Conquer Club

Sure, I'm not saying it's ever likely to happen, only that it's at least possible and there are people would find that abhorrent.

Anyway, I don't see the point of implementing this only for Speed + Trench; if it works well, we're going to want to expand it eventually to 24 hour games as originally conceived, and if we do that, the restriction will end up hitting Speed Games anyway (unless the person implementing this finds a way to distinguish between the game types in determining whether a resignation is allowed -- I am not sure how simple that is because I am not familiar with the site code).

Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?

Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?

I don't see why not. You can give your sitter instructions on the tactics you've been following if you want them to play a certain way; if necessary this should include whether or not they can resign.
How would the system be able to identify a sitter anyway? It couldn't assume a different IP address meant a different person, or that the same ip meant the same person.
I can't see how this could be implemented in a practical way: you'd almost have to rely on people's honesty to push an "I am sitting" button when they logged in. I don't think there's much to be gained. If you let someone sit for you then you have to accept that they are in control of what happens.

IcePack wrote:

degaston wrote:

IcePack wrote:If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site.

Why couldn't you just FAMO for anyone that resigns?

Why can't the alternative I proposed be considered for those who dont want resign?

I made a suggestion about a year ago that was ignored: "Abandoned mode".
It would auto-skip a player's turn, but allow them to return later. You can continue to have your fun and make your moves until you eliminate them, but you don't have to wait 24 hours for them to deadbeat their turns. Or instead of taking your turn immediately, you could try to convince them to come back and continue playing.

clangfield wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?

I don't see why not. You can give your sitter instructions on the tactics you've been following if you want them to play a certain way; if necessary this should include whether or not they can resign.
How would the system be able to identify a sitter anyway? It couldn't assume a different IP address meant a different person, or that the same ip meant the same person.
I can't see how this could be implemented in a practical way: you'd almost have to rely on people's honesty to push an "I am sitting" button when they logged in. I don't think there's much to be gained. If you let someone sit for you then you have to accept that they are in control of what happens.

Of course I don't mean "can a sitter resign" as a technical issue, I mean from a rules perspective, should a sitter be allowed to resign without penalty.

Metsfanmax wrote:

clangfield wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Also, I looked back over the old thread, and someone brought up a point (mostly relevant for casual, presumably) at the time worth considering: can someone sitting for you resign a game on your behalf?

I don't see why not. You can give your sitter instructions on the tactics you've been following if you want them to play a certain way; if necessary this should include whether or not they can resign.
How would the system be able to identify a sitter anyway? It couldn't assume a different IP address meant a different person, or that the same ip meant the same person.
I can't see how this could be implemented in a practical way: you'd almost have to rely on people's honesty to push an "I am sitting" button when they logged in. I don't think there's much to be gained. If you let someone sit for you then you have to accept that they are in control of what happens.

Of course I don't mean "can a sitter resign" as a technical issue, I mean from a rules perspective, should a sitter be allowed to resign without penalty.

In my view, yes. They may get foed by the sittee (if that's the word); but what practical penalty would there be? You couldn't stop them sitting so what would a proportionate and fitting penalty be?

Personally I'm fine with someone resigning a game on behalf of the sittee as long as that is not inconsistent with the sittee's instructions. But a member of the C&A staff had brought it up, which I thought was fair.

IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.

Wha? I didn't know there even WAS a thread regarding this. Does someone have that link and will share it, please?

Having an obvious place to report findings to (within beta--like a link on every page or a menu item) would be an obvious benefit. I once made a suggestion regarding colors/visibility on one map, which the map-maker appreciated, but I had to track him down and write him a pm in REAL CC, instead of beta. That was just awkward. I would much prefer a thread to post findings in.

Maybe a link on the welcome to beta pm would be a minimal add, but far better would be a menu item. Maybe I am simply unaware that it is already in place, but that's the point: I'm unaware and so may others be also. A menu item would help that.

btw, I respect you guys trying to keep the emotion out of all this--just attempting to keep it a discussion. I know that it's really easy to take something that someone has said personally and get upset. But in the grand scheme of things, it's really a minor issue to get worked up over. Many have been outspoken and emotionally invested in this voluminous thread, so I'm glad to see that many of you guys are trying to be mature about it and simply discuss it.

Well done, mates.

Metsfanmax wrote:Personally I'm fine with someone resigning a game on behalf of the sittee as long as that is not inconsistent with the sittee's instructions. But a member of the C&A staff had brought it up, which I thought was fair.

Yes, you have to trust your sitter, otherwise, you need to get a different one. I think this is really a non-issue, right?

Captn B wrote:

IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.

Wha? I didn't know there even WAS a thread regarding this. Does someone have that link and will share it, please?

Having an obvious place to report findings to (within beta--like a link on every page or a menu item) would be an obvious benefit. I once made a suggestion regarding colors/visibility on one map, which the map-maker appreciated, but I had to track him down and write him a pm in REAL CC, instead of beta. That was just awkward. I would much prefer a thread to post findings in.

Maybe a link on the welcome to beta pm would be a minimal add, but far better would be a menu item. Maybe I am simply unaware that it is already in place, but that's the point: I'm unaware and so may others be also. A menu item would help that.

In theory everything being tested in Beta has a thread dedicated to it in the Beta Testers' Forum. That should be one of the top forums on your list of Forums, even above Announcements. If it isn't let me know; there may be something wrong with your forum permissions.

A large part of the problem is that there is no leadership on the Beta Test team. The last Team Leader on the Beta Team quit about eight months ago and nobody has stepped forward to fill the gap. If there was a Team Leader, I think there would be more focus on the discussions there. If anybody wants to volunteer for this post, let me know. It's not my area but I'd like to see somebody at the helm over there. It's too important a ship to be left adrift forever.

Dukasaur wrote:

Captn B wrote:

IcePack wrote:(for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing.

Wha? I didn't know there even WAS a thread regarding this. Does someone have that link and will share it, please?

In theory everything being tested in Beta has a thread dedicated to it in the Beta Testers' Forum. That should be one of the top forums on your list of Forums, even above Announcements. If it isn't let me know; there may be something wrong with your forum permissions.

Got it, Duk, thanks man. It's a subforum under Official Projects. Never saw it before, so thanks for pointing it out.

Still though, I'm not really a stupid guy (okay, well sometimes I am, but...), (alright, MORE times than I'd like to be, I am, but...), (okay, okay, I'm an absolute dunderhead) but the point is that if I was oblivious to that forum for as long as I've been beta testing, perhaps others have been oblivious to it as well. Perhaps it should take a more prominent position? [Although, yes, I realize that it has the same size font as all the other subforums, so maybe I'm just "wowing" because I'm so surprised that I've overlooked it all this time?]

biggest mistake lack made. thank black jesus we don't have that all so well documented, so we can repeat the mistake. idiots... a bunch of idiots... the black jesus can not believe this is even being discussed/beta tested... wait until the boy scouts hand this over to the wolves... this is not going to increase membership... this is a solution the other stupid ideas that were implemented, mostly at the demands of the clan world. TRENCH, FOG, PARACHUTE, blah, blah, blah... all these "changes" slowed the game down and ruined the casual game play aspect of the site. cup of coffee and a turn? not if you are playing fog/trench, you might get a turn in a week. throw in the shitty maps rushed through the forums and the destruction of freestyle with the horrible rule change, and the solutions all seem so simple. it isn't to let people resign out of games they demanded be made so more people would join the site... nah, that isn't the solution... get rid of the quick sand settings that slowed the game play down to what those int he clan wars wanted, change freestyle back, divide the maps in a way that can be easily understood from easy-medium-difficult-advanced all the way up to "CLUSTER f*ck CREATED SO SOMEONE COULD GET A MEDAL". a surrender button is not the solution. it was the problem at the onsite of the site... the black jesus has ranted, yet again...-Jésus noir

You know you did not present any arguments in this post against the resign button ? Except maybe the "it has been tested before and it was a failure" but even then you did not explain anything, just affirm it.

Also I have no idea why you want to put clan into this. This has nothing to do with clans at all.
And, again, just so you know, clans limit the numbers of trench game that can be used, so no, clans do not play trench all the time.

You need to go over your dislike for clans, and your dislike for trench. I know you already told me you do not dislike trench, but youbasically just said we should not have implemented trench, so really looks like you do not like it to me.

Just a few quick thoughts:

• Icepack, how do you imagine the rejection of a resignation would work? If player 1 presses the Resign button at the beginning of a turn, then would player 2 see"Player 1 offers to resign" in the log and have a choice of "Accept" or "Decline" at the start of his/her turn? If Player 2 misses that turn, is the resignation accepted by default? If player 2 declines, does the clock start for player 1's turn at that point?
• I have little to no experience with bots on this site, but I think that the ability to substitute a bot for yourself in a game is a marvelous idea. This on its own could replace the idea of a resign button (on the assumption that a bot can be easily beaten in a situation where one might want to resign) and could also be useful as an automated sitter for those players who have not found someone that they feel comfortable asking to do the job (assuming, of course, that you could retake your chair from the bot when you wished to resume playing).
• The possibility/likelihood of abuse has been cited endlessly in this thread. I just wonder if, given the safeguards proposed, the resignation button really makes the situation any worse than it is right now, given that a multi could deadbeat his way to stardom.

I can't believe this has been going on for 10 years! (Feb 2, 2006). It's being way overthought in my book.

Beast Of Burson wrote:I can't believe this has been going on for 10 years! (Feb 2, 2006). It's being way overthought in my book.

not by the people that first implemented it!! they put it in, it was abused, they got rid of it... the community was much smaller back then... a little smaller than what it is now *cough*... people were clamoring for it when we were 30K strong, and there was NO WAY that was going to happen... it is just a poor idea and even going to beta with it shows a general LACK of people studying their CC history, and a willingness to repeat the mistakes of the past. this isn't the time for huge errors, this is the time for visionary leadership to lead us out of this tail spin...-Bj

inspiration for Big W...

owenshooter wrote:
not by the people that first implemented it!! they put it in, it was abused, they got rid of it... the community was much smaller back then... a little smaller than what it is now *cough*... people were clamoring for it when we were 30K strong, and there was NO WAY that was going to happen... it is just a poor idea and even going to beta with it shows a general LACK of people studying their CC history, and a willingness to repeat the mistakes of the past. this isn't the time for huge errors, this is the time for visionary leadership to lead us out of this tail spin...-Bj

Back then it was implemented for multyplayer games as well which is obviously problematic.

It takes ridiculously too much time to be implemented for 1v1 which is obviously beneficial.

Not sure if it is because of the lack of work at the site (which is obvious as well) or its hard for people to understand the obvious.

It doesnt take ridiculously too much time to be implemented for 1vs1, it is done and it is coming ( soon i hope).
The feature is already there on the beta site.
Just so you know.

Good idea...for a concede button.....

Donelladan wrote:It doesnt take ridiculously too much time to be implemented for 1vs1, it is done and it is coming ( soon i hope).
The feature is already there on the beta site.
Just so you know.

yes, we have all heard how they are testing the sites "death nail" on the beta site. thank you for informing of us something we were informed of when it first occurred... welcome to a few months ago...-Bj

Look at how much trouble had to go through to get a monthly medal and the controversy surrounding it:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=220817&view=unread#p4875640

Nothing a few well placed resigns would solve, amirite?

True, the resign button could be easily used to cheat the monthly scoreboard. But I believe it's the monthly scoreabord fault, not the resign button.

Anyway, it won't be possible since the resign button will be implemented for speed games only.

IcePack wrote:Look at how much trouble had to go through to get a monthly medal and the controversy surrounding it:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=220817&view=unread#p4875640

Nothing a few well placed resigns would solve, amirite?

...the story here is not the resign button, the story here is that it is obnoxiously hard to do that and he did it anyway. So the people who are opposed to the resign button have to face the fact that the things they're trying to prevent are happening anyway. So yeah, this is just not a reason to oppose it.

bump

Super cool duk. Reading through this over (with) a gin and tonic.

Cheers.

E.