| 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% |
[ 112 ] |
| No, I'd stop playing [R] tournaments |
|
19% |
[ 34 ] |
| Other (don't play [R], don't play [R] tournaments, just want to see results, etc.) |
|
16% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 174 |
|
angelface
Joined: Mar 23, 2004
|
 Posted:
Dec 18, 2005 - 12:33 |
 
|
Whats the difference between the third option and not woting at all? |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2005 - 12:33 |
|
I voted Yes, I would still play Ranked Tournaments if I want to.
Adding such a rule would not be a reason not to join a Tournament, cause I don't concede.
I think EVO is treating this topic with much sense. Separate threads, keeping in touch with a community through polls, and so on. No need to tell him he's acting as a dictator. Don't take it personal, guys.
btw: if this rule is not implemented, I will continue to play R tournaments as well. And I'll continue to boo those who concede.  |
_________________
 |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2005 - 12:34 |
|
| Arcon wrote: | | ... 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)? |
You and I (and many others here) think of a team as something with a spirit of some kind unto itself. We would think of 'our team' winning a competition, (slightly) before thinking of 'me' winning a competition. Should either of us win a major competition with a team, we would be so proud of it that we would probably never ever retire it (even though it might go to Unranked and become inactive).
Many coaches see things differently: a team built for a tournament is just like a deck built for a CCG tournament. It's just a tool used to do the job: it's you that's playing; the team is nothing special and it's you (not it) who will win or lose. Also, the kind of deck/team you build for a tournament is not necessarily the same kind that you enjoy using in general play: thus you break it up once it's function is served.
This is the fundamental reason why this debate is taking place: it's a clash of quite different gaming backgrounds - one drawing on role-playing experience and assumptions; the other drawing on chess, Magic, and other tournament gaming experience and assumptions.
Edit: As with Jan below, this was not intended to trigger a broader discussion in this voting thread, just to attempt to represent both sides of the argument fairly in one post. If you'd like to move it to the other thread, Evo, please feel free. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi
Last edited by pac on %b %18, %2005 - %13:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
veron
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2005 - 12:35 |
|
Every coin has two sides, and on this one I can see the logic and reasoning on both. Definately this is a difficult one. Nevertheless, I voted yes because this rule would not stop me from joining the [R] tournaments if I otherwise would want to join one. Now, if the question asked was "Should this rule be included from now on", I wouldn't be sure if I'd still vote yes or not. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 18, 2005 - 12:39 |
|
I totally agree with Pac.
My point of view is that the fluff-wise gaming background fits much better than the other one in a Major Tournament. And this is why I'd like to see ppl not caring for their team to be disadvantaged.
In Ranked, there are many coaches who create woodies or amazons TR 100, play and win easily a couple games, then retire and restart. This way they keep their coach rating very high. I consider this behaviour VERY sad, but I'd never enforce a rule to penalize these guys, even if I despise them.
But a Tournament is *made* for fluff, primarly. At least imho. And that's why to me some sort of attachement to the team perfectly fits.
ps: Dang... sorry EVO, got carried away and posted here due to Pac's post. Feel free to move "out of topic" posts to the other thread... I already voted and won't write anymore in here. |
_________________
|
|
Mithrilpoint
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 01:59 |
|
I voted no. DonKosak and CIrcularlogic describes my point of view very well. And i would gladly join Circ´s group.
M |
_________________
Stop the Whining! |
|
Zedread
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 02:23 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | 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. |
Nicely wrote and its my opinion also. |
|
|
heinz
Joined: Mar 24, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:15 |
|
I'm with Circular as well.
I dont like the premises of this poll because it presumes a decission that hasnt been taken yet. I dont mind discussing ban/no ban, but imo this poll dosnt contribute in any clarifying way.
cheers from heinz
Edit: ok that came out a bit unclear - ofcourse a poll made after a decission would be useless. What I mean is: let's discuss the core of the subject instead of trying to messure what consequenses people would draw from possible rule changes. |
Last edited by heinz on %b %19, %2005 - %12:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
HollowOne
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:21 |
|
I concur with Circ and heinz, although tbh I wouldn't stop playing [R] tourneys... |
_________________
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:36 |
|
Reading this and briefly looking into the other thread, I am starting to change my mind: Before I thought "Conceding is so lame, people who do really should face some consequences!" However, there's conceding and then there's conceding! Let me explain. If I move all my players to the sides and let the opponent score 8-0 against me, then that's a rigged game and rightfully I should be punished. I won't be punished if I move my players during a game, as that's pretty normal. The only thing that differs in both cases is my intention, as I am well within the game mechanics both times.
The same goes for conceding: If 100 spectators come to see my cup game and then I go "Ha, ha, fools!" and concede on turn 1, my intention clearly is to piss off those 100 people. However, if my team is getting mangled and a concession in a late round would in fact be the best or at least a very good tactical option then why should I be punished for it? Coming up with a catch all ruling for concessions instead of deciding on a case to case basis as with all other issues in the fumbbl community would be dead wrong, imho, ymmv. I for one would hope Evo is going to take this into consideration.
That said, I voted "Yes, I'd still play" as fumbbl tournaments are rare enough not to miss them out of spite, a different rule for ranked tournaments as opposed to ranked in general could be justified and it doesn't really affect me as I am unlikely to concede. I still think it's wrong to impose rigid rulings instead of the individual mod decision we've had so far. |
|
|
HollowOne
Joined: Sep 23, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:40 |
|
| Optihut wrote: | | I still think it's wrong to impose rigid rulings instead of the individual mod decision we've had so far. |
Exactly. Why make blanket rulings when it's clear that every scenario is potentially different and should be treated on a case by case basis? |
_________________
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to. - Granville Hicks |
|
SideshowBob
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:45 |
|
Humm, the biggest problem with conceding isn't that the specs are missing an exiting game. The double winnings is the big thing here, nd it gives the winner an unfair advantage in the next round with a wizard and a big dude called Morg in his rooster.
This is a VERY big problem in RRR, where I think that a conceding coach should be cursed upon every time he enters the chat (can that be implemented?). |
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 28, 2004
|
 Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 12:55 |
|
| Mithrilpoint wrote: | I voted no. DonKosak and CIrcularlogic describes my point of view very well. And i would gladly join Circ´s group.
M |
okey i got carried away myself and clicked yes. I would have to agree with their reasoning for a No. Especially the part about conceding being part of the offical blood bowl rules. And i am among those who look at a team like a tool to win games for me. |
|
|
MiBasse
Joined: Dec 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 13:02 |
|
| veron wrote: | | Every coin has two sides....(SNIP)... |
Not if it's palmed! 
Apart from that I believe (as others do) that the poll needs an option that says something in the general rule of "I'd still play in the tournament but I'd rather not see it implemented."
I still think concession should be conducted at half time. ONLY then. Throw the towel in the ring when the game starts, has a serious commercial break or not at all! |
|
|
Agrak
Joined: Nov 14, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 13:26 |
|
I think that if you concede, you should be banned from your next game.
and life. |
_________________
smile |
|
|
|
| |
Jump up on a tree?
Search
