> Olaf said that WS will most likely not continue updating 'old games'.This is absolutely true,and i knew that.But what I was proposing in the first place was if WS updated WOL,rather than individual games.WOL is a service that is shared by WS games,hence the name 'WS Shared Internet components'.Thus,by updating WOL all games would be cured of washers,and we wouldnt have to say 'WS wont do anything because RA2 is old'(although we must bear in mind that RA2 is the most popular WS game online or off).If WOL was made to ban washers for 1 month then reset there account,95% of washers would be eliminated.I find that this is the most realistic and sure-shot way to stop washers.

> And someone said:'Some reconnection errors are geniune'.This is absolutely true.Suppose someone has played 500 matches and has a record of 10 disconnects.

Disconnects and washes are not related.

> Should we assume that he is a washer?Certainly not.This is why i propose that rather than checking the number of disconnects,we check the RATIO.In other words,if someone has 40 disconnects and has played 70 games,we can quite safely assume that he is a washer,and i think WOL should immediately ban anyone who has a ratio of,for example- 2 disconnects per 5 games.Heck,if seen ratios as bad as 1 per 1.Isnt this much more simple?Now all we have to do is assume that WOL will listen.......
> Also,we might assume that someone has such a miserable connection that his ratio is 2:5 but he is not a washer.In this case,i wouldnt mind if such a player gets banned,as he will be even more unpleasant than a washer(bad connections are unreliable AND SLLLOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW).
> And i dont like the idea of washers being REPORTED.As i mentioned,i once got a genuine reconnection error after saying something bad.Imagine if this guy reported me?Or worse,imagine if he washed after HE was winning and told WS that I washed???

> Think about it