| 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 |
|
Markus
Joined: Aug 26, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 18:42 |
 
|
I suppose giving the reasons for this poll could make the outcome invalid or useless.
Completely and utterly false.
Evo, if you want to keep guys guessing about your motives telling them they are wrong is the best way to do that. At least you made me guessing.
Anyway i would NOT like to be asked questions when i don't know what my answer is supposed to provoke. I would not liked to be asked a question if my answer would have no result on the decission that is to be made. Neither do i like being asked no-brainers as almost everybody would like to qualify for the majors. I fear that almost all who voted no did do that because they don't want to have a rule against conceeding implemented (the resistance group). Well, guessing again.
What i know is, that many would like to get to know the reasoning behind this poll.
M |
_________________
"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers."- Oscar Wilde
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."- Niels Bohr |
|
Markusen
Joined: Jan 23, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 19:37 |
|
I voted "Yes"
I've never played a ranked tournament so far (but I wanna join one of the next coming in future). Maybe it's my way of playing Blood Bowl - try the best you can do, even if you have no chance at all anymore. I ever just conceeded one single game and this was with a TR100 rookie team of mine I just wanted to test. So, why should I conceed a great major?!
The truth is that I really don't care if such a rule will be set up. My next opponent won his last game, I don't care how. He became some extra cash, well, I won't cheer about, but the tournament goes on and I'm in. I would not boo on the guy conceeded the game. He may have his reasons maybe not, I don't care. I can understand when coaches do conceed to safe at least a couple of their players from getting bashed into the ground. Somewhere BB was compered to soccer:
"Imagine teams in world soccer would just leave the field at half time... "
BB is a full contact sport - players die and get hurt a lot. I would compare it to boxing or something like that. Boxers give up a fight - not very unusual.
So, whatever you think it's the best for tournaments ... set up the rules; I'll play 'em.
I wish that you still have the option to conceed a match, but it's not importent for me not to join a major. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 20:07 |
|
Okay, Evo hasn't replied to my alternative suggestion of a 'Code of Conduct' for a tournament. Perhaps instead I can address the proposal to those like CircularLogic who are are massively against this idea. Would this compromise satisfy you? If not, then I can shut up and leave this discussion to others, but at the moment it seems that no moderate, middle-ground suggestion is up for discussion.
This is my proposal from the other thread:
| pac wrote: | IMHO:
I think that banning a coach (even if an appeal were allowed) from the next [R] tournament might actually be too severe a penalty - especially given the weight of the voices against such sanctions in this thread.
I think it might be sufficient to simply include a comment in the tournament details stating that concessions for in-game reasons are strongly discouraged. RL reasons for concessions would be accepted (and the word of the coach on those reasons would also be accepted without question).
This might read:
<i>'[Name of competition] is a high-profile tournament within the FUMBBL community, followed eagerly by coaches both famed and unknown. Because of the attention it attracts, it is considered highly unprofessional for a coach to disappoint fans and pundits by conceding a match, whatever the situation on the pitch.
'The organisers therefore request that participating coaches <b>only</b> concede matches if real life circumstances make this <b>unavoidable</b> - though a coach's word will of course be trusted in such situations. (Repeated breach of these rules may result in [details of sanctions which would probably never actually be implemented].)'</i>
I would say that such guidelines would be more than enough to dissuade any coach from conceding, simply by making it clear that this is the spirit in which the competition is intended to be played (something that I think was always the case in the organisers' minds, but simply wasn't spelled out before). I don't see the need for automatic penalties - whose very existence, it seems, might alienate some of the coaches posting in this thread.
In other words: I really don't think that any of the coaches concerned in the FUMBBL Cup examples would have conceded had it been clear to them that this was not approved of in this competition. Actual sanctions would have been unnecessary: this probably need not be anything more than a kind of code of conduct for participants. |
The reason I think that this would be a sound approach is that I don't think any coach who is accustomed to being able to concede and is used to that option (like Circular), actually objects to there being no concessions in a given tournament. They simply object to there being an automatic punishment for doing so, as they don't feel that such a rule shows respect for the participating coaches. I don't agree with this argument, but I have a very strong sympathy with it, and I am concerned that Evo's present 'in or out' proposal may create an unnecessary rift here. |
_________________
Join us in building Blood Bowl Sixth Edition.
In other news, the Hittites are back. Join us in #fumbbl.hi  |
|
sehou
Joined: Feb 04, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 20:38 |
|
I voted No, 'cause I think the ban misses the point. Take 2 FF points from all the player's teams instead(or 3 or 4 whatever), since teams don't like shoking coaches. |
|
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 19, 2005 - 20:50 |
|
I voted no, because I think it is foolish to start implementing extra rules for bloodbowl. When you do that the game becomes less and less bloodbowl and more and more "Evo's take on blood bowl". I don't think it is awful that someone concedes. I think it would be worse to see someone running all their players to the opposite side of the feild to avoid getting hammered. Hey, they lost 9-0 but they get to play in the next ranked tournie. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
chunky04
Joined: Aug 11, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 00:55 |
|
Ranked is supposed to be the closest league we have to LRB. The Ranked tournaments are supposed to be the highest form of ranked. Concessions are allowed in the LRB, thus they should be allowed in the Ranked tournaments. |
_________________
chunky - you are eloquence on legs |
|
Jeppan
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 02:06 |
|
Yes! Of course we should get rid of all the pancy coaches who are too wussy to really play bloodbowl. Conceding as a tactic is lame and it makes perfect sense that the organizers of an official Fumbbl-cup would ban conceders from playing.
Good call Evo!
If you don't like it then don't play the official tournaments. There are plenty of non-official tourneys to go around. |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 02:11 |
|
[Edit: pac censors self: no need for feed] |
_________________
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 %20, %2005 - %05:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
Jeppan
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 03:36 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Jeppan wrote: | | Yes! Of course we should get rid of all the pancy coaches who are too wussy to really play bloodbowl. Conceding as a tactic is lame and it makes perfect sense that the organizers of an official Fumbbl-cup would ban conceders from playing. |
Jeppan, I am not a fan of conceding either: but there's been enough name-calling in this discussion already. Check out the records of the coaches who conceded in the FCIV matches, and then come back and say again that they are 'wussy'.
The issue here is that a number of respected fumbbl coaches, who have made considerable contributions to past tournaments, and whom many coaches here consider masters of the game, are threatening to boycott future flagship tournaments because of a rule that may not really be required. |
I ensure you that I am referring to anyone in particular when calling conceding coaches as wuzzes. I just think it is piss-poor attitude. The fast we leave conceders at home and let people who actually will finish the games they are involved in play I say we are better off without em. Judging from the poll a grand majority of the fumbblers think the same.
BB is meant to be played on the field with good and bad coaching, fouls, good and bad luck and what not. Ask yourself, what would Nuffle do?
Answer: He would throw PopKhorne at the conceders! |
|
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 03:43 |
|
[Edit: pac censors self - ditto] |
_________________
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 %20, %2005 - %05:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
Jeppan
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 03:47 |
|
| pac wrote: | | Jeppan wrote: | | I ensure you that I am referring to anyone in particular when calling conceding coaches as wuzzes. I just think it is piss-poor attitude. ... |
And lots of people agree with your opinion. It is one that has been well-established in this and previous threads. But it's not an especially helpful one at this stage of the debate: the two sides seem to be alienated enough already. |
Oh, so you can only post helpful things now?
Well since the last 5 posters before me have declared Evo an enemy of every thing that is fair and just I regard my contribution as ok. You may or may not differ but you do not see me complaining when you are spamming whatever that you are spamming.
EDIT: Oh...and what I meant to say was that I was not refering to anyone in particular. |
|
|
AlcingRagaholic
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 04:38 |
|
| Meech wrote: | | I voted no, because I think it is foolish to start implementing extra rules for bloodbowl. When you do that the game becomes less and less bloodbowl and more and more "Evo's take on blood bowl". I don't think it is awful that someone concedes. I think it would be worse to see someone running all their players to the opposite side of the feild to avoid getting hammered. Hey, they lost 9-0 but they get to play in the next ranked tournie. |
| Quote: | Game A, one coach is losing badly and has no chance. He preserves his players by running away and hiding in the corner.
Game B, once coach is losing badly, and he decides to just maim his opponent as much as possible to make it harder for him to win his next match.
|
| Quote: |
If I was a coach participating in a major Fumbbl tournament under this rule and was losing interest in the game and wanted to end it as fast as possible my thoughts could go like this:
“Hmmm – those stupid Lavina Resting Heavenbirds have beaten my team to pulp and lead the game 3-0… Maybe I should concede….? Hmmm – no that would just earn me a ban from future tournaments. Hmmmm… but no rule stops me from moving the rest of my players near my endzone and then just press End Turn until it’s over – as long as I in some way can prove that I’m not playing to lose. But alas – some matches in the FC qualifier have shown us, that it is completely acceptable. Hooray, I’ll do that immediately!”
|
| Quote: |
AS a good sportsman I KNOW WHEN I'VE LOST and as in ANY strategie game (chess, magic the gathering for example, where i conceded in a 4.000e game in PT London) so i took the honorable way (instead of beeing an ass and fouling his team as a petty revenge like many would have done)
|
| Quote: |
As said before, a T16 foul by the loser (when 1-3 down) killing the opponents star gives an unfair advantage to the next round opponent. Ban for fouling?
|
| Quote: |
Coming from this point you'd have to ban a whole lot of things. Imagine a High Elf team has scored the leading 4:3 Touchdown in it's last turn of the game, but now has only three players - all the Teams three Legends - to put on the LoS. The opposing Chaos team can now decide to either maim those three - maybe including one of the much loved last turn fouls - or leave 'em alone and not Block 'em. Either way might have HUGE consequencs on the next game being played, but neither would ever be considered worth any kind of punishment.
|
Making extremist statements doesn't prove a valid point.
| Quote: |
I just want to point out that I didn't mean PMG (or others) had to stay on the pitch to foul till turn 16.
But to stay on the pitch, blitz every turn, force the opponent to throw blocks (double skulls happen) and roll dice yes, I think it could be done.
When I say "do not concede" I don't mean "act like a jerk with the only purpose to hurt".
|
Jan sums it up best.
If you want to save your team from a beating, you don't have to run away and line up on the opposite side. You have to play smart. If your opponent has 4 claw players, stay away from them. Allow him to only get 1 hit a turn. If you are telling me that 16 blocks in a game [+3 for each time you kick it off] will destroy your team, then I find that you are being hyperbolic for no reason.
Trust me... there are ways to play the game and survive against a killer team without:
1. Conceding
2. Running your full movement away from them.
Similarly, there are ways to accept defeat without:
1. Conceding.
2. Fouling in each turn that is left in the game.
However, in nearly every post I have seen that doesn't want this ban that cites alternate examples to conceding, I have only seen the above Option 2s. Personally, if you think so one-sided about everything, no poll or vote can change your mind.
You DON'T have to run away from all his team players. You DON'T have to foul him until the clock runs out. There are ways to play the game without needing 6 blocks a turn on each side. Sure, you need to get the ball carrier, but you can stop a td with good placement as well.
I'm not trying to play your game, or tell you how to play it. Concede if you want. Suffer the consequences of conceding an Official [R] Tourney. Play something else if you find it so unbearable that you will miss 1 tourney if you choose to concede.
| Quote: |
Since when has anyone's value/believes been more important or superior to anyone else's? I guess the admins need to be very careful if they wish to make a ruling based partly on the second argument. For some tournaments, it might be in theme, eg an invitational where the theme is toughest coaches/teams only. But for all majors, it might be on dangerous grounds to make a ruling based partly on B because it is essentially endorsing the values/beliefs of some over the values/beliefs of many others who may not be that vocal.
You could mitigate this somewhat by having a midground. Eg, you could rule that conceding in a major is understandable in some circumstances but not preferred. A coach that concedes in two major Fumbbl tournaments in a row will be barred from Fumbbl tournaments for the next 6 months (or something like that). |
Malthor makes a good argument.
Z |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 09:25 |
|
| Optihut wrote: |
| 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. |
This is not true for all teams! My team for example did enter the qualifiers with no cash available. The team suffered in the qualifiers, and because of not enough time I could only play 2 "recovery" games that got me a player killed and a new Blitzer -AV. Then the Cup started and the team was again without much cash. When the team started playing the semi finals it was down to 9 players ready to field and I spend all the money to hire 2 linemen. I am not saying I could have won had I more cash, but certainly I have several ideas where I could have spent it to improve my team.
Please, do not say that teams playing in the Cup are so maxed out. Sorry, but my team didn´t have the luck to accumulate enough cash to even replace injured players in the last 10 games. A conceeding opponent "could" have changed the Cup progression for me. It is not only a RRR issue! |
|
|
Afro
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 09:39 |
|
I voted "no" because i don't like being bossed around. Conceding is an option that can be used because it's in the rules, and there can be several reasons to concede. I am already punished by losing 1 ff, my mvp, the complete money and perhaps all of my stars (and in a [t] team, there will be some), and that's all punishment i can agree on (or have to). |
_________________
Luck is only for dumb people |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 20, 2005 - 15:26 |
|
| Meech wrote: | | I voted no, because I think it is foolish to start implementing extra rules for bloodbowl. When you do that the game becomes less and less bloodbowl and more and more "Evo's take on blood bowl". I don't think it is awful that someone concedes. I think it would be worse to see someone running all their players to the opposite side of the feild to avoid getting hammered. Hey, they lost 9-0 but they get to play in the next ranked tournie. |
Ok, 9-0 is extreme, but I am betting it won't be far from accurate. When I say "Evo's take on bloodbowl" I am not trying to make a personal attack either. I am just pointing out that making adjustments here and there end up making a whole new game. I apologize to Evo if it seems that way. He seems to be taking the brunt of the "no" camp, which I am sure isn't the intent of any of us. (At least I hope)
I am also a bigger fan of Malthor's idea. If I had to pick between the two I would say his idea is better. I don't like conceding, but I have done it a couple times. Real life has reared it's ugly head, and once someone I was playing was taking about 9 minute turns and I just couldn't stand it. It is hard enough for me to concede, and I would hate the fact that a rough concession is made rougher by a rule I don't agree with.
I guess the solution would be for me not to play in Ranked tournies. Something I don't like, but I could live with. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Cindy is back?
Search
