Sacked in FM2010

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Personally, i'm not for the idea... As people have said it'll be good for new consumers to the game.

The game has tutorials in it, as well as if your starting new then you really should start from the bottom and work your way up, just like a real life manager would have to (ones that aren't that famous from their playing days). This new button would hinder them as they would not likely improve knowing that they wont be sacked, and therefore are not that likely going to enjoy the game when they dont win anything.

Why "should" the player have to start at the bottom and work our way up if that is not how they wish to play the game and another option is posible?

Unsackability does not hinder anything (if it can be coded successfully), it just prevents sacking!

Who says you cannot enjoy the game if you dont win anything? - if that were true (here is a slice of realism for you!), 90% of English League / Prem clubs would have no support left after 5 years of Utd / Chelsea domination.

When that particular coach & horses has finished trampling though the centre of your so called "arguement" you may wish to consider that your post may be yet another vain attempt to present opinion as fact, I am afraid.

For what it is worth I wouldnt use it (unsackable) either, but I do use an official cheat code in Gran Turismo 4 which eliminates the boring license tests and it hasnt done me any harm - its how I want to play the game and as I pay my money I make my choice.

[bearsy]

Yes I did mean that, but IF my estimate of 50/50 were right. I started to do a straw poll of the Posters in this thread then realised...(apart from wasting valuable FM playing time) it doesnt really matter, although we disagree about the OP's suggestion you are right in a certain respect - SI will only include it if it is warranted, and neither your or my opinions prove that conclusively one way or the other. Something I had not alluded to also is the very good suggestion made several times - a good tutorial (and other aids) would maybe prevent the need for the inexperienced to desire "unsackable", leaving just the "stay with one club at all costs" long term gamers who also struggle with tactics, and as you probably attempted to highlight, though I may have missed it, there ultimately may not be so many of those.

I must just highlight the weakness of your maths though:

50/50 (if correct) means half desire hence not a majority against, hence should be considered.

10% is clearly not representative of the thread's "we want it" contributors (50% would be a much closer estimate), but as I said, I dont really want to debate the exact percentage as it is subject to too many variables (Posters in favour who wouldnt use it, Posters who believe it uncodeable hence wont support it but with no proof to back that up, etc.).

And the thread is not pointless as it has had some vibrant worthwhile discusssion included. Also to my knowledge no one in the know has deemed this officially "an unrealistic idea", even a mod who suggested it was not worthwhile, when pointed in the direction of the option actually existing in FML (! - I didnt know that!), trotted off to reconsider his opinion (not sure he actually changed his mind in the end though, to be fair). So regarding unsackable not appearing in FM10 - true, is probably too late but FM11 is another story - naysayers do not count your chickens....

My opinion is "biased" as it is my opinion - how could an opinion not be?????? !

Interestingly, some over-lively debate this afternoon made our own little keyboard jousting look like handbags at 10 paces, but I was pleased that the mods calmed that and let the debate continue - another indication that the subject is being taken quite seriously, I imagine.

I think ultimately we disagree on why we would include the unsackable option. You, and I may be wrong here, feel that the unsackable option for beginners allows them to learn how to play the game without the fear of the sack. I do not see firstly how staying unsacked at a club teaches you anything. Thats the difference. I personally feel that tutorials and assistant managers 'advice' during match day teach you far more than just staying unsacked.

Secondly, if you count up how many different posters there have been in this thread and made more than one comment I think you find it was fairly few. Less than 20 I'd bet (but dont quote me, although knowing you as I have come to I bet you do ). Now consider how many members there are of these forums, let alone buy the game, then to come out with a ridiculous 50/50 is well laughable

I can see that there have been passionate posts from both myself and others against the idea, whilst there have been a couple of people on your 'side' arguing for it. Largely however, the comments have come from only a handful of people, and not all the comments have been on on topic and constructive. So to say the issue has been taken seriously is perhaps a bit far. To be honest we could have discussed this in the pub and it would have been taken just as seriously. The fact that SI have not even commented on it suggests that it is not being considered as seriously as you would like

And the fact a mod had to calm two people down is due to the fact that they were doing their job. They read every thread to check for abuse and sort those needing sorted. I wouldn't read anything into it.

[bearsy]

Unsackability does not hinder anything (if it can be coded successfully), it just prevents sacking!

Nor does it actually teach them anything

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

I think ultimately we disagree on why we would include the unsackable option. You, and I may be wrong here, feel that the unsackable option for beginners allows them to learn how to play the game without the fear of the sack. I do not see firstly how staying unsacked at a club teaches you anything. Thats the difference. I personally feel that tutorials and assistant managers 'advice' during match day teach you far more than just staying unsacked.

Secondly, if you count up how many different posters there have been in this thread and made more than one comment I think you find it was fairly few. Less than 20 I'd bet (but dont quote me, although knowing you as I have come to I bet you do ). Now consider how many members there are of these forums, let alone buy the game, then to come out with a ridiculous 50/50 is well laughable

I can see that there have been passionate posts from both myself and others against the idea, whilst there have been a couple of people on your 'side' arguing for it. Largely however, the comments have come from only a handful of people, and not all the comments have been on on topic and constructive. So to say the issue has been taken seriously is perhaps a bit far. To be honest we could have discussed this in the pub and it would have been taken just as seriously. The fact that SI have not even commented on it suggests that it is not being considered as seriously as you would like

And the fact a mod had to calm two people down is due to the fact that they were doing their job. They read every thread to check for abuse and sort those needing sorted. I wouldn't read anything into it.

Agreed RE Ass Man advice, that is the major aid -no arguements! There are though many who do not want to be "taught" they just want to experience, you should try to grasp that - it is very important to the debate. eg When I look at the night sky I just want to enjoy the view, the experience (for me) is not enriched by knowing what the planets are called, their sizes, their relative distance from Earth etc etc.

Also quite right RE pro & con opinions in one thread being not wholey representative, of course they are not. Still think its 50/50 of those taking a "view" but many, many more Posted without stating their side in the debate, I referred to that anomaly in the figs last post. If someone got elected to Paliament on such returns there would be an outcry! :-)

Your last point has flushed out me for being Devils advocate I admit - guilty as charged :-P

[bearsy]

Agreed RE Ass Man advice, that is the major aid -no arguements! There are though many who do not want to be "taught" they just want to experience, you should try to grasp that - it is very important to the debate. eg When I look at the night sky I just want to enjoy the view, the experience (for me) is not enriched by knowing what the planets are called, their sizes, their relative distance from Earth etc etc.

Also quite right RE pro & con opinions in one thread being not wholey representative, of course they are not. Still think its 50/50 of those taking a "view" but many, many more Posted without stating their side in the debate, I referred to that anomaly in the figs last post. If someone got elected to Paliament on such returns there would be an outcry! :-)

Your last point has flushed out me for being Devils advocate I admit - guilty as charged :-P

OK, so am I to assume now that you want the unsackable option to be added so that those who are rubbish at the game can have the experience of managing their favourite team without the fear of the sack? If you were to go into your local gamestore on the day that FM10 went on sale and were to ask those buying it 'why are you buying this game?' They would more than likely respond 'To manage my favourite team'. To truly enjoy the experience you must have as realistic an environment as possible, other wise you are not using the game in the manner you bought it for initially. How can you enjoy the highs, without ever experiencing the lows? Just look at the Man U fans aged 10-15 years. They win a trophy every year, or every other. Must become second nature to them. Now look at Portsmouth winning the FA cup, or Chelsea when they won the league under Mourinho after so long. Bet that will leave a memory in their hearts for years to come. Whereas a United fan probably won't even remember where they were when they won the league 3 years ago. Football management is like that. To truly experience managing your team you must have highs and lows.

To add an unsackable option will move us down a road that I do not want to comprehend. You see if we justify the introduction of 'unsackable', then surely we can use similar arguments to add 'unlimited transfer funds', 'choose your own bank balance' or academy's that 'garuntee the next Henry'. If we start adding these 'gimmicks' then the flood gates open and we have moved the game's aim so far away from the original Collyer idea back in the 90s (forgive me if I got the date wrong;))

I appreciate what you said before about being realism being a double edged sword. There are things in the game that are unrealistic, but at the moment they are the developers best way of modelling areas of real life within the game environment. They are not intentionally there to reduce realism, but remain there until more appropriate ideas are concieved and developed.

I wasn't planning on reopening the realism debate, tbh I didnt really get involved in the last one. I doubt, tiger, that we will ever agree, and you know what...thats ok Life would be boring if everyone drove meganes, ate roast chicken and listened to Madonna. Personally I can't stand Madonna. Daft muscley woman! Anyway, lol, I shall leave this topic with that last thought

[x42bn6]

So it's an unsackable option, that takes absolutely nothing else into account, the only change is that you can't get sacked and regardless of how unrealistic that is, the people who use it will have to put up with unrealistic features like terrible confidence, but not getting the sack? Absolute nonesense, afaic.

Unsackable is unrealistic enough, no? Nonsense may imply further related nonsense, of course.

[x42bn6]

- I was enforcing the point that x42bn6's code ignored areas of thegame that would render this feature pathetic.

It's dummy code! Written in Java, and I'd imagine this game is written in C++. Obviously the logic is not perfect as legally I'm not allowed to reverse-engineer the game to write proper code.

I'm simply remarking that if SI have organised their code properly, the coding itself is not difficult if they can work out exactly what unsackable should entail.

[bardock]

I can't see why anyone would be against this idea.

It's an option that can be ignored by those who don't want to use it.

It really is a personal preference.

Some people might like the fact that they can never be sacked. 2/4 of the friends I introduced this game to lost interest the second they got sacked by the club they support. They were going on about how much they loved the game up to that point. Once they got sacked they felt like it was impossible so they stopped playing.

I think it'll go well with the tutorial and Ass Man instructions.

[Antonin]

Hi!

Will it be possible to click a 'Not able to get sacked' button in FM2010?

With every version of FM, I ask this question. And every time, I get flamed. This is the rudest board I've ever been a member of. Not only do the people here not want anybody to have options that they, personally, would never use, but they even flame people asking basic questions about becoming a better FM player.

I've been a member of this board since 2001, and is what my experience has been. I can't understand why so many people on this board are the way they are.

I want a 'can't get fired' button because I want to manage the team I support, period. I want time to develop tactics that work. I want time to find players that can implement those tactics. Maybe I'm not the best FM player, maybe I have always had problems cracking the AI or finding its weaknesses. So what? It's a game, and it should be fun.

If I get relegated out of the lowest playable league, fair enough. Game over, start again. But getting relegated once, or failing to make the top 4, and getting relegated, well, so what. It's a game. It's not fun to not have the time to implement the plans I want to implement for my team.

THIS IS A GAME, PEOPLE. It's not preparing you for life as an actual football manager. It's entertainment. It's something to do when I come home from work on a snowy or rainy day. Something that I can use to divert my thoughts from my stressful job, my mother-in-law's illness, news about the war, etc.

If you want to take the challenge of being fired, that's fine. More power to you.

I just want to enjoy the fantasy of managing Rochdale, or Ebbsfleet, or whomever, as long as I want--or until I get relegated out of the lowest playable league. This game should not be an exercise in frustration.

My of playing, my way of enjoying the game I'm paying for, has NO RELATION AT ALL to how you enjoy your game.

Flame away. I could not possibly care less. Most of you have nothing to offer but insults and flames.

YES, some of us, maybe many of us, would really appreciate a 'can't get fired' button.

Please, SI, implement this in the upcoming game.

[Flemming1966]

With every version of FM, I ask this question. And every time, I get flamed. This is the rudest board I've ever been a member of. Not only do the people here not want anybody to have options that they, personally, would never use, but they even flame people asking basic questions about becoming a better FM player.

I've been a member of this board since 2001, and is what my experience has been. I can't understand why so many people on this board are the way they are.

I want a 'can't get fired' button because I want to manage the team I support, period. I want time to develop tactics that work. I want time to find players that can implement those tactics. Maybe I'm not the best FM player, maybe I have always had problems cracking the AI or finding its weaknesses. So what? It's a game, and it should be fun.

If I get relegated out of the lowest playable league, fair enough. Game over, start again. But getting relegated once, or failing to make the top 4, and getting relegated, well, so what. It's a game. It's not fun to not have the time to implement the plans I want to implement for my team.

THIS IS A GAME, PEOPLE. It's not preparing you for life as an actual football manager. It's entertainment. It's something to do when I come home from work on a snowy or rainy day. Something that I can use to divert my thoughts from my stressful job, my mother-in-law's illness, news about the war, etc.

If you want to take the challenge of being fired, that's fine. More power to you.

I just want to enjoy the fantasy of managing Rochdale, or Ebbsfleet, or whomever, as long as I want--or until I get relegated out of the lowest playable league. This game should not be an exercise in frustration.

My of playing, my way of enjoying the game I'm paying for, has NO RELATION AT ALL to how you enjoy your game.

Flame away. I could not possibly care less. Most of you have nothing to offer but insults and flames.

YES, some of us, maybe many of us, would really appreciate a 'can't get fired' button.

Please, SI, implement this in the upcoming game.

Spot on, thx mate ;-)

[lovingthegreen]

With every version of FM, I ask this question. And every time, I get flamed. This is the rudest board I've ever been a member of. Not only do the people here not want anybody to have options that they, personally, would never use, but they even flame people asking basic questions about becoming a better FM player.

I've been a member of this board since 2001, and is what my experience has been. I can't understand why so many people on this board are the way they are.

I want a 'can't get fired' button because I want to manage the team I support, period. I want time to develop tactics that work. I want time to find players that can implement those tactics. Maybe I'm not the best FM player, maybe I have always had problems cracking the AI or finding its weaknesses. So what? It's a game, and it should be fun.

If I get relegated out of the lowest playable league, fair enough. Game over, start again. But getting relegated once, or failing to make the top 4, and getting relegated, well, so what. It's a game. It's not fun to not have the time to implement the plans I want to implement for my team.

THIS IS A GAME, PEOPLE. It's not preparing you for life as an actual football manager. It's entertainment. It's something to do when I come home from work on a snowy or rainy day. Something that I can use to divert my thoughts from my stressful job, my mother-in-law's illness, news about the war, etc.

If you want to take the challenge of being fired, that's fine. More power to you.

I just want to enjoy the fantasy of managing Rochdale, or Ebbsfleet, or whomever, as long as I want--or until I get relegated out of the lowest playable league. This game should not be an exercise in frustration.

My of playing, my way of enjoying the game I'm paying for, has NO RELATION AT ALL to how you enjoy your game.

Flame away. I could not possibly care less. Most of you have nothing to offer but insults and flames.

YES, some of us, maybe many of us, would really appreciate a 'can't get fired' button.

Please, SI, implement this in the upcoming game.

Exactly. If I just want to manage and see how long I can last at a club, etc., etc., then status quo is great. However, if I just want to take one club through the ups and downs of years - even decades - with them, that is unfortunately not possible with how the game is set up currently.

[Elrithral]

It's dummy code! Written in Java, and I'd imagine this game is written in C++. Obviously the logic is not perfect as legally I'm not allowed to reverse-engineer the game to write proper code.

Sorry, I wasn't saying that your code was wrong, I was saying that the opinion that it is simply changing a line of code and ignoring morale etc is nonsense. I'm sure the codes fine, but the idea that this feature is simple, is nonsense.

My of playing, my way of enjoying the game I'm paying for, has NO RELATION AT ALL to how you enjoy your game.

Yes it does, as has been discussed at length throughout this thread. Adding this feature will take time, testing and/or money. Time to develop, which will take time away from other areas of the game and other new additions, which in turn directly affects every FM gamer. Testing time, less time spent testing the most important areas of the game as time is spent testing an unsackable option and all case scenarios, this could lead to more bugs going unnoticed, directly affecting every FM gamer. Money, if SI aren't willing to move development people to take care of this function, they'll have to hire more people, which costs them money, which in the end could mean the game costs more, directly affecting every single FM gamer.

I've been a member of this board since 2001, and is what my experience has been. I can't understand why so many people on this board are the way they are.

Perhaps if you read some of the arguments for and against this feature, you would realise that this is a very finely balanced discussion with lots of excellent points on both sides. Perhaps if you read them and don't ignore them/repeat points that have already been discussed to death, you'd find people more willing to enter discussion and less likely to be rude.

"It's a game", "it's a simulation", "it doesn't affect anyone elses game" and "it would be simple to implement" are all moot points, that have been discussed to death and countered with excellent arguments throughout.

It really is time to move on from this petty points and hopefully return to civilised discussion regards feasibility and implementation.

[thebigman1985]

How is it a moot point if it is an option to tick? If you don't want it leave it unticked!

Yes, I've read the thread and seen nothing to deter me from thinking this is a good option for beginners!

[Elrithral]

Are you serious? You didn't even read my post!!

If you actually read the thread you would see that I agree that it is a good option for beginners, but that doesn't mean it's as simple as "if you don't like it, don't use it". I provided reasons in my post, and at no point have I said it is a bad idea, come on! If you're going to get uppity, at least read it properly.

[thebigman1985]

I did, it's a brilliant idea and I don't see it as 'wasting' developer time and testing when they might struggle to attract new players with the complexity of the game.

[Elrithral]

I never said it was a waste of developer time, I said people could see it like that, which suggests that it isn't as simple as saying "if you don't like it, don't use it", as there are deeper, underlying issues that can affect every gamer, regardless of how you perceive it.

This approach is called seeing it from other peoples point of view, atm you're just getting on like the people you're complaining about. There's no difference ebtween someone saying "rubbish idea" and someone saying "yeah, if you don't like it, lump it". They are both moot points, this a far wider discussion, that I had hoped would move on, but you've missed my overall point. :confused:

[Themistofelis]

I want a "turn sucking off" button too , also "replay match" for friendlies so i don't have to reload while testing formations / tactics .

* Some "old users" in here always jump against every innovation , people with different ideas (and new users) can safely ignore them .

**The jokes with "win button" and the likes are old and boring .

***Yes if you don't like it don't use it .

[Elrithral]

Right, i'm outta here, this has got to be a wind up. :confused:

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

You keep saying that you are in favour of this button Elrithral yet you brin gup so many arguments for not implementing it...

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, you either choose to support a cause or you don't. If you choose to support it then you have to accept it will take time etc. If you can't handle that it will take time etc then don't support it.

I think the reason there is so much confusion with your posts is exactly this reason. Yes we need to see both sides to a debate but I'm getting a bit sick of you having to say to people 'I think you don't understand, I support this'. It's boring to read.

Like I said if you support it get behind it and stay that way, if you don't then say you don't. Or is that too simple and this topic has to be much more complex and serious?

After all you are creating a lot of confusion here which isn't good for the thread.

[Elrithral]

Can't I sit on the fence? You wouldn't make a very good politician Leeds Think it's a good idea, but question its viability. Sorry, but I can't see how my comments for and agaisnt, offering a reasoned argument, could be considered confusing. You do it in GCSE for Christ's sake. I expect people to be able to read a post and understand that there are pros and cons, then discuss it, not dismiss it on the premise of "it's a simulation" or "how does it affect you".

I'm offering debate, there's not need for it to be simple or cut and dried. Debate and dicussion should be encouraged, surely? The topic doesn't have to be serious, but in a similar mindset, it doesn't have to be straight forward.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

You said it, you are sitting on the fence. So if you are doing that you can't say to people when they argue with you 'hang on, you don't understand, I support it'.......

I hate it when people sit on the fence, typical bloody Liberal view point on things. Thats why I will never vote for those Liberal clowns, they couldn't make a decision if they were all locked in a room for a week. A good politician is someone who has the courage to stand by his convictions, not someone who sits on a bloody fence!

Yes there are pro's and con's but don't say someone doesn't understand your post, which is patronising, when you are giving off mixed signals! It's like trying to crack on a to a woman who is just out there to get attention, surely you're not doing that are you?

[Elrithral]

I couldn't disagree more. The fact is, they did misunderstand/ignore my post, stating the obvious isn't patronising. As for mixed signals, seriously, how hard is it to grasp the point (not directed at you) that I want this feature, but saying "it's a tick option" is nonsense. How hard is it to realise that whilst someone may like a feature, they may question the chances of working, and encouraging discussion on the matter.

It's not a liberal viewpoint, it's a reasoned viewpoint with justification, which with all due respect, far outweighs a majority of the arguments in this thread. By justifying what you believe and discussing it properly, you providing a stronger argument that is more difficult to argue with, surely thoe who want this feature would appreciate such an approach? Or is it simply a matter of, say what I say or I aint interested.

A good politician is someone who thinks things through, sees all sides of the discussion, then makes a decision when everything is in place and the time is right. Your definition of a good politician is the kind of person who enters war in Iraq on a whim and is then too pig headed to accept their mistakes.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Ah so you vote Liberal then I am guessing?

I always justify what I believe to myself before I state my opinions. Once I have taken one side though I won't support the other. Yes people are arguing saying it will take time and money but I have chosen to support this whatever it takes (within reason). Obviously I realised the implications when I said, yes, good idea. I don't need to post on whether I think it's a bad idea too because I want it in the game and I know why and I know the downsides. So......I support it.

I like the last bit of your post, it's got an opinion which is good!

Now we have discussed this point to death almost can you express your opinion on it? Do you definitely want it or not? Yes or no pleeeeeeeeeaaaaasssse!

[chopper99]

Or is it simply a matter of, say what I say or I aint interested.

Unfortunately this is exactly what it is. I'd give up if I were you Elrithral, all reasoned debate that had gone on in this thread has been lost under the tide of 'If you don't like it don't use it. End of, that's what I think and no-one can possibly disagree with me no matter how reasoned their argument'.

[Elrithral]

Ah so you vote Liberal then I am guessing?

I always justify what I believe to myself before I state my opinions. Once I have taken one side though I won't support the other. Yes people are arguing saying it will take time and money but I have chosen to support this whatever it takes (within reason). Obviously I realised the implications when I said, yes, good idea. I don't need to post on whether I think it's a bad idea too because I want it in the game and I know why and I know the downsides. So......I support it.

I like the last bit of your post, it's got an opinion which is good!

Now we have discussed this point to death almost can you express your opinion on it? Do you definitely want it or not? Yes or no pleeeeeeeeeaaaaasssse!

I do not vote Liberal and I don't think it's appropriate to discuss or downcast someone on a public forum, because of your opinion on their political viewpoint. It's pretty harsh tbh.

I've given an opinion, again, I suggest that you have missed it, throughout and seen what you want to see. I want the feature added, but I think the arguments for it are poor and that those suggesting them have missed a trick. I've stated that from day one, the fact that you've misinterpreted it/ignored it, only proves my point further that you want to hear me agree with you or you aren't interested, that's not a conversation or debate, that's just self importance and ignorance. No offence intended.

[silva_gunner]

OK, heres the problem. This idea's main problem is implementing it. If SI can do this successfully without damaginf the game, then i don't see why they shouldn't. I'm the only one of my mates who still plays FM as everyone else gives up when they get sacked (I just add another manager in the same job ), so an 'unsackable' option would benefit new users, although probably not anyone who uses these forums on a regular basis. As Antonin said, its a game. Most people buying it want it to enjoy. The reason that people on here get other ideas is that your average casual player doesn't spend their spare time on the forums. And finally, i would have loved this when i started playing FM, as it would mena i could do what i wanted without having any worries anout being sacked.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

My random thoughts after reading this interesting thread...

- I personally don't agree that a feature like this would be good to "help new players learn". I would learn more by getting sacked and then restarting from scratch, using my knowledge from the 1st time around, and doing things differently so that I didn't get the sack again (or at least lasted another month or two!). Plus as people like Chopper have mentioned, there are better ways of helping new players learn than implementing this option.

- I can see how this would be a nice feature for the more "casual" player, who just wants to play with their favorite club no matter what, and isn't really all that bothered about the "realism" necessarily.

- The original poster posted again later on (somewhere on page 3 I think?) and made a point that I don't think was picked up on, about him and his mates playing a network game together....

But for, my brother and a few freinds, we would love the unsackable option. Playing for years against each others, at over own pace. And at our favorite club. Keeping manager history and all that stuff.

I know SI is not making this game only for me. This is an options that me and my freinds would love.

It was at that point that I started to think that something like this unsackable feature would be desireable. I haven't played a network game with anyone since CM01/02 (I think? May have been 03/04), when myself and another guy at work took charge of Celtic and Rangers. We went about 8 or 9 seasons I think. I don't know how we would have got on doing the same in FM09? What are the chances that either of those clubs would stick with their managers for that period of time, especially if one of them didn't win the SPL for 3 or 4 consecutive years? One of us getting the sack would have ruined this. The fact that it might be "realistic" would have been of no consolation whatsoever.

- Elrithral, I can see where you're coming from, don't worry. As a programmer myself, I know full well that things are never as easy as they might sound, and adding something like this to the code could be a potential gigantic can of worms. It is something that is worthy of debate and discussion, and isn't just as simple as either "go play fifa" or "if you don't like it, don't use it".

[Elrithral]

- Elrithral, I can see where you're coming from, don't worry. As a programmer myself, I know full well that things are never as easy as they might sound, and adding something like this to the code could be a potential gigantic can of worms. It is something that is worthy of debate and discussion, and isn't just as simple as either "go play fifa" or "if you don't like it, don't use it".

Hooray, i'm not mad

[thebigman1985]

I don't get why you want a long winded and conscise debate on something that if it can be implemented would be desirable for players????

[LeoVieira]

Well, i wouldn't mind having a non-sacking option. But then again, if you're going to add it, better also add a "realistic sacking option", for those who likes to play career saves and change clubs all the time.

Actually i'm going to make a thread about it.

[Elrithral]

Doesn't the fact that you had to use the word "if", speak volumes?

With all due respect, and i'll take a leaf out of your FM philosophy, if you don't want a debate, you don't have to get involved If it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander, don't you think?

[thebigman1985]

I personally think alot more important things deserve debate, like a broken transfer system for starters!!

[Elrithral]

Oh the irony.

You think it isn't worth debating unsackable because we should be debating the broken transfer system, but you don't see a probvlem with SI diverting resources (possible from the transfer system) in order to create the unsackable option :confused:

Can I ask a question? You consider it an acceptable response to tell people who don't want this feature added, "If you don't want it leave it unticked!", with that in mind, would you consider it an acceptable response to tell you, "if you don't want a long winded debate, leave the thread"?

They are identical responses, but it seems the one that suits your point is acceptable, and the other isn't.

[thebigman1985]

I just think that if this is easily done then awesome, add it....I won't use it but if it helps others I like the sound of it!

I diddn't explain my previous post, but I meant that if we are going to have 4 pages of debate it would be better for something broken in the game like the transfer system when the unsackable issue should've been solved within about 3 posts lol

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

When did I say I wanted you to agree with me Erithral? I said do you want it, yes or no....that is giving you the chance to say yes or no isn't it? It isn't saying agree with me, no doubt you'll find a way to twist it though.

As for discussing people's political choices, whats the problem? I don't see any. I just have an opinion on Liberal.

Anyway I have had enough of your fence sitting, it bores me so I think I'll leave you to discuss this to death, again.

On topic: It should be implemented in my opinion, simple. To discuss it from coding/time/money point of view is pointless unless you are a senior figure at SI.

[Ceching You Out]

Elrithal, you're decidedly set in believing that reason and logic can open even the most stubborn minds. It's either quite noble or naive, and hell if I know which.

Leeds x 3's "sitting on the fence" statement is just about the most dangerous argument I've heard in the last few years. The point of discussion/debate/politics isn't to amass support for your cause and lead it into battle against the barbarians of the opposite opinion; there's no "Great Satan" or "terrorists" behind every bush pushing for/against an "unsackable" option. You don't get extra lives or coins for drumming up irrational support for your side. The point here is to have a reasoned argument where we discuss the positives and negatives.

And if after summing up all the pros/cons for both sides of the debate there is still no consensus, at least there's a better understanding of the issue by all (open-minded) parties involved. Only fundamentalists live in an entirely black and white world; most people's lives are spent in the gray.

On topic: It should be implemented in my opinion, simple. To discuss it from coding/time/money point of view is pointless unless you are a senior figure at SI.

Or have some experience in the software coding or development area. People consistently underestimate the amount of effort needed to add functionality to software. Even if it turns out to be an amazingly quick coding issue, that potential risk is worth discussing because it have implications on the overall decision of whether to add the feature or not.

[Nomis07]

- I am in favour of the idea.

I said do you want it, yes or no....

:confused: .

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Thanks Cech, thats possibly the funniest post I have ever seen. 'Most dangerous argument' lmao.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

:confused: .

Yes Nomis, he then goes on to say why he doesnt think it is a good idea in several posts, I am confused too....

[Nomis07]

I'm not confused. I see what he's saying, understand it, enjoyed Cech's excellent post and think you're a nutter. Simples.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Thanks , I'll keep my opinions on you where they should be, to myself. Wouldn't want to lower myself to your level. After all I doubt people who have mental problems appreciate terms like 'nutter' being thrown about.

[Nomis07]

After all I doubt people who have mental problems appreciate terms like 'nutter' being thrown about.

You tell me.

[bearsy]

You tell me.

Geez what are you guys, five years old? Either get back on topic or start throwing your handbags elsewhere.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Don't patronise me bearsy, your post hardly moves the thread on now does it? And I think you will find he was the one throwing insults around this time...

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Sorry guys but I have to say if I was a Mod I would have stepped in at this point and said something along the lines of "please do not bicker using Politically incorrect terms of abuse, please get back on topic. The word "Nutter" is inacceptable"

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I reported it, clearly they are reacting with speed....

[dafuge]

Please try not to pointlessly bicker, this has been an interesting thread up until this point.

[Nomis07]

I apologise to dafuge, I like him.

[Kriss]

I have a great idea as this thread has wandered far from it's creators intended course.

Give people time to ponder on what constitutes reasonable and constructive posting:thup: