Event Attendance: No Shows and Bails, discussion.

[Duckman]

so we alienate these people with a potential for no redemption? not so much forever but that scenario has potential for a relatively longer term punishment.

could there be potential in a mandatory prepay imposed on those people with known pattern of truency in order to get a spot in the game until they're percentage gets better? but then that adds more burden on an organizer. where's the balance?

now...putting the guys that do it maliciously(sp?) aside. the arguement on an individual standpoint is that ultimately it's "my time and i'm gonna do what i want with it". short of banning them entirely from games there's no real fool proof way of dealing with it.

with prepay you have people that really dont care about the 10-20 odd dollars and will give it up. really it's not THAT much money when you think about it. and what about the people that dont have paypal? personally i disagree with prepay to a certain degree because of the extra logistics involved for the orgs.

i'm prevvy to public humiliation for those that would affect those with the integrity to sign up and actually show up on a regular basis. most people dont really want their reputation smeared under any circumstance whether it be personal, dboard, work, whatever. call it a virtual flogging or display before being burned at the stake. obviously not to that extreme but you get the jist of it i hope.

*edit* sorry. first part of this post was kinda directed towards lisa and biff.

[lt_poncho]

If I want to be accountable, and I say I am accountable, and if I have to prepay to show how serious I am at being accountable - what's you email address that I can sent an EMT? I'll even swallow the $1.50 charge cause it's peanuts compared to the effort that went into planning and hosting the game.

Flip the coin! Go to Paintball tournaments - gawd do you think THEY don't get a huge piece of the action when THEY host something to the effect of SKYBALL? Come ON! They certainly don't do it for the 'love of the game'...

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Dirty Deeds

Which brings me to the Player Integrity rating. Who would be in charge of leaving the feedback? I mean, not many people will like their fate left to just anyone.

People who play in the same game have the ability to rate one another and can only rate one another once per game they play together. Its just like a transaction, only the buyer and seller can rate one another.

I'd have to think more about that process. I would definitely build in a dispute resolution so that if two people slag one another they can work it out and then go back and rescind one another's negative rating. That would promote resolving differences.

I'm not saying its a perfect system, but its a starting point...

[BiffTheAncient]

I agree with Lisa only because the last game we attended at Flag Raiders was al most full (20 player cap) and half of the people were only tentatine and ended up pulling out.....

Now if you have a player that no shows for 3 consecutive games and then confirms that he is going to attend your game filling the player cap, but some one else who has attended every one of the games they said thay would wants in. Now the Faithfull attender is penalized because some one who has trouble keeping their promises wants to screw with other people. So the Guy no show....

[Dirty Deeds]

What would the rating be based on? Would it be a negative only based rating? For example: "X" player didn't call hits or "X" player was shooting someone on full auto, spending half a high cap from 7 feet away?

I mean, you would have to set it up so that friends are not boosting ratings for friends. Just trying to help by throwing such questions at you.

[whisper_kill]

Actually, all this brings up another point. What is the point of a "tentative" post? Either you plan on going, or not. Post once you've made that decision. It keeps things way more simple and easy to follow.

[DeathSniper]

Hey hey now, leave Mr. Tenative alone!!!

[Phalanix]

What're you worried about, Mr. Tentative? You'd always end up showing anyways...

But as for "tentatives" - it's usually up to the host if he/she will accept tentative status. (i.e. Freedom Fighter doesn't care about 'tentatives'. Only yes or no.)

[Brian McIlmoyle]

I think a number of factors are at play here.

1. people have a loose concept of what "confirmed" means ( this issue has already been discussed)

2. no one feels compelled to attend, because only words have been exchanged. Confirmation needs to have money attached.

3. the cost is too low, so the perceived value of participation is low.

4. getting to many of these venues is not easy for people who don't have transport. Many people are clearly fully intending on coming.. only to have their ride crap out... oftentimes resulting in not one person but 4 not showing.


Resolutions?

My experience is from organizing martial arts workshops.. and I have gone throught the whole no show, "confirmed" crap before, In some cases dealing with events with thousands of dollars laid out in advance.

The only resolution that I have found that works is a simple policy of
"the only confirmation is a paid confirmation"
This becomes then a "contract" The organizer agrees to hold the event as promised, the participant agrees to show up. It is a binding agreement with a meeting of the minds and consideration.
If the event goes off as planned.. the organizer held up his end, if the participant does not show up, they are in breach of contract and their money is forfeit to the organizer.

Methods to induce commitment have been mentioned, "Early registration" discounts, "no refund after" policies all work to this.

Organizers could offer "credit" to trusted people who have proven they show up when they say they do, allowing them to pay on the day.

and of course withdraw such credit if someone craps out on them, for the next game.

This would keep the whole thing informal, either you have "credit" or credibility, or you don't and have to prepay.

On the issue of Value, the going rate is $25 a day for play.. This is I think way too low, it is a "toss off" for most people and so it is easily "tossed off"
especially if you have not paid it yet..
There is a huge amount of work getting fields off the ground, and in organizing games ( as I am finding out with my work on TTAC3)
Work that is undervalued, clearly ( as we are having this discussion)

I think the minimum day rate should be $40 for "high level" scenario based games,,, and kept at $25 for the Shootem up skirmishes.

Require prepayment for "high level" games.. and pay and play for skirmishes.

This will change the perceived value of more deeply organized games, and generate greater committment.

On the issue of Transport,

Some thought of setting up pickup depots at transit hubs and setting up carpooling , also the higher entry costs may allow the organizers to rent a "team van" ( 14 passenger) to do a pickup at the transit hub to get "city borne" players to the game.

Just some thoughts, Take em or leave em

Good summary Brian.

As most of you are aware, when we organize and host out Muskoka events we generally provide a rather large meal for the players at the end of the day. We put HUGE amounts of time and money into the organization of those events, and we rely heavily on the attendance forecasts in the game theads to plan for food and beverages, to ensure we have enough food for everybody with minimal waste. As far as I know, nobody has ever left one of our Muskoka events dissapointed.

As such, we pay VERY close attention to attendance at our Muskoka games. Quite frankly, anybody who posts an intention to attend and fails to do so is not invited back. We can easily fill the space with more reliable people.

I have ZERO PATIENCE for people who make commitments they can't honor. If you're not 100% sure that you can attend a game, DONT FUCKING POST. Plans can't be made based on "Tentative". Likewise, threads like "I'd like to go but I can't" are fucking useless too...emergencies happen, but anything less than an emergency is fucking INEXCUSABLE and dishonourable, and in my mind is no different than flaking on a sale.

And frankly, who gives a fuck who's feelings are hurt by a ratings system? More accountability in this sport is welcome in my books.

[DragonHawk]

Originally Posted by Duckman

so we alienate these people with a potential for no redemption? not so much forever but that scenario has potential for a relatively longer term punishment.

could there be potential in a mandatory prepay imposed on those people with known pattern of truency in order to get a spot in the game until they're percentage gets better? but then that adds more burden on an organizer. where's the balance?

now...putting the guys that do it maliciously(sp?) aside. the arguement on an individual standpoint is that ultimately it's "my time and i'm gonna do what i want with it". short of banning them entirely from games there's no real fool proof way of dealing with it.

with prepay you have people that really dont care about the 10-20 odd dollars and will give it up. really it's not THAT much money when you think about it. and what about the people that dont have paypal? personally i disagree with prepay to a certain degree because of the extra logistics involved for the orgs.

i'm prevvy to public humiliation for those that would affect those with the integrity to sign up and actually show up on a regular basis. most people dont really want their reputation smeared under any circumstance whether it be personal, dboard, work, whatever. call it a virtual flogging or display before being burned at the stake. obviously not to that extreme but you get the jist of it i hope.

*edit* sorry. first part of this post was kinda directed towards lisa and biff.

Sorry, usually I don't enter much discussion, but I was thinking this might be a bit extreme. The 'no redemption' thing was what caught my eye.

To me, any rating system is not there to govern who can come to the game in an automatic sense. It's still up to the host to make the decisions. For a 'regular' pickup game, it wouldn't be as critical as for a planned and propped operation. I don't think the point is to automatically reject players from going to games; the point is to give the host more information so they can decide whether an unreliable player is filling a critical spot or whether they don't care.

I see this as not primarily an initiative to punish players who don't show. The idea is to give the hosts a better idea of real numbers. The absolute number of players doesn't matter so much (sometimes) as the last-minute changes.

Anyway, in short, I think it would be a useful tool assuming someone wants to put it together. I don't think it's applicable to every game, but it seems like there is a tendency towards bigger and planned games, so maybe I'm just living in the past.

[Duckman]

nor am i trying to imply that it's meant in all sorts of games. obviously it's more important to all in the case of a larger sim type of game. my point is if you continuously (depending on hosts) omit them from a game list regardless of game size that person can potentially never get a chance to demonstrate they're new found consideration for the organizers and fellow players that are willing to actually commit.

not to belittle anyone's efforts of course.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Duckman

nor am i trying to imply that it's meant in all sorts of games. obviously it's more important to all in the case of a larger sim type of game. my point is if you continuously (depending on hosts) omit them from a game list regardless of game size that person can potentially never get a chance to demonstrate they're new found consideration for the organizers and fellow players that are willing to actually commit.

not to belittle anyone's efforts of course.

This is where the prepay, or credit approach will work... If you have flaked out in the past, you prepay in advance, if you never flake out... you can pay on the day..

[spleen]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

People who play in the same game have the ability to rate one another and can only rate one another once per game they play together. Its just like a transaction, only the buyer and seller can rate one another.

I'd have to think more about that process. I would definitely build in a dispute resolution so that if two people slag one another they can work it out and then go back and rescind one another's negative rating. That would promote resolving differences.

I'm not saying its a perfect system, but its a starting point...

With respect to the player rating idea, just to try to contribute something useful:

The problem I see with a system like this is that the popular and well known players will get rated much more quickly than the quiet solitary players. If such as system existed, after every game, all the Salamander Army players ( for example, or Wolfpack, or Bad Karma, etc ) would go and give each other positive ratings, so we'd each get +5 per game, plus all of our regular buddies on the teams we play with, another +10 or so, but who is going to rate the quiet guy who no one ever notices, who is playing a great, honest straight up game? Not AS many people, you can pretty much gaurantee that. I might suggest that you simplify it to carry only negative ratings. This wipes out most of the room for problems. Just straight up mark people when they are doing something bad.

But the dispute resolution is a fricken' nightmare, no matter which way you go...

[Bravo One-Six]

Should also add that such a system is unfair to players who only attend 3-4 games a season, while some players are regulars. Freedom Fighter would easily gather 30 or so points a year, while I may only get 5-8. Minimum 10 point limit for an event? I'm out.

If you're going to record all data, positive and negative, the host has to add the whole list of attended players to the positive column, and any flakers to the negative.

I think that the easiest solution is to require prepayment of the event. It secures you a spot and also gives the organizer some liquid assets to play with before hand. Large events are planned months in advance and give players loads of time to get in their payment. As Dragonhawk said, it's not as critical for smaller weekly games.

As I've said for Operation Pine Ridge, there's a "No Flake" Policy in effect. When you show up, you're there for the whole thing, no matter what. Sorts out the men from the boys. You leave early, you're on the blacklist. The only exception I've made is for Lisa and Katey because of Katey's Dialysis..