Surrender Vote Discussion

Yea that's totally what im saying. You seem to dislike when i get agitated with you but can you atleast concede that some of the things you say are disrespectful towards my opinion/argument.

I call bullcrap because the entire message, in every one of my posts, had me quoting each separate part i was talking about. Maybe long-winded but not rambling.

Ive already made a point about this that i guess you dont remember. Ill take a deep breathe and tell you to go look for it before you come to the conclusion that i was off-topic. I explained it and i shouldnt have to do that twice.

So appeal to ridicule is perfectly fine in "non-formal" debates? I guess i could just not say fallacy and say that youre insulting a person and not the idea. Would that be better?

That has zero to do with what i said and the point was made elsewhere anyway. I mean at a second glance i guess it could be an explanation that he wasnt trolling but to be honest based off of my past experience with this individual he doesnt deserve the benefit of the doubt.

• As explained countless times if people stopped trying to nitpick an issue that i already defended then i wouldnt restate the entire thing again. Even in this post you decided to say you feel the rules mean something different but didnt elaborate as to why my "buggy game mechanics" metaphor didnt fit this situation.
• No, not in my first post. I made it very clear and hit on all my points. The "gripping" is usually from people "misunderstanding" things that are in the thread or comment they responded to. I generally dont enjoy talking to people who wont read the whole post. They tend to come out with a rubuttal to something i already explained and it gets quite tiresome on my end.
• Read bullet 2 plus I dont think my posts are that hard to read and an example would be nice. It could be that im a baddie or it could be that the other person doesnt have the effort to read my entire post before a response(has happened several time and leads to the "persecuted victim" problem).
• Good then maybe we can both stop the snark.
  
• Do you ever do that? I cant remember a time where you have ever and youve been outspoken here much longer than i have.

• Addressing the issue of my tone i usually tell people that i can be annoyed just like they can. That is my response and it probably can be summed up as "you're the one with the problem m8". Hence why bullet 4 exists. I guess you can say it is my fault for clarity but that doesnt mean you're right. For instance when i was told about issues with my argument i pointed out where i addressed them(like when, for instance, you said i had not given a fix when infact i did both in this thread and months ago).

Your perceptions indeed. That behavior is also representative of someone who is trying to re-explain all his points to people who arent reading/or addressing them. Atleast that is my pov.

Maybe, i dont pretend to be skilled at much of anything

Yes, which is why i wanted to talk about admins moderating these votes. Generally i dont find saving the game 10-15 seconds worth removing capping from ctf and i dont see that as a controversial thought. I didnt come here to demand the devs fix things because ive made my peace with what will actually get done, but i feel like if we have admins, and at this moment you guys are talking about protocol, then maybe this could be a good thing to discuss.

Neither is people cherrypicking quotes of mine or sharing their opinions on the rules without telling me how my explanation was faulty.

Ditto.

The argument wasnt about which solution was appropriate(to be frank id be happy with any of them).

Blame auburn for not turning it into a thread quicker

I dont think i made that point and i just assumed it would convey. Guess that was a slight error on my part.

This would be by far the best ending i must admit. Though princess geti's or else someone would call sexism.

 

I could get behind this if, and only if, there were changes to surrender votes. The percentage is too low to be un-moderated. Though i think this is more of a protocol thing and not ability-wise(as i feel that someone like [redacted] who just spams surrender votes should be stopped/punish because he literally does it everygame).

I think it depends on how much it happens to be honest. If it barely affects you and happens 1 in every 1o games then i can see how you wouldnt care but if it were to happen at a much higher rate that would be an issue in your mind right? Generally i feel like rising it will lower the ammount of surrenders which would make it manageable for me(for instance i hate falsevotekicks but they happen every blue moon against me. If it somehow got worse because it passed more often then i would be adamant about it being a bad thing).

Not really any flaws just different ways to look at the issue.

 

I think i can add a poll because i apparently own this thread.

Does it really matter what annoys me about this situation. I mean it can certainly be trivialized if you compare it to a more pressing issue but i think there are two things about this that you cant deny: surrendering after the flag is lost makes no sense(and 10-15 seconds really doesnt cause much ragequits) AND that this action is obviously irritating to atleast one person.

ill see about adding a poll now.

 

Maybe make votes end before map ends, except the kick votes.

 

hmm. DK; surrender vote that i usually encounter is just kinda; off. It's like it always happens when we don't need it (maybe tower lost, minor disadvantage, kegged a bit etc.)
Guess i have no part here, but i think 2 or more would be pretty good, or even like 70%

 

I'm done arguing how often it happens. It is useless and conjecture(kinda like what im gonna do next though...). If we raise it i feel like those obvious abuses of power by the winning team would easily get 2 more than the against vote/ over 70%. That is my opinion, i am not against justified surrender votes, i just feel that 26% of people shouldnt be deciding that the game is over(and it makes it much easier to pass surrender votes at the time after the game is already over).

 

Also there's the rule where you can only have one suggestion per suggestion and ideas thread

I am annoyed when capping is removed at the end of the game in favor of saving 5-10 seconds. Whether it is a large enough issue to warrant you caring is up to you. I do not personally care about capping the flag myself but i genuinely want Capture the Flag to end with, well, a Flag Capture. Simple as that, any other discussion will lead to alot of conjectures(what is the motive of the person making the vote(optimistic view of them vs pessimistic)who really cares about this issues(afew in this thread and we cant really measure who gives a crap about it ingame)does this really have the potential to be a real issue, ect).

Each vote kicks happens differently. If it is a griefing kick usually people(with a brain) will only vote if they witness it. I dont want to be given a general concession when the real issue in my mind is surrender votekicks(i find the others generally work out fairly because votekicks rely on people seeing the issue and literally everyone votes on nextmaps votes).

the community is non-existent, atm im just hoping for things to be idiot-proofed.

 

Surrender is the worst thing ever you yellow belly no good dog's, think of your builders Leting their good works go to waste. Spend all that time building up infrastructure only to have some rando grief vote it all away

 

For the record, the double nextmap thing happens with surrender votes too. Don't know why you would think it's any difference. I have lost during build time because a surrender vote carried over.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---

After reading this thread, I will say that crazy shit happens in KAG. I've seen the "winning" team suddenly lose because the enemy tunneled and suddenly blocked all entrances, stole the flag, trapped the flag carrier and killed him, and won (or started the six-hour flag swap stalemate game), which might provide an incentive to actually see the capture through, to really validate your sense of victory.

 

The real contentious part is whether or not this is for all votes. Im pretty skeptical about everyone voting on kick votes because i generally only see full participation in nextmap/surrender votes.

If the enemy team is about to cap i see zero reason to surrender. Just seems unsportsman-like and stopping the enemy team from the cap(which is generally associated with good feeling after a hour or two long game).

 

Not optimistic about all types of votes considering non voters, but we'll see how it works.

 

9 time's out of 10 its griefing by the usual suspects. vote starter always quits befor the next round