Conquer Club

There is a certain strategy that revolves around trying to convince other players to do your bidding. I, personally, find this strategy a little abrasive, and I feel like it would be nice to be able to tag it. There is currently nothing like it, except maybe "cheap tactics", but I don't think that fits well. It isn't so much cheap, as manipulative. Thoughts?

How about "persuasive" instead of "manipulative"?
It has a more positive tone and hence is more likely to be approved - although I know you were wanting something a bit more obviously critical.
Perhaps though using "persuasive" with "cheap tactics" would get the message across?
This would allow "persuasive" with "good strategy" to be used to give a more positive impression?

Personally I think subtly persuading an opponent to assist you is all part of the game and so, even if I got conned and annoyed, I'd probably still use the second pairing.
If someone was being really extreme and just pissing everyone one off and ordering them around then probably "bully" is more appropriate anyway.

Personally, I think there should be a bevvy of rating tags. I'll be posting a suggested list and layout soon. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a positive, neutral, and negative spin to every "tag-type". The more expressive we can be with tagging, the better I think.

I think a custom tag could solve all of issues with there not being enough tags... Just a short one, 20 characters max...

hecter wrote:I think a custom tag could solve all of issues with there not being enough tags... Just a short one, 20 characters max...

Unfortunately, this then opens up the problem of ratings needing to be moderated again, which is too time-consuming. Personally, I would rather have mods spend their time on more important issues and be less overloaded with work that is unnecessary

I don't know why you'd really have to moderate that though... Somebody saying something mean on your ratings isn't going to kill you...

cicero wrote:How about "persuasive" instead of "manipulative"?
It has a more positive tone and hence is more likely to be approved - although I know you were wanting something a bit more obviously critical.
Perhaps though using "persuasive" with "cheap tactics" would get the message across?
This would allow "persuasive" with "good strategy" to be used to give a more positive impression?

Personally I think subtly persuading an opponent to assist you is all part of the game and so, even if I got conned and annoyed, I'd probably still use the second pairing.
If someone was being really extreme and just pissing everyone one off and ordering them around then probably "bully" is more appropriate anyway.

How about both

hecter wrote:I don't know why you'd really have to moderate that though... Somebody saying something mean on your ratings isn't going to kill you...

Cursing and such would become a problem. And insults might not kill you, but many players would not be happy with it, especially if they felt the comment was undeserved.

e_i_pi wrote:Unfortunately, this then opens up the problem of ratings needing to be moderated again, which is too time-consuming.

And now, without suggested feature, there is no need to moderate ratings?

Btw, if I remember correctly, we already have a tag with very similar meaning (to manipulative). I just can't recall it at the moment.

endar1077 wrote:There is a certain strategy that revolves around trying to convince other players to do your bidding. I, personally, find this strategy a little abrasive, and I feel like it would be nice to be able to tag it. There is currently nothing like it, except maybe "cheap tactics", but I don't think that fits well. It isn't so much cheap, as manipulative. Thoughts?

Being "manipulative? or "persuasive" in my opinion is not the same as using "cheap tactic's". there have been many games where i've used the chat to get people to do my bidding for me, it's called politics, or working the system, but there's nothing cheap about it. those of us on CC that use it wisely vastly improve our chances of winning, those that don't use, well, they lose more. I see nothing wrong with adding tags "manipulative" or "persuasive" but i would prefer "persuasive" over the other, as it has a less insulting insinuation to it. Just because someone like myself uses the chat to help there own cause does not mean there cheating or playing cheaply, so the last thing i would want is to be insulted for doing exactly what the game description for CC says should be used....

Alright, persuasive is fine with me... or even "political" in light of the last post. Either way...just something that describes it.

In general, I think it is a difficult balancing act between doubling up terms, and having enough. In general, I would lean more toward having too many tags than not enough, since the tags basically function as "pre-approved comments".

But on the subject of having too many, the only one that comes to my attention right away is "Quitter". How the heck does one go about "quitting"? Is there a difference between this and "Deadbeat"? Has anyone ever tagged someone else as a quitter?

Anyway, that was just a side-note. The point of this thread is to get something to cover the manipulative/persuasive/political behavior that (no matter how much you may try to defend it) I find obnoxious. : )

endar1077

endar1077 wrote:But on the subject of having too many, the only one that comes to my attention right away is "Quitter". How the heck does one go about "quitting"? Is there a difference between this and "Deadbeat"? Has anyone ever tagged someone else as a quitter?

Anyway, that was just a side-note. The point of this thread is to get something to cover the manipulative/persuasive/political behavior that (no matter how much you may try to defend it) I find obnoxious. : )

Re your side-note endar, my understanding of "deadbeat" is simply someone who stops taking their turns at any point in the game hence spoiling it. A "quitter" on the other hand, again by my understanding, is someone who only deadbeats when it becomes apparent that they can't win. You know the kind you're maybe 5 turns from winning and rather than honourably play out the game the player just stops playing because "you were going to win anyway".

And back on topic, yes I agree that (no matter what one's opinion on the behaviour) it would be good to have a tag to describe it

Manipulative hmm? Manipulation is certainly a key element of my game though I would suggest that if one is truly skilled in these dark arts the opposition probably wouldn't be aware they had been manipulated!

I would like to see a thread where we can suggest other key adjectives. The current lot are terribly limiting; I pretty much only use 'good strategy', 'balanced play', 'friendly' and 'brave' (which is actually often a polite criticism in my mind) i.e ******* was brave but his strategy sucked!

endar1077 wrote:There is a certain strategy that revolves around trying to convince other players to do your bidding. I, personally, find this strategy a little abrasive, and I feel like it would be nice to be able to tag it. There is currently nothing like it, except maybe "cheap tactics", but I don't think that fits well. It isn't so much cheap, as manipulative. Thoughts?

are you serious? its a frickin game big deal

grainbelt wrote:are you serious? its a frickin game big deal

[modedit]Thanks for sharing grainbelt. I disagree.[/modedit]

Mr Changsha wrote:Manipulative hmm? Manipulation is certainly a key element of my game though I would suggest that if one is truly skilled in these dark arts the opposition probably wouldn't be aware they had been manipulated!

Not that this is entirely relevant, but I'm not usually the one manipulated. The circumstance that I've experienced a few times is that I take my turn and go away. Then someone who is clearly in the lead (perhaps on a fog map, so not so obvious if you don't know how to read logs well), convinces another player that I'm a serious threat and need to be weakened. So, before I even had a chance to say something in defense, I've been crippled by the third player, and of course the one that made all this happen suddenly gets 500 reinforcements (because he was the one that needed crippling all along) and wipes everyone out. That is manipulation, persuasion, etc. I don't like loosing that way, but so be it, it's a strategy. So let's make a tag for it!

endar1077 wrote:

grainbelt wrote:are you serious? its a frickin game big deal

[modedit]Thanks for sharing grainbelt. I disagree.[/modedit]

Mr Changsha wrote:Manipulative hmm? Manipulation is certainly a key element of my game though I would suggest that if one is truly skilled in these dark arts the opposition probably wouldn't be aware they had been manipulated!

Not that this is entirely relevant, but I'm not usually the one manipulated. The circumstance that I've experienced a few times is that I take my turn and go away. Then someone who is clearly in the lead (perhaps on a fog map, so not so obvious if you don't know how to read logs well), convinces another player that I'm a serious threat and need to be weakened. So, before I even had a chance to say something in defense, I've been crippled by the third player, and of course the one that made all this happen suddenly gets 500 reinforcements (because he was the one that needed crippling all along) and wipes everyone out. That is manipulation, persuasion, etc. I don't like loosing that way, but so be it, it's a strategy. So let's make a tag for it!

Completely agree - incidentally the player described would be getting top ratings from me.

My other point was that you should have this thread branch out to include other useful tags as well - personally I would like to be able to choose between hundreds.

It would be even better if CC's customers could be trusted to write prose without trying to maliciously attack their opponents after a loss, but I am probably asking too much from humanity (teenage humanity I would suppose)...

endar1077 wrote:

grainbelt wrote:are you serious? its a frickin game big deal

[modedit]Thanks for sharing grainbelt. I disagree.[/modedit]

Mr Changsha wrote:Manipulative hmm? Manipulation is certainly a key element of my game though I would suggest that if one is truly skilled in these dark arts the opposition probably wouldn't be aware they had been manipulated!

Not that this is entirely relevant, but I'm not usually the one manipulated. The circumstance that I've experienced a few times is that I take my turn and go away. Then someone who is clearly in the lead (perhaps on a fog map, so not so obvious if you don't know how to read logs well), convinces another player that I'm a serious threat and need to be weakened. So, before I even had a chance to say something in defense, I've been crippled by the third player, and of course the one that made all this happen suddenly gets 500 reinforcements (because he was the one that needed crippling all along) and wipes everyone out. That is manipulation, persuasion, etc. I don't like loosing that way, but so be it, it's a strategy. So let's make a tag for it!

Wow you are cool

Dear Grainbelt,

That is not the issue at hand. The issue is what can be done to improve the quality of the game (by allowing people to select opponents that they will enjoy playing). That is the point of the rating system.

Now, how about that rating tag?

endar1077

P.S. I am cool, thank you.