FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Gitzbang

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 08:52

Captain1821 wrote:

Maybe it is the language barrier. The above comment and specially the part in bolt letters is provocative towards those that tried to be in the Fumbbl Cup, if you translate it to Greek.

I am sorry, it probably is the language barrier. I never tried to put down anyone who tried and didn't reach the Cup. I was just trying to bring accross the point already made clear by CircularLogic:

Quote:

We both just noted, that the negative comments about concessions and how they influence the fumbblcup came from people not being involved why those guys "suffering" from the concessions never complained.

Afro

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 09:17

I would LOVE to have another discussion about something "part of the game" or not.

_________________
Luck is only for dumb people

Firesky

Joined: Apr 06, 2005

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 09:22

Again... cause i think that´s the important point

Captain1821 wrote:

When you concede you create a disadvantage or an advantage in some way.

An advantage or disadvantage? What are the comparative values?

We are discussing the future - possibilities which are not written until the match ends - at turn16 with or without lots of fouls, tds, cas and passes or after turn 4 with a concession with less of these spp things but an additional MVP and more money. You just don´t know what would have happened in a game after a concession without the concession.

It is only another way the cookie crumbles, so i don´t see the point why to shot at concession generally.

_________________
[url=http://www.peterklaus.de/survsmall.jpg]

[/url]

Malthor

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 10:21

There are two main arguments raised by those who disagree with conceeding in a major ->

1) it affects the outcome of the tournament

2) the coach owes it to somebody (the specs) to play the most glorious game they can

In relation to the first argument, many have said in return, so what? There are many other things that affect the rest of the tournament. In fact, one could say that all these things, mistakes, stalling, fouling, whining, taking 12 minute turns etc are part of the game and the overall spectacle of Fumbbl.

PMG's concession probably hurt me more than him playing on. He had 9 players and no apoth. I still had my apoth so it was more likely that he would suffer more casualties instead of causing them. Because of the concession, my Str4 DP was stranded on 29 SPP when a longer game would have probably seen me passing with him two more times to get the crucial Block skill. What would KFoged have preferred really? Realistically. Not as if PMG was going to suddenly maim my team...

As for the second argument.

Lets break it down. What it is really saying is: "My belief that the coach has to play his hardest, is superior to your belief that "a coach in the final has earnt the right to play as he likes" or your belief that "a coach should not have to play on if he sees the game is lost and will be no fun" or even your belief that "conceding is allowed because it is in the rules" etc.

Since when has anyone's value/believes been more important or superior to anyone else's? I guess the admins need to be very careful if they wish to make a ruling based partly on the second argument. For some tournaments, it might be in theme, eg an invitational where the theme is toughest coaches/teams only. But for all majors, it might be on dangerous grounds to make a ruling based partly on B because it is essentially endorsing the values/beliefs of some over the values/beliefs of many others who may not be that vocal.

You could mitigate this somewhat by having a midground. Eg, you could rule that conceding in a major is understandable in some circumstances but not preferred. A coach that concedes in two major Fumbbl tournaments in a row will be barred from Fumbbl tournaments for the next 6 months (or something like that).

_________________
ex Monkey (original Team Approvers in 2004)
ex Admin
ex Ranked Tournament Manager
still disliked all round!

Captain1821

Joined: Jun 23, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 11:36

Zedread wrote:

Clearly you people take games too serious. Try to live your REAL life like most players do, get out of fumbbl planet once in a while...

Another expert that can tell us about our REAL life.
Get a job man...

_________________
STATUS: CLOWN

HollowOne

Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 12:23

I agree with Circ and Malthor here.

I think there are so many variables to take account of that making a blanket ban against concessions in [R] Majors starts to fall into the absurd.

Is it about altering the circumstances that might produce a "fair match"? In that case, if a basher team is losing 0-4 against a weaker elf team, should those bashers stop doing their stuff simply because there won't be a "fair match" next game if the elves get slaughtered?

What about conceding on the first turn, so that the winning team only gets two MVPs and winnings? Is that better or worse than letting them play for SPPs?

What about turn 16 fouls? What about stalling and SPP harvesting? Where do you draw the line?

I think the line is not easily drawn and should be done so on a case by case basis. Banning concessions from the RRR makes sense, yes. But from the FUMBBL Cup, or just banning them in general, it doesn't.

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.

But otherwise, I think CircularLogic is spot on: he won the right to play the FC matches as he saw fit when he won the FC qualifier, and that includes the right to concede. If you want to deny him that right, beat him next year.

_________________
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks

Colin

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 17:07

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..

_________________
Join The Cult of Tzeentch, mutate randomly! | Hug a newb! Join the Faculty of Academy Instructors!

EvolveToAnarchism

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 18:26

OldBugman wrote:

Concession.. it's part of the game.. pg16 and 45 of the LRB

The LRB permits or doesn't ban:
1) Repeatedly playing down massive amounts of STR.
2) Agreeing to not foul.
3) Repeatedly playing the same coaches over and over.
4) Offensive language.

But they all carry consequences of one form or another on FUMBBL depending on which division you play in.

1 through 4 are all against the rules in [R]. If you don't like 1 to 3 you can still play at FUMBBL. You just shouldn't play in [R] but [U] will accomodate your preferences. But alas #4 is not tolerated on FUMBBL. If you want #4, you need to look elsewhere.

What I am seriously contemplating, is not a severe rule like #4. It's more similar to #1 to #3. If you don't like those rules, nobody will force you to join [R] tournaments. Heck! It's even less severe than the above rules. You won't be blocked/banned from FUMBBL, you will just simply be banned from the next FUMBBL Major. It's still your choice, but you'll know the consequences.

Luckily the 3 concessions in the FUMBBL Cup, that I'm aware of, didn't result in any massively unfair advantages. Arguably, Malthor may have been hurt by one, because he somehow had already managed to bank an ungodly sum of money. Likewise, for the dwarven team in one of the qualifiers. But I wasn't suggesting this rule primarily because of the specifics of this FUMBBL Cup. I was suggesting it as a preventitive measure for future FUMBBL Majors. I know it's hard for specific coaches to look at things from a broader perspective, but please try.

I already posted 5 reasons, why I'm leaning heavily towards concessions having additional consequences. IMHO, they funadamentally place the interests of the community ahead of the interest of a coach to do whatever they'd like to do with their teams when they participate in a high profile community event. Others have posted arguments of one form or another that go into those 5 reasons. I really don't want to repeat and elaborate on them at this time. As I seriously doubt there will ever be concensus on this issue.

So, I'd like to emphasize that, if such a rule gets added, you will always have the choice to join or not join an [R] tournaments. Most importantly, you will always have the choice to concede, if you are willing to pay the consequences. They may be a tiny bit more harsh than the LRB consequences, but you will still have a choice.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

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

Last edited by EvolveToAnarchism on %b %16, %2005 - %18:%Dec; edited 1 time in total

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 18:51

EvolveToAnarchism wrote:

OldBugman wrote:

Concession.. it's part of the game.. pg16 and 45 of the LRB

The LRB permits or doesn't ban:
1) Repeatedly playing down massive amounts of STR.
2) Agreeing to not foul.
3) Repeatedly playing the same coaches over and over.
4) Offensive language.

But they all carry consequences of one form or another on FUMBBL depending on which division you play in.

1 through 4 are all against the rules in [R]. If you don't like 1 to 3 you can still play at FUMBBL. You just shouldn't play in [R] but [U] will accomodate your preferences. But alas #4 is not tolerated on FUMBBL. If you want #4, you need to look elsewhere.

What I am seriously contemplating, is not a severe rule like #4. It's more similar to #1 to #3. If you don't like those rules, nobody will force you to join [R] tournaments. Heck! It's even less severe than the above rules. You won't be blocked/banned from FUMBBL, you will just simply be banned from the next FUMBBL Major. It's still your choice, but you'll know the consequences.

Luckily the 3 concessions in the FUMBBL Cup, that I'm aware of, didn't result in any massively unfair advantages. Arguably, Malthor may have been hurt by one, because he somehow had already managed to bank an ungodly sum of money. Likewise, for the dwarven team in one of the qualifiers. But I wasn't suggesting this rule primarily because of the specifics of this FUMBBL Cup. I was suggesting it as a preventitive measure for future FUMBBL Majors. I know it's hard for specific coaches to look at things from a broader perspective, but please try.

I already posted 5 reasons, why I'm leaning heavily towards concessions having additional consequences. IMHO, they funadamentally place the interests of the community ahead of the interest of a coach to do whatever they'd like to do with their teams when they participate in a high profile community event. Others have posted arguments of one form or another that go into those 5 reasons. I really don't want to repeat and elaborate on them. As I seriously doubt there will ever be concensus on this issue.

So, I'd like to emphasize that, if such a rule gets added, you will always have the choice to join or not join an [R] tournaments. Most importantly, you will always have the choice to concede, if you are willing to pay the consequences. They may be a tiny bit more harsh than the LRB consequences, but you will still have a choice.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

it seems you took your decision, am I right?

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

Hammerhiem

Joined: Sep 07, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 18:57

Quote:

As other posters have pointed out, conceding in Blood Bowl is distinct from conceding in Chess or in Magic, as the outcome of the match affects the starting point for subsequent matches. Whether conceding would make the team which progresses stronger (bonus MVP and cash, suffers less damage) or weaker (racks up fewer in-game SPPs) is actually beside the point. What signifies is that conceding has an impact.

Atually conceeding in MtG does have an effect on future ranking points so would effect seeding for future events, it is common for people to tacticly conceed or Draw to ensure a certain spot in the Top 8 making an easier draw or to allow both players to qualify.

I agree that in BB the direct effect is different, but to punish people because they don't play "in the spirit of the game" is opening a can of worms you don't want to even get close to, i assure you mine and say Dreads opinion of "Spirit of the game" are poles appart and as such "spirit of the game" is about opinions not rules.

You can't ban people because of your opinion.

If it's against the "rules" then fine if not then you should let them get on with it.

_________________
Your mind is like a parachute, it only works if it's open.

arghh bumflaps , another fumble. Why can't these Gobbo's just pick the ball up?

Meech

Joined: Sep 15, 2005

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 20:04

EvolveToAnarchism wrote:

OldBugman wrote:

Concession.. it's part of the game.. pg16 and 45 of the LRB

The LRB permits or doesn't ban:
1) Repeatedly playing down massive amounts of STR.
2) Agreeing to not foul.
3) Repeatedly playing the same coaches over and over.
4) Offensive language.

But they all carry consequences of one form or another on FUMBBL depending on which division you play in.

1 through 4 are all against the rules in [R]. If you don't like 1 to 3 you can still play at FUMBBL. You just shouldn't play in [R] but [U] will accomodate your preferences. But alas #4 is not tolerated on FUMBBL. If you want #4, you need to look elsewhere.

What I am seriously contemplating, is not a severe rule like #4. It's more similar to #1 to #3. If you don't like those rules, nobody will force you to join [R] tournaments. Heck! It's even less severe than the above rules. You won't be blocked/banned from FUMBBL, you will just simply be banned from the next FUMBBL Major. It's still your choice, but you'll know the consequences.

Luckily the 3 concessions in the FUMBBL Cup, that I'm aware of, didn't result in any massively unfair advantages. Arguably, Malthor may have been hurt by one, because he somehow had already managed to bank an ungodly sum of money. Likewise, for the dwarven team in one of the qualifiers. But I wasn't suggesting this rule primarily because of the specifics of this FUMBBL Cup. I was suggesting it as a preventitive measure for future FUMBBL Majors. I know it's hard for specific coaches to look at things from a broader perspective, but please try.

I already posted 5 reasons, why I'm leaning heavily towards concessions having additional consequences. IMHO, they funadamentally place the interests of the community ahead of the interest of a coach to do whatever they'd like to do with their teams when they participate in a high profile community event. Others have posted arguments of one form or another that go into those 5 reasons. I really don't want to repeat and elaborate on them at this time. As I seriously doubt there will ever be concensus on this issue.

So, I'd like to emphasize that, if such a rule gets added, you will always have the choice to join or not join an [R] tournaments. Most importantly, you will always have the choice to concede, if you are willing to pay the consequences. They may be a tiny bit more harsh than the LRB consequences, but you will still have a choice.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

I really think it is a bad idea to start creating more and more rules for Ranked. That is what you are doing. Comparing offensive language to concessions is like comparing apples and Volvos. Fumbbl is basically an online Venue to play Blood Bowl. At my Venue, you are not allowed to swear, or sit on tables when you play. You are, however, allowed to concede. Ranked should be a place to play where the rules are the most consistent with LRB.

Telling people to not play in ranked if they don't like the (ever growing) list of rules is not viable either. Concessions are a way for a coach to get out of a hopeless (or deathly boring) game. Concession penalties are bad enough the way they are, ask Cloggy about Meuh.

HollowOne

Joined: Sep 23, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 20:20

I think the compromise is this:

You create a clause by which you ban a coach from the next [R] Major for a concession if some "independent and objective"* observers decide it was "lame or disruptive enough"*.

You make this kind of ban subject to appeal if the conceder had persuasive extenuating circumstances or if the consequences are "not too severe"*.

* These terms need to be worked on, obviously, but I don't want to delve into legalese.

_________________
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks

Hammerhiem

Joined: Sep 07, 2004

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 20:41

Quote:

You create a clause by which you ban a coach from the next [R] Major for a concession if some "independent and objective"* observers decide it was "lame or disruptive enough"*

So if 5 people don't like the way you play your banned????

i don't like foulers but you don't see me calling for them to be banned do you? again it's OPINION not against the RULES.

_________________
Your mind is like a parachute, it only works if it's open.

arghh bumflaps , another fumble. Why can't these Gobbo's just pick the ball up?

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 20:43

IMHO:

I think that banning a coach (even if an appeal were allowed) from the next [R] tournament might actually be too severe a penalty - especially given the weight of the voices against such sanctions in this thread.

I think it might be sufficient to simply include a comment in the tournament details stating that concessions for in-game reasons are strongly discouraged. RL reasons for concessions would be accepted (and the word of the coach on those reasons would also be accepted without question).

This might read:

'[Name of competition] is a high-profile tournament within the FUMBBL community, followed eagerly by coaches both famed and unknown. Because of the attention it attracts, it is considered highly unprofessional for a coach to disappoint fans and pundits by conceding a match, whatever the situation on the pitch.

'The organisers therefore request that participating coaches only concede matches if real life circumstances make this unavoidable - though a coach's word will of course be trusted in such situations. (Repeated breach of these rules may result in [details of sanctions which would probably never actually be implemented].)'

I would say that such guidelines would be more than enough to dissuade any coach from conceding, simply by making it clear that this is the spirit in which the competition is intended to be played (something that I think was always the case in the organisers' minds, but simply wasn't spelled out before). I don't see the need for automatic penalties - whose very existence, it seems, might alienate some of the coaches posting in this thread.

In other words: I really don't think that any of the coaches concerned in the FUMBBL Cup examples would have conceded had it been clear to them that this was not approved of in this competition. Actual sanctions would have been unnecessary: this probably need not be anything more than a kind of code of conduct for participants.

_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi Very Happy

CircularLogic

Joined: Aug 22, 2003

Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 20:54

EvolveToAnarchism wrote:

I really wanted to just watch this discussion progress, but since you explicitly asked me, I'll provide a few very brief ansers.

DonKosak wrote:

I have to ask you, Evo: Why is it that you (and other admins?) want a rule against concession?

1. Unfair advantages
2. Open to abuse.
3. Premier tournaments
4. High stakes events
5. Background

Quote:

Would you rather like people to sit it through - clicking the End Turn button until the end of the match?

Even though it's a straw man, I'll answer. No. But I'd prefer it over a concession giving a team an unfair advantage like a game deciding Star and Wizard because someone decides to take a premier FUMBBL tournament lightly.

So, yes, I don't mind that [R] tournaments would become high stakes tournaments where you have to be a committed coach. And if that's not your idea of fun, there are many other venues at FUMBBL to play in a manner you find fun. It's not like anyone would be forcing you to play against your will or something.

As Always,
Evolve To Anarchism

That is the post where you stated the reasons, if I get it right.
1) Unfair Advantage:
As said before, a T16 foul by the loser (when 1-3 down) killing the opponents star gives an unfair advantage to the next round opponent. Ban for fouling?
2) Open to abuse:
I don`t get it... you say, that I have a friend conceeding to me just so that I get an advantage next round?? Show me THAT friend that will win a FC-qualifier, gets randomly seeded and wins the games till we meet and then conceeds to me!
In addition: Asking my friend to foul the heck of a possible opponent is BY FAR more open to abuse. Ban for fouling?
3) = 4) = 5) Background
That is the only reason I really buy. Because the background can be decided by the comish and I cannot say anything against that, because that`s your opinion. Maybe that`s why you have to split this into 3 different points to make it look more. But if you make the rule, you will have to make additional rules against hiding players in a corner and giving away free touchdowns and against not standing up players to avoid dmg and against just clicking turns.