ADMINS AND RULES

[AliRadicali]

I would leave the unplayability of conditions on moderators.

I.e. there are tards who will !rmk when player pick techies. This is indeed unreasonable. However if you pick let's say never as first and then observe your allies picking gondar,riki,slark,mortred etc. it is indeed unplayable condition IMO (though u will hardly get another 3 votes).
The same situation is with noob team. If you thing somebody is noob, because enemy sucedeed in fb on him, is different than if he makes battlefury on centaur.

Why would you leave a vague term like "unplayable conditions" open to interpretation? Unplayable conditions could mean anything that a player might consider disruptive, from legitimate problems like 2 seconds of delay to completely retarded reasons like "OMG no tank gg".
You say that we should trust the mods to make the distinction between playable and unplayable conditions, but that doesn't help you IN-GAME. If someone says "amagad we have techies, remake" then you'll probably have a hard time trying to explain how the rule doesn't count for that situation.

A clause to explain what is and isn't an unplayable condition would be helpful in clearing up confusion about this vague rule. Furthermore, it'll probably save mods from having to deal with ban requests for players who think the 40% rule entitles them to a free remake regardless of the situation.
I don't see any downsides here, and this isn't the first time this has been brought up, so why isn't this implemented yet?

Your example is a perfect example of what the rule is NOT meant for. If you pick an awful team in an -ap game it's your own fault if you lose. If you don't want to play a 5 AGI carry team don't firstpick an agi carry, it's that simple.

[Sonic]

How can every idiot become admin??? I put several times ban request when some1 broke UR RULES and admin's denied with no reason...  Elude <-- is he on drugs?   ... I was talking whole time about how team 2 didn't want to rmk when guy left in min 8. and he said : U CAN'T FORCE THEM TO SWITCH !DENIED     ... WTF. DELETE UR RULES WHEN THEY DON'T MEAN NOTHING TO U... FUCKING IDIOTS

Poor guy, you are angry because you fail your request....is the experience

At start, I 90% of my ban request was denied why? Only read rules, Rules are variables, a person who dont rmk at 8 and Finish fast and a person who dont rmk but get stats on fountain against leavers dont have the same punished.

You will know if still make ban request, you will need a good reason of ban, not just a rule broken.

[ArizaelCZ]

@ aliradicali

The term "unplayable conditions" is what is called "general clausule".  If you cut it out and just make list of the conditions you are limiting yourself to this list. If new problem not listed here appears you won't be able to rmk bcs of it.

Simply i would add just few exmples what can be (and what definitly can't ) unplayable condition.

p.s. When i was typing the example above i was thinking on rd. If you have retarded team you probably wanna to rmk despite the fact you won't get votes.

[Domagoj]

@ aliradicali

The term "unplayable conditions" is what is called "general clausule".  If you cut it out and just make list of the conditions you are limiting yourself to this list. If new problem not listed here appears you won't be able to rmk bcs of it.

Simply i would add just few exmples what can be (and what definitly can't ) unplayable condition.

p.s. When i was typing the example above i was thinking on rd. If you have retarded team you probably wanna to rmk despite the fact you won't get votes.

Check this thread http://playdota.eu/forum/index.php/topic,21431.0.html and i believe you will change your opinion about unplayable conditions.  As you can see here, anything was considered unplayable conditions before, even if there was no condition at all. 4 votes = you can leave.

[AliRadicali]

The term "unplayable conditions" is what is called "general clausule".  If you cut it out and just make list of the conditions you are limiting yourself to this list. If new problem not listed here appears you won't be able to rmk bcs of it.

So do the opposite: define what DOESN'T count as unplayable conditions. Something along the lines of "A team's hero picks doesn't count as an unplayable condition. As it stands, with no further information, anything counts as an unplayable condition. This is bad because plenty of reasons why someone would want to remake are "bad" reasons. Narrowing things down by excluding some "bad" reasons doesn't mean that we suddenly need an exhaustive list of every possible acceptable reason to remake.

If "my ally's dog at his mouse so he cannot control his hero" is not on the list of unplayable conditions, that's fine because anyone can figure out that it's a valid excuse (if true). However, one quick glance at the list of exceptions would tell any user or mod that "omg techis GG nab tim" is not.

[NEGERTIVS]

I do agree that listing unplayable conditions has a limiting effect. But right now, there is no general concensus about what they are (or aren't), which means that regardless of how fantastically well the mods interpret each situation on its own, their decisions will be arbitrary.

For example: Domagoj's topic http://playdota.eu/forum/index.php/topic,21431.0.html
He refused to accept "omg techies in team must rmk" as a valid unplayable condition. He was banned for bad hosting by one mod, while another mod might have denied that request because he/she has a different vision on the game.

Listing reasons that do not qualify as unplayable conditions seems like a good change to me, it'll make the 40% vote rmk rule a lot clearer.

[ArizaelCZ]

@ali You are right by i have already written this in my previous post

@Domgaoj

Yes I am familiar with this case and i've expressed my opinion.
The problem here is that there were actualy an unplayable condition. It was, as niceguy stated, the two guys being afk which pretty much ruins the game for other team. They acquired votes and left in comfort with rules.

What is fail here is the afk rule. Normaly it would make sense to ban players after 5 minutes (bannin some1 bcs he is one minute afk is naturaly stupid), but not in this case. The rule should be Player must not stay afk and ruin the game. After the 5th minute you get kick (or votekick) and you can be considered game ruiner.
It wold solve this situation when players stayed afk for less than 5 minute and still ruined the game (by forcing other players to vote !rmk).

So technicaly there is flaw in the rules. You can't ban them for leaving (they got votes), neither for afk (not 5 minutes).But they have ruined the game.
 However since the rules are not obligatory and quon countless times stated that mods use their common sense. Even Mng admited that the guy did wrong.


Summary: Reason why i write this wall of text is to say that mods fail here. Two crying guys ruined the game and host got punished because he disliked it. Moderators have failed to reach the justice here. And justice is what they should try to achive.

[Domagoj]

Looks like were all arguing about the topic that we all agree on.

[Ljubooo]

What's use of leaving if others continiue to play and u get ban? "MODS" don't work by rulles... I put many ban requests for leavers and just get !denied with no explanation ... what I supose to think? "Mod is friend with that guy and he left because he will get unbanned or won't be banned at all" ... If I care for ur forum ban, after experiencing your "work" on forum...

[DuffMan]

The term "unplayable conditions" is what is called "general clausule".  If you cut it out and just make list of the conditions you are limiting yourself to this list. If new problem not listed here appears you won't be able to rmk bcs of it.

So do the opposite: define what DOESN'T count as unplayable conditions. Something along the lines of "A team's hero picks doesn't count as an unplayable condition. As it stands, with no further information, anything counts as an unplayable condition. This is bad because plenty of reasons why someone would want to remake are "bad" reasons. Narrowing things down by excluding some "bad" reasons doesn't mean that we suddenly need an exhaustive list of every possible acceptable reason to remake.

If "my ally's dog at his mouse so he cannot control his hero" is not on the list of unplayable conditions, that's fine because anyone can figure out that it's a valid excuse (if true). However, one quick glance at the list of exceptions would tell any user or mod that "omg techis GG nab tim" is not.

Same problem again. U cannot define what is "not unplayable condition" coz, a contrario, u define what is "unplayable condition". Therfore its better to use exemplary enumeration.
Excuse me if i haven't use precise terms english is not my native language.

[Boki_]

i just can say this..... play by the rules and u will not have probs!!