# When something that was supposed to be fun became not fun [closed]

StackEgg! What a great invention. Probably the best thing to hit Stack Exchange since the invention of unicoins!

Very entertaining game, very fun to play. Many users have probably spent several hours playing this. And April Fool's day is not over yet.

However, where there is great inventions there seems to be users who use things for evil. Some users from Programming Puzzles and Code Golf have apparently raided other sites' stack eggs, forcing them to restart.

I hope, and believe, that this was not how the Stack Egg was intended to be used.

Code Review have had this happen twice already. Seeing your site getting reset by an "enemy site" is not fun at all.

I know that the Stack Egg is only here for a short period, so I can understand if this is not something that is prioritized by the devs. I would however like this short period to be a fun one, and not a period full of "attacking" other sites.

Easy solution: Require 'trusted user' privilege to vote to restart a site.

Even easier solution: Disqualify the evil PCG.

Either way, no matter what happens, I think the most fair thing for me to do is to notify everyone about this 'raiding' possibility. It might also explain some things to some sites who have been wondering why their site egg is being reset.

• The restart button exists. That tells me that this game was designed with raiding in mind. – Rainbolt Mar 31 '15 at 16:13
• Either way, coming into PPCG chat and flagging messages as offensive is probably not the right solution. – Geobits Mar 31 '15 at 16:14
• Something that might help would be for only recently active users (say, activity in the last 6 months) to be able to participate. Or at least disallowing accounts made today. – Sp3000 Mar 31 '15 at 16:15
• @Rainbolt Spoken just like a user who has 2.8k reputation on PCG. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:15
• I'm just pointing out that the button's existence appears, in my opinion, to serve no other purpose. So the question is, why does it exist? Remove it, and problem solved (mostly). – Rainbolt Mar 31 '15 at 16:16
• @Rainbolt Read this: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/20839560#20839560 – user245368 Mar 31 '15 at 16:17
• @Rainbolt Stack Exchange is a network where the whole point is to be constructive, to ask good questions and to give them the best possible answers, not yet another site for causing flame-wars, raiding-wars, or any other kind of wars. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:20
• @Tim I am absolutely not the one who flagged the chat messages. That was not my intention of this question. I see nothing bad in pointing out that the only one who so far has defended the button is a somewhat high-rep member on PCG. You should also read this chat message – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:22
• @Rainbolt I did not say that you had. I am just saying that SE sites are not meant for wars. Raiding other sites is a kind of war. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:24
• @Rainbolt I imagine that the "reset" button exists so that a site whose actual users have gotten their egg too messed up can bail and try again. Because having a chance to learn and try again would be fun for all the players on that site, while going and messing up other sites' efforts is only fun for those doing the raiding. – Monica Cellio Mar 31 '15 at 16:39
• @AdamDavis Now now, let's not stoop to their level, shall we? – John Mar 31 '15 at 17:55
• "Some users from Programming Puzzles and Code Golf have apparently raided other sites' stack eggs, forcing them to restart." Sounds like fun to me! Kids these days are such softies. Time for a counter-attack! – Jason C Mar 31 '15 at 18:22
• Besides, face it: We all love arguing on meta way more than we like playing the game, by the way. So no matter how you look at it, great success! – Jason C Mar 31 '15 at 18:50
• Well, I see it a bit differently now. After giving it some thought, I really don't feel that sabotaging other site's games is in good spirits any more and I also discovered it was against the rules. So, that's that. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 31 '15 at 20:07
• @Rainbolt There was a restart button on my Nintendo, but that wasn't designed so that my brother could come along and kick the button. If it was meant for raiding then it would have been called "raid" or something equally user friendly. – user212646 Apr 1 '15 at 3:55

# Code Golf has won the game

Yeah. Code Golf is the winner of Stack Egg and can now enjoy the rest of the day basking in the admiration of the Stack Exchange network. We are as surprised as anyone that the game is over even before April 1 reached the timezones of most users, but the facts are undeniable. Well done Code Golf Stack Exchange!

(Note: the network leaderboard is automated and has not been updated to reflect the true victor. Expect that to be fixed 6-8 weeks.)

On a more serious note: coordinated voting in chat treads very close to voting fraud in my book. On the one hand, messes get cleaned up. But on the other, they are very arbitrary. Actions that originate in chat are, from a practical point of view, unauditable. Every time I see those messages in chat, I feel sorry for some unsuspecting user whose day is about to get a little worse.

Today's April Fools' joke was designed and implemented in about a month in our developers' and designers' spare time. It's a pretty impressive little multiplayer game, but it's by no means designed to withstand exploits. There just wasn't time to test it at scale. Tomorrow (or a bit later in your timezone), the game will be gone from the site. So it really is ungracious to ruin the fun of others for your own personal amusement.

I wrote up a premortem on StackEgg. There's still plenty of time to enjoy the game.

• – gnat Mar 31 '15 at 18:49
• Yes, they are winners! They proudly won by performing a massive vote fraud and by openly and admittedly cheating! How lovely! – Victor Stafusa Mar 31 '15 at 18:54
• For the ungracious part, people are less likely doing this if it is permanent or otherwise important. For the voting fraud, everyone knows that a perfect voting system isn't possible. It's strange that we can't express the impossibility even in a game which doesn't forbid that in the rules. – user23013 Mar 31 '15 at 19:08
• @user23013: Sadly, I do not see much evidence of that. The "raids" are a natural extension of everyday activities in some chat rooms. – Jon Ericson Mar 31 '15 at 19:14
• I'm an active, enthusiastic user at PPCG and this is the first time I've heard about the raiding. I didn't even participate and I feel ashamed. :( – Alex A. Mar 31 '15 at 19:18
• I have a feeling you (not you personally, you as the Stack Exchange team) should have seen it coming, knowing how several sites work. Not sure there was anything to be done to prevent it, but still - looks like it caught you by surprise. Anyway, totally agree with your serious note. :) – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Mar 31 '15 at 19:18
• As I said in chat, this game would've been so much more fun if the initial reaction was "PPCG is attacking our egg. Rally the troops!" instead of "PPCG is a bunch of nasty cheaters". – Geobits Mar 31 '15 at 22:23
• @Geobits: Maybe that could have happened. But if you are like me and woke up to people from one site sabotaging the game of another while the game was still new and fresh, it's a lot to expect. Further, without a built in method of knowing where votes are coming from, it's a lot like the prisoner's dilemma with only one participant knowing the rules. – Jon Ericson Mar 31 '15 at 22:31
• @JonEricson Well, we anticipated it wouldn't take long for others to figure it out (and it didn't), and we weren't hiding anything in chat, that's for sure. We weren't being sneaky, and assumed others would start doing the same in short order, whether they got the idea from us or figured out the (somewhat obvious) possibility on their own. We just really misjudged the reaction, I guess. I thought it would end up as a fun little game with interaction/battles between sites, not each site sitting in its own silo clicking buttons. – Geobits Mar 31 '15 at 22:36
• – bjb568 Mar 31 '15 at 23:02
• Given the culture of code golf, I suspect PPCG was liable to see exploiting the rules as being in good fun, just as taking advantage of a technicality in a programming challenge is not cheating but creativity. – xnor Apr 1 '15 at 2:32
• Update: Anime & Manga will win the game, incessantly pushing on with voting bots and luckily unassailed by griefing bots. – Runer112 Apr 1 '15 at 4:16
• @xnor yeah while everyone else sees them as aholes for ruining their fun – JamesRyan Apr 1 '15 at 10:11
• @xnor Ruining other people games is far from simply exploiting the rules as it didn't exploit anything at all. It is similar to children knocking others blocks down so they don't get a higher tower them theirs. There's no excuses for such acts. – Jonathan Drapeau Apr 1 '15 at 12:29
• @xnor raiding small sites with 1 or 2 users playing does not constitute a significant advantage, whereas it simply spoils the fun completely for other people. Not "rally the troops" but "let's go to someone else's house and trash it" – Sklivvz Apr 2 '15 at 0:09

Even I was surprised at how easy it was to reset a site. I don't see a way to make a site unrecoverable either - so I'm not sure there's even a reason for that option to exist. I'd suggest simply removing that voting option entirely - that's something users can't do on a regular site anyway, so why simulate it?

If it must be kept, raise the bar a bit. Have it require that at least 5 people and 90% of the votes cause a vote to reset, and that this vote also requires 90% of the players to vote.

It would be better if the further along towards winning the internet you were, the higher the requirements - it might take 20 votes and 95% to reset a site that was halfway to winning the internet.

I don't think we need to add other requirements, like user age or reputation. That's just extra code, and the above should be enough to restrict the option to legitimate resets.

Otherwise, it's only going to be used for griefing.

Also consider allowing a single user to play only one game at a time. If you want to work on your PCG egg, you can't play the SO egg and vice versa. This should limit it as well.

• Just reset a site when there are no votes for X ticks, so if a site has become so unrecoverably bad that nobody is interested it can start fresh, and if people still want to keep going, they can. – Servy Mar 31 '15 at 17:22
• "Also consider allowing a single user to play only one game at a time." <--- this – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 31 '15 at 20:41

I propose to limit restarts to users who have the most rep on the site they're playing on. It doesn't 100% guarantee that that site is the user's favorite site, but I believe the chance must be good enough to prevent that.

• There's no point in this. You don't need the restart button if you want to be a jerk and harm another site's game. – balpha Mar 31 '15 at 16:35
• @balpha The restart button is the most efficient way of harming another site's game though. Sure, you can vote on bad options as well, but a restart is much more "effective". – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:41

I suggest limiting reset votes to those with more than 200 reputation. That'll cut off the cutthroat strategies.

At the very least, this should require at least a 75% approval to reset, and at least 2 votes regardless. This would effectively keep a single person from restarting sites, at the least they would have to work together to do something.

• 200 is still a pittance. I agree, but think it should be around 1k-5k – John Mar 31 '15 at 17:09
• @John Let's just set the trusted user level to the same level where users are given the ability to vote to shut down a site. – Pollyanna Mar 31 '15 at 17:18
• This seems to be implemented now. I just had have Programmers.SE win the internet, but now it doesn't allow me to play a new round there. – Bergi Apr 1 '15 at 23:35

The simple solution is to stop people from restarting a game if it isn't shot, that is pretty simple:

• More then 50% majority to restart the game
• Users need to have at least 200rep on the site to restart the game
• Trusted users & Moderators (highest rep level) can veto a restart
• Serial re-starters can get temporarily banned from stackegging
• More then one user must vote during the confirm, this could be key with small sites...

...okay this might take to long, after all its a 48 hour period, as to why this didn't occur to SE before hand defies reason....

• I'm going to suppose that we were too optimistic about people enjoying a game and not trying to impose their own custom rules onto other communities. Lesson learned. – Adam Lear Mar 31 '15 at 23:51
• @AnnaLear Pitty indeed... D: I hope we've been good enough to at least get somthing next year Please face – GiantCowFilms Mar 31 '15 at 23:58
• I'm not sure I would call these five points "pretty simple". – Simon Forsberg Apr 1 '15 at 0:36
• Not simple to implement, no, but the logic is pretty obvious – GiantCowFilms Apr 1 '15 at 0:59
• Some would be simple, like the reputation/ majority/ minimum number of users. The veto/ banning serial restarts would be rather difficult... – PearsonArtPhoto Apr 1 '15 at 11:53

Obviously, it's a bit late now, but I think a lot of the griefing could have been prevented if the game window showed who was playing, and perhaps even how they're voting - maybe not for every action, but certainly for resets. Attach some personal responsibility to actions, and suddenly you're not just an anonymous troll who's doing shady things to win; instead, you're a jerk who is ruining other people's fun.

I think there is another option.

If they really existed for good reasons, let them update only once in a few hours or even a day, and we can't be constantly awake for doing this (or being suspected for doing this).

PPCG will probably still be raided. But that doesn't matter much. Everyone else can then enjoy their own games.

• This doesn't solve the original problem, as it doesn't stop the resets themselves. Imagine your egg is 95% finished and suddenly reset. That takes away the fun of playing, no matter the leaderboard. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 18:35
• @SimonAndréForsberg I agree that the reset option should be removed or restricted. But they say that wouldn't solve the whole problem. I think removing the leaderboard should solve the other problems. – user23013 Mar 31 '15 at 18:39
• Well, at least it would solve a part of the other problem. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 18:40
• The leaderboard is part of the fun. The trick is to help the game to be a progressive thing, like all of Stack Exchange is. – PearsonArtPhoto Mar 31 '15 at 18:44
• Yeah, don't take away the leaderboard. If you're that anti-competition (which is totally OK), just don't play competitive games. You don't have to play the game. – Jason C Mar 31 '15 at 18:45
• @JasonC I'm on PPCG's side to try not being too competitive, if they think it is not fun anymore even if nobody from PPCG is likely still raiding others (I'm not sure, but probably). It is just one option that I can think of after all. – user23013 Mar 31 '15 at 18:57

For me, the problem is that it is not immediately clear that sabotaging the other site's games is against the rules. Yes, we can argure that this is "obvious" but the actual rules are hidden behind a "?" that few will click. This is just a game, after all, and many don't see the harm in having a little fun with the other sites.

Perhaps we could make it a little bit clearer?

Disclaimer: I admit that I was one of those people until someone pointed this out to me in the rules. Therefore I apologize for not noticing sooner and want to avoid this happening to others.

• It's fun to go around a chess tournament flipping boards around so no other people can finish their game? Ok... – Jonathan Drapeau Mar 31 '15 at 19:47
• This isn't a chess tournament - it's an early April Fool's Day prank. Let's not blow things out of proportion. People practice chess. People are skilled at chess. This is just people clicking buttons. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 31 '15 at 19:49
• What's the difference really? A game stays a game, whatever it might be or how long it might stay online. – Jonathan Drapeau Mar 31 '15 at 19:50
• Hey, I'm not defending what I did. I'm trying to help others see what I had missed. – uɐɯsO uɐɥʇɐN Mar 31 '15 at 20:08
• This is in the rules now, but was not originally (not even in the clickthrough). Flipping a chessboard around is absolutely against the rules, so nothing but a strawman. – Geobits Mar 31 '15 at 20:23
• And what wasn't in the rules that got there after being done? Plenty of things. – Jonathan Drapeau Mar 31 '15 at 20:43
• Maybe it's fun for you, but on one site it kept restarting by either some loser with nothing better to do or a robot. What would be fun for everyone is if everyone actually got to play. You know people by the way they play their games. – user212646 Apr 1 '15 at 3:21
• @fredsbend I am aware of at least 3 sites that got repeated restart votes for extended periods of time. – John Apr 1 '15 at 17:46

# What about bots guys ?

So yesterday everyone in SE went all furious about how PPCG was raiding other sites and how it was not at all fun and how it was against the spirit of the game!

And here we have anime who are not even playing the game and simply running bots to do the job. Speculatively, they are also raiding PPCG's StackEgg by putting a couple restart bot in there.

So how is this any different from raiding other sites with respect to the "fun" ?

• It's free for all now, since PPCG already won. – Unihedron Apr 1 '15 at 5:20
• "So how is this any different from raiding other sites with respect to the \"fun\" ?" They're not affecting other sites at all. – bjb568 Apr 1 '15 at 5:21
• @Unihedro I think you have a false belief. Just look at the leaderboard in next 10 minutes again. Also, somehow its all fair to use any means to play the game unless you are PPCG ? – Optimizer Apr 1 '15 at 5:21
• @bjb568 and you have a definitive proof of it , I am assuming. Also, the raids yesterday were also not all by PPCG but who cared about that. – Optimizer Apr 1 '15 at 5:22
• @Optimizer Proof of what? What are you getting so defensive about? – bjb568 Apr 1 '15 at 5:23
• @bjb568 proof of the fact that they are not affecting other sites by using their bots on other site's StackEggs. You call this defensive ? Touche! Why did all of you get so offensive yesterday ? :P – Optimizer Apr 1 '15 at 5:25
• @Optimizer I was asserting "And here we have anime who are not even playing the game and simply running bots to do the job." did not affect other sites. Obviously griefing other sites does. – bjb568 Apr 1 '15 at 5:27
• @bjb568 My answer is not just that single line. So my claim was also not by just that single line. – Optimizer Apr 1 '15 at 5:28
• If this answer isn't about using bots on one's own site, I don't know what it's about. Consider editing to clarify your answer. – bjb568 Apr 1 '15 at 5:29
• It just means some children will act more childishly than others... all that to be top on a virtual leaderboard. This is what I see reading this. – Jonathan Drapeau Apr 1 '15 at 12:48

### What I suggest is to deny votes of people who:

1. Every turn select the same option (deny even if they suddently change their choice next turn)
2. Chose deliberately wrong options too often
3. Participated in another's site StackEgg recently

### After a game ends...

1. Be it a win or restart, there should be a timeline with people who participated and days which positively or negatively changed the outcome.
2. A summary for each person showing how often (would) have their (unsuccessful) votes led to a positive (negative) change of outcome.
3. An ability to flag people for moderator's attention and ban them from ever participating again. There could also be some other kind of punishment - points subtracted, etc.
• Oh, so you were the one doing Nothing when we had full hearts! "Nothing" option has the exact same decay rate as any other option, so its not the ideal solution. – Optimizer Apr 2 '15 at 19:56
• There is no possible way you could have hit 190. – Rainbolt Apr 2 '15 at 20:03
• It shows more lack of coordination then external damage – Ankit Sharma Apr 3 '15 at 4:55
• @Optimizer Then I haven't understood how to win the game. I thought that you need to preserve full hearts for few turns. The one case where I actively participated to the end must have been a weird coincidence. We won at full hearts having nothing as the winning choice. – Qwerty Apr 3 '15 at 9:01
• @Optimizer I would really love to hear your input on this. What was the right move upon reaching full hearts? – Qwerty Apr 7 '15 at 13:59
• @Qwerty feel free to drop by our chatroom. – Optimizer Apr 7 '15 at 15:03
• @Rainbolt How come? – Qwerty Apr 7 '15 at 17:07

Another option is to embrace the behavior and try to redirect it into healthier competition, instead of trying to suppress it.

What if the game rules are changed so that:

• Users can cast a vote against a restart. A vote against counts twice as much as a vote for.
• Option: Users can change any vote to a vote against a restart, but once they do its committed.

This way, you have a means to fight back. I think it's pointless and counterproductive to discourage strong and natural tendencies for a group to be competitive. From the equally valid point-of-view of a person who has no problem trying to restart other sites, fighting against it on meta is just as much "griefing" them as the other way around (I don't feel this way, but the point is we all have different, equally valid world views).

As for that optional second point; if users are allowed to change votes to anti-restart, they can play the game as normal and only react if restart votes are happening. If users are not allowed to change votes, it adds a different strategy of waiting until the last minute to see. In either case, the "restart" strategy becomes pushed to a last minute waiting game as well, making it slightly more difficult.

Giving people a defense is a good compromise between allowing people to play the game however they want and giving a recourse to those who play differently.

• I don't, won't ever, embrace a childish behavior. – Jonathan Drapeau Apr 1 '15 at 12:30
• @Jon "Childish", citation needed. – Jason C Apr 1 '15 at 14:45
• @Jon What invokes a stronger image of a child: Playing a game, or complaining about the rules? Incidentally, wasn't there some discussion about banning lmgtfy links for some reason? – Jason C Apr 1 '15 at 15:24
• I don't complain about the rules, never did. I expose the behavior PPCG's raiding participants chose for what it is : immature, childish, etc. Apparently, there's still some need for lmgtfy. – Jonathan Drapeau Apr 1 '15 at 15:27

Did anybody read the rules? They very clearly state that it's not okay to ruin other sites' games.

From the FAQ:

May I be a jerk and ruin other sites' games? – No.

• I got a feeling they added it to the FAQ after this whole thing began. Clever or not, I doubt those who did it can travel forward in time. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 1 '15 at 14:34
• You're assuming that a) people read the rules b) people care about the rules and c) people adhere to the rules. – JonW Apr 1 '15 at 14:34
• You make good points. At the same time, regarding if raiding is fair play or not, it's clearly not. I suppose you could interpret that rule as applying to the singular, and that there is no rule for a group of people being jerks and ruining other sites's games. – Ben Kane Apr 1 '15 at 14:35
• For the record I think raiding should be allowed. If they don't want it they should take away the reset button until the internet has been won. Side note, not sure why this answer would deserve a downvote. Explanation? – Ben Kane Apr 1 '15 at 14:37
• @pasta12 The whole rule was added after this post was created, singular or not. It was added because it was happening and a bunch of people didn't like it. – Geobits Apr 1 '15 at 14:37
• Also, @ShadowWizard, I don't think that's true that it was added after the fact. It was in the rules yesterday as well. For reference, I noticed that game and read the rule at 2:15 Central time in the US yesterday. That was in the very early stages of the game. At that time, Stack Overflow had won the internet one time (that's the Stack Exchange site I was on at the time). I know the timing because I was talking to a friend at the time about StackEgg and I just checked the transcript. – Ben Kane Apr 1 '15 at 14:41
• @Geobits please refer to my previous comment. – Ben Kane Apr 1 '15 at 14:42
• @pasta As a participant in the whole raiding thing, let me assure you that it wasn't there. We were only raiding for a couple hours before this post, and it was put in place as a reactionary measure before 2PM Central Time. I want to say it was around noon Eastern, but I may be off an hour or so either way. – Geobits Apr 1 '15 at 14:44
• @Geobits Well I guess if I missed it I missed it. Fair enough. – Ben Kane Apr 1 '15 at 14:46
• Thanks for the evidence, @John – Ben Kane Apr 2 '15 at 13:59

This won't be popular, so get your downvotes ready. But in response to the numerous "PPCG is evil" comments I've seen both here and in various chat rooms:

# This should surprise nobody

PPCG is a tight knit community where we collaborate on ways to design an optimal strategy for competitive puzzles/games. That's our entire purpose. Our chat is filled with ways to take down enemies, rise to the top, and win for many King of the Hill games, for instance.

So Stack Exchange designed a game with some clear cut rules, and we found a winning strategy. Please not that we weren't just raiding other sites, we also strategized in chat over the best way to gain hearts, traffic, etc. Quite heavily, as a perusal of today's chat will show.

Also, it was a community operation. This wasn't a couple rogues going off to "ruin the game". We did it as a community, and were apparently successful enough for other to take notice. As a beta site, community is important. I'm glad to see we can come together to win.

Seriously, this game was designed as a competition between sites. You can be mad about methods, but I don't see how this is surprising to anyone. Whether this tactic was intended or not (and I assume it wasn't), it's there for the picking, and you can't expect a community whose whole purpose is maximizing wins to behave differently. It's what we do.

### Edit:

To those calling us griefers, cheaters, or unsportsmanlike in the comments, chat, or elsewhere, I can only say that I didn't do this in that spirit. Feel free to disagree, but I wasn't trying to "cheat". AFAICT, the general feeling in our chat room was that others would soon take notice and start getting revenge by casting votes on us. In this way it would open the game up to a more interactive inter-site rivalry. We figured alliances would form, and the object would be to build your egg while fending off others. There was no intent to "ruin the game", or "kill fun", at least not from anyone I talked to in chat.

• No one thinks you should be punished - well, at least I don't. But I think the loophole should be closed. – durron597 Mar 31 '15 at 16:49
• Remember that not everybody from PPCG was involved. But I can't say this helps our image. – Sp3000 Mar 31 '15 at 16:51
• Winning strategy or not, you're effectively griefing tons of people. Is winning really that important to you? – John Mar 31 '15 at 16:51
• You're right, I am not surprised. I was almost going to upvote when I saw that, but when I continued reading, I am only disappointed. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:52
• @John Our whole site revolves around ways to win arbitrary challenges. – Geobits Mar 31 '15 at 16:52
• Choosing a strategy that prevents anyone from ever accomplishing anything, ever, is not an optimal strategy. Its a degenerate strategy that harms you just as much as it harms anyone else. – Servy Mar 31 '15 at 16:52
• Arqade is a close-knit community too, that organizes itself frequently as well. But we organize for fun, not to ruin other people's day. – John Mar 31 '15 at 16:52
• @Geobits Fair point, but I still say tearing people down to win is kinda low. – John Mar 31 '15 at 16:53
• Winning by all means available , even if not intented to be used that way, is perfectly fine in games that are designed for that kind of thing, and where everyone knows that this is allowed (e.g. EVE Online and similar games). Exploiting that kind of loophole in any other game is at least not sportsmanlike or just outright cheating or griefing. – Mad Scientist Mar 31 '15 at 16:55
• It's all fun and games until people who are serious about games figure out how to remove that inefficient fun. – Jon Ericson Mar 31 '15 at 17:02
• This is why we can't have nice things. – Adam Lear Mar 31 '15 at 17:15
• @MadScientist In this case, what they're doing isn't helping them win, but rather helping everyone else lose. There's a subtle difference. – Powerlord Mar 31 '15 at 17:19
• Well, I think PPCG should be punished, but for reasons entirely unrelated to this game. – Jason C Mar 31 '15 at 18:32
• A community coordinating anti-sportsmanship behavior efforts to grief and cheat other people. Not very nice... – Victor Stafusa Mar 31 '15 at 18:51
• So, we're gonna have an egg toss. You know, like when we were kids, and you pick a partner and toss the egg, take a step back, repeat. Whoever gets the farthest throw wins. You think it would be acceptable to slap another's egg out of the air because that happens to be an "efficient winning strategy"? – user212646 Apr 1 '15 at 3:48

Sorry, don't have time to write a full-fledged response, but...

Who cares?

I'm not saying I'm encouraging this behavior and people should keep doing it. I'm not saying it's ethically, morally, or in any way right. I'm not even saying that I didn't participate in it at first.

But what I am saying is that out of all the personal attacks, all the insults, all the conflict: is it really worth it?

People are making feature requests, arguing about policies, even trying to get some users banned from chat (!). All for a simple 48-hour joke?

How about we all just lighten up a bit and enjoy was originally meant to be some good-spirited fun? So maybe you're not #1 on the leaderboard anymore. This is absolutely no reason to conduct hour-long insult-fests over what is, and always will be, a game and a joke.

* note: speaking as a PPCG moderator and an active participant in the, ahem, "raids," I would be entirely fine with PPCG being disqualified from the leaderboards if deemed necessary, although I really don't think that's the real problem.

• This game stopped being fun when the raids started, which is the whole point of this meta post. See the title. – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 18:20
• If you want everyone to "lighten up a bit and enjoy was originally meant to be some good-spirited fun," why go through the trouble of ruining other people's fun? – murgatroid99 Mar 31 '15 at 18:22
• @SimonAndréForsberg The "raids" were controversial metagaming. Some found them fun, others did not, and in the end they were disallowed. I agree with Doorknob, and think that the personal insults and arguments are a lot worse than the original trying to win by dubious means. – SirBenet Mar 31 '15 at 18:23
• It is ironic how someone who is "an active participant in the raids" question to others "Who cares?" – Victor Stafusa Mar 31 '15 at 18:39
• @Simon Why let that ruin your day? Sure, I get that people are competitive, but can it not be taken in stride? I don't know... go raid them back, just ignore it, or anything really. Anything is better than frivolous personal attacks and insults. – Doorknob Mar 31 '15 at 18:49
• @murga ^ See above comment. – Doorknob Mar 31 '15 at 18:49
• The trouble is that this is designed to be a fun community event. "Raids" show a fundamental disrespect of the fun of other communities. I get why Code Golf values finding loopholes in the game. But not every site values what you value. – Jon Ericson Mar 31 '15 at 19:11

I don't think raiding is all that bad. You need an account on the site to get access to StackEggschange, so it brings in new users to the lesser known sites.

Although I haven't done any myself, it doesn't cause any actual harm to the site and from what I have seen is mostly in good spirit.

To me, the response to the raiding is the most hostile thing, and the point where it stops being a fun game and becomes an actual fight between sites.

Either way the game will be gone by the end of April Fools, I don't think balancing issues with it be taken too seriously; I'm indifferent to raiding being patched. If it were to be fixed, I think it should be done via a rule change or complete removal of the restart button, rather than adding restrictions to it based on score.

• Nope, not by design – Unionhawk Mar 31 '15 at 16:33
• That's nonsense, you're talking about actively community-hostile behavior. That's not exciting, that's malicious. – balpha Mar 31 '15 at 16:33
• @Unionhawk My bad then, didn't see that. – SirBenet Mar 31 '15 at 16:34
• How is raiding another site "in good spirit"? – Simon Forsberg Mar 31 '15 at 16:36
• @SimonAndréForsberg It's not traditional site raiding as in spamming content or making the site intentionally worse, I saw it more as PvP between friends in games; the end result doesn't really matter. – SirBenet Mar 31 '15 at 16:38
• It's because the game is so limited in time why people are upset. You get like a day and half to play and someone if screwing it up so you can't even get past the tenth round. – user212646 Apr 1 '15 at 3:48