31 coaches online • Server time: 01:25
* * * Did you know? 254 games were played yesterday.
Recent Forum Topics  DIBBL Awards | ogres are awesome 1-... | S2 of PEBBL |
2018-11-05 20:01:21
21 votes, rating 3.1
21 votes, rating 3.1
We need to talk about... Concessions!
[TL,DR] at the end of this Wall of Text!
We need to talk about... Concessions!
I restarted activating teams for the BlackBox rodeo lately. This is in huge amounts due to the BlackBox Trophy's second run, which has hugely added to the general variety of teams and races encountered in the Box. Big thanks to the organizers and of course the participating coaches. But this Blog isn't meant to be about BBT2, but about concessions (the mindful reader might have guessed).
So, what's the matter? BlackBox is kind of a rollercoaster ride, as you never know what the scheduler has up its sleeve for you. So, sometimes you get an easy match-up (Zons vs. Chaos on low TV, you playing ze Zons), sometimes you literally bite the bullet (Cdwarves vs. Gobbos, you playing... Gobbos). That added to the usual RNG hickups, that are totally normal when it comes to such a huge amount of games played like it is on Fumbbl, and you get games in which you fight for survival right from the beginning. But hey, rollercoaster, ups and downs... For every match, where Nuffle is totally against you, there is one were you feel like its Chosen One. In the end, like it always is when it comes to probabilities, it all balances out.
And this is, where concessions kick in and ruin it all (the aforementioned balancing aspect mainly). I'll be honest, I consider conceding as a dick move! Period. I get, that in some formats it might be the wise thing to do (fleeing the battle field, reorganizing one's remains to fight another day). But I can hardly see BlackBox as such a format. And I definitely can't see that at all when it comes to teams with less than 10 games and absolutely zero legacy in BlackBox. Hey, I mean, the next BlackBox team is only two clicks away.
Then, there is the social aspect. I can't imagine seeing concessions a regular thing in my local game store's TT group. Don't get me wrong, of course there have always been the kind of wheenies that folded the game once they felt in a disadvantage... and yeah, you although might find the one or other table-flipper at your game store. But these guys get banned from league or tournament play pretty quickly... because they ruin it for all the others. They destroy the competition in leagues and tournaments, they kill the fun for their league-mates. And they are a danger to the league / tournament scene itself. So you get rid of the wimps before the other coaches (the engaged ones, the fun seeking ones, the social ones) start dropping your league or avoiding your tournament. Not talking about real life club activities, where you won't see anybody drop a game of let's say soccer at halftime when they are down 3-0.
With that in mind (and backed up by my understanding of the fumbbl rules regarding concessions), I opened a ticket to inform admins about thatillegal from my interpretation illegal* behaviour. It again really took some time to collect all the "evidences" by screenshots, to edit and upload them and to formulate my case. I think I even outlined the main arguments of my opponent why it was his right to concede (mainly because the game was a waste of his time... not the first time he went that argumentational road, as my investigations revealed). Note: Feeling a match is a waste of time is NOT one of the legal conditions to concede.
So I waited for an answer to follow... and man, was I surprised once I got one. Not only was that behaviour not sanctioned as a dirty play by "my admin", it was also said to be the correct way to act. I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't understand it. So I asked for clarification. And that was, when I experienced another concession. Admin told me, and I'll quote admin here: "You've asked me to make a judgment, and I have. I won't be arguing about it with you." Discussion over. Not, that I was eager to discuss it anymore, but I wanted to understand. I wanted that judgement explained. I won't go on describing my thoughts about that response any further, as I was disappointed and emotionally irritated... and some thoughts were anything but correct, so I won't write them down here.
But I want to tell you something about the aftermath of this experience.
The Aftermath: Today, I started the BlackBox lottery, and guess what, my frogs were scheduled to play cdwarves (a real downer match-up). Right from the start I was in a bad mood (why me? why me!?!). And of course, as it always is in such a case, the match not only went how it was supposed to, but even a little worse. Casualties happened, cdwarves in full control, boring grind and bash scenario plus casualties piled up, on my side 1's followed 1's followed 1's, bad decisions made things even worse, etc. ... and suddenly, there was this little voice in my head, whispering: "Don't waste your time! You don't have to walk that valley of pain and death and unpleasurement... Concede... concede!!!" And I almost succumbed to it. I mean, before that incident of the weekend, I always thought: Nuffle gives, Nuffle takes, Nuffle's love ebbs and flows. Take your beating today and get your reward another day. But today, this little voice was there: "Reward, which reward, numnut! There is no reward. Well, there would be, but you know what? Your opponent will simply quit the game, and that's it. Game over!" It was a tough task to stay in the game, and I wasn't the most pleasant opponent. And I definitely want to apologize to my opponent. But at least I stayed in the game. At least, I gave him his shot at some more spp (not through casualties though, what was down stayed down). It felt that the right thing to do. It felt that the healthy thing to do (for a social activity like Fumbbl is). But I don't know if I'll keep that spirit towards the game if concessions are treated here on Fumbbl like it was in my earlier case.
That was a lot talking by me regarding concessions. But this Blog is titled: "WE need to talk about... concessions". So, what do you think about concessions? Tell me in the comments.
TL,DR:
-(Illegal) (From my interpretation illegal)* concession happened (which I regard as a dick move)
- Admin was informed (I did a lot of research, took me some time, but I felt worth it)
- Admin seconded the concession (making confirming it a legal move)
- Shook my view of Fumbbl (disappointment, irritation)
- Heard that little voice today ("Concede! Concede!)
- That can't be the right direction!?
- Wrote that Blog
- Want your input
Cheers
FRSHMN
*Edits after Christer's clarifications
We need to talk about... Concessions!
I restarted activating teams for the BlackBox rodeo lately. This is in huge amounts due to the BlackBox Trophy's second run, which has hugely added to the general variety of teams and races encountered in the Box. Big thanks to the organizers and of course the participating coaches. But this Blog isn't meant to be about BBT2, but about concessions (the mindful reader might have guessed).
So, what's the matter? BlackBox is kind of a rollercoaster ride, as you never know what the scheduler has up its sleeve for you. So, sometimes you get an easy match-up (Zons vs. Chaos on low TV, you playing ze Zons), sometimes you literally bite the bullet (Cdwarves vs. Gobbos, you playing... Gobbos). That added to the usual RNG hickups, that are totally normal when it comes to such a huge amount of games played like it is on Fumbbl, and you get games in which you fight for survival right from the beginning. But hey, rollercoaster, ups and downs... For every match, where Nuffle is totally against you, there is one were you feel like its Chosen One. In the end, like it always is when it comes to probabilities, it all balances out.
And this is, where concessions kick in and ruin it all (the aforementioned balancing aspect mainly). I'll be honest, I consider conceding as a dick move! Period. I get, that in some formats it might be the wise thing to do (fleeing the battle field, reorganizing one's remains to fight another day). But I can hardly see BlackBox as such a format. And I definitely can't see that at all when it comes to teams with less than 10 games and absolutely zero legacy in BlackBox. Hey, I mean, the next BlackBox team is only two clicks away.
Then, there is the social aspect. I can't imagine seeing concessions a regular thing in my local game store's TT group. Don't get me wrong, of course there have always been the kind of wheenies that folded the game once they felt in a disadvantage... and yeah, you although might find the one or other table-flipper at your game store. But these guys get banned from league or tournament play pretty quickly... because they ruin it for all the others. They destroy the competition in leagues and tournaments, they kill the fun for their league-mates. And they are a danger to the league / tournament scene itself. So you get rid of the wimps before the other coaches (the engaged ones, the fun seeking ones, the social ones) start dropping your league or avoiding your tournament. Not talking about real life club activities, where you won't see anybody drop a game of let's say soccer at halftime when they are down 3-0.
With that in mind (and backed up by my understanding of the fumbbl rules regarding concessions), I opened a ticket to inform admins about that
So I waited for an answer to follow... and man, was I surprised once I got one. Not only was that behaviour not sanctioned as a dirty play by "my admin", it was also said to be the correct way to act. I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't understand it. So I asked for clarification. And that was, when I experienced another concession. Admin told me, and I'll quote admin here: "You've asked me to make a judgment, and I have. I won't be arguing about it with you." Discussion over. Not, that I was eager to discuss it anymore, but I wanted to understand. I wanted that judgement explained. I won't go on describing my thoughts about that response any further, as I was disappointed and emotionally irritated... and some thoughts were anything but correct, so I won't write them down here.
But I want to tell you something about the aftermath of this experience.
The Aftermath: Today, I started the BlackBox lottery, and guess what, my frogs were scheduled to play cdwarves (a real downer match-up). Right from the start I was in a bad mood (why me? why me!?!). And of course, as it always is in such a case, the match not only went how it was supposed to, but even a little worse. Casualties happened, cdwarves in full control, boring grind and bash scenario plus casualties piled up, on my side 1's followed 1's followed 1's, bad decisions made things even worse, etc. ... and suddenly, there was this little voice in my head, whispering: "Don't waste your time! You don't have to walk that valley of pain and death and unpleasurement... Concede... concede!!!" And I almost succumbed to it. I mean, before that incident of the weekend, I always thought: Nuffle gives, Nuffle takes, Nuffle's love ebbs and flows. Take your beating today and get your reward another day. But today, this little voice was there: "Reward, which reward, numnut! There is no reward. Well, there would be, but you know what? Your opponent will simply quit the game, and that's it. Game over!" It was a tough task to stay in the game, and I wasn't the most pleasant opponent. And I definitely want to apologize to my opponent. But at least I stayed in the game. At least, I gave him his shot at some more spp (not through casualties though, what was down stayed down). It felt that the right thing to do. It felt that the healthy thing to do (for a social activity like Fumbbl is). But I don't know if I'll keep that spirit towards the game if concessions are treated here on Fumbbl like it was in my earlier case.
That was a lot talking by me regarding concessions. But this Blog is titled: "WE need to talk about... concessions". So, what do you think about concessions? Tell me in the comments.
TL,DR:
-
- Admin was informed (I did a lot of research, took me some time, but I felt worth it)
- Admin seconded the concession (
- Shook my view of Fumbbl (disappointment, irritation)
- Heard that little voice today ("Concede! Concede!)
- That can't be the right direction!?
- Wrote that Blog
- Want your input
Cheers
FRSHMN
*Edits after Christer's clarifications
Comments
Posted by Civ on 2018-11-05 20:11:35
Concessions are too rare on fumbbl to have this much ado about imo. I'm pretty confident the admins will intervene if someone does it a lot
Posted by MenonaLoco on 2018-11-05 20:29:04
@Civ: meh, i dont think so. i know a dude who concedes about 30% of his games and it doesnt seem to trigger any admin action. But i think you are right by pointing out that concessions don't happen very often.
@FRSHMN: The gain from concessions is big enough for me in order to not get upset about it. I just think "thanks for the money, the extra mvp, and the easy win".
I also prefer that one concedes instead of doing really unworthy stuff, like delaying the game every turn, every apo-decision, every sidestep/standfirm decision, etc. Or getting out of a game before its over, on purpose, so you can't use your game until it's resolved. Or being a dick about the game in any other way, like commenting low life crap, etc. When they concede, at least it's over and you don't have to deal with that dude any longer.
That being said, I consider concessions weak moves that don't add anything good to the community and much less to anybody's coaching skills and it should be reserved for moments of utter weakness only (I never conceded a tt-game, and only twice conceded here on fumbbl - once was a unbareable/normal fling match and i wasn't in the mood, the other was a game where my undead crumbled because i forgot to replace a mummy :-P. .
Also, that's one of the reasons why i prefer high tv-games now. Almost nobody concedes while having players with 51+spp on the roster.
@FRSHMN: The gain from concessions is big enough for me in order to not get upset about it. I just think "thanks for the money, the extra mvp, and the easy win".
I also prefer that one concedes instead of doing really unworthy stuff, like delaying the game every turn, every apo-decision, every sidestep/standfirm decision, etc. Or getting out of a game before its over, on purpose, so you can't use your game until it's resolved. Or being a dick about the game in any other way, like commenting low life crap, etc. When they concede, at least it's over and you don't have to deal with that dude any longer.
That being said, I consider concessions weak moves that don't add anything good to the community and much less to anybody's coaching skills and it should be reserved for moments of utter weakness only (I never conceded a tt-game, and only twice conceded here on fumbbl - once was a unbareable/normal fling match and i wasn't in the mood, the other was a game where my undead crumbled because i forgot to replace a mummy :-P. .
Also, that's one of the reasons why i prefer high tv-games now. Almost nobody concedes while having players with 51+spp on the roster.
Posted by Jopotzuki on 2018-11-05 20:51:59
I also know a guy that consedes about 1/3 of his matches. Even matches that could have turned any way.
Posted by det on 2018-11-05 21:03:40
I...succumbed the other day. It was the 5th dicing (percieved at least, stats point slightly against me but not totally) in a row and I wasn't in the mood at all, besides my opponent was totally silent...well, done it for the first time. Other times I stayed in even though my team was getting ripped to shreds, like 5 perms...he. Can't say I'm happy with it, should have stuck probably but it really got me that one time.
Agree though, conceding is bad.
Agree though, conceding is bad.
Posted by JellyBelly on 2018-11-05 21:19:15
Conceeding makes Nuffle cry. It deprives him of the blood and misery he craves ...
Posted by Verminardo on 2018-11-05 21:59:36
There is a lot of interpretation around the Fumbbl rules that might be fluid and might only be explained in some forum post or blog comment or PM, and it might even be just one admin’s opinion. I don’t know where I’ve read this before but I remember how surprised I was when someone explained that the policy on concessions was actually much more relaxed than I thought, that nobody should be forced to play a match they really don’t enjoy playing. On the other hand, at some other occasion, I was in chat (might have still been IRC) and complained about someone conceding just before I could score my touchdown, and an admin said, next time that happens, take a screenshot, inform me, I’ll have some fun with that guy. So, mixed messages.
Personally I fully agree, conceding just because you don’t like a match-up should be an absolute no-go in the Box or anywhere on Fumbbl.
Personally I fully agree, conceding just because you don’t like a match-up should be an absolute no-go in the Box or anywhere on Fumbbl.
Posted by JackassRampant on 2018-11-05 22:19:43
When I got here, I had already been playing for a long time, and I had my own theories of the game, you know? So, while I have grown and developed as a coach, I never really had to struggle much to win. But I didn't have anything like the pitch vision I have now, and while you wouldn't think of me as a "slowpoke" today, I was pretty damn sluggish way back when, you know? So for my first couple hundred games I had to deal with a ton of concessions, because people would be like, "really? We're going to take the full 90 and all I get to do is watch my guys die?"
But then I got faster, and even though I've improved a good bit statistically, now it kinda feels like a badge of honor when I get conceded to. Like, Brasky conceded to me a few years ago in the NBFL, and that was seen as pretty legendary when it happened (until he did it again a couple seasons later).
But then I got faster, and even though I've improved a good bit statistically, now it kinda feels like a badge of honor when I get conceded to. Like, Brasky conceded to me a few years ago in the NBFL, and that was seen as pretty legendary when it happened (until he did it again a couple seasons later).
Posted by Christer on 2018-11-06 00:39:07
Let me point out what the situation was for the opponent, turn 7 of the first half:
- 3 snotlings on the pitch (all on the ground)
- 1 snotling and 1 Ogre in the reserves
- 2 Ogres and 2 snotlings KOed
- 2 Ogres and one snotling injured
- No apo available
- No way to avoid the TD coming up.
The rules state that you need an in-game reason to concede. This qualifies as an in-game reason and a staff decision was not necessary to convert this from a concession that violates the rules to one that doesn't.
Is there a hard line for what is accepted and what's not? No, because it's not an easy thing to define (I'll leave the explanation for this as an exercise for the reader).
Our normal policy is to not discuss staff and ticket related issues in public, but since you insist on bringing it up, I wanted to respond. You're effectively naming and shaming here and going very close to accusing your opponent of breaking the rules over an issue that isn't against them.
Concessions are part of the rules of the game, and even if I don't personally concede, I will defend people's right to do so under circumstances like this. Your opponent did nothing wrong and even after being told this, you have to write this blog to point fingers without actually outlining the situation which caused your opponent to concede. You simply state that it was an illegal concession without qualifying why.
You're perfectly allowed to disagree with the policy on concessions here. That's fine. If I was a vindictive person I'd make an issue out of the naming and shaming you're doing here but it's not worth it. I'd rather use my time to explain the background from the staff perspective and look at the objective situation and try to clarify things so others have a way to make up their own minds about it.
My guess is that most people wouldn't object to this particular concession.
- 3 snotlings on the pitch (all on the ground)
- 1 snotling and 1 Ogre in the reserves
- 2 Ogres and 2 snotlings KOed
- 2 Ogres and one snotling injured
- No apo available
- No way to avoid the TD coming up.
The rules state that you need an in-game reason to concede. This qualifies as an in-game reason and a staff decision was not necessary to convert this from a concession that violates the rules to one that doesn't.
Is there a hard line for what is accepted and what's not? No, because it's not an easy thing to define (I'll leave the explanation for this as an exercise for the reader).
Our normal policy is to not discuss staff and ticket related issues in public, but since you insist on bringing it up, I wanted to respond. You're effectively naming and shaming here and going very close to accusing your opponent of breaking the rules over an issue that isn't against them.
Concessions are part of the rules of the game, and even if I don't personally concede, I will defend people's right to do so under circumstances like this. Your opponent did nothing wrong and even after being told this, you have to write this blog to point fingers without actually outlining the situation which caused your opponent to concede. You simply state that it was an illegal concession without qualifying why.
You're perfectly allowed to disagree with the policy on concessions here. That's fine. If I was a vindictive person I'd make an issue out of the naming and shaming you're doing here but it's not worth it. I'd rather use my time to explain the background from the staff perspective and look at the objective situation and try to clarify things so others have a way to make up their own minds about it.
My guess is that most people wouldn't object to this particular concession.
Posted by ben_awesome on 2018-11-06 01:08:51
I will admit to conceding. To me BB is almost a social contract between two people to enjoy a game. I will score early to give them a chance to get KOs back and enjoy the game (I might not risk a gfi to score but I will score).
If I'm not having fun, I will point it out to my opponent, I will also advise them I'm likely to concede after they score or if they stall when I'm just clicking through turns. I will give them the chance to get their td spps
More and more as I got to know fumbbl better I don't concede because I know the dice will turn and I will get them.
If I'm not having fun, I will point it out to my opponent, I will also advise them I'm likely to concede after they score or if they stall when I'm just clicking through turns. I will give them the chance to get their td spps
More and more as I got to know fumbbl better I don't concede because I know the dice will turn and I will get them.
Posted by Argonite on 2018-11-06 08:08:23
I haven't done so yet, but I will have no qualms about conceding if an opponent is indulging in a senseless bash and grind, staying on the last square before my TD area, waiting for the ticks to pass, when they're already 2 TDs up and have incapacitated half my team.
Greed is never going to be a popular strategy or even viable in the long-term in a social gaming context.
Greed is never going to be a popular strategy or even viable in the long-term in a social gaming context.
Posted by Verminardo on 2018-11-06 08:16:39
Thanks for the clarification, Christer! That frames the whole argument in a slightly different light indeed...
Posted by pythrr on 2018-11-06 09:02:18
POLAND
Posted by pythrr on 2018-11-06 09:03:53
seems like a perfectly ok concession to me. crying about this is demeaning.
Posted by harvestmouse on 2018-11-06 10:02:11
Its a bit light maybe. However if admins ruled that illegal it would be extremely detrimental. The casualties taken were very telling. Fumbbl is a place that doesnt want to be a conceding culture rather than not allowing beaten coaches a way out. Personally i would never concede however for the site try to be the middle man.
Posted by Chainsaw on 2018-11-06 11:49:46
Who cares?
Obviously you, but you might want to revisit why you do.
Obviously you, but you might want to revisit why you do.
Posted by Gozer_the_Gozerian on 2018-11-06 16:10:41
Compared to Blood Bowl 2 the number of concessions I've experienced here are minuscule, statistically bordering on non-existent (perhaps 1-2% of games at most).
Posted by ImpactedAnimal on 2018-11-06 17:49:16
I think players are more likely to concede in the early days of coming to the site and then adapt to the culture round these parts and stop doing so.
It is good that it is there as an option. Most of us were either masochists to start with or became masochists via blood bowl but, for those of us that aren't, I don't think is right to insist they spend another 1 hour watching their team get destroyed in an unwinnable game if they don't want to.
Having said this my default is to NOT time out opponents during their turn whereas recently had an opponent who seemed to take great delight in typing:
"well played" and timing me out before I had completed my last move (immediately :) and then of course shoving that player off the pitch.
I have no recollection as to who the opponent was, the outcome of the game or indeed the teams but was an interesting reminder of the manner in which we often have different approaches and levels of to which we are willing to go to win games too.
Overall the experience has made me think this is likely something I should discuss with opponent at beginning of game to ensure that we are on a level playing field.
It is good that it is there as an option. Most of us were either masochists to start with or became masochists via blood bowl but, for those of us that aren't, I don't think is right to insist they spend another 1 hour watching their team get destroyed in an unwinnable game if they don't want to.
Having said this my default is to NOT time out opponents during their turn whereas recently had an opponent who seemed to take great delight in typing:
"well played" and timing me out before I had completed my last move (immediately :) and then of course shoving that player off the pitch.
I have no recollection as to who the opponent was, the outcome of the game or indeed the teams but was an interesting reminder of the manner in which we often have different approaches and levels of to which we are willing to go to win games too.
Overall the experience has made me think this is likely something I should discuss with opponent at beginning of game to ensure that we are on a level playing field.
Posted by ImpactedAnimal on 2018-11-06 17:49:34
Addendum: this could probably also be applied to concessions?
Posted by FRSHMN on 2018-11-07 01:25:56
Thank you all for your answers and for letting me know what you think about concessions. Just wanted to let you know that your contributions helped me a lot in working out my own way how to handle concessions even if I don't refer to them one by one.
In fact, there is only one reply that I want to refer to in detail... the one from fumbbl itself, in person of Christer.
One thing I consider to be very interesting about your answer is:
On one hand you tell me that I didn't share enough information (not outlining the situation) while on the other hand you turn around 180° and accuse me of providing too much information (naming and shaming). That doesn't make sense.
First of all, I didn't name and shame. Neither did I share any names of the involved parties (no coach name, no admin name... I even went so far to edit a personal pronoun to "admin") nor did I part any links to coaches, matches or anything relating to anyone involved. If any reader did find out, which latest experience lead to this blog, than it is due to the tools that fumbbl itself provides (history of matches, black-flagging any concessions)... and sorry to say that, but in that case you can blame anyone but yourself!
But even more importantly, this blog is not about one certain match. There might have been one match, that made it all break loose, but the underlying problem was there before. And I'm talking here about my individual problem with concessions in general.
Christer, you write in your reply: "Is there a hard line for what is accepted and what's not? No, because it's not an easy thing to define" - So, if there is no hard line, it should be even more important to explain judgements. If the rules are not fix but in motion, it is totally possible that I read them one way, an admins reads them another way, and yet another admin (or coach) reads them a third way.
Which leads me to another quote from you: "Your opponent did nothing wrong and even after being told this, you have to write this blog to point fingers without actually outlining the situation which caused your opponent to concede." - Yes, I had to write this blog, because "being told" a judgement without an explanation didn't settle the case. I did try to have it settled, but it broke loose again. So my intention with this blog is not to point fingers at anyone. Actually, my opponent or "that match" takes only the most minor room in my whole blog entry. The admin part though got a bit more room, but that is mainly due to the irritation which arose from that experience.
And that is my final point in response to you: I don't think you understand what this blog is all about. Maybe it is because you not only felt the need to defend a coach's right to concede but also to defend one of your admins.
But: This blog is not about to put somebody in the stocks (which means "name and shame", as I just found out). It is about me trying to get along with concessions and how I was told they are handled nowadays here on fumbbl. Please reread the passage The Aftermath, because that is the reason why I wrote this blog: Me struggeling to find my way to get along with the possibility of concessions in general (both concessions against me and by me). And me asking for input by other coaches.
By the way: If I was a cocky person, I would make an issue out of you actually accusing me of things I never intended. Or you using your power position as the head of fumbbl to kind of trying to intimidate me, by telling me what you would do if you had another character. I could even go as far and call that bullying, as it not only was a single statement among others, but kind of an opinion leader statement that encouraged others to attack my position as well.
But I'd rather trust in you not intending to do so. Because as you although mentioned I'm perfectly allowed to disagree and to have an opposing opinion. And I'm allowed to publish my opinion, as long as I do not violate any rights of other persons (and - as I outlined right at the start - I did not do so). As a defender of people's rights I think you can agree on that matter.
As a final note, I still want to thank you for taking your time to reply to this blog. It helped me clarify a situation that had its part in this matter. And from a fumbbl wide perspective your answer results in more transparancy how concessions are regarded and treated.
I read from your answer that you seem to have a problem with me calling the latest experienced concession an illegal action. I agree that after your explanation the word "illegal" is no more an appropriate expression and I will change that in the blog that started it all... but maybe not before tomorrow.
In fact, there is only one reply that I want to refer to in detail... the one from fumbbl itself, in person of Christer.
One thing I consider to be very interesting about your answer is:
On one hand you tell me that I didn't share enough information (not outlining the situation) while on the other hand you turn around 180° and accuse me of providing too much information (naming and shaming). That doesn't make sense.
First of all, I didn't name and shame. Neither did I share any names of the involved parties (no coach name, no admin name... I even went so far to edit a personal pronoun to "admin") nor did I part any links to coaches, matches or anything relating to anyone involved. If any reader did find out, which latest experience lead to this blog, than it is due to the tools that fumbbl itself provides (history of matches, black-flagging any concessions)... and sorry to say that, but in that case you can blame anyone but yourself!
But even more importantly, this blog is not about one certain match. There might have been one match, that made it all break loose, but the underlying problem was there before. And I'm talking here about my individual problem with concessions in general.
Christer, you write in your reply: "Is there a hard line for what is accepted and what's not? No, because it's not an easy thing to define" - So, if there is no hard line, it should be even more important to explain judgements. If the rules are not fix but in motion, it is totally possible that I read them one way, an admins reads them another way, and yet another admin (or coach) reads them a third way.
Which leads me to another quote from you: "Your opponent did nothing wrong and even after being told this, you have to write this blog to point fingers without actually outlining the situation which caused your opponent to concede." - Yes, I had to write this blog, because "being told" a judgement without an explanation didn't settle the case. I did try to have it settled, but it broke loose again. So my intention with this blog is not to point fingers at anyone. Actually, my opponent or "that match" takes only the most minor room in my whole blog entry. The admin part though got a bit more room, but that is mainly due to the irritation which arose from that experience.
And that is my final point in response to you: I don't think you understand what this blog is all about. Maybe it is because you not only felt the need to defend a coach's right to concede but also to defend one of your admins.
But: This blog is not about to put somebody in the stocks (which means "name and shame", as I just found out). It is about me trying to get along with concessions and how I was told they are handled nowadays here on fumbbl. Please reread the passage The Aftermath, because that is the reason why I wrote this blog: Me struggeling to find my way to get along with the possibility of concessions in general (both concessions against me and by me). And me asking for input by other coaches.
By the way: If I was a cocky person, I would make an issue out of you actually accusing me of things I never intended. Or you using your power position as the head of fumbbl to kind of trying to intimidate me, by telling me what you would do if you had another character. I could even go as far and call that bullying, as it not only was a single statement among others, but kind of an opinion leader statement that encouraged others to attack my position as well.
But I'd rather trust in you not intending to do so. Because as you although mentioned I'm perfectly allowed to disagree and to have an opposing opinion. And I'm allowed to publish my opinion, as long as I do not violate any rights of other persons (and - as I outlined right at the start - I did not do so). As a defender of people's rights I think you can agree on that matter.
As a final note, I still want to thank you for taking your time to reply to this blog. It helped me clarify a situation that had its part in this matter. And from a fumbbl wide perspective your answer results in more transparancy how concessions are regarded and treated.
I read from your answer that you seem to have a problem with me calling the latest experienced concession an illegal action. I agree that after your explanation the word "illegal" is no more an appropriate expression and I will change that in the blog that started it all... but maybe not before tomorrow.
Posted by Frylen on 2018-11-07 08:14:31
it’s free to use and the admins gives of their own time voluntarily. Why should they be forced to explain every tricky call they have to make?
Posted by PurpleChest on 2020-06-17 01:00:47
Thanks for drawing my attention back to this blog.
I now have the perfect retort to matheucamo, the entitled mewling of a 'hurt' coach that will never let it go. A perfectly reasonable admin solution and decision that EVEN WHEN EXPLAINED you will never let drop because it didnt end the way YOU wanted it to.
I am amazed that you are yet to grow up sufficiently to be embarrassed by this blog.
I'll try to remember to check back in a few more years.
I now have the perfect retort to matheucamo, the entitled mewling of a 'hurt' coach that will never let it go. A perfectly reasonable admin solution and decision that EVEN WHEN EXPLAINED you will never let drop because it didnt end the way YOU wanted it to.
I am amazed that you are yet to grow up sufficiently to be embarrassed by this blog.
I'll try to remember to check back in a few more years.