Deadbeating

[Metsfanmax]

Premium-only resign button would work, but I don't recall it being suggested.

Yes, this solves part of a contradiciton. There is a possibility that the freemium resignation option would discourage buying premium and this may be holding the suggestion at bay. A premium resignation option would have the opposite result, encouraging buying new memberships. It still sounds dump though if we compare to other strategy sites...buying your right to...resign

I still think that this needs context. Yes, I would support a premium only resign option compared to no resign option at all. But CC has been bleeding out members over the years. Many people have complained about, and probably left because, there are just not that many games available to play as there used to be. We would likely keep a lot more premium players around if there are more games to play, which we can get by having more freemiums stick around. Options that help freemiums are very helpful to premiums too, at this point.

[hayesez]

Seems logical to pilot the resignation button (utilizing many of the suggestions above - ie. mutually agreed upon, frequency considerations, etc.) with a small part of site...perhaps premium 1v1/poly...and see how it goes. Expand it based on feedback received.

I don't play a ton of games on the site, and I don't take any of them overly seriously, but I am currently getting thumped in a poly USA 2.1 trench game, and in about 1 round I'll just tell my opponent that I will be stacking on place and calling it quits. It will still probably take 2 or 3 rounds (8-12 turns each) to complete.

Seems a bit ridiculous for both of us to waste or time achieving an inevitable result.

If the resignation button is implemented and abused THEN you will start seeing the influx of abuse reports, right (As opposed to the near complete lack of abuse reports for the REAL dead-beating violation Kaskavel indicates)? If that happens, we scrap it and we can all be happy that we tried it out, and forever point to "that one time way back when that we tried it and it failed miserably" whenever people bring it up. If it is successful, then you expand it to a different set of settings/users and re-evaluate.

Is there a downside to this?

[owenshooter]

Premium-only resign button would work, but I don't recall it being suggested.

Yes, this solves part of a contradiciton. There is a possibility that the freemium resignation option would discourage buying premium and this may be holding the suggestion at bay. A premium resignation option would have the opposite result, encouraging buying new memberships. It still sounds dump though if we compare to other strategy sites...buying your right to...resign

I still think that this needs context. Yes, I would support a premium only resign option compared to no resign option at all. But CC has been bleeding out members over the years. Many people have complained about, and probably left because, there are just not that many games available to play as there used to be. We would likely keep a lot more premium players around if there are more games to play, which we can get by having more freemiums stick around. Options that help freemiums are very helpful to premiums too, at this point.

i find it interesting that you have gotten zero traction in the suggs forum, so you somehow believe that bringing this conversation to this area of the forum is going to get it implemented... the same people, having the same discussion, just in a different area... please continue to ramble if it makes you feel better... however, we all know, the place to continue this is in the suggs thread which is already dead... good luck!!!-Jésus noir

[Metsfanmax]

Premium-only resign button would work, but I don't recall it being suggested.

Yes, this solves part of a contradiciton. There is a possibility that the freemium resignation option would discourage buying premium and this may be holding the suggestion at bay. A premium resignation option would have the opposite result, encouraging buying new memberships. It still sounds dump though if we compare to other strategy sites...buying your right to...resign

I still think that this needs context. Yes, I would support a premium only resign option compared to no resign option at all. But CC has been bleeding out members over the years. Many people have complained about, and probably left because, there are just not that many games available to play as there used to be. We would likely keep a lot more premium players around if there are more games to play, which we can get by having more freemiums stick around. Options that help freemiums are very helpful to premiums too, at this point.

i find it interesting that you have gotten zero traction in the suggs forum, so you somehow believe that bringing this conversation to this area of the forum is going to get it implemented... the same people, having the same discussion, just in a different area... please continue to ramble if it makes you feel better... however, we all know, the place to continue this is in the suggs thread which is already dead... good luck!!!-Jésus noir

I find it interesting that you bother pointing this out when you know who I am and what part I have played on this site. And why do you think that I care what you think anyway? Thanks for wishing me luck on something I am not even trying to do though. Appreciate that bit. (For clarification, I didn't bring this up to try and get a resign button installed, I brought it up to point out that you people who are rabidly opposed to anything that makes CC less of an e-penis measuring contest are a bunch of morons.)

[owenshooter]

i stand corrected!!! the site HAD A SURRENDER BUTTON!!! guess what?!! it was ABUSED!!!! ha!! in before this thread gets locked/merged...-Jésus noir

Subject: Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

Note from Sully/TFO:

A surrender button has been suggested and rejected many times. In fact, this site used to have a surrender button but it was abused and hence the button was removed. This thread is a complilation of over 100 threads of people asking for Surrender Buttons or Resign Boxes or Forfeit Flags and the exasperated rejections of handfuls of moderators. It's not going to happen.

If you insist on wasting time by starting a unique thread, I insist you read through this one first to be certain your idea has not already been rejected.

No, it won't be added for certain game types (e.g., trench) either.

And no, it also won't be added if there is a minimum round requirement (i.e, the button appears after 50 rounds).

I'd also like to add that no, it won't be added even if the player remains alive for three rounds but has their turn skipped.

Also, note this suggestion involving surrendering armies to teammates

I made an executive decision. No surrendering. At Conquer Club we play till the death. That button just seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

p.s.-and mets will continue to rage on and on and on and on and on and on... beating that drum...

[Metsfanmax]

i stand corrected!!! the site HAD A SURRENDER BUTTON!!!

...I think you are the only person in this thread who somehow was not aware of that. Well done yet again.

[owenshooter]

OHHH!! i see how that argument is different from all the other arguments in that massive suggestions thread that i just posted a link to... i get it!! OHHHH!!!-Jésus noir

[BoganGod]

i wasn't playing grammar police, owen. my point is who gives a flying f*ck what past ownership thought about the resign option. it is irrelevant, no?

Double negative = a positive. Right? So kiddo you are suggesting past ownership's thoughts on this matter are relevant. Well done, nice backflip. Do you like puppies?
I'll ask you again in a week and see whether your answer has changed.

[hayesez]

Interesting....didn't know there was a 67+ page thread about this already.

But, the first post of that thread is exactly what I was alluding to a few days ago in regards to the decline of the forum use. That first post basically says, "no need to discuss this anymore. Not going to happen."

And it is a good point...no real need to discuss it here (and apparently this is the wrong forum for this type of discussion)...and so this thread will probably die out, be merged, and the forum use will die down a bit more for the day....

[owenshooter]

Interesting....didn't know there was a 67+ page thread about this already.

But, the first post of that thread is exactly what I was alluding to a few days ago in regards to the decline of the forum use. That first post basically says, "no need to discuss this anymore. Not going to happen."

And it is a good point...no real need to discuss it here (and apparently this is the wrong forum for this type of discussion)...and so this thread will probably die out, be merged, and the forum use will die down a bit more for the day....

so, let me ask you this. what sorts of things do you want to discuss? are you looking for strategy, etc? maybe if you are more specific, we can point you in the right direction. this particular portion of the forum is as it is, and you have seen how it is... if you want strategy, discussion on maps, discussion on dice probability, etc, there are places where those serious discussions take place... just wondering what it is you are looking for, exactly... and i'm truly not being sarcastic right now...-Jésus noir

[_sabotage_]

Owen you remind me of one of these folks:



Not sure which.

[hayesez]

Interesting....didn't know there was a 67+ page thread about this already.

But, the first post of that thread is exactly what I was alluding to a few days ago in regards to the decline of the forum use. That first post basically says, "no need to discuss this anymore. Not going to happen."

And it is a good point...no real need to discuss it here (and apparently this is the wrong forum for this type of discussion)...and so this thread will probably die out, be merged, and the forum use will die down a bit more for the day....

so, let me ask you this. what sorts of things do you want to discuss? are you looking for strategy, etc? maybe if you are more specific, we can point you in the right direction. this particular portion of the forum is as it is, and you have seen how it is... if you want strategy, discussion on maps, discussion on dice probability, etc, there are places where those serious discussions take place... just wondering what it is you are looking for, exactly... and i'm truly not being sarcastic right now...-Jésus noir

Owen, I'm not really looking for any specific types of discussions. I have, like you, decided to make a concerted effort to be more active in the forums (which doesn't take much being that my activity was near-zero until two weeks ago). I have thoroughly enjoyed my limited time on CC, and don't want to see the demise of the site, and so I am just hoping to do my part to help...even if just a small bit.

On the previous thread I merely suggested that potentially the archives of the forums may be a reason that some users aren't very active in the forums. And then I explained that I was probably one of those people. I'm not disagreeing with you or even trying to suggest that there shouldn't be archives (in fact, I think there should be archives). All I'm saying is that this is an example of what I was suggesting. I wasn't around during the discussions of the "resign" button. I don't know the history. I had no idea that there actually used to be one. I think there is value to it (in fact, I just spent 33 straight minutes in a game against ukey that I had conceded to him, but played my turns, deploying and not attacking, so he could finish the trench game. Both of us would have welcomed a "resign" button), but I see that this is not the place for the discussion, and there is already a thread that i could jump on and weigh in if I am interested. And I probably will. But I won't comment in it, but rather learn a bit of the history. If that thread weren't there, I'm guessing this thread would get moved to the right section and it would continue to stay active. There would probably be more discussion. That's all I'm suggesting. NOt saying it is right or wrong...just simply that the existence of that archived thread will probably squelch some activity.

That being said, I will continue to monitor the other threads and weigh in here and there as I can.

[Metsfanmax]

The most amusing thing about this is that owen seems to think that lack was a good owner of the site and that his opinion on this is worth listening to.

[owenshooter]

can we please merge all of this into the existing thread? thank you so very much

Subject: Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

already put in the request, big guy!!! good call!!-Jésus noir

[Metsfanmax]

Great success, I turned a bitching thread into something constructive for the site and I wasn't even trying!

[JamesKer1]

So.... I read through the whole shabang of threads and posts in the super secret mod forums, and there was some very interesting stuff that I won't go into too much detail about. But I came here because of the below quote.

Blah-Jésus noir

More blah.

(kind of like you speaking freely for the site owner, declaring he said things he has never publicly stated/posted)

Here's what I've gathered from the progress of this suggestion behind the scenes.

It was brought up in the Suggestions Team super secret forums. Mets was a major proponent, and the Suggestions Team back then (spiesr, chapcrap, myself, and DoomYoshi) also approved of it. bigWham and blakebowling took no issue with it, and bW went so far as supporting it and guiding the discussion of implementation. We worked out a few kinks and set some limitations, such as one use per day, used after round limit 10, premium only, whatever. It was then sent to the General super secret forums for all the mods to see to collect criticism and ideas for improvement/potential abuses and issues, where it quickly blew up in all of our faces, included a very very heated discussion, and the end. No more.

Not to say anything bad about the mods. They all were doing, in their minds, what they thought was best for the site. Many have retired for various reasons over the past year, and that is the only reason I'm putting this out there.

[owenshooter]

The most amusing thing about this is that owen seems to think that lack was a good owner of the site and that his opinion on this is worth listening to.

wow... bad mouth the godfather? the nerve... lack had this site almost to 30K users... it was vibrant, alive, full of energy and fun... lack and twill were the dynamic duo and those guys were great... you can not bad mouth lack... he was slow in implementing ideas, because he was protecting what he had created... i love that Big Wham is slaying shit left and right, but he has a foundation to build on and a different vision. you should turn in your premium and leave the site for bad mouthing the godfather... sacrilege... pure sacrilege...-Jésus noir

p.s.-it wasn't constructive. nothing new was stated. same shit, different thread.

[Metsfanmax]

he was slow in implementing ideas, because he was protecting what he had created

No, he was slow in implementing ideas because he just didn't want to commit much time to the site. I don't think he's a bad person because of it, but it's really hard to argue that he fully dedicated to the site after 2006. He was slow in implementing ideas because implementing ideas on CC was not the highest priority in his life. He had a full time job, after all, and CC was something he did in his spare time. Many staff around at the time could confirm this, though they may not be as willing to say it as I am. And El Jefe was even worse in this regard -- he had more time for the site than lack did, but again I was on staff at the time and I know how things went. After a while, EJ stopped actively participating with the staff. big Wham is indeed a breath of fresh air in the regard of actually dedicating to the site -- he puts an incredible amount of hours into this website, even though I disagree with much of his vision and can't stand his personality. The quality that big Wham has, that the previous owners didn't have, is the willingness to experiment and try things out. You need to innovate to remain relevant. That is why I wanted so much to implement and test a resign option. I was fairly confident that it wouldn't lead to the doomsday scenarios people were predicting -- but if it did, all was well! big Wham would recognize that it went wrong, and pull the plug. So in this regard, lack wanting to "protect" what he created isn't even a very good argument, because you can't know what works and what doesn't until you try it. (I mean, lack did try the surrender option very early in the site's history, but I don't think he understood the potential pitfalls at the time, so he wasn't prepared for the outcome and didn't want to think about a way to construct it that makes the most sense.) If something fails, you try and make it better, or abandon it if you can't make it better. This is the regard in which bW is an unimpeachably better manager of the site than the previous owners.

[Geger]

I read this topic viewtopic.php?f=471&t=67152 from page 1. I just want to know, why the surrender button was removed. The general answer people abused it, but what they did exactly.

Until page 7 I found these reasons :

• To have a free slot for a new game. At that time there were no premiums, everyone had only 4 slot.
• They lost no points in terminator games, if they pressed the surrender button (I would do the same)
• In team game it was better to press the surrender button, so the opponent couldn't take the spoils (good move)

Instead fixing the actual problems they just removed the button : simple, and talked about the spirit : play to death!
Playing to death on big maps can be a pain (and I think there were no big maps at that time), not only for the loser but for the winner too. It's not fun at all to take opponents regions for 10 turns or more and the opponent does nothing but drops.

[Kaskavel]

Not only there were not big maps, more importantly, there was no trench...

[Kaskavel]

"Why do you people still discussing about eliminating world poverty, nuclear disarm and saving whales from extinction? It has been tried before and it does not work. You can keep wasting time rambling about it, but it is not going to be implemented. There are some topics in some strange utopic forums, where you can go discuss those subjects, there where they belong, in dead forums. We tried it once and it didn't work. Some people were exploiting it, I do not know how of course and so I cannot tell you, but it must be true because people are saying so all the time. And most important of all, the previous owners of the world do not want it to happen and this definitely ends the discussion. I am clever to understand those things, you obviously are not, so I will post all the time, reminding you that you are wasting your time. And since I know the suggestion is not going to be accepted, I will prove myself even more clever for teasing you all the time and reminding you that children in Africa will keep dying from lack of food, despite your pathetic and useless discussions about trying to end it. And also stop comparing children in Africa with children in Europe, it is not the same. There is a rule that children in Europe should not die by hunger, it is part of the continent. The pink Jesus has spoken-Jesus rosέ"

[_sabotage_]

So.... I read through the whole shabang of threads and posts in the super secret mod forums, and there was some very interesting stuff that I won't go into too much detail about. But I came here because of the below quote.

Blah-Jésus noir

More blah.

(kind of like you speaking freely for the site owner, declaring he said things he has never publicly stated/posted)

Here's what I've gathered from the progress of this suggestion behind the scenes.

It was brought up in the Suggestions Team super secret forums. Mets was a major proponent, and the Suggestions Team back then (spiesr, chapcrap, myself, and DoomYoshi) also approved of it. bigWham and blakebowling took no issue with it, and bW went so far as supporting it and guiding the discussion of implementation. We worked out a few kinks and set some limitations, such as one use per day, used after round limit 10, premium only, whatever. It was then sent to the General super secret forums for all the mods to see to collect criticism and ideas for improvement/potential abuses and issues, where it quickly blew up in all of our faces, included a very very heated discussion, and the end. No more.

Not to say anything bad about the mods. They all were doing, in their minds, what they thought was best for the site. Many have retired for various reasons over the past year, and that is the only reason I'm putting this out there.

Who gave the mods a vote?

The only person who is against this is Owen and he is just against it for a lark.

If it were some great technical hurdle, I'd understand, but it's like telling a Texas hold 'em tournament player that he must stay when he's chip less.

[BoganGod]

Great success, I turned a bitching thread into something constructive for the site and I wasn't even trying!

Fixed

I took an interesting discussion, and hijacked it with my single issue tub thumping, I love to smell my own farts

[owenshooter]

Who gave the mods a vote?

The only person who is against this is Owen and he is just against it for a lark.

wait, wait, wait... soooo, you make a statement that is immediately contradicted by your prior statement?! sooo, a consensus of mods voted against this, not just once, but on many occasions (has to have happened, if this has been attempted multiple times) and somehow, I AM THE ONLY ONE AGAINST THIS?! hmmmm... ok... you change my mind, i'll give you the surrender button... the black jesus is fair... i promise i will not cut your surrender button in half and offer a half to the community and a half to the mods... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

[_sabotage_]

Mods aren't people, they are bureaucrats. You too are a bureaucrat, but not a mod, and therefore I gave you the benefit of the doubt by calling you a person.

Merry Christmas, may your black light shine brightly and guide us.