Alacran
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
|
 Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:16 |
 
|
Look at the league I play in. Look at my previous matches. Talk to my previous oppenents. I don't back down from a fight. I'm not asking for an end to the blood in Bloodbowl. But if your strat is to injure the other team, then win the game, then you should injure the other team and then win the game. Not pile on to someone while being a jerk about it. Basically, this person can be a jerk because he knows that you can't duck him. There is no reason for him to be civil. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:16 |
|
| Pro511 wrote: | How big a problem is this?
Because if we need to come up with 11 page thread on two or three jerks, then the terrorists have won. |
And fummbl is therefore just like the real world... |
|
|
paulhicks
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:17 |
|
| pythrr wrote: | | Pro511 wrote: | How big a problem is this?
Because if we need to come up with 11 page thread on two or three jerks, then the terrorists have won. |
And fummbl is therefore just like the real world... |
are you suggesting that theres a world outside fumbbl?  |
_________________
Spelling, grammer and sense are for noobs! |
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:38 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: | | pythrr wrote: | | Pro511 wrote: | How big a problem is this?
Because if we need to come up with 11 page thread on two or three jerks, then the terrorists have won. |
And fummbl is therefore just like the real world... |
are you suggesting that theres a world outside fumbbl? |
I hear rumours..... and they worry me greatly. |
|
|
pythrr
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:39 |
|
| Mr_Foulscumm wrote: | | I've blacklisted everyone in this thread. |
You bad man Fouly. Bad, I say! |
|
|
Synn
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 00:54 |
|
MMmmm Pauly......
/me puts on his robe and wizard hat
__Synn
**Your pic just made it to my bathroom! |
|
|
Pro511
Joined: Aug 14, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:06 |
|
Semirelevant question.
I know that conceding is frowned upon in [B]... At least I think it is.
But would there be a case to concede if a team was getting really beat up?
What about a pre-kickoff concede?  |
_________________
Previously intelligent. |
|
Kryten
Joined: Sep 02, 2003
|
That's a thought that has crossed my mind.
"Meh, this bugger again, I hate playing him, and look at that crappy team. He's 3/8/22, it's obvious he's just gonna foul me with his 5 DPs over and over no matter what. I'll just concede turn one, it's not like any of my guys have 51+ spp. I hope to play a game next round that will be fun."
The problem, of course, is that it's lame as hell. |
|
|
Diabl0658
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:25 |
|
Okay heres the plan everyone. Whenever you want to play blackbox, look at all the blackbox coaches who have a team thats near yours in TR/TS. Then check and see which of those coaches are online. Select the 3 coaches with the bashiest teams that are likely to be matched up with you so you wont have to play them! Use this link http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=teams&group=&race=&order=12&nav=10 to find teams that are likely to be matched up with your team. Follow this method and you should have a significantly higher chance of getting an easier game!
Oh whoops I guess I found an exploit so now we cant blacklist people anymore, darn. |
_________________
Killing means never having to say you're sorry. |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:33 |
|
| westerner wrote: | | Rather than weighting bashiness (BBR) to only 30% of winning (BR), I think the scheduler should weight both equally. |
The problem with that is that it screws me twice... once for being a good coach, and once for killing alot of stuff while being a good coach. Neither the "blood" or the "bowl" dominated stategies for winning are better than the other - they are just two different means to the same end. As such any system which punishes one more than the other can start to be a problem.
| shadow wrote: | as for your chinese proverb....it amuses me how it's always the high and mighty who are first to call someone out on being closed-minded, when more often than not, it's the exact opposite....
i'm very open to anything that encourages activity in B, simply because i think R is a tragic debacle....
what i'm not open to, is things that are exploitable(such as this idea), that undermine the goals of the division.... |
You tend to be pretty closed to any ideas you dont like. A truly open mind isnt just open to the ideas they like and often discusses them or looks carefully into the reasoning behind ideas they dont like.
| Quote: | | that being said....i completely agree with the sentiments, and it disgusts me that there are coaches in B who are using these douchebag tactics....but i'm not going to jump up and say "no you can't do that!!!"....if christer sees fit to implement some sort of rule that explicitly prevents that tactic, then so be it, i'll support it full on..but i have yet to see something like that even mentioned by the powers that be.... |
Why would such a rule only be worthwhile if it is Christers idea?  If you agree with some of the sentiments then why not have a look at the proposals and try to work out how they could be improved or alternatives to them... worst that can happen is no one likes your ideas.
| Quote: | | frankly, i think a lot of the coaches who are railing against it, have either a) not experienced it personally, or b) have only come across it once or twice....(again, opinion, there's that magic word, before anyone gets up in arms over every word i say)... |
Another wonderful internet technique (mostly misused by others rather than yourself)... call your statement and "opinion" and we suddenly have no right to say its wrong. Well I have an "opinion" that all jews should be shot and fed to lions (or maybe muslims) because it would be hilarious (due to the Earth being flat)... remember that that is just an opinon so you cant slate it  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."
Last edited by SillySod on %b %04, %2008 - %01:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:43 |
|
| paulhicks wrote: | | Calcium wrote: | | My missus thinks you're quite attractive also. She likes hairy men. |
Helloooo Mrs calcium 
Tell her ill be round shortly |
I caught epic wood, and I am not ashamed to admit it. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:54 |
|
hey wow, there he is...was wonder when you'd find your way out from under that rock to snipe yet another post of mine....
| SillySod wrote: | | You tend to be pretty closed to any ideas you dont like. A truly open mind isnt just open to the ideas they like and often discusses them or looks carefully into the reasoning behind ideas they dont like. |
i'm not closed to ideas i don't like...
i'm closed to ideas that are fronted by idiotic ideas of "oh noes!!! look at what happened to me!!!"....
how about coming to me with an idea, based on fact, and not wild speculation?...how about posting some ideas that are genuine and not just "omgbbq!!! i got booted!! let me blacklist!!!"...
i believe in the tried and true techniques of debate and persuasion....
what is *not* debate and persuasion, is people whining and crying and looking for change simply because one person plays the game differently than they do....
| SillySod wrote: | | Why would such a rule only be worthwhile if it is Christers idea? If you agree with some of the sentiments then why not have a look at the proposals and try to work out how they could be improved or alternatives to them... worst that can happen is no one likes your ideas. |
correct me if i'm wrong, but i didn't say i would agree with it, now did i?....i said i would support it....just like i do all of the rules on the site...
and just like i support the unwritten rule of "there is no rule governing how people choose to play the game"....
| SillySod wrote: | | Quote: | | frankly, i think a lot of the coaches who are railing against it, have either a) not experienced it personally, or b) have only come across it once or twice....(again, opinion, there's that magic word, before anyone gets up in arms over every word i say)... |
Another wonderful internet technique (mostly misused by others rather than yourself)... call your statement and "opinion" and we suddenly have no right to say its wrong. Well I have an "opinion" that all jews should be shot and fed to lions (or maybe muslims) because it would be hilarious (due to the Earth being flat)... remember that that is just an opinon so you cant slate it |
see...i posted that line *specifically* with you and purplechest in mind, seeing as how you guys spout off all the time, stating your opinions as fact, without using either word....but yet you rail against me for doing either...
i didn't say i was right, or wrong....nor did i say you had no right to say i was right or wrong...but can you legitimately say i'm not?....you can lie all you want and say "sure you're wrong!!" because, frankly, you do that all the time anyways....
so in other words...either i don't put a huge disclaimer on every post i make, and you and purplechest blast me for trying to force my opinions as fact....
or you blast me because i say the word opinion?
seriously..pick a side, and stick with it...
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 01:59 |
|
| pac wrote: | | SillySod wrote: | | In this case proportions are important. Earlier you made the point that actually there are very few coaches who play only for blood. Likewise here you would be able to blacklist just three coaches... |
The number you can blacklist doesn't matter. Even if people could only blacklist one, if a large proportion of them decide to blacklist the same person, that is not an acceptable situation.
And before you say, 'Ah, but there must be a reason why that coach had upset so many people', yes, there probably would be. Those reasons would probably have involved actions that broke site rules. And that established route is how any such situation should be handled. |
Being able to get such a significant portion of FUMBBL to blacklist you (let alone on a restricted blacklist) is an immensley impressive feat... I'm guessing you would have to have a totally appalling personality and piss people off game after game with endless (bordering abusive but not quite there) whining and fouling/stalling. Besides, as Jan pointed out even with the most determined efforts there are still plenty of people out there who are willing to play against you.
If someone really is so bad they alianate 90% of the FUMBBL community then the needs of the many probably outweight the needs of the few... and I have little sympathy for that.
| pac wrote: | However, if they were granted even a limited blacklist, that is what many of them would use it for. It might have a very limited effect, but this is still undesirable.
The acceptable use of a limited blacklist would be to avoid coaches one dislikes personally and would thus not enjoy playing.
|
However, most situations which prompt such personal dislike will be site rules issues. Whether we are talking about personal abuse or playing to lose, most of the things which get coaches really angry with one another break site rules. They should be handled through that system. We don't want a coach thinking, 'That was a horrible experience, but I can't be bothered to file a complaint with the site staff. I'll put him on my blacklist so I'll never have to play him again - shame someone else will'.[/quote]
Remember when you were fresh out of your first "debate" with Pirog (it was Pirog wasnt it?). |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."
Last edited by SillySod on %b %04, %2008 - %02:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
Diabl0658
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 02:06 |
|
What if a number of coaches conspire to lower the karma of the same coach because he did something to one of them?
What if a significant number of coaches do lower karma just for losing and not enough coaches award good karma to counteract it? |
_________________
Killing means never having to say you're sorry. |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 04, 2008 - 04:45 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | westerner wrote: | | Rather than weighting bashiness (BBR) to only 30% of winning (BR), I think the scheduler should weight both equally. |
Neither the "blood" or the "bowl" dominated stategies for winning are better than the other - they are just two different means to the same end. As such any system which punishes one more than the other can start to be a problem. |
Let me address the 2nd part of your point 1st. I agree with the concept of Blood=Bowl. therefore, I think the current weighting of Blood = 0.3 * Bowl should be adjusted to make them equally influential.
| SillySod wrote: | | The problem with that is that it screws me twice... once for being a good coach, and once for killing alot of stuff while being a good coach. |
Depends how it's implemented. It could be done as TS handicap = max(Blood, Bowl). This could generate some interesting blood vs bowl matchups. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
