Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Surrender debate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Surrender debate

    Hi guys. While playing on TGNS Taunt people were discussing whether the game was hopeless. Some people voted to surrender, and I said "I don't think we need to surrender, we can still win, don't surrender guys" or the equivalent. Someone on there started saying that there's a rule on the server that you can't discuss surrendering with people.

    He said it was a rule. I asked him to show me the server rules. He said they were on the forum. I checked the forum and I read the rules. There was no rule listed about discussing surrendering. He said there was a post, so i came back here and started searching for it using various keywords, and long story short, I can't find said post, though it might be there.

    So i'm hoping someone can clarify. If a player thinks the game isn't hopeless and wants to try a new approach, can they ask the players not to vote concede? If a player thinks the game _is_ hopeless, and thinks some players are holding out for no reason, can they not ask those players to please vote concede? In the game right before the one in question, some players recognized that the game was likely unwinnable, and they discussed whether to vote. A lot of "yeah, this one's over, just hold x and vote concede" going back and forth, and no one seemed to get upset.

    I've read the server rules and the primer, and it's not in there. It would seem counterproductive to forbid the teammates from discussing voting concede, but the guy was adamant. I don't think he was just making it up, but since it seemed not to make any sense I figured i'd better ask for clarification.


    Thanks in advance.

  • #2
    Re: Surrender debate

    See this thread below. Feel free to continue with questions wherever.

    http://www.tacticalgamer.com/natural...se-voting.html
    Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

    Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Surrender debate

      After reading the thread, especially your last post, it seems that it is not a server rule to prohibit encouraging the team to continue fighting and not concede. Telling them "we can win, all we need is to do X Y Z" seems encouraged, rather than prohibited.

      This is good to know. However, the person who told me it was forbidden to try to get people to try a new strategy when they were voting to concede kicked me for it when I argued that I had just read the rules and it was not among them. So that was a bit upsetting. I guess he didn't want anyone to tell him he might be wrong (which is a whole troubling thing in and of itself, since everyone is wrong from time to time).

      It seems that the overall consensus in the discussion is that verbally demoralizing the team by telling them that you've judged the game to be unwinnable, and that they should go ahead and give up is, while maybe not fully prohibited, /STRONGLY/ discouraged.

      But the opposite "hey guys, the game's not over yet!" is encouraged. I'm at least comforted that the server rules and culture support this kind of encouragement. I guess next time someone tells me it's forbidden to encourage the players not to concede, I'll refer them to the thread you linked me to. (Unless i've somehow totally misread that discussion)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Surrender debate

        Sounds great. Glad it wasn't me that screwed up this time.

        Good job applying dialog to conflict. If you want to invest in the person who kicked you (or if you want to further invest in the server on the whole), feel free to drop the admins a line in our Contact an Admin forum about who it was, so we can better prepare them for next time.
        Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

        Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Surrender debate

          Also, if you're "encouraging" a voting majority to continue, the bar is high. Don't bring "we can still win, guys!"... rather, bring details as to /how/ you will win. In the meantime, let them vote -- if the vote passes, you weren't encouraging enough fast enough.
          Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

          Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Surrender debate

            To clarify, that thread doesn't really make it clear if it's an actual rule rather than just a suggestion. Are we going to be kicked for telling people to surrender? Or in Big Frank's case, for telling them not to surrender? Is it even fair to put responsibility on the people who don't want to concede to come up with a plan (or to be "encouraging")? Even if you've voted to concede you should not omit yourself from trying to win the game or working with teammates on a plan until the vote actually passes, no matter how close it is. Telling the guy who says "I don't want to concede, I think we can still win this" to be silent, or that he'll get kicked if he doesn't come up with a plan, seems counter productive to team play.

            I admittedly didn't go through that entire thread to see if this was answered there. It was getting kind of off topic and wordy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Surrender debate

              It does seem rather odd to say, "conversation about conceding is only allowed in the affirmative for NOT conceding. All other conversation about conceding is punishable." The next logical step is just make a button that says, "cancel concede vote, I believe in my team" that anyone can press. Regardless of how we feel about my distillation of the sentiment, this is what we're encouraging with this particular thread's conclusions.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Surrender debate

                There's no rule around this now, but I'm pointedly reforming common behavior when I'm on the game server. I've had to correct a few folks who've misunderstood the message, and I try to be patient, as it's a potentially confusing message.

                My original "silent and secure WinOrLose voting" post addressed a nuance, and that's risky, but social leadership often is, especially when leading folks who haven't yet consumed the entire message before reacting to it.

                Further discussion in that original thread (and now this one) handsomely matured the message to: don't clog voicecomms with an argument that the silent vote adequately expresses (again: if you need examples, see what's already been written). That same discussion has come to the DEFENSE of voicecomms that points out /actionable/ paths to victory. The same discussion has also made it clear that, when a voting majority has failed while abstaining detractors offered no /actionable/ paths to victory, asking folks to concede is fine.

                I'm glad people are participating in the discussion here, and I'm satisfied that the changes on the game server we've seen so far are moving in the right direction. These kinks about "WTF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO TALK" are already working themselves out.

                remi has captured one of the most important aspects of the SPIRIT of my original post: folks saying the game is over just to justify their OWN vote.
                Originally posted by blu.knight View Post
                After watching this for a couple weeks, I think I'd have to tend to agree. It seems like most of the time the comment comes as justification for their vote, not because the game has dragged on so long and is obviously over.
                So, let's vote and just keep trying. If that's failing, we can revert to the sloppier options that have for so long been the status quo.

                Originally posted by Enhancer View Post
                Is it even fair to put responsibility on the people who don't want to concede to come up with a plan (or to be "encouraging")?
                Yes, when there's a voting majority. When there's a voting majority, it's fair to expect the holdout(s) to present actionable paths to victory.

                Originally posted by Enhancer View Post
                if you've voted to concede you should [keep] trying to win the game or working with teammates on a plan until the vote actually passes, no matter how close it is.
                Concur STRONGLY, but to a point: "I think we can still win this" isn't enough against a voting majority. Expecting you to articulate /how/ we can win is fair. If we've tried that in good (decent, even -- you're dealing with a majority of already demoralized players) faith, it's fair for the majority to feel entitled for the holdouts to vote and move on.
                Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Surrender debate

                  Originally posted by Enhancer View Post
                  Telling the guy who says "I don't want to concede, I think we can still win this" to be silent, or that he'll get kicked if he doesn't come up with a plan, seems counter productive to team play.
                  My original post said "don't say you want to give up -- just silently vote". It said "save the post-mortem for after the vote succeeds". It encouraged QUITTERS to shush during gameplay.

                  It didn't encourage silence from those still trying to win, and some folks /hearing/ about my post (or perhaps themselves misreading it) have propagated that very message.

                  Further discussion has promoted the idea that HOLDOUTS, in the face of a voting majority, should be expected to articulate HOW the team can win. "But guys, we can win!!1" isn't where the bar should be. Once most of the team wants to quit, you're a de facto leader: time to act like one.
                  Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                  Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Surrender debate

                    I think the strongest position to take when considering conceding is this:

                    When you click that button, you are, essentially, committing your team to a high chance of failure.

                    Regardless of what happened to you or what is going on in the game... when the team sees "Yer Mom has voted to concede etc etc etc", morale drops like a boulder off a cliff for most people. That is an even more profound statement when you hold a name that is seen in high regard.

                    So, before we even go so far as to try to argue for or against, let's try to remember that that isn't just a button for you, it's a button for everyone you're playing with.

                    Mom
                    Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
                    Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

                    You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
                    Forever Perplexed

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Surrender debate

                      Well, you say that, but that's kinda off-topic. Yes, the message of the vote is powerful, especially if you carry a lot of social weight among teammates. But my original post wasn't about judging the appropriateness of wanting to give up, or your timing.

                      My original post was about clogging voicecomm and being redundant. However powerful, your making it clear you're ready to give up is made abundantly clear with your SILENT vote. So just SILENTLY vote. I was hearing a lot of people justifying WHY they (the voter) were voting, and THAT is what I've worked to squelch, as it's not their place to encourage OTHERS to vote right away.

                      Meanwhile, some have interpreted this as "don't speak up to encourage others to KEEP TRYING", which was NOT my message.

                      To repeat myself now to a silly extent: "guys, we can win!!1!", against a voting majority, is not encouraging. Detail HOW we can win. If you can't or won't detail that, please vote. If what you proposed fails, please vote.
                      Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                      Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Surrender debate

                        Thanks for clarifying that you can't get kicked for speaking about the vote. I agree with silent voting wholeheartedly and have more or less been doing that the past year anyways, but don't think it's entirely justifiable to kick someone for wanting to play a game out, or even for explaining to your team (succinctly) that you have 1 RT and no lifeforms after a couple of votes don't pass.

                        The nit-picky issue I see is that those who have voted to concede (feeling that they have a "voting majority") will naturally either tell the other guy why their plan won't work, or they might just ignore it thinking the team is moments away from conceding anyways. I guess it shouldn't be an issue so long as people have seen a couple of silent votes go 5/6 before asking for a miracle plan from the three holdouts.

                        Mom: Silent voting is a way to reduce the negative social impact on your team. I don't think people should feel nervous for starting a vote. Open your map and evaluate your team's tech for yourself rather than basing your own vote on what some other person has voted. People (myself included) vote absentmindedly quite often. It shouldn't be a big deal. I barely pay attention to the votes until I've decided that the team is fighting a losing battle for myself.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Surrender debate

                          Originally posted by Enhancer View Post
                          Silent voting is a way to reduce the negative social impact on your team. I don't think people should feel nervous for starting a vote. Open your map and evaluate your team's tech for yourself rather than basing your own vote on what some other person has voted. People (myself included) vote absentmindedly quite often. It shouldn't be a big deal. I barely pay attention to the votes until I've decided that the team is fighting a losing battle for myself.
                          I agree
                          Kalost_tpf/twitch.tv

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Surrender debate

                            Enhancer: Absentminded voting is an issue, I think. I guess, before I confuse people, I should call this rage voting.

                            Bob's Lerk just got wrecked 3 minutes in.
                            Bob looks at the map/scoreboard and determines it's a lost cause.
                            Bob starts concede vote.

                            I see this all too often. I mean, if we're 7-10 minutes in, and it's just not going ANYWHERE... then sure. But, 3 minutes into the game... it hasn't even really evolved. The only way I'd be ready to concede 3 minutes in is if our team has lost both starting nodes, all our players have died, and X team is just outside our spawn.

                            Dropping that concede vote as you die with your lifeform when people are already feeling the stress of an aggressive opponent is enough to break the resolve of the team. It happens all too often in our server, and, off topic or not, it's, imho, the same as, or greater than, the issue at hand.

                            Mom
                            Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
                            Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

                            You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
                            Forever Perplexed

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Surrender debate

                              Rage votes aren't a threat, as they occur in isolation. Bob loses his lerk and insta-votes. NO ONE CARES about Bob's sudden and isolated "rage" vote.

                              No one "votes with Bob" just because Bob lost his lerk.

                              If others follow with more votes, it's not Bob's fault. This majority that Bob is "causing"? They see that, on the macro-and-much-bigger-than-any-one-lifeform level, the game is LIKELY (enough, per voter) to end in defeat.

                              The silent vote lets all of this play out while leaving voicecomms exclusively for EVERYONE still trying to win (including Bob and "his" majority).

                              And if we have a crisis of confidence that Bob (et al) is actually still giving 100% WHILE he votes, then /that/ is what we need to be focusing on (as opposed to vote suppression).
                              Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                              Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X