Style:    Language:

Author Topic: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede  (Read 2907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JBAdams

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 133
On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« on: November 20, 2009, 07:43:37 PM »
Friends,

First of all, this post isn't a complaint against any specific players.  My goal here is to start a discussion about the league's rules on conceding a teamer.  I think the rules should be changed in one of two ways.  The rules should either allow a host to create his own policy for conceding (stated before the game is launched) or the rules should generally allow a team to concede so long as all but one living player on the team agrees to concede.

I have played several games in the past few weeks where a team loses a player or a major battle and then another member of that team simply quits.  After the player quits, we sit on the vote screen and watch the remainder of his team debate whether to concede the game or find a sub for their quitting teammate.  Whether you are on the team that can't decide to concede or on the team whose time is being spent sitting and waiting for a decision from their opponents, it is very annoying.  Many times, only one member refuses to concede.

Recent Example: Last night a teammate of mine built the Oracle.  Another teammate was angry that we took Monarchy instead of Horseback Riding with the Oracle.  We were winning the game on points, but the angry player just typed "gg" and instantly dropped from the game.  Our team had not discussed conceding or agreed to concede. 

At the vote screen, we talked with each other and just one person on our team wanted to play it out; the rest of us wanted to concede.  This one player insisted on continuing, and it was obvious that he was refusing to concede simply because a member of the other team also had left the game.  (The other team's player left because he was tired of dealing with my one teammate who refused to concede.)  In other words, the one holdout player was attempting to force the game to be scrapped.  It didn't work - after about 15 minutes he finally agreed to concede.  Still, we ended up wasting a ridiculous amount of time watching one player argue with his teammates about whether to continue playing.

This sort of thing happens all the time, and I am totally convinced that players behave in this way because they think that refusing to concede the game will eventually force the other team to agree on scrapping the game.  I don't care what the rules say about continuing without a sub after 10 minutes, as that is NOT how these in-game dramas turn out.  Players end up leaving games that they have clearly won, not knowing whether a stubborn holdout player will eventually decline the report on the basis that his team "didn't concede."

What is the benefit of requiring a unanimous vote for conceding games?  What would be lost by allowing a team to concede with all but one person agreeing?  I think a compelling case can be made that if just one person on a team believes it's worth continuing, then his opinion shouldn't be allowed to force his entire team (not to mention the other team) to continue playing a game.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 07:43:55 PM by JBAdams »

Offline Zhenon

  • Clan Killer
  • Civ4 - Admin
  • Great Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2876
  • Gender: Male
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2009, 07:52:41 PM »
Yes I have been a proponent of the ALL-BUT-ONE to concede rule-change idea.  Most admins are against it -- or at least enough of us are.

+1 to changing the rule to allow concession if ALL teammates but 1 agree to it in a 4v4 or 5v5.
[PPP]jobe_c4f: you want my mod zhenon? that's rather pathetic, what you're doing O_o
[PPP]jobe_c4f: i feel just sad for humaniy seing it

"ok see you in civ5 bitches, you'll know me because I'm the guy who doesn't need to change his name."
-- 1p0r1g1n41g

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2009, 07:58:11 PM »
+3.  I would go so far as to say just, "the majority of the team".

2 of 3 players, in 3v3.

3 of 4 players, in 4v4.

3 of 5 players, in 5v5.



Offline JBAdams

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2009, 08:12:47 PM »
I agree with Zhenon.  As for weaksauce's comment, I don't think "2 of 3" should be able to concede in a 3v3.  That's a bit too small of a game to me.

I suspect that the admins would not be opposed to this rule change if enough of them played teamers.  If they saw how constantly this problem arises and how quickly this kind of rule change would eliminate a huge issue (and with no demonstrable downside to changing the rule); they'd support this sort of change in a heartbeat.

I look forward to hearing some sort of explanation for why one player on a team of five should be able to force 9 people to continue playing a game.  It just strikes me as preposterous.

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2009, 08:42:45 PM »
I agree with Zhenon.  As for weaksauce's comment, I don't think "2 of 3" should be able to concede in a 3v3.  That's a bit too small of a game to me.

anyone who enters a staging room can see who their possible teammates are.  i think you should live w/ your teammates for better or worse.  if majority of your team want to concede, thats life.  dont play w/ the people in the future then if they quit too soon.

think about it this way.  is it fair for you to be winning a 3v3 and all but 1 of your opponent want to quit.  the 1 guy who dont wanna quit goes and gets 2 subs, and now the majority of your opponents are people who were never in the original staging room.  how is that the most fair solution to all original 6 players?  just cuz 1 guy dont want to concede...

and what i just typed in that last paragraph happen to me once.  3 of 5 concede, but 2 refuse... so we got 3 subs and now im playing against completely different people, not for connection probs or cuz people gotta leave suddenly.  but becuz a minority refuse to concede, while rest recognize game is over and want to get a new one.

its no mystery who your teammates could be when you sit in a staging room.  majority should rule in conceding defeat.

diurpaneus

  • Guest
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2009, 08:55:48 PM »
I think the unwritten "rule" about captains agreeing on either scrap or conceding when teams were picked should be enforced.
Maybe this way we'll play more picked teams games to simplify the ending of the game.

Offline CptMarrvelous

  • Civ4 - TD
  • Knight
  • ****
  • Posts: 967
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2009, 09:02:50 PM »
Quote
Yes I have been a proponent of the ALL-BUT-ONE to concede rule-change idea.  


I agree. Ussually the one person who doesn't want to conceed comes from an era of FFA or none league teamers:

A: Doesn't want to quit period.

B: Feels that the other team should be allowed to get the kills.

C: Has a notion its bad sportsmanship to quit (While wasting other peoples time)

D: Stares at his own culture all game and has an inability to see the entire map.

I have played teamers with individuals who do not want to quit when the game is CLEARLY over and yet when you suggest the team concedes they are always shocked and ussually respond with a, 'why would we ever quit?'

Lately, the newer person feels that he must hold the team hostage, him and his nieghbor are having an epic duel, it could be 5 vs 3 (using ancient TeamBattleGround Start Seperate as an example) and he will not concede because he feels he can kill his nieghbor. His other two players left could be OCC but he doesn't care,... Its not about the team anymore.

When this happens and it has been happening alot lately, the coined term is, 'We are being held hostage by [player nic].' No one likes to be a hostage, its not fun and it kills the game.

This message was brought to you by C4P: Whittling away your freedoms one at a time
Lestat: Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star.

Offline gabriel

  • Keshik
  • *****
  • Posts: 357
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2009, 09:13:51 PM »
now u guys see only one side.
Lets for the sake of conversation say that JB is fucked really baad by mali,another teamate of him is choked bad by aztec,a problem come up and the conceededing discution is up...now this 2 guys will agree to conceede as the game is over for em,but,there is another dude in them team who have good land and nice civ,with 30% of turning the game around,he really whant to play,he like the land and civ,he just whant to play it out or don't whanna give away a win(or will want to give other team some real work to do before wining) .
Who's time is wasted then?this 2 players time who dont whanna play choked?The other team time who should win cose they got lucky on uu and choke some noobs or killed with a warr or etc.?Or u waste time from this real players who spend already aprox 2 h (with stagging and game progress)and cant play it out cose noobs in team whanna conceede,maybbe they dont give a fuck about win/loss,maybbe they smell a scrap or gg force ,maybbe they just whant to fucking bring to maturity the 2 h they already spend with the game...

U will start a new game if u conceede or scrap faster,but same game will be,same graphic,same units,SAME fun utopiaCKING GAME!...different situation,let's fucking try again,maybbe i get mali this time and i fuck them pfff

Offline TheBadSeed

  • Modern Armour
  • **********
  • Posts: 1700
  • Gender: Male
  • Arrrrrrrr Ya gonna drink that rum?
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2009, 09:26:03 PM »
Just to play the devil's advocate here:

What generally happens in teamers where someone wants to quit is that 1 person declares the game to be "over and unwinnable", 3 people ignore the comments altogether, and 1 other person on the team says "This game isn't over."

The original person assumes the 3 people who have ignored the comments must agree with him, since they have been silent, and declares that only the one who voiced his opposition  wants to continue the game. I see this all the time.

The problem is that it's a team game. The people screaming for a concede need to understand that as well. I've seen big turn-arounds happen after 1 person so vociferously declares the game over. I've seen plenty of people who think they know the "big picture" be completely wrong.

In general, if only one person really wants to continue, why the hell not? If the game's really that lopsided, it wont be going on for much longer anyway. If the guy pisses you off so badly with his misunderstanding of your teams position, just exclude him from the next game. But, just maybe, that person has a workable plan to win the game, and doesn't want to be robbed of his chance to try it.
"There is a crack in Everything;
    That's how the light gets in."
                    -Leonard Cohen

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2009, 09:53:21 PM »
What generally happens in teamers where someone wants to quit is that 1 person declares the game to be "over and unwinnable", 3 people ignore the comments altogether, and 1 other person on the team says "This game isn't over."

The original person assumes the 3 people who have ignored the comments must agree with him, since they have been silent, and declares that only the one who voiced his opposition  wants to continue the game. I see this all the time.

ur not playing devils advocate, you're making a huge assumption that a game is gonna be concluded under false pretenses cuz 3/5ths of a team "say nothing".  ive rarely seen a team discuss conceding where only 2 people voice their opinions and everyone else is totally silent.

TBH, it's kind of ridiculous to think that an entire team would be conceding when only 1 guy wants to concede.   it's never occurred in any game i've been in.

ur argument to continue a game becuz 1 guy wants to continue, is really absurd.  "why the hell not?"  why should 9 people accommodate the whims/desires of one person at the expense of the many?  why should the burden be on the 4 people not to play w/ the 1 outlier in the future, and not the burden on the 1 guy who refuses to concede to avoid playing w/ the other people who view the game as over/unwinnable?

everyone knows big turnarounds happen/comebacks occur.  you are stringing together nonsensical scenarios and unrealistic burdens on the majority for what seems like no reason other than "why the hell not?".

cuz its a waste of peoples time !  thats why..

Offline TheBadSeed

  • Modern Armour
  • **********
  • Posts: 1700
  • Gender: Male
  • Arrrrrrrr Ya gonna drink that rum?
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2009, 10:04:35 PM »
What generally happens in teamers where someone wants to quit is that 1 person declares the game to be "over and unwinnable", 3 people ignore the comments altogether, and 1 other person on the team says "This game isn't over."

The original person assumes the 3 people who have ignored the comments must agree with him, since they have been silent, and declares that only the one who voiced his opposition  wants to continue the game. I see this all the time.

ur not playing devils advocate, you're making a huge assumption that a game is gonna be concluded under false pretenses cuz 3/5ths of a team "say nothing".  ive rarely seen a team discuss conceding where only 2 people voice their opinions and everyone else is totally silent.

TBH, it's kind of ridiculous to think that an entire team would be conceding when only 1 guy wants to concede.   it's never occurred in any game i've been in.

ur argument to continue a game becuz 1 guy wants to continue, is really absurd.  "why the hell not?"  why should 9 people accommodate the whims/desires of one person at the expense of the many?  why should the burden be on the 4 people not to play w/ the 1 outlier in the future, and not the burden on the 1 guy who refuses to concede to avoid playing w/ the other people who view the game as over/unwinnable?

everyone knows big turnarounds happen/comebacks occur.  you are stringing together nonsensical scenarios and unrealistic burdens on the majority for what seems like no reason other than "why the hell not?".

cuz its a waste of peoples time !  thats why..

Weaksauce, I play CIV to waste my time.

If you must be immediately out of any game where the chances of winning get slim, go play non-league games. In the league, occasionally you will have to sit and suffer through a losing situation because someone feels like there is a chance.

It's quite true that there is usually a loudmouth in the game who tells everyone he knows better than everyone else. I've seen enough games to know that one person screaming for a concede while others remain silent is not a "nonsensical scenario." It's just plain common. Sometimes that loudmouth know-it-all is the one screaming for a concede, sometimes he's the one refusing to concede. Either way, it's part of the game, and the rules, rightfully so, favor the one who wants to play it out.

It doesnt take long for people to build reputations on this league. If someone refuses to concede games without any good reason, he won't be welcomed in future teamers. That's not a burden on anyone but himself.
"There is a crack in Everything;
    That's how the light gets in."
                    -Leonard Cohen

[CC]Bantams

  • Guest
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2009, 10:22:46 PM »
WTF happened too it aint over till the Fat Lady Sings?

Ive played a Few CCC teamers and didnt concede when it was 3v1 ask Lestat :)

you dudes just wanna quit and play another game sorry but that wasnt the reason I joined the league and I am 101% sure that isnt the reason for SPM and W2U creating the league in the first place!

 :attack:

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2009, 10:27:29 PM »
If you must be immediately out of any game where the chances of winning get slim, go play non-league games. In the league, occasionally you will have to sit and suffer through a losing situation because someone feels like there is a chance.

everyone does this... wait becuz 1 guy just wants to try attacking before conceding, wait becuz 1 guy wants to try to do something b4 his team quits.  no one in this thread is saying anything against this, except that 1-2 people (the minority) shouldn't control the outcome.  the idea that 1 person can potentially hold 9 people in a game for up to 3 hrs for his own "personal curiosity," is an absurd way to run rules that are supposed to benefit the majority.  it's not about fairness; it's just plain insane.

It's quite true that there is usually a loudmouth in the game who tells everyone he knows better than everyone else. I've seen enough games to know that one person screaming for a concede while others remain silent is not a "nonsensical scenario." It's just plain common. Sometimes that loudmouth know-it-all is the one screaming for a concede, sometimes he's the one refusing to concede. Either way, it's part of the game, and the rules, rightfully so, favor the one who wants to play it out.

so what is the point of this example?  how does 1 loudmouth force 9 other people to leave and quit a game?  what is ur assumption about the 5 opponents who are sitting there saying, "do you concede?" and 3 people r silent, 1 guy says no, 1 guy says yes, and somehow the game is now prematurely over???

this is an example about nothing...


i frankly dont understand the stupid examples/complaints against the suggestions brought up by JBAdams/Grimarch.  rules are meant to benefit the majority of players in the league, not to protect 1 outlier.  the examples/complaints in this thread are a joke.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 10:30:20 PM by weaksauce »

Offline Matlowe__

  • Civ4 - TD
  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2009, 11:29:40 PM »
If you must be immediately out of any game where the chances of winning get slim, go play non-league games. In the league, occasionally you will have to sit and suffer through a losing situation because someone feels like there is a chance.

everyone does this... wait becuz 1 guy just wants to try attacking before conceding, wait becuz 1 guy wants to try to do something b4 his team quits.  no one in this thread is saying anything against this, except that 1-2 people (the minority) shouldn't control the outcome.  the idea that 1 person can potentially hold 9 people in a game for up to 3 hrs for his own "personal curiosity," is an absurd way to run rules that are supposed to benefit the majority.  it's not about fairness; it's just plain insane.

It's quite true that there is usually a loudmouth in the game who tells everyone he knows better than everyone else. I've seen enough games to know that one person screaming for a concede while others remain silent is not a "nonsensical scenario." It's just plain common. Sometimes that loudmouth know-it-all is the one screaming for a concede, sometimes he's the one refusing to concede. Either way, it's part of the game, and the rules, rightfully so, favor the one who wants to play it out.

so what is the point of this example?  how does 1 loudmouth force 9 other people to leave and quit a game?  what is ur assumption about the 5 opponents who are sitting there saying, "do you concede?" and 3 people r silent, 1 guy says no, 1 guy says yes, and somehow the game is now prematurely over???

this is an example about nothing...


i frankly dont understand the stupid examples/complaints against the suggestions brought up by JBAdams/Grimarch.  rules are meant to benefit the majority of players in the league, not to protect 1 outlier.  the examples/complaints in this thread are a joke.


well 1 loudmouth cant force people to play out a game. you joined it you play it out lol.

in civ there are so many possibilities in a game it could go either way, you might be down but deffend well kill all there units and have the upper hand, while the other guy who wanted to attack goes and kills. you jsut never know what can happen. if you dont like sitting through these games i suggest non ladder aswell. we wanted more competetive games here on the league, not quit when it gets hard like those non league 3v3 ladder teamers. i ahve won many games 4v5 and even worse. mil0 is a genius at comebacks, if he cant do it, noone can!!

but point of the story is if someone thinks they have a chance, dont boycott the game for them, let them try, and you yourself try harder. when it fails its over, if you win, it will be one of the best games you will remember! its all about sportsmanship, you be nice to them and let them continue, if they repeatedly do this, even in worse odds, well i guess you dont have to play with them after all, play another teamer without them   :P

Offline CptMarrvelous

  • Civ4 - TD
  • Knight
  • ****
  • Posts: 967
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2009, 11:41:18 PM »
Pretty strong position Weaksauce. What if tho, I mean, what if your wrong?

What if TBS is right?

Personally, I think the 9 players left, using your example, 1 player wants to play on, he still has a legitimate chance but he gets robbed, denied, stoned, fleeced of this oppurtunity. Its like he is a person condemned, falsely so of having any strategic value.

Who am I to judge if someone can win a game or not, who am I to tell someone they don't stand a chance?

Then again, who are you.

Gladiator - The Movie.

  • Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
    Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?


(Thats how you play devils advocate)  ;D
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 11:43:55 PM by Cpt.Marrvelous »
This message was brought to you by C4P: Whittling away your freedoms one at a time
Lestat: Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star.

 

League