You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


didb72
Didb72  (Level: 209.6 - Posts: 243)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:10 AM

TRIVIA SHOWDOWNS AGAINST INACTIVE PLAYERS

How do you feel about challenging a player who has been away from Sploofus for months?

I am facing the possibility of earning easy points by challenging two players above me. These two players have been away from the site for months, they are not active anymore. Personally, I don't really feel comfortable with the idea.
Cheers

madamec8
Madamec8  (Level: 82.5 - Posts: 891)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:23 AM

I wrestled with that, too, thinking I was taking something away from the person ... was told that my concern for fair play was commendable, but it really didn't cost the person anything except his/her place in line. I think trying to re-program showdowns to test for recent activity in the next person would take more effort than would be gained, and it could be put to better use elsewhere. Just my humble opinion, of course.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:39 AM

Jeez, don't take away this time honored (surely) way for newbies to climb the leaderboard. Inactive players are as rare as hen's teeth pretty quickly as you rise in standing.

foogs
Foogs  (Level: 267.4 - Posts: 848)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:41 AM

When I first started doing showdowns I would scope out who
was in front of me, then use wager tokens to move me
behind likely wins. A number of times I challenged inactive
players. Not a huge number, but when it was possible.
Once I did the showdown I moved on.

Believe it or not it took me about a year to realize I could have
been challenging those empty accounts up to 8 times. I'm
a slow learner, I guess. More cheesiness to be aware of, I guess.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:42 AM

There must be several inactive players near my level. I am still doing a showdown a day and have only suffered one loss in the last 23 showdowns. My points have tripled. I don't think that you can help who is in front of you. I have 34 more tokens and plan to use them even though some of the names popping up are excellent players.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:46 AM

I guess I'm a very slow learner Foogs. How do you challenge the same person again, after you've gained the points? OHHH, like because they have 7 days to respond before the points are awarded. Oh horsefeathers maybe I should start all over!!

fainodraino
Fainodraino  (Level: 113.0 - Posts: 240)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:47 AM

I've done it several times. I see nothing wrong with it. Actually, once I challenged someone who was inactive, and then they all of a sudden got back on, and they wound up beating me! Boy, was I surprised!!!

swiper
Swiper  (Level: 146.2 - Posts: 874)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 8:59 AM

Felix! That's quite a record! Congrats!

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:59 AM

Thanks Kelley! Are our Yankees Rockin' or what?

bigbird
Bigbird  (Level: 239.2 - Posts: 3300)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:07 AM

I wish I had been bright enough to think of it. Go for it. Now, I am sitting below Kaufman, so forget it.

dizzy
Dizzy  (Level: 180.7 - Posts: 296)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:14 AM

Go for it Didier unless you already have, you will pass that person shortly anyhow

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:56 AM

Excellent strategy, part of the game and perfectly fair.

smaug
Smaug  (Level: 141.2 - Posts: 2772)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:59 AM

No qualms here. since Felix turned me on to the strategy I am 8-0-1

achad
Achad  (Level: 204.2 - Posts: 661)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 11:14 AM

Definitely go for it: I'd guess that most players have done the same. Take the points when you can

didb72
Didb72  (Level: 209.6 - Posts: 243)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 12:07 PM

Thanks everybody. I have ignored my scruples and went for it. Answer correctly in 6 sec. I have done my best so wait and see. Mind you the player that I have just challenged, has been inactive for more than one years.
That should compensate all the showdowns lost because of baseball questions

spacecat
Spacecat  (Level: 158.6 - Posts: 667)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 12:13 PM

If the person does not respond to your challenge you can answer incorrectly and still get the points. You have to wait an extra 24 hours till the points actually apppear.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 1:42 PM

My gut reaction has always been to consider that cheating as well. It's certainly not "fair" to those like me who have never done it, but it seems to be common practice here, much like googling, so I would just suggest doing it.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 1:43 PM

It's not about points anyways, right?

redwingchick
Redwingchick  (Level: 91.1 - Posts: 420)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 1:52 PM

I got no problem with it. It's points not money. If they are inactive, what do they care?


smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 2:13 PM

"What do they care?" I'll assume this is the ethical basis (is it?) for your lack of objection, and continue from there.

It doesn't seem to be a crime against them so much, the only thing it effects is their showdown percentage, and their standing on the leaderboard and everybody's standing below them, but a crime against other players who are not doing it or do not have the chance to do it. It seems to me if it is cheating (and I don't think it is) then it is for the same reasons anything is cheating, you are getting "extra" unearned points. Theoretically, you get extra points for the added difficulty of competing against another. That competition is absent, therefore so should the extra points be absent. It gives you an advantage over other more scrupulous players who will not be getting those points. How is it different then getting "unearned" points in other ways?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 2:24 PM

It's earned by playing the board. We're all able to scout the board and see who's above us for showdowns. If you participate in them, you should be scouting opponents, and if you're not, you're not playing as well as you could be. It's not difficult to save your tokens and scout ahead, and even wager yourself into position. That's how it's supposed to work, isn't it?


lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 2:40 PM

What's the diff between playing against an inactive player (who obviously holds no interest in sploofus and could give a rip about points) and a player who is too scared to respond to showdowns so they have a 0% win average?

crazy4games
Crazy4games  (Level: 123.0 - Posts: 1020)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 5:04 PM

Lodi makes a good point. Some players a very active, but won't respond to a showdown. I just don't understand that.

Recently, I initiated 3 challenges against the same player. Sure, that player has been inactive lately, but that is not to say that s/he couldn't pop in and reply to those challenges at any time. I was the one who had risked almost 750 million points.
No way do I feel bad for challenging inactive players. It's all part of the game.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 5:31 PM

I laid down seven challenges on an inactive player and he came awake and beat me on four of them, and good for him. There's still enough risk to give you a good bite.

dizzy
Dizzy  (Level: 180.7 - Posts: 296)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 5:42 PM

I fail to understand why anyone should duck a challenge, they have nothing to lose. I always respond to a challenge but rarely initiate them because
1) I am on dial-up and cannot compete on speed, I have lost count of the number of times I have lost on the timer,
2) The questions on showdown, and the QOTD, are US oriented. don't have a real problem with this as its where the site is based.

If a person is innactive then they don't care anyway and are not supporting the site, so why are they not dumped after say 6 months???, this would help to resolve the issue

bigbird
Bigbird  (Level: 239.2 - Posts: 3300)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 6:11 PM

I think they must be dumped after awhile. I recently checked my list of friends whom I had referred, and noticed that several of the ones who signed up, and then stopped playing, are no longer on my list.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 6:50 PM

Smoke: I'm debating for debating's sake. Why, using that reasoning, wouldn't googling TQOTD be "strategy". If pretending to challenge a player for extra unearned points who for all intents and purposes doesn't exist is strategy, then why wouldn't pretending to know the answer on a TQOTD for extra unearned points by googling be "strategy"? I just don't get the difference.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 6:58 PM

I totally agree, Jeremy. You can't have it both ways - it's either both wrong, or both right.

And, the only opinion that matters is Justin's - and there's nothing in the rules against either, so to me that means both are right.

The one way to fix this situation (should Justin change his mind and decide that challenging inactive members to a showdown is not fair) is take away the rule that if the challenged player doesn't accept the challenge you win points even if you answered incorrectly.

Only award points for correct answers. That'll make the "strategy" not quite so attractive.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 7:01 PM

Rationalizations.

WWJG?

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 256.8 - Posts: 3936)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 7:03 PM

... Or if Justin tweaked the code so that your challenge would go to the next player above you who had shown some activity in the last however long. But as far as I know, no one has even considered such a thought.

ravensclaw
Ravensclaw  (Level: 43.0 - Posts: 158)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 7:19 PM

Abuse that idle account! lol

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 7:47 PM

I don't understand why any of it matters. Who cares who googles their TQOTD? Who cares who googles through all the quizzes putting them in the top score but with obviously long times? Who cares who googles their way through the WP's?

I don't. It doesn't matter to me what anyone else does. I think the site offers opportunities for all types. There are things you can google and if its not your bag, play the WR's & WM's, which reward the quickest, most accurate players.

And how can you tell someone who googles from someone who mulls over answers or someone who tries to guess in the fewest number of moves, no matter how long it takes? You can't. Big whoop! We all have our own style & preferences.



smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 7:48 PM

Ken, maybe it would be fairer to be limited to one challenge per player per month? Then it wouldn't be worth spending a wager token short to get into position, and you might hit one on the way up but you couldn't park on it. Dunno, have to think about it. Not fair to tighten the rules on the folks lower down after we've climbed up?

This started out being about googling TQOTD, which is bad enough, but I'm slackjawed that it's defended in SHOWDOWNS? If that's the way you want to play, I'll remember that if I ever come up behind you. I'm not giving anybody the chance to google a quarter of my points away. I need those dead accounts more than ever now.

Depends on what you call fair play. I think fair play is playing in good faith by the guidelines that most players have a reasonable expectation are in effect, not finagling an advantage by wiggling around a rule that shouldn't have to be written down to be understood - it's not sporting to google the answers to the questions. I certainly have never competed here with the expectation that other players were googling answers to questions, and if they are, we're not playing the same game at all. Frankly, the level of acceptance shocks me.

When I challenge a dormant account, I'm not pretending anything, I'm playing the board. I have a reasonable expectation that everyone on the board has the same opportunity to play it the same way I do. When you google quizzes and showdowns, you're taking rightful positions from people who had a reasonable expectations that you would not do that.

At least we used to.



lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:11 PM

So how do you tell the difference?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:23 PM

Difference?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:26 PM

Between who googles and who doesn't?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:45 PM

I don't. But I can sure as heck see who thinks it's okay. High response times have to be considered. Maybe they're not all dialups. I dunno, it's a lot to think about and I'm still getting my head around it that so many people are okay with it. I never would've expected that either.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:48 PM

Dialup, sitting & thinking about it, or googling. Hard to know. Same as a WP. Who's to know who is sitting there googling the whole time, or who just takes their time to guess with minimal letters.

Anybody ever googled to try and figure out the pictures puzzles? I know I've tried like crazy, usually to no avail. One consistent winner says she keeps two screens open, the WTHAI picture, and google. So what?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:49 PM

Yeah, right. So what. What kind of dream world was I living in, anyway?

Blows my mind.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 9:57 PM

.....phone calls, dog calls, doorbells, something on TV grabs your attention and you have to watch - some of the really important things in life.


lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:06 PM

Not everyone is capable of clicking a circle as soon as the question turns over. Cripes, I have had my own questions that have had close to a paragraph to read before you can even choose an answer.

I've decided to start dabbling in WR's again. I've noticed some huge discrepancies in my times, so one day, I would hit start and then hit submit as quickly as I could without clicking any answers at all. Some of my times to do that exceeded 6 seconds. Some of them were less than 3 seconds. What's that all about?

tresgatos
Tresgatos  (Level: 204.2 - Posts: 4185)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:07 PM

The WTHAI games are different. In my mind, Justin designed those games to be partly a test of detective work skill, whether that means googling or using other references.

But there's no way I believe that Justin designed quizzes or 30-second TQOTD and showdowns to be googled.

-- Geri

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:08 PM

Yeah. All interfering in the 30 seconds alloted for a showdown question. Just incredibly bad timing.



lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.6 - Posts: 2144)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:20 PM

My point was, not the entire 30 seconds if a showdown, but the fact that not everyone is on a level playing field for showdowns. Even if you had the ability to know the answer and click it immediately, you may lose because your computer had a slower turnover from the time you hit submit than the other person. There has been a lot of controversy over the years about that. Its not an even playing field, never will be, so long as we all have different computer and ISP speeds. There are probably a lot of people who think losing because someone has a faster computer is more frustrating than losing because somebody took 29 seconds and googled.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 19th Aug '09 10:31 PM

All of that is perfectly true, and beside the point. I don't really care about the numbers, I just have to get used to the idea that so many people are comfortable with it. Takes my head, is all.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus