Warning: beamer88

[friendjonny]

To save time... I'll just copy and paste the negative feedback I left him into this post.

"As a service to all high ranked players who don't want to gamble their points away, I leave this feedback. This negative feedback has nothing to do with the fact that beamer88 eliminated me. That was just bad strategy on his part (because it weakened him alot). He is receiving a negative from me because he suicided into green pointlessly (no cards game). Here is the whole story. beamer88 was originally the strongest player and owned australia. When he moved nearly all his armies next to my armies, I attacked him a little to send a clear message that either he needed to move or he would be severely weakened. He took me out and in the process lost australia and, of course, his power. The new owner of australia (pink) quickly became the strongest player... so beamer88 decided to suicide into green (duh!). Of course, beamer88 lost and pink won because after suiciding into green, there were no players strong enough to slow pink down."

Basically, playing with beamer88 is gambling with your points.

[oVo]

Every game you join is gambling your points. Does Pink also get a neg for killing everyone after hoarding his small bonus and stomping the aggressive beamer88 who received a 5 bonus for most of the rounds when everyone else only got the basic 3 in that game ?

beamer88 has 153 complete games with a 36% win rate, yet is a cadet for whatever that's worth...

[friendjonny]

Every game is not a gamble of points. Most players tend to attack people for their own benefit.

Why would I leave pink a neg? Pink didn't suicide into anyone silly.

Also, read my feedback I left him. I didn't leave him a negative for eliminating me. If he eliminated me but hadn't suicided into green afterwards, I wouldn't have left a negative.

The situation isn't really that hard to understand.

[owenshooter]

doesn't sound like neg feedback worthy to me. sounds like you got eliminated in a game and are pissed that he didn't play how you thought he should play. when you play public games, you can not expect everyone to play responsibly and how you think the game should be played. you lost your points, big deal... feedback is a bit weak if you ask me...-0

[jimboston]

I think it's funny that you left negative for something that happened AFTER you got eliminated. It wasn't how he played when you were alive... only after? Seems like a stretch.

Can I scan games I'm not playing in at all and leave negative feedback for people when I don't like their play?

It's not a far leap from what you are saying.

That's certainly good reason to go on the ignore list I would think.

Maybe it's negative worthy... maybe not... but I think there's more to the reason than you say.

[friendjonny]

doesn't sound like neg feedback worthy to me. sounds like you got eliminated in a game and are pissed that he didn't play how you thought he should play. when you play public games, you can not expect everyone to play responsibly and how you think the game should be played. you lost your points, big deal... feedback is a bit weak if you ask me...-0

Yeah... I understand the fact that he eliminated me makes my feedback look weak. I would've left the negative feedback had I not been eliminated (because it annoys me when player A forgets about trying to win and instead ruins the game for player B giving player C, who already had an advantage, an easy, obstacle free win) but I can't prove that of course.

I think it's funny that you left negative for something that happened AFTER you got eliminated. It wasn't how he played when you were alive... only after? Seems like a stretch.

Can I scan games I'm not playing in at all and leave negative feedback for people when I don't like their play?

It's not a far leap from what you are saying.

That's certainly good reason to go on the ignore list I would think.

Maybe it's negative worthy... maybe not... but I think there's more to the reason than you say.

Leaving a negative for things that happen after you get eliminated isn't that much of a stretch... unless you only care about bad things that happen to you.
Anyways, the piont here isn't the negative I left him (I copied and pasted the negative so that I wouldn't have to type it all again). I posted this so that other players who don't want to lose their points having another player suicide into them, can put beamer88 on their ignore list. I have always appreciated other CCers posting here about such players so that I don't fall into the same trap they did so I'm returning the favor.

If I (or another player) lose points, I want it to be because I (or another player was eliminated as a part of someones strategy or bad luck with the dice.

I'm considering taking the negative away since I can't leave it without looking like a possible whiner. Just be warned that playing with this guy is a greater gamble of your points and that he is likely to completely misinterpret the point of your or another player's strategy.

[oVo]

I've lost count of all the games that have turned simly because of the actions of one player.

Most recently...

A player traversed the entire W 2.1 map --China to Brazil via Europe-- just to break my bonus, weakening themeslves to a point they never recovered and ending any chance I had as well. A second player forts all his armies in the middle east and rolls over what I have left in Africa all the way to the borders of S.America... still forting ALL his armies on my border while a third player now holds N.America & Europe --a big bonus in a no cards game-- fortifying his borders and leaving the #2 player's undefended bonuses intact so he can continue to attack and eliminate me. Once I am out, the third player --holding Europe & N.America-- easily breaks the player #2's unprotected bonus territories for an easy win.

I'm down to a single territory sandwiched between the two stongest players in a no cards game on Italy... but I have forted 15 armies but am in no position to threaten anyone. One of the two deploys all his bonus twice to weaken me and in the process loses his sub-continent bonus to someone else and is now the weakest player in the game... because the other strong guy has now eliminated me.

On W 2.1 it's round 9 and the strongest player makes a 3 round truce with the second strongest player --who has just stretched himself thin to control all of Africa-- and then proceeds to attack everyone else and fort the map where Africa is unreachable. The Africa guy is now the biggest bonus and with a truce protecting his unguarded borders with Europe & Mid East, proceeds to conquer all of South America eliminating that player. The outcome is already determined... with S.America, Africa & a truce . . . there is no touching that guy again... and the game ends in Round 13.

Do I give all these players a neg for making stupid moves and simultaneously ending any chance either of us might have in the game ? No, but #2 guy is on my ignore list and the truce maker who gave away what was shaping up to be a very competitive game probably will too.