ForumsForum GamesCount to 100 Discussion Thread

238 56035
Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

This is a discussion thread regarding rules and gameplay of 'Count to 100', so that the count isn't frequently interrupted and restarted when a mod posts.

Posts not on topic will be removed.

  • 238 Replies
kalkanadam
offline
kalkanadam
798 posts
Shepherd

Were not talking about the rules


Thats not what i meant to say, but I'm not gonna bother since its been resolved.
Pieguyme
offline
Pieguyme
1,010 posts
Blacksmith

Now, I don't know if I just don't understand this rule, but I think we should just get rid of the anti-P1 P2 P1 P2 Rule. It just doesn't make sense.

Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,381 posts
Templar

I agree with both proposals because proposal 1 is a good idea, and proposal 2 enforces proposal 1.

Edit: @Pieguyme, the rule against back-to-back posting was created to prevent two users from dominating the count.

Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

@Pieguyme: P1 P2 P1 P2 rules is for several reasons:
1. It's easy enough for two users who are both free at the same time just to just alternate and finish up in a couple minutes, which is not challenging at all. Two users would just start chatting to get to 100.
2. This makes it more of a community effort to reach a common goal. Coordinating three people minimum is harder than two.
3. There were a lot of arguments as to what was meant by back-to-back in the original popular thread whether it was P1 P1 or P1 P2 P1 P2. Since the older mods interpreted it as P1 P2 P1 P2, that's the way it was determined for this incarnation.

Pieguyme
offline
Pieguyme
1,010 posts
Blacksmith

@Gantic,

Alright, cool. Yeah, I don't know why I didn't think of that. My bad. Makes sense now. I just thought that because that's what happened so many times, and some people would do it on purpose.

Tactical_Fish
offline
Tactical_Fish
775 posts
Scribe

@Gantic, how do we tell if a post is intentional?

Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

It's usually very obvious like skipping to 100 or going back to 1 for no reason.

Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,926 posts
King

Current Topic
If a moderator edits a posts from a user for breaking some rule, should the count be restarted under the no edit provision of Rule 1? In pre-edit Armor Games, a moderator would have just deleted such a post, and users would have to start over anyway.

JACKinbigletters
offline
JACKinbigletters
9,521 posts
Templar

Yes as a rule has been broken and an edit has occurred, however seeing as a moderator is doing the editing and not the player it shouldn't count. But seeing as a rule has been broken the count should restart.

kalkanadam
offline
kalkanadam
798 posts
Shepherd

But its an AG rule not a Count to 100 rule.

Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,381 posts
Templar

The AG rules apply to all threads, including Count to 100. Part 3 of how to play states:

Restart the count from 1 after breaking a rule.


Because of this, if a mod edits out a rules violation, then a rule has been broken, meaning the count should be reset.
Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,381 posts
Templar

Double posting because there's a possible issue with one of the rules.

Recently, the following rule was added to Count to 100:

Posts with no numbers should be ignored.
Posts with intentional mistakes should be ignored.


Both of those rules are good at stopping those who wish to mess with the count. However, there has recently been an increase in false positives as far as the application of these rules, especially the 2nd one. By that, I mean that when there's a ninja fest, some users will ignore ninja'd nonspam posts before they get edited, adding to the confusion. These users claim that the ninja'd users are intentionally messing up. While this is incorrect, the following post is important to the situation:

[quote=Olinser]Seriously this is not hard. All you have to do is type out your post, cut it to clipboard, REFRESH the page, and paste the post in and hit submit.[/quote]

Essentially, the above post claims that ninja'd posts are intentional mistakes because there is an effective defense against a ninja (it's not foolproof, but it does lower the chance of being ninja'd). However, there are two issues with the above conclusion:

1) The OP of Count to 100 doesn't mention any defense against a ninja other than editing the number within 30 seconds.

2) Not everyone knows how to defend against a ninja, so it is incorrect to consider failure to defend against a ninja intentional.

I therefore suggest the following:

1) Numberless posts should still be ignored because the issue with being ninja'd has to do with posting the wrong number, not posting no number.

2) There are still some intentional mistakes that should be ignored. As a defense against ninja fests, only the following should be considered intentional mistakes:

- Skip-counting by at least 10.
- Back-counting by at least 10 EXCEPT for resets
- Ignoring a post by a mod or admin (always reset after one of them posts).

3) If the community relied on only the moderators to reset the count, there would be too much time wasted when someone messes up. This means that users should still be allowed to reset the count, but only if any of the following occur:

- An edit badge shows up, indicating that a user edited after 30 seconds.
- The number 100 has been reached, indicating a successful count, which will be ruled on by the mods.
- Someone double-posts, with neither post meeting the conditions for being ignored. Such a reset cannot be made by a double poster.
- Two users back-to-back post. Such a reset cannot be made by one of the back-to-back posters.

Note: These suggestions are specific, and slight modifications are affordable. My point is: The current anti-trolling measures are too strong because they result in false positives when it comes to ninja fests.
HyperPotato
offline
HyperPotato
39 posts
Peasant

Please everyone look at page 749 in count to 100

Olinser
offline
Olinser
648 posts
King

As the last couple hours have proved, the current anti-trolling measures are TOO WEAK, not too strong.

'Ninja' posts are part of the actual challenge. You have to be careful to NOT be ninjaed. You do that by refreshing the page before you post, and immediately checking your post after you do so.

Blatant trolling, on the other hand, there is no defense against. Even if you try and ignore the post, eventually they will get somebody to mess up and the thread has to restart, or they'll wait and make an 'accidental' mistake that they can claim wasn't their fault. When the same person continually messes up it starts to become pretty obvious.

Especially since they felt the need to attach a quest to it, I fully anticipate more trolling as people get the quest and then try and screw it up for other people.

1) There needs to be a rule that people that have the quest cannot post in the count anymore

2) If somebody that has the quest continues to actively troll (or makes an alt account to do so) they need to have the quest removed permanently.

3) There needs to be a way to 'blacklist' somebody from the thread. If a sufficient number of people (or a mod) are in agreement that somebody is intentionally screwing things up on multiple occasions, there needs to be a way to either petition for a ban from the thread, or their name added to the front post and EVERY POST of theirs can be ignored.

Patrick2011
offline
Patrick2011
12,381 posts
Templar

As the last couple hours have proved, the current anti-trolling measures are TOO WEAK, not too strong.


That exactly disagrees with me, so I will now respond to your points.

'Ninja' posts are part of the actual challenge. You have to be careful to NOT be ninjaed. You do that by refreshing the page before you post, and immediately checking your post after you do so.


That is an effective defense, but there is another defense added to AG recently: Editing. As long as the number is edited within 30 seconds, the ninja is averted. Otherwise, the count is broken. This means that anyone who either can't edit for some reason or has a really slow internet still has to rely on refreshing to avoid ninjas.

Even if you try and ignore the post, eventually they will get somebody to mess up and the thread has to restart, or they'll wait and make an 'accidental' mistake that they can claim wasn't their fault.


I don't have a direct response to the first part. As for the 2nd part, that's what the anti-trolling measures are trying to prevent, and it's why I don't support a COMPLETE removal of those measures.

When the same person continually messes up it starts to become pretty obvious.


If it's serious enough, the mods can ban those users because one of the official rules says no trolling.

1) There needs to be a rule that people that have the quest cannot post in the count anymore


This is a public forum, and that post shows that you want to limit access to Count to 100. Reaching 100 is not easy, so anyone who has the quest would be a pretty good counter.

2) If somebody that has the quest continues to actively troll (or makes an alt account to do so) they need to have the quest removed permanently.


I believe you are over-estimating the power of the quest as far as encouraging trolling. After all, there are over 600 quests, so 1 quest is not much. However, if the quest is as powerful a motivator of trolling as you believe, then a better defense is to remove the quest, which means not only disabling it, but also removing it from everyone who already has it.

3) There needs to be a way to 'blacklist' somebody from the thread. If a sufficient number of people (or a mod) are in agreement that somebody is intentionally screwing things up on multiple occasions, there needs to be a way to either petition for a ban from the thread, or their name added to the front post and EVERY POST of theirs can be ignored.


Again, the mods can temp-ban severe trolling. Also, bad users can become good users, so no user should be perma-banned from Count to 100 through this method. However, if there is a way to temp-ban users from only a part of AG, then that could be used to temp-ban trolls from Count to 100, with further trolling being penalized by at least a temp-ban of the whole account.

-----------------------------------------------

Please everyone look at page 749 in count to 100


The only significant point made in that thread is that additional considerations don't warrant resets. I'm not sure how the mods would rule about that, but here's my response:

No "spamming". Please don't post only the number and please don't post gibberish, either.


I don't think users should reset the count for this, though such an action might summon a mod to mod-reset.

No "cheating". This shouldn't need to be said. Counting to 100 doesn't count if you cheat.
This is an exercise in teamwork, not rule bending.


This doesn't contain a provision for enforcement. It's just a reminder that if the rules are broken, then the count can't be successful.

No "spoiling". Don't mess with the count. Posts should start with the correct number.
Posts with no numbers should be ignored.
Posts with intentional mistakes should be ignored.


These are the anti-trolling measures, which I have already addressed.
Showing 16-30 of 238