Streakscumming/Winratescumming

[gammafunk]

The OP was stating that streaks indicate "only that the player's combination of early game luck and overall skill were sufficient to achieve a streak of that length," which is a pretty meaningless statement on the whole, but I guess OP was trying to say that streaks don't mean very much. Yet there aren't good ways to get streaks of dozens of wins using only luck if you're not very good at crawl, so the original point simply wasn't a valid one. Even getting relatively short streaks requires a high level of skill. You were actually the person who turned the discussion into "is merely winning the game online a form of scumming? One begins to wonder...", which is even less relevant.

The concept of grinding/scumming is relevant in the way the quote from the philosophy section of the manual describes. It's a type of game-play we wish to avoid whenever playing crawl and where we have control over whether this game-play is possible. The online scoring system should prevent cheating to the extent reasonably possible, and the dev team is hoping to improve the general situation by moving to unified logins, which will take some time and planning. But having everyone wave our hands in the air and symbolically ban all use of a word is pretty silly and doesn't achieve anything.

[Aule]

The concept of grinding/scumming is relevant in the way the quote from the philosophy section of the manual describes. It's a type of game-play we wish to avoid whenever playing crawl and where we have control over whether this game-play is possible. The online scoring system should prevent cheating to the extent reasonably possible, and the dev team is hoping to improve the general situation by moving to unified logins, which will take some time and planning.

So let me ask you directly, then: would you consider offline play in relation on online scoring to be cheating?

But having everyone wave our hands in the air and symbolically ban all use of a word is pretty silly and doesn't achieve anything.

Agreed.

[theglow]

Win scummers ITT unable to face the brutal truth bombs being dropped by the op

[Zooty]

Scene: A cafe. One table is occupied by a group of Vikings wearing horned helmets.
Man: You sit here, dear.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and scum; egg bacon and scum; egg bacon sausage and scum; scum bacon sausage and scum; scum egg scum scum bacon and scum; scum sausage scum scum bacon scum tomato and scum;
Vikings: scum scum scum scum...
Waitress: ...scum scum scum egg and scum; scum scum scum scum scum scum baked beans scum scum scum...
Vikings: scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and scum.
Wife: Have you got anything without scum?
Waitress: Well, there's scum egg sausage and scum, that's not got much scum in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY scum!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon scum and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got scum in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much scum in it as scum egg sausage and scum, has it?
Vikings: scum scum scum scum... (Crescendo through next few lines...)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon scum and sausage without the scum then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like scum!
Vikings: Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon scum and sausage without the scum.
Wife: I don't like scum!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your scum. I love it. I'm having scum scum scum scum scum scum scum beaked beans scum scum scum and scum!
Vikings: scum scum scum scum. Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
Man: Well could I have her scum instead of the baked beans then?
Waitress: You mean scum scum scum scum scum scum... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)
Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) scum scum scum scum. Lovely scum! Wonderful scum! scum scu-u-u-u-u-um scum scu-u-u-u-u-um scum. Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! scum scum scum scum!

[Aule]

Scene: A cafe. One table is occupied by a group of Vikings wearing horned helmets.
Man: You sit here, dear.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and scum; egg bacon and scum; egg bacon sausage and scum; scum bacon sausage and scum; scum egg scum scum bacon and scum; scum sausage scum scum bacon scum tomato and scum;
Vikings: scum scum scum scum...
Waitress: ...scum scum scum egg and scum; scum scum scum scum scum scum baked beans scum scum scum...
Vikings: scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and scum.
Wife: Have you got anything without scum?
Waitress: Well, there's scum egg sausage and scum, that's not got much scum in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY scum!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon scum and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got scum in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much scum in it as scum egg sausage and scum, has it?
Vikings: scum scum scum scum... (Crescendo through next few lines...)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon scum and sausage without the scum then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like scum!
Vikings: Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon scum and sausage without the scum.
Wife: I don't like scum!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your scum. I love it. I'm having scum scum scum scum scum scum scum beaked beans scum scum scum and scum!
Vikings: scum scum scum scum. Lovely scum! Wonderful scum!
Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
Man: Well could I have her scum instead of the baked beans then?
Waitress: You mean scum scum scum scum scum scum... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)
Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) scum scum scum scum. Lovely scum! Wonderful scum! scum scu-u-u-u-u-um scum scu-u-u-u-u-um scum. Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! Lovely scum! scum scum scum scum!

Truly LMAO funny. Thanks a million times.

[xentronium]

The point I was trying to make is that streaks are not inherently impressive unless skill is the major factor in achieving the streak.
For instance, the qw bot won 5 of its 250 games in the 0.15 tournament (wtf...very nice job coding that bot).

Obviously the bot plays with the same level of skill each time. Now, say that someone were to code the bot such that it engaged in the behavior described in the OP (made a fresh account every time it lost a game.)

At a 2% winrate, each account played by the bot would have a (2/100)^(-x) chance of having a streak of length x. So a streak of length 5 with 100% winrate would on average take ~3 billion attempts for the qw bot.

qw acheiving a 5 win streak after billions of games is not impressive.

Obviously real players don't play billions of games, so their streaks are much more impressive and indicate far higher skill than qw has.

[Tedronai]

For instance, the qw bot won 5 of its 250 games in the 0.15 tournament (wtf...very nice job coding that bot).

So if your winrate is less than 2% you're not human and somewhere above that you start being a filthy scummer :)

[Arrhythmia]

At a 2% winrate, each account played by the bot would have a (2/100)^(-x) chance of having a streak of length x.

Yeah, at a 2% winrate one should have a 3,125,000% chance of winning five games in a row.

[Lasty]

You are welcome to call me wrong, but please do not insinuate I am a liar.

I didn't call you a liar, I called you a troll. You're intentionally manipulating people into giving you attention by saying inflammatory nonsense that you admit you know is a bad use of words.

[Aule]

Bullshit doublespeak saying I believe something I don't really believe, and yeah that would make me a liar. I'd rather be known as wrong than untruthful, thank you very much.

[duvessa]

good thing youre both

[Aule]

good thing youre both

Yeah, that's great. Lovin' the ad hominems. Poetry.

[Lasty]

Bullshit doublespeak saying I believe something I don't really believe, and yeah that would make me a liar. I'd rather be known as wrong than untruthful, thank you very much.

If you are actually trying to post earnestly, and I have a really hard time believing that at this point, please explain why you posted this passage explaining that you knew what you're saying is deliberately provocative and misleading:

All right. So here's the finish. You ready?

The failure is in the term itself: scumming. It's a patently negative connotation that can be shown to be inconsistently determined and applied, and it is unnecessarily pejorative. The reason so much ire and angst has arisen as a result of my use in relation to wins has been solely because of the pejorative labeling.

[nicolae]

good thing youre both

Yeah, that's great. Lovin' the ad hominems. Poetry.

i think if they're not being used as the premise of a logical argument they're just called "insults"

[kroki]

For instance, the qw bot won 5 of its 250 games in the 0.15 tournament (wtf...very nice job coding that bot).

So if your winrate is less than 2% you're not human and somewhere above that you start being a filthy scummer

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[and into]

@ Lasty: So far as I can tell, I think Aule doesn't like that "scumming" is applied to "savescumming," and thus he coined the term "winscumming" in order to draw attention to what he thinks is a double-standard. Aule is worried that what he calls winscumming 1.) actually occurs often enough to be problematic and 2.) concerns a statistic (winrates) that is actually important. That's how I parse the passage you quoted. I think Aule is entirely wrong on both of those counts, and I also get the feeling that Aule believes others look down on things that he once did (such as savescumming) more than they actually do. However, while I think Aule is really far off-base, I do not (necessarily) think he is acting obtuse with the intent to troll.

@ xentronium: Yeah, I follow what you are saying, but I don't see how it is any cause for concern. Obtaining a decent streak (especially if it involves something other than Bes and the like) while being bad at the game would require preposterous luck. Theoretically, a complete novice with no real skill at poker could win a prestigious tournament. Realistically, it is not going to happen, and the theoretical possibility that it could happen is not a good reason to doubt the talent of those who consistently place well in tournaments.

I got a report on this thread and yeah, it is a silly thread, but it is also in CYC, so, whatever, it can stay open.

[Sandman25]

For instance, the qw bot won 5 of its 250 games in the 0.15 tournament (wtf...very nice job coding that bot).

So if your winrate is less than 2% you're not human and somewhere above that you start being a filthy scummer

All those wins are GrBe and MiBe with vampiric axes. If a human gets less than 2% wins under such conditions...

[Aule]

However, while I think Aule is really far off-base, I do not (necessarily) think he is acting obtuse with the intent to troll....

I got a report on this thread and yeah, it is a silly thread, but it is also in CYC, so, whatever, it can stay open.

Given that some of my assertions, denied outright as unbelievable, were confirmed by other posters during the discussion, I'd say even attempting to divine intent to troll would be a waste of time, but I'm happy you came to that particular conclusion.

If you are actually trying to post earnestly, and I have a really hard time believing that at this point, please explain why you posted this passage explaining that you knew what you're saying is deliberately provocative and misleading:

All right. So here's the finish. You ready?

The failure is in the term itself: scumming. It's a patently negative connotation that can be shown to be inconsistently determined and applied, and it is unnecessarily pejorative. The reason so much ire and angst has arisen as a result of my use in relation to wins has been solely because of the pejorative labeling.

It's pretty simple, mate. I don't think long and hard before I post (except when it really matters, like right this minute). I don't spend minutes and hours composing phrases and measuring them for effect (I'm spending several minutes right now). This ain't manifesto shit, here; it's a bar, no?

Did you know that if you edit a message when no one else has commented yet it doesn't record the change as edited? I can't tell you how many times I blew something out, went out of the room, and later came back to make a change that occurred long after the fact. Mostly minor, but sometimes quite large. (Sorry if this behavior has confused quick readers. Also, it's not happening with this one.) If one word could mark the mode my "contributions" here, it would be extemporaneity. I understand many will look at that and sneer, but I write the words that come to me in the thought; I don't go looking for them. Sorry also if this offends some, but I'm a writer and this is how I think.

The part you quoted, since you are asking for state of mind, went psychologically something like this: I posted a comment; hackles were raised; I defended my assertions; more hackles were raised; I became concerned; I countered rebuttals; others countered them also; more hackles were raised; I didn't really want so many hackles over something I believe to be insignificant, so I tried to "wrap everything up nicely." so we could move on with more important things. Also, internally, I am motivated by honesty over correctness; exploration over fixity. This runs obliquely to normal psychologies; perhaps even perpendicular. So be it.

I think it is impossible to gauge the intent of a poster from the little bits of electronic aether gathered in any number of servers. The words are not lenses through which one can peer to find definition; they are at best little mirrors that can only reflect what happens in our own minds.

Abandon hope of finding a consistent, uniform mentality for me through anything I say or write. I am, if anything, a philosophical vagrant. You should, if you must label me, call me mad instead.

Is that okay?

[Arrhythmia]

However, while I think Aule is really far off-base, I do not (necessarily) think he is acting obtuse with the intent to troll....

I got a report on this thread and yeah, it is a silly thread, but it is also in CYC, so, whatever, it can stay open.

Given that some of my assertions, denied outright as unbelievable, were confirmed by other posters during the discussion, I'd say even attempting to divine intent to troll would be a waste of time, but I'm happy you came to that particular conclusion.

If you are actually trying to post earnestly, and I have a really hard time believing that at this point, please explain why you posted this passage explaining that you knew what you're saying is deliberately provocative and misleading:

All right. So here's the finish. You ready?

The failure is in the term itself: scumming. It's a patently negative connotation that can be shown to be inconsistently determined and applied, and it is unnecessarily pejorative. The reason so much ire and angst has arisen as a result of my use in relation to wins has been solely because of the pejorative labeling.

It's pretty simple, mate. I don't think long and hard before I post (except when it really matters, like right this minute). I don't spend minutes and hours composing phrases and measuring them for effect (I'm spending several minutes right now). This ain't manifesto shit, here; it's a bar, no?

Did you know that if you edit a message when no one else has commented yet it doesn't record the change as edited? I can't tell you how many times I blew something out, went out of the room, and later came back to make a change that occurred long after the fact. Mostly minor, but sometimes quite large. (Sorry if this behavior has confused quick readers. Also, it's not happening with this one.) If one word could mark the mode my "contributions" here, it would be extemporaneity. I understand many will look at that and sneer, but I write the words that come to me in the thought; I don't go looking for them. Sorry also if this offends some, but I'm a writer and this is how I think.

The part you quoted, since you are asking for state of mind, went psychologically something like this: I posted a comment; hackles were raised; I defended my assertions; more hackles were raised; I became concerned; I countered rebuttals; others countered them also; more hackles were raised; I didn't really want so many hackles over something I believe to be insignificant, so I tried to "wrap everything up nicely." so we could move on with more important things. Also, internally, I am motivated by honesty over correctness; exploration over fixity. This runs obliquely to normal psychologies; perhaps even perpendicular. So be it.

I think it is impossible to gauge the intent of a poster from the little bits of electronic aether gathered in any number of servers. The words are not lenses through which one can peer to find definition; they are at best little mirrors that can only reflect what happens in our own minds.

Abandon hope of finding a consistent, uniform mentality for me through anything I say or write. I am, if anything, a philosophical vagrant. You should, if you must label me, call me mad instead.

Is that okay?

jesus wept

[Aule]

jesus wept

Congratulations. You made it into a Superbowl ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibgvkXm9Qkc

I told ya you'd make someone proud.

[twelwe]

However, while I think Aule is really far off-base, I do not (necessarily) think he is acting obtuse with the intent to troll....

I got a report on this thread and yeah, it is a silly thread, but it is also in CYC, so, whatever, it can stay open.

Given that some of my assertions, denied outright as unbelievable, were confirmed by other posters during the discussion, I'd say even attempting to divine intent to troll would be a waste of time, but I'm happy you came to that particular conclusion.

If you are actually trying to post earnestly, and I have a really hard time believing that at this point, please explain why you posted this passage explaining that you knew what you're saying is deliberately provocative and misleading:

All right. So here's the finish. You ready?

The failure is in the term itself: scumming. It's a patently negative connotation that can be shown to be inconsistently determined and applied, and it is unnecessarily pejorative. The reason so much ire and angst has arisen as a result of my use in relation to wins has been solely because of the pejorative labeling.

It's pretty simple, mate. I don't think long and hard before I post (except when it really matters, like right this minute). I don't spend minutes and hours composing phrases and measuring them for effect (I'm spending several minutes right now). This ain't manifesto shit, here; it's a bar, no?

Did you know that if you edit a message when no one else has commented yet it doesn't record the change as edited? I can't tell you how many times I blew something out, went out of the room, and later came back to make a change that occurred long after the fact. Mostly minor, but sometimes quite large. (Sorry if this behavior has confused quick readers. Also, it's not happening with this one.) If one word could mark the mode my "contributions" here, it would be extemporaneity. I understand many will look at that and sneer, but I write the words that come to me in the thought; I don't go looking for them. Sorry also if this offends some, but I'm a writer and this is how I think.

The part you quoted, since you are asking for state of mind, went psychologically something like this: I posted a comment; hackles were raised; I defended my assertions; more hackles were raised; I became concerned; I countered rebuttals; others countered them also; more hackles were raised; I didn't really want so many hackles over something I believe to be insignificant, so I tried to "wrap everything up nicely." so we could move on with more important things. Also, internally, I am motivated by honesty over correctness; exploration over fixity. This runs obliquely to normal psychologies; perhaps even perpendicular. So be it.

I think it is impossible to gauge the intent of a poster from the little bits of electronic aether gathered in any number of servers. The words are not lenses through which one can peer to find definition; they are at best little mirrors that can only reflect what happens in our own minds.

Abandon hope of finding a consistent, uniform mentality for me through anything I say or write. I am, if anything, a philosophical vagrant. You should, if you must label me, call me mad instead.

Is that okay?

sorry for you`re

[Arrhythmia]

jesus wept

Congratulations. You made it into a Superbowl ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibgvkXm9Qkc

I told ya you'd make someone proud.

i'm sorry i don't watch the superboll could you describe the link to me

[and into]

Okay, I think weeping Jesus and a link to a Super Bowl ad are just about the right way for this thread to wrap up.

From a flurry of PMs I received, it seems this has gotten out of hand. Aule said stuff, and plenty of others have argued against that stuff with varying degrees of patience. The only purpose in leaving the thread open at this point would be piling on.