Style:    Language:

Author Topic: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede  (Read 2841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JBAdams

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2009, 12:14:51 AM »
Marr can you show me an example of where everyone on a team thought it was pointless to continue, and one person insisted on continuing, and that one person ended up winning the game?  I've played thousands of these things.  I've seen a lot of stuff; I've never seen that happen.

Offline SPART1AT

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 112
  • survival of the fittest.
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2009, 12:20:36 AM »
now u guys see only one side.
Lets for the sake of conversation say that JB is friged 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 frig about win/loss,maybbe they smell a scrap or gg force ,maybbe they just whant to friging 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 frigING GAME!...different situation,let's friging try again,maybbe i get mali this time and i frig them pfff
+1 for that statement. i think everyone should try to live with the situation. everyone tends to concede too early.
an example for that is a teamer i just played and won with my brother and nam basicially 3v5 (cause actec player was choked and taken out of the game by a small amount of units of 2) after gab died in my team very early on.
just keep on fighting till you sure you loose and dont concede after the enemy team has goten 2 wonders or choked someone of you succesfully - 2 city elim is pretty aggressive game and a kill is mosty possible.
Only a strong mind can resist the impressions of war - Charles Ardant du Picq

Offline JBAdams

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2009, 12:22:00 AM »
If you guys are this protective of the "single minority," I'd hate to see what kind of government you supported.  My guess is none. LOL

Offline CanuckSoldier

  • Owner/Global Admin/Operator
  • Global Admin
  • Commando
  • ******
  • Posts: 6739
  • Gender: Male
    • Civilization Players Leagues
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2009, 12:25:47 AM »
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.


Actually your premise on the rules is not correct.  The rules are not necesarily there to benifit the majority, they are their to make a level playing field that is as fair as we can make it.  Yes like in the real world sometimes rules/laws are in place that don't benifit the majority but protect the rights of the individual.  It is no different here.

CS
Owner/Global Admin/Operator
Civilization Players Leagues
www.civplayers.com

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2009, 12:56:15 AM »
all these examples/statements by brucey_lee and spartiat... ie. "i've won being down 1 guy or we won a 3v5 or 4v5".. have nothing to do w/ a team that functionally wants to concede except for 1 guy.  we've all won games down a player unless you are mentally handicap.  if you want to continue playing 3v5, then great.  keep doing it.  ur going to win some of those, its going to happen now and then.  what you are discussing has nothing to do w/ a team that wants to concede except for 1 bad actor in the group.

If you guys are this protective of the "single minority," I'd hate to see what kind of government you supported.  My guess is none. LOL

i agree.  i think it is really divorced from reality.

Actually your premise on the rules is not correct.  The rules are not necesarily there to benifit the majority, they are their to make a level playing field that is as fair as we can make it.  Yes like in the real world sometimes rules/laws are in place that don't benifit the majority but protect the rights of the individual.  It is no different here.

thats a very 'generalist' view of it, and the reality is that it is far less black and white.  like free speech is effectively a legal right in Great Britain, so you can say whatever you want.  but you cannot incite hate toward another group (ie. a right for the single person at the expense of the many).  it's not so clear cut.

i really think you should then put it to a player vote, becuz this rule is really terrible and causes problems constantly w/ "supposed quitters" becuz 1 guy is forcing people to stay.

the reality is your rules are conflicting.  they may seem black/white to you on paper, but they dont function that way in reality.  lots of people just quit games when they feel it is 'gg' and only a handful are getting punished (albeit the worst actors).  but JBAdams got every right to file 3 reports yesterday on quitters, and i got plenty of right to file a report on Exxekiel and others then who quit a later game.  and will that quitter rule be really enforced then?  for the benefit of the single person?

reality is it is a waste of everyone's time and just a bunch of nonsense for a rule that doesn't serve the playerbase in a functional manner.

imo, put it up for a poll/vote.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 01:34:29 AM by weaksauce »

Offline Zhenon

  • Clan Killer
  • Civ4 - Admin
  • Great Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2876
  • Gender: Male
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2009, 03:21:35 AM »
I still think it's unfair for 1 person force both teams to continue a game, particularly if they have no standing army.

I suppose in the worst case scenario -- where one person holds a game hostage -- you can report the player for bad sportsmanship.  I've been in a situation before where one person wanted to continue the game, but we were all in HIS land protecting HIM.  We told him we could be doing something else with our units.  In effect we managed to strong-arm him into conceding.  Only the most stubborn people can argue against an entire team and their constant verbal barrage.

In the end, I still don't understand why ONE person can stop a TEAM from conceding.  There's no "I" or "one" in team.  Didn't we learn that back in elementary?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 03:23:32 AM by Zhenon »
[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 SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2009, 03:56:19 AM »
I support the current rule. But first, I want to admit my bias.  I hate quitters.  I hate it when people don't want to complete a legitimate game. One of the phrases I wrote years ago, that I'm most proud of is "We don't quit. We don't cheat. We value good sportsmanship -- in short, we love the game".

I play a lot of teamers (typically 5v5) and as soon as one person dies, the chorus of "gg?" and requests for concessions begins.  I've been in many games where people quit at turn 13 just because of an early kill - instead of being challenged to fight on and turn things around. Why are we in such a rush to start a new game?  I prefer the "ALAMO" model of fighting honorably even against all odds.

Now I will grant that sometimes one person is just being obstinate and wasting everyone's time - but in the face of pressure from the rest of the team - usually that person has a very good reason to want to play on, or they would accede to their teammate's wishes. 

Zhenon says: "In effect we managed to strong-arm him into conceding.  Only the most stubborn people can argue against an entire team and their constant verbal barrage."  This is very true and is a good reason in defense of the current rule.  That to overcome this kind of pressure, the person objecting probably has a good reason.

Now one person can't force both teams to continue a game - since the "scrapping" rule allows an nearly unanimous (i.e. all but one) vote to stop the game -- but of course with a scrap there is no winner nor loser. 

I have played in both types of games - ones which were prematurely conceded in my opinion greatly outnumber the ones which were dragged on endlessly for no reason. 

I think that peer pressure works well enough here to minimize the latter and to me the bigger problem is the former. 

Similarly in CTONs I see people quitting prematurely (one or two turns before death) and often greatly inconveniencing the other players as a result.

I would like to see the spirit of "we don't quit" encouraged rather than discouraged, so I support the current rule.

Best, SPM
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 04:01:30 AM by SirPartyMan »

Offline Chuckle

  • Chariot
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2009, 06:17:28 AM »
If all but one player on a team on 4 want to concede, should be a concede.  Overall, the majority of people are probably not enjoying the game (the 3 teamates, and very often the entire other team).  And thats why we play, to have fun.  Its no fun playing out a 2 hour game when you have no reasonable hope to win

Of course, if the one player says, "just give me 15 turns and let me try kill," etc, and has some good plan on how to win, most will listen and agree to play on.  Its pretty annoying when the one dissenter is choked himself, and wants his team to try win.

Once upon a time, there was a powerful and surprising rush.  In the end that humiliation motivated me way more than anything else could. (TMB)

Offline Spyro

  • Archer
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Gender: Male
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2009, 08:33:34 AM »
I remember a game when I was celtia and my team was 3v5 pretty early but then I managed to kill my 2 neighbours (mostly alone); expand on the 2-side and managed to kill another guy in north with 50 gallecs at the final and won the game...

Maybe speaker still remember that game since he subbed a guy of my team who thought that game was over and left.
There is only ONE truth out there. That truth will be revealed in any case. The only question is the time.

Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2009, 08:57:14 AM »
If all but one player on a team on 4 want to concede, should be a concede. 
....
Of course, if the one player says, "just give me 15 turns and let me try kill," etc, and has some good plan on how to win, most will listen and agree to play on.  Its pretty annoying when the one dissenter is choked himself, and wants his team to try win.



OK, so how about we change the rule so that 3 out of 4 can concede a game. Wouldn't that apply even in the case where a smart player is saying "just give me 15 turns and let me try to kill"? 

Right now that person if he/she persists will get those 15 turns because the rule is "unanimous"  if the rule is all but one how many times will that person get the 15 turns? Not very often is my thinking.

You say "most will will listen and agree to play on" but that's now.  If the rule is changed I think many fewer will give the 4th player the benefit of the doubt and try for victory.  And that's the point a few of us are trying to make.

The rules and de facto enforcement of them already favor the quitters - let's not make it even simpler to quit.  Bad move, in my opinion.

Best, SPM


Offline [KWT]fed1943

  • Scout
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2009, 11:24:27 AM »
The zero cents of a noob:

The true question IMHO is what for do you play. Two options with just one common point: never cheat.

You can play to play well, to learn, to try to win, and that's your fun.

Or you can play to always win and never lose, and that's your fun.

After you took your decision, the path is clear.

Offline CptMarrvelous

  • Civ4 - TD
  • Knight
  • ****
  • Posts: 967
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2009, 01:59:46 PM »
The zero cents of a noob:

The true question IMHO is what for do you play. Two options with just one common point: never cheat.

You can play to play well, to learn, to try to win, and that's your fun.

Or you can play to always win and never lose, and that's your fun.

After you took your decision, the path is clear.


Geeez Yoda, you writing buddhist puzzles for us?

I don't even know what this means...
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 TheBadSeed

  • Modern Armour
  • **********
  • Posts: 1700
  • Gender: Male
  • Arrrrrrrr Ya gonna drink that rum?
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2009, 04:33:16 PM »
The zero cents of a noob:

The true question IMHO is what for do you play. Two options with just one common point: never cheat.

You can play to play well, to learn, to try to win, and that's your fun.

Or you can play to always win and never lose, and that's your fun.

After you took your decision, the path is clear.


Geeez Yoda, you writing buddhist puzzles for us?

I don't even know what this means...

ROFL MARR
"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 #28 on: November 21, 2009, 05:11:32 PM »
I remember a game when I was celtia and my team was 3v5 pretty early but then I managed to kill my 2 neighbours (mostly alone); expand on the 2-side and managed to kill another guy in north with 50 gallecs at the final and won the game...

Maybe speaker still remember that game since he subbed a guy of my team who thought that game was over and left.

it amazes me how many useless examples are in this thread that have nothing to do w/ a team where 4 of 5 players want to concede.  comeback victories being down 1-2 players where you want to continue playing are NOT the same as a team that is down and almost everyone wants to stop playing.



Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: On Requiring A Unanimous Vote to Concede
« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2009, 11:52:00 PM »
Weaksauce:

The problem is that situations don't fall neatly into just one of these categories. 

Sometimes, in the SAME GAME, there's one person who refuses to concede because they believe it's possible to win and want to achieve a comeback victory, and to the other 4 it's useless - a waste of time - and they want to stop playing. Both visions are possible in the same game on the same team.    

If the situation were clear-cut - there would be unanimous consent - either to play on or quit. But sometimes it's not always clearcut. When opinions are mixed, even if it's a 4 out of 5 - let's concede situation - the one person believing fervently that the team should try to eke out a victory even against the odds -the other 4 wanting to start a new game. 

That's what this debate is all about. The current rule forces the 4 to bend to the will of the one - unless they can persuade the holdout.  The proposed new rule change will make that unnecessary - the four can just quit and abandon the fifth and the lone holdout is stuck with a loss they don't believe was necessary or certain.

One man's possible victory is another man's waste of time. Our league is based on several principles - not quitting prematurely is one of them.

SPM
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 11:59:03 PM by SirPartyMan »

 

League