Just a note, since it looks like one guy doesn't understand -Disallowed means you can't do it in the game.  Allowed means you *can* do it in the game. 

@ Kokujin - no punishment necessary in a community as small as this one - if two teams of established players go so far as to set the rules beforehand and then one team breaks those rules I imagine no one with skill will want to play with them - solves itself

@ woppin - either put HR or House Rules in the title or if you get enough people in a game whom you recognize as good enough to take advantage of the various mechanics listed then call it in lobby.  It's shorthand for "don't do anything too shady that forces me into a very narrow playstyle"

@ Shadow - the minions in citadel thing isn't directed @ you - it's a larger issue which ties into HoB - 4 players with minions HoB zerg into an opponent's citadel at level 7 - no counter currently exists to that except doing it faster

@ Shadow and Dustbin - Spirit attacks on Crucible can be countered more effectively than zerging on other maps, imo.  Still not ideal but not totally broken compared to how it used to be in Beta 2

@ ScottishAlien - Backdooring for purposes of this convo refers to caplocking an opponent portal - specifically on Crucible it is possible to warp across the gap in back of a base and cap the portal with minimal exposure - Erebus has a natural advantage with this because he can bat swarm, but any general with Cloak of Night or any player with Warpstone can achieve the same end.  The advantage can be mitigated by good players, which is why it doesn't qualify as Disallowed, imo

The DoTA rule against Backdooring doesn't apply to Demigod, at least partially because a portal flag can be reclaimed, where as a destroyed barracks can not

I'm tending to ignore both Crucible and Exile for purposes of these rules, as at this point I don't know of a lot of experienced players who play those maps against other experienced players.  So if you are missing the crystal exploit on Exile that's why - we all know the map is broken as is.

I'm also cutting out purely social behaviors like ragequitting or host quits, because they aren't game mechanics, they are personality traits

We play the game we have - which is why some ground rules, no matter how misguided or unpalatable they might be, can work some of the time between two like-minded teams who, again, don't want to be forced into narrowly countering broken mechanics, right here, right now... 

When the state of play changes favorably I will be the first guy at the table to yell "Anything goes!"

Until that time this list serves as convenient shorthand for those who want to use it and nothing more

@ Shadow and Dustbin - Spirit attacks on Crucible can be countered more effectively than zerging on other maps, imo.  Still not ideal but not totally broken compared to how it used to be in Beta 2

No, it's uncounterable.

I agree on disallowance of quitting.

But I heavily disagree on coencede. Imho you should concede if it's clear who wins.

I had several games where one side was clearly better in every possible way or in other words: where the outcome of the game was clear after 8- 15 minutes. Still they just ran on sight etc and didn't conceded.

E.g. I played a 2v2 where we killed them on any fight where they didnt run. We hold all 3 flags on Prison for ~80% of the time. But due to Demigods poor flag math (compared to WoW Battlegrounds) we were not to much in lead in warscore to buy catas or giants soon. They bought only running speed items to stale the match since they were not so bad that we could push their pace without catas.

Horrrible match and I hope inhouse Rules can prevent such bad sportsmanship.

In starcraft, warcraft etc. the pros don't wait till the last building goes down, they give up to save the winners time. Castling to stale the match is seen as bad manners.

It doesn't give you an advantage if you're playing against people who know how to properly deal with minions.

This is not Starcraft, nor Warcraft, and most players here aren't 'pros'. If you're going to model your behaviour after the elite and overly dedicated players of another game, that's your business. I only concede if all the members of my Team ask me to. I learn a lot more by seeing how the last few minutes play out - such as their DPS and Health, to see what Artifacts they've stacked which help me to piece together where my team and I went wrong - then I do by quiting one game to join another and repeat the same mistakes.

That's rather vague. Care to elaborate?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think concede is a great featue and in no way wish to see it removed. Believe me, I've had my ass handed to me a few times, and am very thankful I was able to bow out rather than wait for the opposing side to rip me a new one. As I said, if my team asks me, I'll concede. I don't want my actions ruining someone elses game experience. Having said that, I played with one player who's name I forgot who - after every death - would click the concede button. Every time he died, he'd rage on about how we're a terrible team and we should just quit. We actually won that game, and I discovered the best way to handle an Erebus Minion build out of it as well. Conceding is, in my opinion, for those moments where it's obvious that one team is just plain better than the other team and so much so that there is no contest. That's just my two cents.

The orginal argument:

p1. Players should act like pros.

p2. Pros let other players finish their citadel when they lose

Therefore players should let the victors finish citadels before conceding.

The rebuttal was an attack on the second premise.

His argument was

p1. Waiting for the last building to be destroyed in WCIII or SC is like waiting for the citadel to die in DG

p2. Professionals don't wait for the last building to be destroyed

Therefore if players should act like pros, they should not wait for the citadel to fall.

Then you responded that most players aren't pros which you amended to no players are pros. It's completely beside the point, it doesn't address anyone's presmises or conclusions. What does it have to do with players who want to act like pros?

You're a third party who may be right about what you're talking about (I think you are actually), but interjecting it here did not make sense.

-edit- I misread your post so hopefully you didn't read the first iteration of this post which was completely different.

i dont have fun continuing to play a match that is clearly lost for the others. if there is still room for a comeback it's a diffrent story. but often it is more then clear that there is absolutly no chance for it .