44 coaches online • Server time: 15:04
* * * Did you know? Up until now, 1512079 players have died on the pitch.
Recent Forum Topics  All Star Bowl!!! | New team needed. 11... | Team Strength - Rebo... |
2015-03-24 11:50:06
13 votes, rating 4.6
13 votes, rating 4.6
Concession-watch
I dislike conceding. Especially in stunty. It's kinda fun when you're team has three more players on the pitch and can score and bash with impunity. So when it happens to me and I'm three or four players down I play on, because it's what I would want the other person to do if the tables were turned. I want my players to be able to score TDs and get SPPs and become legends, and this opportunity is robbed if the other player concedes.
I therefore get a disproportionate amount of pleasure when a star player leaves due to concession, and this leads me to check down the list of recent games looking for concessions. I must say from some of the game summaries some coaches are conceding under incredibly lame circumstances. Shame on you.
Just off to check my own match list now to make sure i'm not being a hypocrite. But I promise not to concede even if I'm down to my last pixie.
I therefore get a disproportionate amount of pleasure when a star player leaves due to concession, and this leads me to check down the list of recent games looking for concessions. I must say from some of the game summaries some coaches are conceding under incredibly lame circumstances. Shame on you.
Just off to check my own match list now to make sure i'm not being a hypocrite. But I promise not to concede even if I'm down to my last pixie.
Comments
Posted by blocknroll on 2015-03-24 11:57:31
so you are not a pixie hugger?
Posted by m0gw41 on 2015-03-24 12:20:34
Totally agreed: never concede!
Embrace the carnage and one day you'll pull off that memorable 3 player TD to win/tie the game!
Embrace the carnage and one day you'll pull off that memorable 3 player TD to win/tie the game!
Posted by Eusebio on 2015-03-24 12:39:57
I had the same mantra for a long time: never concede
However, lateley I changed it: If the game is totally pointless and robbing my time and if the site-rules are not broken I concede.
However, lateley I changed it: If the game is totally pointless and robbing my time and if the site-rules are not broken I concede.
Posted by albinv on 2015-03-24 12:59:49
Concede all menz!
Posted by Kam on 2015-03-24 14:17:04
Damn, if being 3 players down is a reason to concede, I'd have conceded half of the games with my flings... You can win games with 3 players down, and it's even more true in the Leeg.
Posted by Hogshine on 2015-03-24 14:48:39
https://fumbbl.com/p/match?op=view&id=3600576 Conceding in Stunty after 2 BH? :P
Not that I care, concede if you want. It's only a game.
Not that I care, concede if you want. It's only a game.
Posted by luckyjim12 on 2015-03-24 14:56:36
Good spot Hogshine. I don't remember the game but I can only imagine that something irl came up that I couldn't deal with and keep playing. definitely not rage quit!
Posted by MisterFurious on 2015-03-24 16:18:55
There are certainly some legitimate reasons to concede a game. Something came up after you started a game and you really have to go or maybe your team got FUBAR in the first half and you're going to retire it. I've had some Dwarf and Dark Elf teams get wrecked in their first game and it's just easier to retire it and start a new one than immediately start off in a hole, HOWEVER, every time I've conceded, I not only asked my opponent if they minded and I also gave them the opportunity to try and score. Never concede out of rage, especially in Stunty. It's incredibly lame. I've seen it happen to LuckyJim twice, incidentally, which is why I started the 'Ban them!' thread. Anyone that rage quits in Stunty should be banned from Stunty.
Posted by the_Sage on 2015-03-24 16:25:29
I recently reported a concession where I caused 2 cas on the first two turns (as flings), and the opponent conceded. However, I was then informed by an admin that that was a valid concession:
Any team that suffers 2 casualties and cannot field 11 players anymore is apparently valid grounds for a concession.
Needless to say, I was amazed.
Any team that suffers 2 casualties and cannot field 11 players anymore is apparently valid grounds for a concession.
Needless to say, I was amazed.
Posted by mister__joshua on 2015-03-24 17:15:51
I had someone ragequit on me in a test game. A Test game! New teams playing only to test the client worked. Unbelievable Jeff.
Posted by Kam on 2015-03-24 17:24:42
@ The_sage: the interpretation may vary depending on the admin (gotta ask them). :)
I have noticed that most of the conceders are new to the site. When I play at low TV with new teams (aka when I'm likely to meet new coaches), concessions are not that uncommon, but it almost never happens at higher TV (at least from my experience). So generally, when someone expresses the wish to concede, I go like this:
1) I let him know about the rule and I explain why it's in place (injuries happen, you need them to balance the teams in the league, and conceding whenever you have to use your apo would be unfair - even though I doubt this explanation is valid anymore, since what I've read in the pickers thread :D). Half of the coaches at this point decide to keep playing.
2) If the guy concedes anyway, I check his past games. If he's been doing that on a regular basis OR if he's somehow been a jerk during the game, I report him and let the admins deal with the situation. I'm sure they don't take action every time (rightfully), but so far I've never had an admin who told me I shouldn't have reported the guy. Well... I don't do it every day either. ;)
I have noticed that most of the conceders are new to the site. When I play at low TV with new teams (aka when I'm likely to meet new coaches), concessions are not that uncommon, but it almost never happens at higher TV (at least from my experience). So generally, when someone expresses the wish to concede, I go like this:
1) I let him know about the rule and I explain why it's in place (injuries happen, you need them to balance the teams in the league, and conceding whenever you have to use your apo would be unfair - even though I doubt this explanation is valid anymore, since what I've read in the pickers thread :D). Half of the coaches at this point decide to keep playing.
2) If the guy concedes anyway, I check his past games. If he's been doing that on a regular basis OR if he's somehow been a jerk during the game, I report him and let the admins deal with the situation. I'm sure they don't take action every time (rightfully), but so far I've never had an admin who told me I shouldn't have reported the guy. Well... I don't do it every day either. ;)
Posted by Wotfudboy on 2015-03-24 17:36:44
Quitting is like a broken pencil... pointless.
Posted by licker on 2015-03-24 17:51:24
Jeez...
This site is turning into a total whine fest lately.
Who cares if your opponent concedes, why make them waste their time in a way they don't want to waste it?
Yeah, there are some guidelines out there, but guess what? It's not your job to interpret or enforce them.
Report away if that's your thing, but even there... really? You worry about it that much? Especially in stunty???
This site is turning into a total whine fest lately.
Who cares if your opponent concedes, why make them waste their time in a way they don't want to waste it?
Yeah, there are some guidelines out there, but guess what? It's not your job to interpret or enforce them.
Report away if that's your thing, but even there... really? You worry about it that much? Especially in stunty???
Posted by Wotfudboy on 2015-03-24 19:42:04
If Barcelona are playing Watford and Watford are losing 0-6 by half time then I don't expect them to all walk off and not come back... this isn't Cyanide you know...
Man up... taking the beating... move on... no excuses.
Quitters = whiners
Man up... taking the beating... move on... no excuses.
Quitters = whiners
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-03-24 19:46:13
@MisterFourious, I do not feel like the suggested behavior you are outlining is necessarily in conjunction with the rules.
The adminstration seems to be set on only allowing concessions that were either based on objectively recogniseable criteria or personal requests.
Ie. I do not believe 'being buisy right now' is a valid justification for a concession by the site rules.
That is unless you personally contact an admin and get his permission.
Tne scenario to conceed because of intent to retire the team seemed to be another thing the administration did not seem to want to condone per se.
As far as I understand concessions are only allwed when there is no or very poor chance of winning and as such can be expressed by accounting for taken injuries.
I believe some admin, woodstock?, once outlined a specific set of rules under which he believed them to be somewhat acceptable but it would take too long to discuss it here. In a way those rules seemed to soft in some respect and to harsh in some. Just like with the timeout rule the only way to be really on the save side is not to ever use it.
Thats why these things are so controversial. Because strict rules exist aswell as severe uncertainty about a 100% legal way to use them.
I'd not suggest making assumptions purely based on gut feeling what you are allowed to do and what not. The admins will just warn you the first time tho, I guess for the very same reason... you can't really know you're doing something wrong unless they tell it to you straight. If they do and you are uncertain about what went wrong you'll be in serious trouble then tho.
Also regarding the suggestion to request permission from your opponent I'd be careful. I'm uncertain if this is in conjunction with the rules as this may very well amount to a case of 'ingame agreement'.. and an arranged concession is probably not a minor case of an agreement either. I can see admins making judgement calls on that sort of thing getting their rulings sanctioned in either way they go, but I wouldn't really know.
Letting the opponent score is potentially an even more severe case of ingame agreement.
Mind you that the main purpose of the anti concession rule is not to protect the opponent but the community from the unfair advantage the opponent gains from the concession in form of money and free SPP at no risk.
This goes to the point where the tournament administration has forbidden concessions alltogether because teams that were on the recieving end of such actions tended to be at a serious advantage over the rest. (Not that that would stop them from whining, of course.)
The adminstration seems to be set on only allowing concessions that were either based on objectively recogniseable criteria or personal requests.
Ie. I do not believe 'being buisy right now' is a valid justification for a concession by the site rules.
That is unless you personally contact an admin and get his permission.
Tne scenario to conceed because of intent to retire the team seemed to be another thing the administration did not seem to want to condone per se.
As far as I understand concessions are only allwed when there is no or very poor chance of winning and as such can be expressed by accounting for taken injuries.
I believe some admin, woodstock?, once outlined a specific set of rules under which he believed them to be somewhat acceptable but it would take too long to discuss it here. In a way those rules seemed to soft in some respect and to harsh in some. Just like with the timeout rule the only way to be really on the save side is not to ever use it.
Thats why these things are so controversial. Because strict rules exist aswell as severe uncertainty about a 100% legal way to use them.
I'd not suggest making assumptions purely based on gut feeling what you are allowed to do and what not. The admins will just warn you the first time tho, I guess for the very same reason... you can't really know you're doing something wrong unless they tell it to you straight. If they do and you are uncertain about what went wrong you'll be in serious trouble then tho.
Also regarding the suggestion to request permission from your opponent I'd be careful. I'm uncertain if this is in conjunction with the rules as this may very well amount to a case of 'ingame agreement'.. and an arranged concession is probably not a minor case of an agreement either. I can see admins making judgement calls on that sort of thing getting their rulings sanctioned in either way they go, but I wouldn't really know.
Letting the opponent score is potentially an even more severe case of ingame agreement.
Mind you that the main purpose of the anti concession rule is not to protect the opponent but the community from the unfair advantage the opponent gains from the concession in form of money and free SPP at no risk.
This goes to the point where the tournament administration has forbidden concessions alltogether because teams that were on the recieving end of such actions tended to be at a serious advantage over the rest. (Not that that would stop them from whining, of course.)
Posted by licker on 2015-03-24 19:52:48
Surely though concessions are only then an issue when you are talking about tournaments.
In a perpetual environment they simply should not matter. In as much as teams can pick their way to whatever glorified state they want to achieve. In R at least.
Now collusion is a different matter, but collusion doesn't require concession it requires someone to just pass their turn and let the opponent score 8+ TDs on them.
So, to sum up.
Fumbbl is full of people complaining about things that really don't affect them, but they want to police everyone else who might want to do things a different way.
The site has rules.
The admins interpret the rules.
Play more L, forget about the uselessness of R and B. Or if you do play R and B stop worrying about how anyone else wants to play R and B.
In a perpetual environment they simply should not matter. In as much as teams can pick their way to whatever glorified state they want to achieve. In R at least.
Now collusion is a different matter, but collusion doesn't require concession it requires someone to just pass their turn and let the opponent score 8+ TDs on them.
So, to sum up.
Fumbbl is full of people complaining about things that really don't affect them, but they want to police everyone else who might want to do things a different way.
The site has rules.
The admins interpret the rules.
Play more L, forget about the uselessness of R and B. Or if you do play R and B stop worrying about how anyone else wants to play R and B.
Posted by Nightbird on 2015-03-24 20:32:23
You go licker, right on!
Getting tired of seeing endless threads of people and their "I think" attitude. If the worlds laws were based on "I think" we'd be in serious trouble. Play the way you want within the rules & stop moaning because other don't subscribe to YOURS already!
Getting tired of seeing endless threads of people and their "I think" attitude. If the worlds laws were based on "I think" we'd be in serious trouble. Play the way you want within the rules & stop moaning because other don't subscribe to YOURS already!
Posted by mrt1212 on 2015-03-24 20:52:42
If your lady friend comes over, I'll understand if you want to concede...
Posted by Wreckage on 2015-03-24 22:30:26
"In a perpetual environment they simply should not matter. In as much as teams can pick their way to whatever glorified state they want to achieve. In R at least."
The non-ingame-agreement may be orginially designed as an extention of collusion but it exceeds it by far. You can see how important it is to Christer by the invention of fishbowl, which in itself is a construct to undermine the ability of game-agreement. He clearly felt statements like "my team is only going to play X type of opponents' was already not acceptable, even if the coach was practically following a specific outline.
If what you say was true at all, there wouldn't exist competative play rules in ranked and box. The truth is rather that your ability to pick is limited to certain standards and these include that you are not allowed to make any agreements whatsoever prior or while you are playing to the way you are playing. In pre- fishbowl times pre game agreements were a big issue and there isn't really much doubt for the illegality of in-game agreement...
mind you in-game agreement exceeds cheating by far and the first does not require proof of the second by any means.
The non-ingame-agreement may be orginially designed as an extention of collusion but it exceeds it by far. You can see how important it is to Christer by the invention of fishbowl, which in itself is a construct to undermine the ability of game-agreement. He clearly felt statements like "my team is only going to play X type of opponents' was already not acceptable, even if the coach was practically following a specific outline.
If what you say was true at all, there wouldn't exist competative play rules in ranked and box. The truth is rather that your ability to pick is limited to certain standards and these include that you are not allowed to make any agreements whatsoever prior or while you are playing to the way you are playing. In pre- fishbowl times pre game agreements were a big issue and there isn't really much doubt for the illegality of in-game agreement...
mind you in-game agreement exceeds cheating by far and the first does not require proof of the second by any means.
Posted by licker on 2015-03-24 23:22:31
I don't know that the reason why Christer developed the game finder had anything more or less to do with the ease of getting into a game and removing the need to PM or IRC people.
That is, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Though I won't dispute that agreeing to a farming game is wrong and against the site rules, you cannot dispute that the game finder actually does nothing to prevent this. Meaning I can chat you up and we can agree to play some no-block game if we want to, then get on gamefinder (or go directly to a game) and play it.
That is poor behavior, and if it's caught it should be reported and punished.
Conceding, for whatever reason, is a totally different topic. Frankly I don't care when or if my opponent concedes (not that I play R or B anyway), I'm not going to report them for that. I might report them for abusive chat, but considering I'm who I am I probably wouldn't bother either.
The issue is that a lot of people seem to think they are the arbiters on what is (or should be) allowed. They are wrong, and they should get over themselves.
Report away though, that's your prerogative. Just as the admins have a bit of prerogative as well in how they deal with your reports.
And, just for the record, I do have strong opinions on what R and B should be, but I recognize that it's highly unlikely they will ever be that, so I stopped caring about what they are. I'll point out some problems if I see them, and I enjoy a discussion about how to 'fix' them. Those are not the same kinds of issues as trying to legislate HOW other people should be FORCED to play in game. You want to turn 16 foul, I do not care. You want to blow up because you got turn 16 fouled, I still do not care. You want to rant and rave because someone conceded a game you would have played out...
Good for you, I guess, I mean, it must be pretty important in the scheme of things.
That is, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Though I won't dispute that agreeing to a farming game is wrong and against the site rules, you cannot dispute that the game finder actually does nothing to prevent this. Meaning I can chat you up and we can agree to play some no-block game if we want to, then get on gamefinder (or go directly to a game) and play it.
That is poor behavior, and if it's caught it should be reported and punished.
Conceding, for whatever reason, is a totally different topic. Frankly I don't care when or if my opponent concedes (not that I play R or B anyway), I'm not going to report them for that. I might report them for abusive chat, but considering I'm who I am I probably wouldn't bother either.
The issue is that a lot of people seem to think they are the arbiters on what is (or should be) allowed. They are wrong, and they should get over themselves.
Report away though, that's your prerogative. Just as the admins have a bit of prerogative as well in how they deal with your reports.
And, just for the record, I do have strong opinions on what R and B should be, but I recognize that it's highly unlikely they will ever be that, so I stopped caring about what they are. I'll point out some problems if I see them, and I enjoy a discussion about how to 'fix' them. Those are not the same kinds of issues as trying to legislate HOW other people should be FORCED to play in game. You want to turn 16 foul, I do not care. You want to blow up because you got turn 16 fouled, I still do not care. You want to rant and rave because someone conceded a game you would have played out...
Good for you, I guess, I mean, it must be pretty important in the scheme of things.
Posted by pythrr on 2015-03-25 01:04:51
indeed mrt1212 ---
I was playing you the other day and got a booty call from a nice young lady, so I was "ok, conceeding now!!!"
which was the ONLY sane choice.
:)
I was playing you the other day and got a booty call from a nice young lady, so I was "ok, conceeding now!!!"
which was the ONLY sane choice.
:)
Posted by keggiemckill on 2015-03-25 06:38:18
BAN PYTHRR for not abiding to the RULES! :P
Posted by Wotfudboy on 2015-03-25 08:38:06
When he says nice young lady.... He means Russo.
Posted by koadah on 2015-03-25 09:17:50
@Licker: Have you played Cyanide? It was horrible. People would just concede at the first sight of a team that they didn't like or as soon as things appeared to not be going their way.
Teams were built on games that didn't last 2 turns.
Teams were built on games that didn't last 2 turns.
Posted by licker on 2015-03-25 18:21:42
Cyanide is a community problem.
My stance has always been that the community should police itself, which is basically what we have here with admins fielding reports and using their judgement to decide if someone needs some gentle reminding or firmer measures.
It's fine to have site guidelines, but we all know they are a bit vague on purpose.
So, yes, I still think that people should be allowed to do what they want to do. Within the bounds of course, but my point has always been about those who would choose to dictate to everyone how everyone needs to play in whatever way they think.
We are not admins, we are not Christer, our obligations to uphold the terms and conditions of the site are pretty clear, and the admins do a good job keeping things from getting looney.
Report away if you want to, just stop at the moralizing about how behavior you don't agree with is always unacceptable.
My stance has always been that the community should police itself, which is basically what we have here with admins fielding reports and using their judgement to decide if someone needs some gentle reminding or firmer measures.
It's fine to have site guidelines, but we all know they are a bit vague on purpose.
So, yes, I still think that people should be allowed to do what they want to do. Within the bounds of course, but my point has always been about those who would choose to dictate to everyone how everyone needs to play in whatever way they think.
We are not admins, we are not Christer, our obligations to uphold the terms and conditions of the site are pretty clear, and the admins do a good job keeping things from getting looney.
Report away if you want to, just stop at the moralizing about how behavior you don't agree with is always unacceptable.
Posted by luckyjim12 on 2015-03-26 13:51:54
To be clear, it's against the rules to concede if you roll snakes for fan factor, right?