28 coaches online • Server time: 01:09
Forum Chat
Log in
Recent Forum Topics goto Post War Drums?goto Post Conceding v Goblins/...goto Post Advice tabletop tour...
SearchSearch 
Concession = Miss Next [R] Tournament. Would you still play
 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
FUMBBL Forum Index » FUMBBL » Tournaments
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Poll
If concessions in an [R] tournament resulted in a ban from the the next [R] Tournament, would you still join?
Yes, I'd still play [R] tournaments
64%
 64%  [ 112 ]
No, I'd stop playing [R] tournaments
19%
 19%  [ 34 ]
Other (don't play [R], don't play [R] tournaments, just want to see results, etc.)
16%
 16%  [ 28 ]
Total Votes : 174


EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:40 Reply with quote Back to top
If concessions in an [R] tournament resulted in a ban from the the next [R] Tournament, would you still join?

For a more detailed discussion see this thread

Please only vote "No", if such a rule addition would change your intention to play in an Official [R] Tournament.
If you don't like the rule but woudl still play, please vote "Yes".
If you don't play [R] tournaments for other reasons, vote "Other".

If you do vote "No", I'd appreciate a brief explanation.

And please try to stick rather closely to the topic. For the more general discussion, please keep it in the other thread. This thread has a very specific and focused purpose.

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 - %22:%Dec; edited 1 time in total
Hammerhiem



Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:50 Reply with quote Back to top
I would add this Evo, it solves alot of if's but's and maybe's


"If you conceed a game you will be banned from the next tournement if any player still involved in the active tournement objects"

_________________
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?
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:51 Reply with quote Back to top
Hammerheim, no. I asked a specific question for a very specifc reason. Please don't muddy the waters.

Evo

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



Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:54 Reply with quote Back to top
Seems like you trying to crack a peanut shell with a nuclear weapon evo.

_________________
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?
Fama



Joined: Feb 09, 2005
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 21:56 Reply with quote Back to top
Hammerhiem, that might lead to flaming and such things, because someone caused you to get banned, although it was your own conceding. Of course, it could be done anonymously(sp?).

_________________
I love deadlines. I like the wooshing sound they make when they fly by. -Douglas Adams
Image Side step this!

Last edited by Fama on %b %16, %2005 - %22:%Dec; edited 1 time in total
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:00 Reply with quote Back to top
If you do vote "No", I'd appreciate a brief explanation.

And please try to stick rather rigidly to the topic. For the more general discussion, please keep it in the other thread. This thread has a very specific and narrow purpose.

Evo

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



Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:05 Reply with quote Back to top
Edit because i thought it was an Evo reply please carry on.

_________________
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?
CircularLogic



Joined: Aug 22, 2003
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:21 Reply with quote Back to top
I voted "No", because I would stop playing [R]-Tournaments as part of a protest-group. And I guess I would agitate to form such a protest-group. Should I be the only one to object the rule - then I will bow to the vast majority.

I don`t like the reasoning behind this rule, I don`t like the way the coaches choices are taken away and I don`t like the way the discussion is held in the other thread by avoiding clear arguementations.
pac



Joined: Oct 03, 2005
Post   Posted: Dec 16, 2005 - 22:38 Reply with quote Back to top
I have yet to participate in an [R] tournament, but would hope that I might have shaken enough rust off my coaching skills by the time the next one comes around to be confident enough to apply. I still doubt I'd get very far though ...

I voted 'Yes' in the poll, but - as I explained in my last post in the previous thread - I still don't think that the rule needs to be as harshly drawn up as this.

Basically, Evo: I don't think you need a rule. A simple 'Code of Conduct' style notice in the tournament guidelines (without punishments and warnings) would surely be enough for virtually all coaches: if you feel it is necessary at all.

Surely someone who so overtly subscribes to the doctrines of anarchism would prefer a code of conduct to something so authoritarian as a 'rule'. Wink Smile

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



Joined: Apr 06, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 17, 2005 - 19:25 Reply with quote Back to top
I voted no and I would join Circular's group.

I still haven't seen any rational argumentation from the decision makers and I fear that the rule will be added based on the result on this vote and the following reasoning:
"<i>We had a discussion in the forums - some people were against the rule - but the vote showed that most Fumbbl coaches would still play [R] tournaments if the rule was added - so no need for more discussion - we add the rule because we want to</i>"...
EvolveToAnarchism



Joined: Aug 02, 2003
Post   Posted: Dec 17, 2005 - 20:46 Reply with quote Back to top
DonKosak wrote:

I still haven't seen any rational argumentation from the decision makers and I fear that the rule will be added based on the result on this vote and the following reasoning:
"<i>We had a discussion in the forums - some people were against the rule - but the vote showed that most Fumbbl coaches would still play [R] tournaments if the rule was added - so no need for more discussion - we add the rule because we want to</i>"...


Completely and uttery false.

Evo

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



Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 17, 2005 - 20:54 Reply with quote Back to top
Conceding in a tournament is as much a part of the game as fouling, stalling, one-turners and bad dice.

It is certainly no more unbalancing than a nasty handicap or a blitz from skaven or woodelves, probably much less so.

There is simply no reason for this rule, Evo.

I would play regardless (as I never concede), but it seems to be a rule that satisfies your particular sensibilities rather than adding value to the tournament structure as a whole.

Let people play the game as they see fit!
tassel



Joined: May 04, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 17, 2005 - 20:56 Reply with quote Back to top
I voted yes, I could well join a ranked old teams tournament even if losing would mean my team being retired - the rules are stated beforehand and they're the same for all participants. If some great coaches refrain from taking part to a tournament with new rules it's their loss and my gain. Razz
PandaPower



Joined: Aug 17, 2005
Post   Posted: Dec 17, 2005 - 21:14 Reply with quote Back to top
I voted no, although i don't actually play in these tournaments as i am somewhat a noob. I think that the harrasment by the spectators a coach goes through if he concedes is punishment enough for the "crime" he commits. On the other hand, i think that if these rules are clearly stated before the tournament starts, it's fair enough, thought i would tend to avoid such tournaments in case i was going to be "forced" (although i obviously have the opportunity to forfeit my right to the next tournaments application) to sit through a very boring game in which i only have 2 men and am being forced to watch my opponent continuosly block,foul and score against me.
Arcon



Joined: Mar 01, 2004
Post   Posted: Dec 18, 2005 - 12:18 Reply with quote Back to top
Hmm, did ever anybody think about WHY players with more than 51 SPPs might leave the team after conceeding? Well, the only reason I can come up is that they do not want to be a member of a team that conceeds, because that is lame, is not the way how experienced players want to loose a game.

So, even if the rules do not state this clearly, conceeding is something not to take easily and experienced players do not like at all, even if it is part of the ruleset.

Now, think further. If the admins want to run R tourneys as the most notable happenings at fummbl (well, they clearly are that) and especially in the FC, where the best of the best are playing (so it is advertised), it is absolutely right to enforce a rule that stops coaches to conceed. To behave in a way that effects the outcome, that angers the spectators, that angers the admins, and that angers also the players of the very own team.

One does not need much enthusiasm to follow this line of thinking. Of course everybody might have a different oppinion (and I would not be surprised if this discussion never stops), but banning concession would very well fit considering the high importance of such tourneys and the penalties a team suffers according to the rules (fluff-wise). Anyway, why would a coach conceed while risking half its players leave the team after that (I just do not get why a coach enters the greatest tourneys with a team he plans to retire anyway)?
This chance should tell everyone here that conceeding is not ok, even if generally allowed.

And to all that state again and again that conceeding is as much a part of the game as fouling, stalling etc.
That alone can be the basis of a new discussion, and should not be taken as a pure fact. All other actions do cause no penalties at all. You can foul each turn and the team will not suffer. You can cause 10 one turn TDs, and nothing happens, but conceed, and your team might be reduced to 5 players. Now, do not tell me you don´t see the difference! Why would there be such a penalty if is was just another part of the game?

EDIT: Uhm, to the real topic: I voted yes, because I do not conceed. And I really believe that a no conceeding policy in R-tourneys fits perfectly, even, or because, according to the conceeding rules and its consequences.
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
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 FUMBBL Forum Index » FUMBBL » Tournaments