Penalty Points

Penalty points.

What if a player who basically FAILED, gift wrapped a game for someone else (the deciding factor) because of a bad move, had to fork over a bigger % of the loss points to the winner.

Bad move example.
Typical suicide.
Making a nothing to lose move knowing he can't win, basically choosing winner..,
A failed luck move (trying to get 2 sets without having a wild) not getting the double.
Or failing a kill move without a surplus of men.

We can be tolerant of new players under an x amount of games

Dunno how it would work, but it could be something that may be a deterrent from desperate moves, knowing that it could mean forking over more points than the others. Then that Risk factor they are playing with can be a Risk in on loss of extra points too.

Maybe a moderating thing, under the 'ask for help' list. A moderating staff member can verify who the penalty points go to in OBVIOUS, situations.

I can see that it could be abused, but perhaps if it was a request by more than 1 player before staff get the notification to review.

I think players would feel like they deserved to lose extra points and take it on the chin, when they know they screwed it up. That's if they care about points of course.

It's a good suggestion IMO. Although the 'obvious' thing is both important and limiting.

It's also a lot better than to just return points for all games that are slightly unfair (which is something we really shouldn't do).

It's not that easy to implement though, and not sure how the person that gets the penalty points substracted gets notified of it (otherwise he won't learn right?)

I don't agree, not because it's not a good suggestion but beacuse it is very difficult to implement it and it could create more problems than it solves.

It is very difficult to say for sure when a move is bad or suicide. You will have too many request to examine and it is very difficult to have an opinion if you dont participate in a game or watching it.

But the worst part is that someone might have a very good idea, tries it, doesnt work and someone else that doesnt understand it reports him and he gets punished. I have seen in my games 2 people arguing about a move and the defender accused the attacker for suicide when in fact it was a great move that didnt work because of the dice (and very bad moves that work because of the dice........). If i was a moderator and not particpating in the game i might had a different opinion and wrongfully punished the attacker.

I dont have a problem with suiciders or bad moves beacuse i always choose the players i play with but i think the best solution is the avoid list, eventually suiciders will have noone to play with unless they respect their opponents

"" avoid list, eventually suiciders will have noone to play with unless they respect their opponents""

 Very good idea hood..if it could be implemented fairly!!

 But i also like Antonis idea..an think it should be a option in the options section..so players can add or remove players they wish or dont wish to play. im like Anton,i PW 95% of my games to avoid the ones i dont wish to play...so i dont get to play many new playes..other then live games i join.

 It would also be one less job for admins to look after

 I love the idea in spirit ,but agree with the Antonis poster.

 
  Also, in many games, high risk/high reward moves are the best option for victory in capped games or games with opponents that seem to be working as a unit. 

 I tend to play a fair amount of larger games, with 4-7 players....and often you might find you share a bad start with a player that is known to be hyper aggressive to his neighbours.  In those situations, pre-emptive attacks that involve luck may be an only option.

 
 Also Fog, i find a lot of "bad moves" in Non Fog games, are good moves in Fog games.