FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 13:31

Seriously though, maybe we should look to the real world (yes, it does exist!) for inspiration on this issue. What kind of punishment would professional sports teams get if they just gave up like lily-livered cowards?

Liike Arsenal against Chelsea yesterday, for example.

_________________
smile

Agrak

Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 13:35

Seriously though, maybe we should look to the real world (yes, it does exist!) for inspiration on this issue. What kind of punishment would professional sports teams get if they just gave up like lily-livered cowards?

Liike Arsenal against Chelsea yesterday, for example.

_________________
smile

veron

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 13:38

Agrak wrote:

Seriously though, maybe we should look to the real world (yes, it does exist!) for inspiration on this issue. What kind of punishment would professional sports teams get if they just gave up like lily-livered cowards?

Fines from the union (F.A. in this case) and possibly lose some sponsors. Perhaps lose some points from the league table. Hard to say really, because this very rarely happens in the "real world" or at least I can't think of any cases where one team would have just walked away from the game, be it football, ice hockey, basketball or whatever.

P.S. Sorry for mudding the waters even more Evo, or going along with it anyway. I'm bored to death at work, what can I say!

Last edited by veron on %b %19, %2005 - %13:%Dec; edited 1 time in total

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 13:40

Agrak wrote:

Seriously though, maybe we should look to the real world (yes, it does exist!) for inspiration on this issue.

We really should not:

1. In any game the game balance always overrides the need for factual accuracy. The argument "But in real life it's like this and that" doesn't hold up, when crucial game mechanics dictate the game to follow different rules than real life.

2. Since it is a game, the human factor has to be taken into account. There always needs to be the opportunity to get up from the table and call it quits. Mandatory playing (till you're broke) is only for Poker Rounds where everyone has got a gun, but you.

3. In the special case of bloodbowl, there simply are no chainsaw wielding goblins running around in real life and the chance to die on the pitch is by far lower in real life. Therefore any comparison on the players' motivation is a call to compare apples and oranges.

sk8bcn

Joined: Apr 13, 2004

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 13:54

I don't like the poll too. Evo you are just saying:

"I decided to set that rule, but I prefer to see how much boycott I will encounter"

I voted No, because I am against the rule, but in fact I guess I would play (as some voted yes, but are actually against it)

_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes

Agrak

Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 14:04

I see your point Optihut, and I agree, but I'm not saying we should always copy real life, just that it may be a good guide sometimes. A fine sounds like a good idea from a tournament point of view, going into minus figures if there's no money. Come to think of it, isn't fining the perfect way to punish people; as in the much-maligned real world?

..... my nephew is a goblin, and he wields a chainsaw....

_________________
smile

Arktoris

Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 14:20

Agrak wrote:

Seriously though, maybe we should look to the real world (yes, it does exist!) for inspiration on this issue. What kind of punishment would professional sports teams get if they just gave up like lily-livered cowards?

Liike Arsenal against Chelsea yesterday, for example.

the only sport where I've seen one opponent conceed when they are getting too hammered is the sport "boxing". Even when there is no TKO sometimes the manager "throws in the towel"...his fighter has had enough punishment and the fight is no longer a competition....he understands it's over.

In this case, there are no additional fines or punishments levied on the concession side....even if it's a premere titled event.

despite this, I think it's rather unwise to try and pattern any code of ethics in bloodbowl to our world. Apples and Oranges.

A commissioner certainly possesses the right to levy any punishment via loss of group points or banishment from future tourneys...however, I personally think the FC should be premium bloodbowl and that means everything in bloodbowl that is legal, should be legal in the tourney. When you start to remove aspects of the game...it's no longer a major league event...more like a kidding coaster.

_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz

Gitzbang

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 14:49

I voted "No", too. I would obviously encourage this rule, if any last turn fouls, one turn Touchdowns, Wizards, Claws, Star Players and maybe even Blocks and Passes would result in a ban from the next "R" tournament, too.

On a more serious side: What would be the eligible Tournaments you got banned from? If a coach has a Ranked spot left, he will simply make a new team and apply for RRR, be banned and have his punishment done. So the rule would actually give an advantage to coaches with less ranked teams. Or how about the Smack Tournaments? Will i be banned for the next? For the next i have an eligible team? For the next i have an eligible team and would have had time to play?

I think the hole idea behind this rule is rather not well thought through. There is nothing to be gained for any major tournaments here. Of course, spetators always prefer a complete game - and usually double so if it includes loads of bloodshed! - but besides that i do not really see the point. As stated before, no one ever considered banning a coach who has lost the tournament game but kills the opponent's star players on Fouls during the last couple of turns. This will also tamper with the balance of any further games, prolly even worse than a concession could.

AlcingRagaholic

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 15:12

Remember, this is not Evo making a rule because he likes it. People, don't take it so personally. He is looking at the site as a whole, not OMG I HATE PMG HE CONCEDED I KILLZORZ HIM.

No. That is not the case. Evo is doing his duties as an administrator of this site, as well as one of the Official Tournament Directors. So instead of telling him what he is saying, tell us why you think against it. Being sarcastic really does defeat the purpose of your post. Why are you being snide to him? If you have an issue, take it up with him personally via PM.

Quote:

Please do not concede matches in the Royal Rookie Rumble as it gives your opponent a rather unfair advantage in the rest of the tournament. Anyone who concedes a match will be banned from future tournaments.

This rule has already been implemented to good effect in that tourney. I say, yes, that there should be a similar rule for the other [R] Tourneys too.

Z

EvolveToAnarchism

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 16:41

sk8bcn wrote:

Evo you are just saying:

"I decided to set that rule, but I prefer to see how much boycott I will encounter"

Completely and utterly false. Again.

Evo

P.S. I absolutely despise faulty mind readers. If you want to guarantee to get on my wrong side, engage in that practice. I'm sorry, it's a giant pet peeve of mind.

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

altus_bellator

Joined: Oct 12, 2005

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 17:14

Evo, you say utterly false a couple times and then do not back up why its false. You should to help people understand where your coming from, or why something said is false. I have trouble believing something is false simply because you say so.

I think the LRB has done a very good job when it comes to conceeding. People have the choice, and its a valid part of the game. I think if you take the choice away from people your picking and chosing the rules that you like best.

People have house rules for every game ever made, I think it would really be sad to see Fumbbl begin taking on special house rules for the ranked division because someone is annoyed with a current rule covered completely in the LRB. The best part about the ranked division is how rigidly it follows the LRB. You get into a gray area when house rules are implemented and it never ends well. Hopefully I made it clear my argument extends to the ranked Division and I am saying this thinking of that division.

Just my opinion for what its worth.

Optihut

Joined: Dec 16, 2004

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 17:33

AlcingRagaholic wrote:

Remember, this is not Evo making a rule because he likes it. People, don't take it so personally. He is looking at the site as a whole, not OMG I HATE PMG HE CONCEDED I KILLZORZ HIM.

No. That is not the case. Evo is doing his duties as an administrator of this site, as well as one of the Official Tournament Directors. So instead of telling him what he is saying, tell us why you think against it.

I did just that. In short, my main point is this: "Catch all rules for the big tournaments aren't good. I would prefer a case by case decision."

Quote:

This rule has already been implemented to good effect in that tourney. I say, yes, that there should be a similar rule for the other [R] Tourneys too.

Rookie rumbles are a different thing though, as new teams can do a whole lot more with double income than a maxed out team. It's only the maxed out teams that compete in the high profile fumbbl tournaments. Reading the other thread, I got the impression that all concessions this time around were in fact sound tactical maneouvers.

Macavity

Joined: Nov 23, 2004

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 17:49

Sheesh, as long as you know the rule going in, why would it be a big deal. If you really want to preserve your team, don't enter.... Or enter, and don't enter the next one!

btw, Skate-Bacon, much as I love you personally, telling someone what their motivation for an action was IS pretty offensive to a lot of us.

and Opti, I think catch-all rules are great! The more I can say, "[R] tourney? I know what this is about!" the happier I am! (just personally)

_________________
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. -C.S. Lewis

EvolveToAnarchism

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 17:54

altus_bellator wrote:

Evo, you say utterly false a couple times and then do not back up why its false. You should to help people understand where your coming from, or why something said is false. I have trouble believing something is false simply because you say so.

Uhm... they are conjuring claims about my motives and thoughts. I thought it would be rather obvious that I know my thoughts better than they do. Is that unreasonable?

Evo

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

qk

Joined: Oct 21, 2005

Posted: Dec 19, 2005 - 18:06

I guess they are asking you to explain your thoughts. After all, this is a forum, people discuss, and that's good Wink

I can't afford the time to play tournaments, but if I did, yes, I would play despite that rule, which I don't particularly like.

One question from a rookie: does conceeding happen very often?

Regards,
qk