51 coaches online • Server time: 00:07
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post Creating a custom to...goto Post ramchop takes on the...goto Post NBFL Season 32: The ...
SearchSearch 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:59 Reply with quote Back to top

I started a poll regarding this issue. Please read the post carefully before voting. And if you vote "No", I'd appreciate a brief explanation.

As for CircularLogic's straw man argument, I can't overly blame him for his post because I didn't explain in explictly state what I meant by each of the 5 reasons. I thought I'd leave it to others to state them or refer them to earlier postings. As this thread was about getting feedback for a potential rules explanation, I was interested in hearing others discuss the issue. I thought others had done an "adequate" and rational explanation of these 5 points. I wouldn't dare to call someone irrational because we have a difference of opinion on values as others have done in this thread. And I don't really enjoy discussions with those kind of people. So, I wanted to stay out of this thread as much as possible. But if people really want an essay on the 5 reasons, I'll try and post something at a latter date.

Evo

_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:10 Reply with quote Back to top

EvolveToAnarchism wrote:
....
As for CircularLogic's straw man argument, I can't overly blame him for his post because I didn't....


Wow.. you seem to be really pissed about the resistance, when you disrespect my argueing and blame me for posting in one sentence - though it`s nicely delivered - rhetorical.
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:37 Reply with quote Back to top

I think I should post the whole sentence. The "..." leave out valuable bits of information.

EvolveToAnarchis wrote:
As for CircularLogic's straw man argument, I can't overly blame him for his post because I didn't explain in explictly state what I meant by each of the 5 reasons.


Again, I am responsable for the misunderstanding. I didn't go into detail what I meant by those 5 points. And furthermore I mangled my explanation. The above should have said.

Quote:
As for CircularLogic's straw man argument, I can't overly blame him for his post, because I didn't explictly state what I meant by each of the 5 reasons.


Am I pissed? Yes, I'm pissed at myself for not being clearer. I meant to excuse CL from blame, yet he comes to the opposite conclusion.

I was avoiding this conversation because of a few uncivil posts. And what do I do? I come across as a barbarian. I am pissed at myself for posting brief replies, when I knew that a more thorough essay style would be the only way to adequately express myself.

Evo

_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 18:24 Reply with quote Back to top

Here's my attempt to highlight some of the reasons why I'm thinknig about making a concession in a [R] Major Tournament result in a ban from the next [R] Major Tournament. Note: I'm relying on heavily on other people's postings and I appreciated your feedback. This in no way means that I agree 100% with what they wrote, just that it is influencing my decision in some way. Context is lacking on all of the quotes. If you want the whole context, please read the whole thread.


1. Rules Issue
a)
Colin wrote:
OldBugman wrote:
Concession.. it's part of the game.. pg16 and 45 of the LRB
P46 LRB4:
"RUNNING A TOURNAMENT
The League Commissioner has the responsibility of setting up and running the tournaments that are played in his league. It is up to him to decide when and how the tournaments are held,"

We aren't suggesting disallowing some concessions, just making it very undesirable to do so. The coach has a choice to make, as does the commishioner..


i) [R] doesn't allow alot of things that are permitted in the LRB. There's a whole bunch of them in the FUMBBL rules and [R] rules section. A lot of them trump people's right to do whatever they please with their teams for the benefit of the whole FUMBBL community. I cited a few in an earlier post.

2. Unfair advantage:
a)
deathgerbil wrote:
Why? about 75% of the teams in the tourney already have enough of a starting treasure chest to freeboot morg/ripper almost every game and add in a wizard for the tough matches- dont think another 30k will matter that much.


i) Those "25%" and 30K+ are one of the reasons that I'm thinking about adding this sort of rule. Imagine a coach getting an extra bucketload of $ because a (two, three) teams conceded to them on their way to the finals. Do you think there would be an uproar if a coach won the FUMBBL Cup "solely" due to the purchase of a wizard and a few star players because of some concession(s) dubious or not?
ii) A special concession rule was added to the RRR because they were giving unfair advantages to some teams. This is not a revolutionary idea. As a matter of fact, the new rule was asked for by the competing coaches. And I have yet to receive a single complaint about its addition.

3. Potential Abuse
Nobody explicitly addressed this issue. As I'm an admin and have seen all sorts of horrendous abuse that some of you may have a hard time imagining, it's probably worthwhile making a few remarks. Unscrupulous coaches could easily abuse the concession rules.
a) Two coaches could secretly agree that whoever is losing near the end of the game will concede. Thus assuring that the winner will receive an extra edge going into the next round.
b) A coach could decide that since he was planning on retiring the team after his run for the Championship, he'll concede his last match once he's realised he can no longer advance, if he likes his opponent or dislikes the other competitors. WIthout some sort of rules addition, this would appear to be a coach's right.
c) Currently there are no rules that would prevent such a taint on a potential [R] Major Tournament. Yes, I'd love to just create a Code of Conduct and hope that people would obey it. I've been an admin on FUMBBL long enough to know that in anonymous online community, some people tend to push the rules as far possible. Thus the "Nuclear" option as others have called it. The rules page used to only say "Coaches are expected to play reasonably balanced games." in a very Code of Conduct sort of way. But alas, that wasn't clear enough for some coaches, thus the new unambiguous TS rule (even above TR 200). I believe that such a similar vague Code of Conduct would likely follow the same path. I'd prefer to call it the "unambiguous option".

4. High Stakes Event
a) The [R] Majors were designed to be high stakes events with major prizes requiring a significant amount of commitment. First, to build a team. Secondly, to make it through the qualifiers. As such a high stakes event they were designed in a manner to weed out the less committed coaches in the qualifying rounds.
b) Not conceeding is a logical extension of this sort of commitment. If you are going to spend months building a team and a few weeks qualifying for the KO round, is it really unreasonable to expect you to spend the extra hour to complete your match in its entirety?


5. Backround
a)
Arcon wrote:
Imagine teams in world soccer would just leave the field at half time... "


b)
tassel wrote:
Then again team retiring could easily be argued to be valid tactics as this is an official Ranked tournament and a Ranked team could well be too shamed after such a match to play on in that div...


c)
Malthor wrote:
For some tournaments, it might be in theme, eg an invitational where the theme is toughest coaches/teams only.


6. Premier Event
a)
Quote:
If a coach isn't willing to fight to the last moment in the FC, our most prestigious competition (and one I'd dearly love to compete in but for time constraints), he has no business being in it (I'm sure the coaches who did have their reasons, but it's just my opinion). These concessions have really spoiled an otherwise competitive knock-out phase. I'm hopeful of a battle-royal final to make up for them.


b)
hoodeddwarf wrote:
A coach can conceed and go do something else, but if they do so, then i think excluding them from the next fumbbl cup is appropriate. These games should represent the best of the coaches on fumbbl and as a high profile game with a pile of spectators, coaches should be encouraged to play them out."


c)
JanMattys wrote:

I try to think about the Fumbbl Cup as a sort of olympics games or the Soccer World cup (or some major sport event as well).
I can't imagine a team in such a competition to leave "just cuz it's not funny anymore". I know it's not against the rule, but it's about fluff. The Fumbbl Cup is not a way to get a Healing Potion or a big raise in CR... it's more. It's a major tournament. It's a way to face the best, with your best.
It's a place where a team (even a BB team) can find pride and courage to fight against all odds to victory.

It's a Major Tournament. The Fumbbl Cup is the equivalent of the Blood Bowl... You can't reduce it to a "I am not having fun, I concede and retire the team. Who cares? I'll make a new one".


7. Community Event
a)
JanMatthys wrote:
Your partecipation kept out of it another coach. Many members of this community care about results. Many members of this community spectate games. All other coaches partecipating deserve to face opponents who's path has not been easy.

Again... it's not against the rules, but it's hell OUT of the spirit of the whole tournament.


b)
sehou wrote:
I agree with you PMG that concession is accessible to anyone, anytime... BUT for FC and other fumbbl official tourneys. If this is to be a community that has a sense of belonging, then uplifting certain events to higher status makes it easier."


c)
Mithrilpoint wrote:
True, the spectators might not see the exhilarating game the hoped for. But the spectators have no right to demand this or that from the coaches. The future opponents have no right to demand any number of fouls, crowdpushes or the like from a coach who is losing. And finally nobody (except the admins) has the right to demand that you "fight to the bitter end" - it´s all about personal preferences.


d)
Captain wrote:
In BloodBowl, conciding affects the next game of your opponent one way or another. For this reason it is not right to concide even if you have no players in the field. Conciding in tournaments to "save your time" or any other reason, is selfish because this action shows that you joined that tournamnet only for your own pleasure and after your pleasure is done, you don't give a shit about how your actions affect that tournament. You show that you already forgot that so many people played against you and lost by giving you a fair win to be proud of and you show that you are unable to do the same for the one that took you out of the tournament.


e)
HollowOne wrote:
We all want entertaining games in the FUMBBL Cup. It's more fun, for us, the spectators, and concessions take away from that. That's why I think it's okay to heckle conceders.


I will leave it to those who don't support such a rule to summarise their arguments as they will invariably do. I believe some will be well argued, some poorly, (just like the above) but I won't dare dismiss all of their arguments as being irrational. I would like to see the discussion continue. And I will be making a decision in about a week when I launch the Warpstone Open.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

_________________
Ignorance is Strength quis custodiet ipsos custodes As Always, Evolve To Anarchism
shadow46x2



Joined: Nov 22, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 19:14 Reply with quote Back to top

i find it really funny how people keep claiming all this crap about being "forced to stay and play to the bitter end!!!"....

get over yourselves....freaking fairies...

name one person who forces you to sign up for a major fumbbl event?...

name one admin who goes into your roster and forcibly adds your teams to major events?

OH WOW IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!!!

*YOU* take the time to sign up....*YOU* take the time to qualify...*YOU* need to own up and suffer the consequences when the game doesn't go *YOUR* way and *YOU* decide to concede....

some people really need to start taking ownership of their own decisions instead of blaming everyone else for their shortcomings...

Tourneys are completely optional events....you can play your entire fumbbl career and not take part in anything but pickup matches everywhere....there is no clause/rule/decree/anything that demands that when an event happens, you must take part...

*YOU* willingly sign up for the event, ergo denying someone else the opportunity to take part...if *YOU* decide to pick up your toys and go home early, simply because you get a boo boo on your star player, or because your pansy little elf/big hand BM/one-turner foulbait can't pick up the ball, then *YOU* need to take some sort of consequence for *WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME*....

please note....this is not me supporting or not supporting some sort of additional punishment for concessions in a major event...i think it's public knowledge that i concede...a lot...and i do it willingly knowing that i'm going to take some sort of punishment.....

please note as well....this *IS* me going off on all of you coaches who feel the need to push responsibility off on to someone else because *YOU* choose to do something....

simple rule of thumb....if you don't like it....don't take part....how hard is that?

--j

ps...if someone didn't catch the gist of my ranting...*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*YOU*...is that clear enough?
Gitzbang



Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Post   Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 19:50 Reply with quote Back to top

Quote:
a) Two coaches could secretly agree that whoever is losing near the end of the game will concede. Thus assuring that the winner will receive an extra edge going into the next round.
Coming from this point you'd have to ban a whole lot of things. Imagine a High Elf team has scored the leading 4:3 Touchdown in it's last turn of the game, but now has only three players - all the Teams three Legends - to put on the LoS. The opposing Chaos team can now decide to either maim those three - maybe including one of the much loved last turn fouls - or leave 'em alone and not Block 'em. Either way might have HUGE consequencs on the next game being played, but neither would ever be considered worth any kind of punishment.

Quote:
b) Not conceeding is a logical extension of this sort of commitment. If you are going to spend months building a team and a few weeks qualifying for the KO round, is it really unreasonable to expect you to spend the extra hour to complete your match in its entirety?
If i spent months to build a team, have lost the Apoth in turn one of the game, had some horrible luck - including my opponent getting the Ref -, my only two Spp 51 players are dead and now i can watch every turn how my opponent takes ten minutes to click foul and blitz any of my guys stupid enough to get up, though surrounded by opposing players, with his Claw, RSC monster, the logical extension would be a concession. I might not gain money and loose some fans, but at least i have a halfway decent team to start rebuilding with and since i don't have players over the 51 SPP border, it won't hurt me.

As for the Background arguments: I can as well name sports - Snooker, Chess - where concession facing a certain defeat is an absolutely valid and respected move. So please don't argue with comparisons, since they can be drawn either way.

Premier Event: This is really just another background argument. I can see the points stated, but you might as well choose to believe that any coach that managed to gain a hard-fought spot in the Fumbbl Cup is worthy to play his games in that Cup in any way he likes. He has earned that right and i don't think one should take it away from him.

Mithrilpoint wrote:
True, the spectators might not see the exhilarating game the hoped for. But the spectators have no right to demand this or that from the coaches. The future opponents have no right to demand any number of fouls, crowdpushes or the like from a coach who is losing. And finally nobody (except the admins) has the right to demand that you "fight to the bitter end" - it´s all about personal preferences.
This is the one argument against such a rule for me.

Well, just personally i would have loved to see all three of Malthor's last Cup games in their full length. I saw half of the one against CircularLogic, a quarter of the one against Pmg and none of the Final. Most of the turns i missed, were due to either the Proxy being overloaded, the Spec-Allowance not being set high enough or the used Proxy not allowing Specs at all. So, please, if you ban conceeding because you want to give the community something to watch and cheer for - which i believe is not a bad reason - than make sure every Major Tournament game that is being played is open for as many specs as present and willing to watch, if necessary by forcing the players to reload until specs can join. It would just be the logical extension of the Spectator-argumentation.
Display posts from previous:     
 Jump to:   
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic