|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 19, 2006 13:30:35 GMT -5
Here's the scenario. In a teamer after the teams are pick a players states he doesn't feel comfortable with the teams and leaves the staging room. This is not the first time I've seen this happen.
My question to the admins is, is this punishable offense?
I'm also making it a poll to get member feedback on this as well.
To me the game starts as soon as the picking starts and in my opinion, its no better than starting a game and not "feeling comfortable" with your starting position and quitting.
Sometimes you're on the good team, sometimes you're on the not so good team. If everyone quits when they feel they don't have a good chance to win, it will be difficult to get a game started. In this scenario it caused the remaining players an extra 45 minutes to get the game started.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 19, 2006 13:38:17 GMT -5
For me this is a no brainer, if somsone is not happy with the teams, they dont have to play. Sure its annoying, but no rules have been borken IMO.
And this is not a big deal, most people are willing to play with unfair teams, every so often. Those that are not, thats up to them.
EDIT: The poll is silly, there no option for let him leave and find another player.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 19, 2006 13:44:40 GMT -5
If he quits what other option do you have but to find another player.
If no rules have been broken as you say, then the rules need to be modified cause this is a formula for mass confusion. That's why I'm asking the admins to clarify this. I've found myself on some hopeless teams before and if I could just bow out that sure would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Mar 19, 2006 14:18:23 GMT -5
I really don't see the issue here. The staging room IS the place to quit if you don't like the situation. You are not in the game yet. You can't force a player to report a loss due to a "drop" because they left the staging room, that is a pandora's box if I have ever seen one. Yes it's a pain to find a new player, but to call the staging room the start of the game is unenforceable as a policy.
CS
|
|
|
Post by smuckey on Mar 19, 2006 15:21:12 GMT -5
Leaving the game is complete BS when you don't like your team. You get on "good" teams, and you get on "bad" teams. It's the luck/fun of the game. And if you're on an "underdog" team, then it is that much sweeter when you win. Skill is also a matter of opinion...I never invite back a player who screws the game over in the future because they thought their team was bad...and if the admins rule that it is not "punishable" for them to leave...a sort of blacklist is all we can do.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 19, 2006 15:54:08 GMT -5
Smuckey has an appropriate solution. IF a player shows himself unwilling to play because he/she feels the teams are unbalanced then tuff. You don't always end up on the strong team.
What you have to do is keep track of the ones who do this and avoid inviting them to your teamers. They will either: A-Learn to act differently or B-Run out of teamers to play on.
Even if admins look poorly upon those who leave the teams, the problem lies in enforcements. A player leaves I give him the box? What if he leaves because turns out he needs to drive his kids somewhere? Or simply decides it is too late at night and he/she should get to bed in order to go to work in the morning?
This is why Smuckey's solution is the best. Admins cannot control every gesture a player does. People sticking up for "fairness" is what helps us build a strong reliable civ community.
"It takes a whole village to raise a child"
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Mar 19, 2006 20:40:55 GMT -5
Avo is right this is a much better function for peer pressure to handle rather than additional ladder rules that can't be easily proved or enforced.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 19, 2006 21:08:33 GMT -5
Avo are you for real? What if on the first turn of a game I discover I have to pick up my kid or do whatever errand or decide I'm a little sleepy(necro needs his beauty sleep you know). The time to decide if you can't play is before the teams are pick. Once the teams are picked we are no more than 5 or 10 minutes away from playing. The game has started.
This surprises me that the admins take such a cavalier attitude toward this. It's be as easy to enforce as anything. Just state in the rules that after the first person is picked the game is officially on. There's usually at least 8 people in a teamer, usually more. If all report what happened, I think it would be easy to take action against the player. Are you saying that you're hamstrung without a screenshot for proof.
Anyway, my main purpose was to help shape members opinions on this matter and make them aware it is something that should be frowned upon. But basically the admins have green lighted this type of behavior. What's the big deal. I guess it's not but it sure is annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 19, 2006 21:15:11 GMT -5
So you like self policing(I'm all for it too btw) and personal blacklist but don't like members bringing up the particular situation and naming names in the forums so the word gets out and we can have debate. That's flaming by admins definition. Seems inconsistent.
When a person states another person ****s his mother and eats **** for breakfast. That is flaming.
Recounting a situation to the best of one's knowledge and stating ones case as to what type of behavior isn't within the norm is not flaming. Thats dialog and everyone can jump in and give there opinion as to who or what is right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Mar 19, 2006 21:38:37 GMT -5
It's fine to discuss situations about behavour in the forums, just don't attach names to your post. The place for complaining about another player is in a email to an admin who will advise/arbitrate/punish as required. As soon as you start naming names in the forum it just turns into a "he said she said" and doesn't benifit the ladder community at all. Reputations, bad or good, have always been an effective method to enforce the "ladder customs and etiquette" that can't be easily enforced by rules.
CS
|
|
|
Post by alice on Mar 19, 2006 23:03:34 GMT -5
if leaving unfair teamers was against the rules then i would never play teamers,
civ4 can support 4v4 5v5 6v6 in larger games i feel it can go a long way to equalize teams.
I personaly recomend that there be added players when there are concerns of fairness
if the group dosent want to try to make the teams more fair then i would not feel bad about leaving or hold it against another player who did
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 19, 2006 23:36:15 GMT -5
Necro says
I commend you on wanting to shape member opinions. I believe you are right that players leaving teamers that are unbalanced are not reflecting good character. This being said, my response was in letting you know(by past experience) that the best way to change attitudes of through collaboration of admins and players.
A player leaving and then judged by their peers may well change his ways. A strong community is what is needed, not more rules..well no new rule concerning this anyways. Believe me word gets around about less then honorable players and they soon find themselves out of the loop.
Now please by all means continue your posting on the issue, I was simply stating my opinion on the matter. I would however ask you to refrain from saying things such as we are "unfair", "letting things slide" and so on.
This is not the first community we have built and I can tell you, the tone for a community is build upon the attitudes of the players not only the rules and admins.
I used to host alot. Someone would be vulgar towards another player, they would get a warning. They did it second time, they were banned from my games. People in the games would say "thanks he was such a jerk". Seeing that it could be done, these actions would bring the nice hosts to apply similar in game rules. Not quite self policing more like journalism. Ya stand up for what is right in unison.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Mar 20, 2006 1:35:03 GMT -5
Alice, the teams will hardly ever be balanced. But thats the chance you take going into the staging room. If a crazy caption picks you after making some bad picks, thats the breaks. I've been on many teams that were at a major disadvantage and would need a perfect situation to win. A lot depends on how the fronts match up, the position of the civs and other factors but you go in and fight your best. A person one thinks is a good player another might think isn't. Some players play great in certain positions and so forth.
Some times the underdong team pulls off a win. When that happens its knda a rush.
Like I stated earlier if we quit every time were on the underdog team the game will never start. This is a game with many random elements permeating it. If you can't take it, then maybe you should take up chess.
|
|
|
Post by Ascension on Mar 20, 2006 1:56:35 GMT -5
I personally feel that if you and your partner are not compatible, it's best to make a clean break. If you make a clean break without all the drama, then it's possible to remain friends afterward. Oh, Ive seen many try to go through the motions knowing full well what the outcome will be. They just end up bickering about the most minuscule things and end up hating each other. I believe if you and your partner or partners just aren't felling it anymore, its beneficial to break it off or take some time off, that way you may be able to remain caring friends in future.
Necom, you seem to have a deep down fear of abandonment. Just because someone left you with a hollow feeling emotionally doesn't mean everyone will. I think it's time you put the past in the past and not be so afraid of the passion in relationships.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 20, 2006 7:28:18 GMT -5
Speaking of rules. Each member may have one account here in the forum. Please pm me to tell me which account you wish to remain active and I shall disable the other.
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Mar 20, 2006 8:05:43 GMT -5
Voted No. My point of view is that you're free to do whatever you want until turn 1 is started. After that, you win, you lose, you concede, you scrap but you don't quit ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Mar 20, 2006 8:26:50 GMT -5
much better some1 quits before game as he whines all game after.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Mar 20, 2006 13:21:53 GMT -5
If a person continues to get put on more and more dnp lists, he/she will soon find no games to play in. Just my oppinion Dusty Dragoon Till she/he rename urself. Girl and guys plz be realistic. This is realy rare that some 1 left stagging room as rare is when some 1 left game when she/he lost 1 cite and/or army. Dont cut vein because that Wot realy pother me is loby spam when host trying to adversting game.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 20, 2006 13:23:46 GMT -5
Since unless all the grandmasters are on one team and the newbs are on the other, I never complain it's not usually an issue for me. I voted you can leave if you don't want to play. I know from experience if you make a habbit of having teams picked, repicked and taking issue with teams you wont be playing alot of teamers as people will start saying no don't let him in he's an arse, let peer pressure deal with this one, it isn't a big enough deal to have a rule.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Mar 20, 2006 17:26:46 GMT -5
Things to remember when you quit unfair teamers:
1. Always come up with some lame excuse, like emergencies or power outages. 2. Never ever tell the truth, even if you think the people can handle it. You never really know... 3. Say you're sorry, some people will accept you leaving just because you are friendly. Don't say something like: "f**k you, this is unfair" and then leave...
Now you will always have people telling you that being on the bad team is more fun, as it offers a bigger joy if you can beat the strong team, fact is that you lose a lot more. I don't know about you, but I enjoy winning more than losing, sure it's nice beating the top dogs as the under dogs, but when you lose most of the games the kick kidda dies... The best games are always the ones where the teams are almost balanced. You have that feeling that you don't get the easy win and at the same time you don't lose most of the times.
|
|