BuzzerBeater Forums

Afaik proposing mTIE is not considered as spam by the rules.

yes thats right

Answering NO - means you are not gonna play TIE
Answering YES - means you the opponent will most liley play TIE
No answer - means the opponent will not play TIE
And so on.
You can make some conclusion depending on the opponent's answer.

thats why i have no problem with team answering yes and play whatever they want, it just get bad for me when they propose it themselves.

Answering NO - means you are not gonna play TIE

It doesn't mean, I have already play TIE after I said NO. In season our NT win Consolation Tournament.

Answering YES - means you the opponent will most liley play TIE

But there is always risk he breaks the deal.

No answer - means the opponent will not play TIE

It just means he didn't answer, nothing more. Maybe he doesn't like agreements, he can't speak english, he doesn't know what it is TIE etc.

What is actual punishment for spamming? I don't think this would lead to significantly less or even no agreements. I think if most of the community agree that we prefer playing without agreements the solution should be in change of enthusiasm and effort system so that there is no need of offering deals and not in some persecution of users offering deals.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 7:25:53 AM

I am not surprised you are defending one of the keys of your success.

I can't insult another swedish manager ;-) But you still don't undestand what it's all about. I have no problem if someone says no, maybe you haven't read swedish forum well.
If general meaning is against the agreements I will be the first person to lobby for any change which makes me sence even if I have no problem with present rules. I have no problem to adapt to any rules.
In fact actual (not final) result shows there are 45 (4+18+23) pros and 26 (23+3) cons. In similar poll in NT coach forum actual result is 18 (3+6+9) pros and 11 (7+4) cons.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 9:55:25 AM

Do you miss some other arguments? As I wrote in previous post, I have no problem to adapt to any rules. I'm opened to discussion about how the changes could look like. Yes, it was important point on my way in NT, but it's just about adapting to the rules well, all the others have similar chance to use agreements as well.
You still haven't answer my question about actual punishments for spam.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 8:23:42 AM

I think that if two teams can agree on playing TIE, this is unfair to other teams. Why?

Because there are managers you can make an agreement with. Then there are some managers you can't. So if you're lucky and your opponent's manager is ok with agreements, you can play TIE before your crucial game and still hope for a win. If you are not lucky, you encounter a mananger who doesn't want to make any agreements.

So these "agreements" are based on luck since you never know if you will play against a manager who favors agreements or not.

Example: Let's say I'm Slovenian NT coach and I have to play against you in the next round. Knowing I can beat you only with high enthusiasm and playing "Normal", I ask this round's opponent's manager if he is willing to play TIE - he says no.

In the same round, you want to raise your enthusiasm too and ask this round's opponent's manager if he is willing to play TIE and he says yes. In the next round, I have to play CT to beat you, but I lose so much enthusiasm I can't win anything else from that moment on.

Do you think my exiting the tourmanent only because of willingness of your opponent to play TIE is fair?

In Continental championship all teams are in group facing the same opponents. Just the order of matches is different. So once you can be luckier, next time someone else can be luckier.
But it's not just about the agreements, is it fair, that some small country beats on CT some big countries in first/second match and all the others fighting for the top has easy match as the team has already broken his enthusiasm?
So there are many unfair influence. The world and life aren't simply fair enough in any way.

To your example: Will you ask your opponent for a deal if you know I can play my match on deal? Or won't you do nothing just not to do it unfair for me?

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/16/2011 9:13:34 AM

all the others have similar chance to use agreements as well.

I never do anything that seems to be unfair to me. Not only in BB but in my whole life. And yeah, I know, sometimes I suffer from it.

You still haven't answer my question about actual punishments for spam.

Again, proposing mTIE is not considered as spam by the current rules /community/rules.aspx?nav=RulesOfConduct - that is why there is no any punishment for it.

But it's not just about the agreements, is it fair, that some small country beats on CT some big countries in first/second match and all the others fighting for the top has easy match as the team has already broken his enthusiasm?

They can do it and it's fair. I don't think small country manager will say to the opponent "Hey, we could beat you only if we CT, but then we can't do anything else in the tourney, so I will just play TIE to make it easy for you".

Example from real life: Soccer, Euro qualifications. Serbia played against us for 2nd place. We already lost any chance to qualify. If we win, Estonia qualifies. If Serbia wins, they qualify.
We fought and won, and Estonia qualified. Do you think Serbians looked at us and said "Hey, you crunched on us with nothing to win!"? No, they didn't. They knew they should play harder and that's it.

To your example: Will you ask your opponent for a deal if you know I can play my match on deal? Or won't you do nothing just not to do it unfair for me?

I will never be in a such situation because even if I am a NT manager one day, I will never make any deals. I know I will be underdog against NTs who are making deals, but hey...competition is about winning on court and not in deals.

Again, proposing mTIE is not considered as spam by the current rules (/community/rules.aspx?nav=RulesOfConduct) - that is why there is no any punishment for it.

I know it, but I would like to find whether it could be solution it would be consider as a spam.
From your link to Rules of Conduct

If you spam other users, the GMs may issue a warning, or may temporarily remove your ability to send BB-Mail or post in the Forums. If you continue to spam users during this period or after the functionality is returned to you, your accounts will be permanently banned without warning.

I think it wouldn't stop anything. Unless manager gets first ban, no need not to try offer deals. It only would mean that you will find the opponent opinion on deals before you send him a message. And even I wouldn't use it as tactical part of the game when being asked for a deal to report it as a spam instead of accepting or refusing.
And I'm not sure if GM's would be happy to have to read hundreds or thousands more mails to consider whether they are spam or not.