FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 19:26

PorkusMaximus wrote:

Also, thik of a pre-emptive concession as effectively a forfeit, something you would be able to do in TT.

Would this really be acceptable in your TT circles? I would expect any decent commissioner to come down hard on anyone who forfeited a game like that - just as we (do our best to) do in [L] groups here. When you join a division, group, tournament or competition, you commit to the fixture list, come what may.

maznaz

Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 19:35

westerner wrote:

maznaz wrote:

I would say about 10% of concessions on this site meet those criteria. That should tell you something about the stupidity of a rule that relies on a completely subjective appraisal of the situation.

But it's still the rule. I don't think that argument will go very far with the admins after a lame concession gets reported.

Considering there are admin concessions on record that violate those rules I think you'd be surprised.

For the record, I have not violated that particular rule, nor would I. The fact remains though, that making stupid unenforceable rules that are completely open to subjective interpretation is a bad way to run anything.

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 20:44

SillySod wrote:

Notice that the rule cunningly leaves open the possibility that they havent listed all the in-game reasons to concede. The important part of the rule is that there is a reasonable in-game reason for the concession... which leaves the way open for pre-emptive concessions, especially in [B]. While I dont think you should run at the first sign of a DP if you are playing against a stronger team which gets GTR and you lose your apoth on turn one... a pre-emptive concession suddenly looks pretty wise.

Conceding "preemptively" in [B] is weak as it defeats the entire purpose of the division.

The rules also state

Conceding when none of the above circumstances are fulfilled will require admin approval.

So if you want to concede "preemptively" you'd need prior approval.

_________________
\x/es

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 20:49

maznaz wrote:

For the record, I have not violated that particular rule, nor would I. The fact remains though, that making stupid unenforceable rules that are completely open to subjective interpretation is a bad way to run anything.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Any complaint-based enforcement system will have inherent limitations of subjectivity, but sometimes it's the best alternative. Do you have a better way?

_________________
\x/es

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 21:00

When you enter into [B] you KNOW you will have to play whatever it throws at you. If you can't accept this then get out of [B].

Conceding is weak. Whining about how people play is weak as well. You knew you would face killer teams in [B] and still you entered into it. It was YOUR choice, suck it up and finish the game.

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 21:17

westerner wrote:

Conceding "preemptively" in [B] is weak as it defeats the entire purpose of the division.

By that I assume you mean that it dosent win you games. However I have done it, twice. Yet I have some of the very best win records in [B]. Part of maintaining a great winning record is keeping your team healthy... if your chances of a win look pretty slim and you lose your apoth to a killer team very early on then often (but by no means always) you are just risking losing the next 4 or 5 games too.

Before someone suggests it I'm not really a pixel hugger, among other things I regularly apoth BHs... something that alot of the "brave" coaches who keep telling people to "suck it up" arent prepared to do. The trick with [B] is to go right for the throat but sometimes you just have to accept that there are some battles you wont win and the last thing you want to do is let those games affect your next ones.

_________________
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."

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 21:32

SillySod wrote:

westerner wrote:

Conceding "preemptively" in [B] is weak as it defeats the entire purpose of the division.

By that I assume you mean that it dosent win you games. However I have done it, twice. Yet I have some of the very best win records in [B]. Part of maintaining a great winning record is keeping your team healthy... if your chances of a win look pretty slim and you lose your apoth to a killer team very early on then often (but by no means always) you are just risking losing the next 4 or 5 games too.

Before someone suggests it I'm not really a pixel hugger, among other things I regularly apoth BHs... something that alot of the "brave" coaches who keep telling people to "suck it up" arent prepared to do. The trick with [B] is to go right for the throat but sometimes you just have to accept that there are some battles you wont win and the last thing you want to do is let those games affect your next ones.

I see your logic, but I disagree with your premise. I thought the central tenet of B was that you can't dodge a match. You must play who the scheduler assigns. If you can selectively concede, you're essentially back to R.

_________________
\x/es

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 22:07

It depends how often you're going to do that. If you selectively concede to anything like the amount of selection even "normal" coaches enjoy in [R] then you're probably conceding a fair chunk of games... enough that its obvious you arent conceding to up your overall winning record but to avoid a particular playstyle or to buff your team up for a tournament.

Conceding is a tool. {B}lackbox effectively gives you your schedule (so you cant pick your schedule)... you can then use whatever tools you have at your disposal on your quest to win. The place where it all falls down is when someone (very obviously) isnt on a quest to win.

_________________
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."

Mr_Foulscumm

Joined: Mar 05, 2005

Posted: Dec 11, 2008 - 22:21

SillySod wrote:

IThe place where it all falls down is when someone (very obviously) isnt on a quest to win.

You say it falls down.

I foul it! Very Happy

_________________
Everybody's favorite coach on FUMBBL

maznaz

Joined: Jan 26, 2004

Posted: Dec 12, 2008 - 11:30

westerner wrote:

maznaz wrote:

For the record, I have not violated that particular rule, nor would I. The fact remains though, that making stupid unenforceable rules that are completely open to subjective interpretation is a bad way to run anything.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Any complaint-based enforcement system will have inherent limitations of subjectivity, but sometimes it's the best alternative. Do you have a better way?

Well, there are already preventative measures in place to prevent concessions in the ruleset we use on this site (LRB4). There are no prizes for highest TS teams in the box, so the unfair boosting of your opponent's team argument falls down. I don't buy the argument that you deprive your opponent of the SPP, as he can get in another game within 30 minutes, and gets a nice chunk of cash and an extra MVP. I just don't see the need for any ruling which puts pressure on the admins to make judgement calls all the time rather than following a black and white rule.

As far as I'm concerned, there are two types of concessions. Unfair concessions used to pimp the opponent's team. This is cheating, and should be dealt with where proven.

The other kind are player choice, and should not be penalised.

westerner

Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Posted: Dec 12, 2008 - 16:38

maznaz wrote:

Well, there are already preventative measures in place to prevent concessions in the ruleset we use on this site (LRB4). There are no prizes for highest TS teams in the box, so the unfair boosting of your opponent's team argument falls down. I don't buy the argument that you deprive your opponent of the SPP, as he can get in another game within 30 minutes, and gets a nice chunk of cash and an extra MVP. I just don't see the need for any ruling which puts pressure on the admins to make judgement calls all the time rather than following a black and white rule.

As far as I'm concerned, there are two types of concessions. Unfair concessions used to pimp the opponent's team. This is cheating, and should be dealt with where proven.

The other kind are player choice, and should not be penalised.

I understand how this setup would require fewer judgement calls from the admins, since illegal concessions would be limited to the more obvious case of deliberate pimping.

When I first joined fumbbl and saw the concession rule, I was surprised that "not feeling like playing anymore" was not considered a valid reason to concede. Who cares if I drop game? Just go find another, as you said. But now I appreciate that long term health risk to players is part of the game and allowing free choice of concessions would significantly alter that risk. Hence, a middle ground. You needn't play to the end of a game that is "hopeless" (granting your point about more admin judgement being required there) but you must play until that point is reached.

_________________
\x/es

nexusvalhees

Joined: Oct 28, 2005

Posted: Dec 13, 2008 - 08:35

westerner wrote:

maznaz wrote:

For the record, I have not violated that particular rule, nor would I. The fact remains though, that making stupid unenforceable rules that are completely open to subjective interpretation is a bad way to run anything.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Any complaint-based enforcement system will have inherent limitations of subjectivity, but sometimes it's the best alternative. Do you have a better way?

Yes I have get rid of the stupid rule it was meant to avoid team pimping and as that is pretty much a pre match agreement it is not needed to begin with. The only real reason imho to concede is because you no longer wish to play the game whatever got you there is irrelevant. Perhaps your pixels are falling apart, perhaps you have company, perhaps your just tired of looking at your computer, none of that really matters we play the game to have fun once it's no longer fun feel free to stop playing theres a perfect system in the game for it. I've played in real life leagues as well and no one ever cared that someone conceded there either.

_________________
At the end of the day it's not about who won or lost its about who's got the most Blood on their Boot

Remember folks if you don't go out of your way to kill good players AGING IS YOUR FAULT!!

futuresight

Joined: Sep 15, 2007

Posted: Dec 13, 2008 - 08:50

Stop the DP!!! Unusual skill and coaches who use them permanently, have only one direction. That has nothing to do with BBL!!!!!

PorkusMaximus

Joined: May 19, 2008

Posted: Dec 14, 2008 - 23:20

Quote:

I would expect any decent commissioner to come down hard on anyone who forfeited a game like that -

What's the point? There are already rules within the LRB to punish a team for a forfeit or concession, punishing them further just because you don't like the idea is unnecessary. They will lose fan factor, they will not win any money, they won't earn many SPP (if any) and in a league they will not earn any points for the match.

pac

Joined: Oct 03, 2005

Posted: Dec 15, 2008 - 00:22

PorkusMaximus wrote:

What's the point? There are already rules within the LRB to punish a team for a forfeit or concession, punishing them further just because you don't like the idea is unnecessary. They will lose fan factor, they will not win any money, they won't earn many SPP (if any) and in a league they will not earn any points for the match.

Because when you join a league you take on an obligation to play all the fixtures, come what may. It could be anyone who gets a bad draw or some bad rolls. Blood Bowl being Blood Bowl, someone will be unlucky. A league depends upon people who keep playing regardless.

What about the opponent who made the effort to come down that day to play you? What about other coaches whose teams also had tough times but carried on through it because they were committed to the league? If everyone starts saying, 'Well if he can just refuse to play that guy, so will I!', where does that leave you?

I'm sorry, but if you can't see the point here then there's not much I can do.

As I suggested before, if this is really acceptable in your TT circles, then I find that regrettable.