Simple new rule update.

[Senator]

Damn, this thread was fading away

senator, i never found out that big maps ARE allowed.... i found out YOUR interpretation of the rule....

https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-140358/

clear rules such as "finish games, then make complain.. DO NOT QUIT" should be taken literally.... ok??

1. "Both players/clans need to agree on the map. If you light up, you agree on the map."
2. "Quitting a game before it ends means you forfeit the game. There is only one exception to the rule: if your opponent chose the wrong scheme without informing you. Before you quit, you must point out the scheme is incorrect and that you want to replay the game with the correct scheme."

That quitting rule assumes you agreed on the map. In your case there was no agreement although you lighted up.

I think we could just write down another exception to the quitting rule: you can quit at the start of the game if your opponent chose non-default map size without informing you. You must point out before the first turn that you want a normal sized map. If you start playing, you agree on the map.

What it means:
- you request a normal sized map when placing worms. Then you quit/surrender when it's your first turn. If you request/quit later, it's up to the mods.
- the opponent should quit/surrender when it's his first turn. If he doesn't, you quit/surrender when it's your first turn.

So yes, people should pay attention at the start of the game and decide whether the abnormal map is ok or not (if they were not aware of the map size when they lighted up).

[avirex]

Seems like you like to interpret the rules how you want to.

There is no arguing with mods.... who cares what over 60% of the community think, right? You still want to interpret things how you want, there no point in arguing.

Write the rule how ever you see fit, if you see fit.

[Hurz]

stop crying.

[Peja]

who cares what over 60% of the community think, right? You still want to interpret things how you want, there no point in arguing.

sorry to say this, but anyone being familiar with basics of empirical research knows your poll is worth nothing.

[avirex]

not cry, just saying facts...


big maps can only be played in shoppa?? says the rules?? Nope, says senator.

dont quit games, finish games and complain later, says rules...

but senator says you finished the game, so your penalized...

i can go on and on with senators contradictions.

peja: did you pull the basics of empirical research out of your ass??   TUS does everything by some dumb ass poll, i know its stupid.. but thats how they do things, when i make a poll though, its worth nothing..

i love how this community works, they just bend and twist things when ever its convenient.

anyway.. im done with this thread. might as well lock it tbh. senator update the rules.

[Senator]

At least u pulled those "facts" out of someone's ass

big maps can only be played in shoppa?? says the rules?? Nope, says senator.

Why is this even important? Your case was about a big Shopper map and I just showed you proof that they are allowed. But cos you insist:

Big WxW maps are also allowed as I said: https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-103226/

Big TTRR maps are not allowed, message from MI this Summer:

Yes, TTRR on big RR maps are not allowed. But there's no written rule about it.

BnG: the scheme rules state BnG should be played on maps with default width size. This is the ruling in original form: "BnG map must have default width size (1920 pix), not more and not less."

As for Roper, Elite, Hysteria and Team17 I can't provide proofs. So.. maybe you can start painting big Roper maps!

[avirex]

Dude, your so busy trying to prove your right to me, and the other 60% of people involved in this thread that don't agree with you, that you don't realize how stupid the shit is your saying.

Your missing the point dude, and then trying to debate with nonsense.

All I'm trying to do is get an update to the rules, it's a much needed update considering more than half of the community had never played on a big map in a league game, or had any idea they were allowed.

But your too busy trying to prove your right to even care about updating the rules...

Well, it's time to lock this thread.

Anyone who is unsure of a rule from this point forward, just check MI's games, if he has played in a similar style game, or made any quote about a topic, there's your answer... who needs rules. Just look up MI's quote from last summer, very simple process.

This community no longer has a say in anything, if MI played, it, or spoke about it, it's forever etched in stone.

Just lock the thread, it's clearly going no where.

[MonkeyIsland]

Some schemes are defined within their map. For example Team17 requires to be played in a specific map. TTRR needs to be played in a narrow maze. If you make it wide, it won't be TTRR anymore.

@avirex,
What %60 of the community? You mean the poll in this thread?

The no option's description says the host has the right to trick you. Was that serious? It's like asking a child, do you want these coins that can spin on the table, or do you want this boring dollar bill made out paper?

[ExZo]

plz delete tus site 

[avirex]

Tttr Can not be played on a big map? Sure it can, actually ninja camel made a big map ttrr that was still "narrow".

And t17 had to be played on cavern style map, why can't it be big?

You see...llee llee le le letttttt me sa sa sa say this s s s slowly...

You fools need to update rules, it's been talked about since tus was conceived, almost everyone tells you this... and I thought when I new MOD was discussed a couple years back, it was in hopes to get a MOD that will update rules as complaints come in and warrant changes...

MI, I thought you didn't want to be a dictator, but apparently you are... you have decided since YOU have played big shoppe map, that those are accepted. Senator decided because you made a quote last year about ttrr games big maps are not accepted...

But your more recent quote is they have to be narrow maps? Ninja camel has a narrow big map ttrr will that be accepted?

Does anyone see the point here? The rules should be updated. Or should we just always base the rules off what MI does, or says next?

PS: you never said how many coins your offering the child, I'm a gambling man, I would take the coins.

[Husk]

woah slow down avi, updating the rules is a bad idea indeed, it would be much simpler if we just looked up game chats of Monkey Island playing a shopper game back at say... 2015?

[avirex]

Don't forget quotes too husk...

I believe MI quoted back in the summer of 1992 sarcasm could result in a ban.

***warns husk***

[Sensei]

Last time TUS did major change there were like.. 200 votes in the poll. And it actually didn't change anything, afaik, activity might have dropped since then.

Now couple of you busting mods balls over some big map shit for last 2 weeks? I wouldn't interfeer but it literally takes 1 sec to see if map is big or normal size. This site have bigger worries than this shit. Let it be.

[avirex]

Another person missing the point... the topic is updating the rules, map size is just an example dude.. wait another week and the will be a different example in complaint threads.. and senator will be making some ruling based off his emotions, or MI's quote from the winter of 03'

But while your at it, what's the sites bigger problems? A shitty set of rules? OK, I'm done responding in this thread...

It's obvious there is a clear divide, people who see the problem, and know there should be change.

And people who want to talk about map size.

[Senator]

As a side note, that quote was about wide Big RR maps that are used for Big RR scheme. I asked MI's opinion and then voided a TTRR game that was played on a map meant for Big RR scheme.

Over the last year, there has been complaints about avoiding players/schemes and now about big maps. We had discussions on avoiding and people (including me) suggested some rule changes but no changes have been made yet. While the current ruling may not be perfect, the changes people suggest have usually loopholes or lead to another problem. If I find a rule/practice that has been applied to this point, I can't make a new rule and apply that to the case (the current rules/practices are not so horrible that I couldn't apply them). I can suggest a new rule and start applying it to future cases.