Reminder that feeders should not be qualified for surrender votes

Ayanami3rd·5/13/2018, 10:41:46 AM·3 votes·1,636 views

Literally every day I have Normal games that are ruined by someone feeding like hell. And no, that is not my complaint. I'm far from perfect, and bad things happen.

But don't take others hostage in your feed and prolong the game by blocking the surrender vote, thus making the game unbearable for people that did not mess it up. There should be a mechanic that players with feeding stats should not have a vote in the surrender survey.

I literally don't get why this is not a punishable offense. It's like accidently shitting on your carpet and then prevent you from cleaning it up. It's undescribingly offensive.

13 Comments

SEKAI5/13/2018, 10:52:01 AM5 votes

That's the dilemma of democracy, in a sense.

Should a person with a misguided view of the current affairs, handicapped intelligence, or a severe lack of understanding/education on the matter be allowed to vote? The answer democracy provides is Yes (for any adults; children are the only exception who are forbidden from voting regardless of how developed they are, because it principally believes children are never prepared enough to vote), because everyone by principle has the same equal amount of rights to vote regardless how impaired or under-derveloped their critical thinking is and/or how warped their minds and ideas objectively are, and because it also by principle believes that people together as a whole are not dumb so a voting in a scale that includes everybody would give net positive outcomes while getting everybody involved so they don't feel left out.

But ofc, democracy is an ideal based on mostly principles (not saying it's bad, as they're good principles for the most part. But still, they are principles). Whether or not it works (as it does at the very least, that it functions), or rather, how much of it works, on a practical scale is still a matter of debate.

But yeah.

Despìca Bìll5/13/2018, 10:54:09 AM3 votes

I feel your pain. This pisses me off greatly. If they could accurately define what feeding stats are, taking into account things like come-backs, players getting hard-focused, etc, this would be a great idea.

Instead of getting into the vast grey area of determining what feeding stats are, however, I think it would be easier to lower the surrender threshold to a simple majority, at least in unranked games. If people are trying to surrender, they likely won't be playing to win, anyway, and I've seen far more games lost by feeders, than saved in spite of them.

Imperial Pandaa5/13/2018, 4:28:19 PM2 votes

Because you always know exactly who is voting no. The only person you know the vote of, it the person starting the vote. For all you know, the "feeder" is voting yes. Had a game recently where I was Blitz. Pretty sure everyone started a surrender vote at least once on my team during that game. Always failed 3v2. Was great actually because we came back to win. Point is people flip flopped their votes.

Umbral Regent5/13/2018, 2:28:10 PM1 votes

You figure out a 100%, foolproof method of detecting intentional feeding, then your idea might be potentially worth considering.

Ignoring the fact that Surrender votes shouldn't have a dynamic lockout in general, anyway.