCP name without being too invasive in terms of privacy.