Forum
I have a great PGA Detector idea!
|
JeremyS wrote
at 1:55 AM, Thursday February 14, 2008 EST
OK, hear me out... I think I have an idea that might work out.
People who are "PGA detected" cannot sit at a table unless there are at least 5 people at the table including the first person in the detected PGA (i.e. only brown and teal available). Then, assuming there are five people at the table, if the 2nd person tries to sit down, it pops up a permission box asking the players at the table if it is okay if the 2nd person in the detected alliance sits. If and only if every player agrees, the second person is allowed to sit. This would accomplish both the goal of preventing PGA collusion and prevent the side consequence of people not being able to play top level games. Seriously, we sat for 20 minutes tonight waiting for a 7th person at 2.5k because Vohaul couldn't sit with Pat Whalen, and every single person at the table was more than willing for Vo to sit. It would probably make sense to only allow the request to be made once (or until such time as every person who rejected the initial request has stood up) so that people can't spam rooms to be a jackass. |
Replies 1 - 5 of 5
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 3:16 AM, Thursday February 14, 2008 EST bump. great idea!
i havent yet experienced the banning from sitting thing yet (im sure i will soon) but great post jez |
|
jurgen wrote
at 5:10 AM, Thursday February 14, 2008 EST as always great idea from Jeremy.
I just fear 50% of the time you will have one guy opposing. On the bright side, 50% of games would start. However, before we change anything: it is still early in the month and soon more people will start playing 2,5k /10k so the problem might resolve itself. I know the pga detector might have its flaws but I think it needs more time to be evaluated before we start adjusting it after the first few bans no? Another option i see is sort of a feedback system. Let's say Ryan takes the top 50/100 players and screen them thourougly for suspect friendships. All players that are found to be clean can be sent a questionaire to ask for their opinion on all the correlations that are found. If you can answer: A) definitely pga B) friends that might help each other a bit more when deciding places at the end but acceptable if you know this might happen C)nothing strange noticed ---> you might be able to evaluate wether the ban is justified or not. I know this idea gives very subjective answers and can be manipulated, + people need to have sit with a certain minimum of games with the suspect... A lot of practical problems with it but I just wanted to launch the idea and see if Jeremy might be able to use his magic touch to convert this into a descent idea ;-) |
|
integral wrote
at 8:28 AM, Thursday February 14, 2008 EST lol
hi 5 other people, will you allow us to cheat? please say yes. |
|
|
JeremyS wrote
at 8:32 AM, Thursday February 14, 2008 EST The problem, int, is that imho it's flagging people who don't deserve it. And frankly I would have clicked yes in a heartbeat last night rather than wait 20 minutes like I had to.
|
|
Pat Whalen wrote
at 11:41 PM, Sunday February 17, 2008 EST you have such a way with words jer : P
great idea btw |
