2/5 Wins a Vote?

The Ecdysiast·Jun 10, 2015·4 votes·677 views

In Ranked, it's more urgent to win. So there's SOME reason in wanting 4/5 for a surrender. Nevermind the fact that in Solo/Duo Queue, you can simply have trolls who go duo just so they can overrule the surrender vote at 20 minutes.

But in Normals, it should be a 3/5. There's no reason two players should have the authority to waste the time of three others on a game that's hopeless or a game that they're the only ones having fun in because they're AP Quinn and think it's funny to be losing.

8 Comments

KazaashiJun 10, 20153 votes

It's not that 2/5 wins, but that 3/5 fails to pass. The US government requires a 2/3 majority for a bill to pass, so if it's good enough to run a country, it seems fair to me.

The EcdysiastJun 12, 20151 votes

2/3 isn't 4/5. It's 4/6. If there were six players, it would be reasonable. Making a new law is much bigger and requires more backing than asking someone not to waste twenty minutes of time you could spend being productive elsewhere or starting a new game.

In this case, it's simply the minority who want to waste time vs. the three who know the game is over. It's not a decision for anyone besides those involved. Don't try to compare two unrelated things.

KazaashiJun 12, 20151 votes

{quoted}

2/3 isn't 4/5. It's 4/6. If there were six players, it would be reasonable. Making a new law is much bigger and requires more backing than asking someone not to waste twenty minutes of time you could spend being productive elsewhere or starting a new game.

In this case, it's simply the minority who want to waste time vs. the three who know the game is over. It's not a decision for anyone besides those involved. Don't try to compare two unrelated things.

Just because you think the game is over and want to end it, doesn't mean you get to decide when it's over. You may see it as a waste of time, but I see it as practicing coming back from behind. Sure some games aren't winnable, but, as the saying goes, you'll miss 100% of the swings you don't take.

The EcdysiastJun 12, 20151 votes

You're talking as if I'm asking for 2/5 to win a YES vote. I'm not. Just as you're saying, just because TWO players think the game is winnable when three can see it's not, doesn't mean the minority group should get to decide to waste three people's time.

And as the saying goes: When the enemy has a 600 stack Nasus and a 20/2/5 Katarina, SURRENDER.

Magic SkillcapeJun 10, 20153 votes

That implies that the US government runs competently.

KazaashiJun 12, 20151 votes

{quoted}

That implies that the US government runs competently.

At least we can all sit in a room and argue about things, instead of just killing each other.

MarkedOfKaneJun 10, 20152 votes

When all hope is lost in those games and people are being scum like that, everyone just goes and sits at fountain.

tonzillacrayonJun 10, 20152 votes

i agree, wasting time in a normal because the players arent competent enough to see that our early game comp got shat on by their late game and we have no chance, hell i left a game earlier since a duo wouldnt surrender after feeding super hard and we had no inhibs . Other team wasnt competent enough to end and my team was too dickish to surrender so i leave game instead of wait 10 min while they all group up to die 1 final time