foggy games first move?

[BigBallinStalin]

you are way off dude. of course someone like joriki would want to have automatic screenshots pre game, it would avoid all this hassle. Since you didn't understand the point, joriki does that so no one has the unfair advantage of hidding territoires he should have seen when the game started. joriki is a fairplay player and is just intolerant to people who are not. Not going to waste more time explaining obvious things.

Obvious lie and bullshit. Betsy you can't yourself. You will be back in this thread like a dog returning to it's vomit.

Unwritten rules are for elitist bellends. Unwritten rules are exclusionary, for arrogant hypocritical trouser stains. Judge people on how they follow the rules, the written rules.

How many social norms, which are unwritten rules, do you follow in one day?

There's plenty of unwritten (informal) rules when it comes to courtship and dating, but if we took you seriously, you'd only restrict yourself to not raping, assaulting, or battering people. Imagine that! BarbarianBogan: "I didn't rape nor abuse a single woman today!" Wow, congratulations! That's already expected of you, numb nuts.

You must be great at conversation--without having to follow the informal rules about socially acceptable behavior. Go forth, barbarians, and woo those women!





Last seen footage of BarbarianGod:




MFW:

[BigBallinStalin]

A gentleman's agreement would require both players to know about it from the off. I've been around CC for a few years and was unaware of it before this thread.

I'm pretty surprised to read that, but this is why I don't try to enforce the rule through deadbeating. I tend to mention it in chat. If it's respected, the opponent receives praise. If it's ignored, the opponent receives no praise.

[BoganGod]

Good to see that BBS does not discriminate between CC, and life outside CC. This is a war/conquest game. Not a game of diplomacy, bowing and air kissing.
Is it against the rules?
Y - Report to relevant moderation experts
N - Pull up your big girl panties and get on with your life

[betiko]

A gentleman's agreement would require both players to know about it from the off. I've been around CC for a few years and was unaware of it before this thread.

I'm pretty surprised to read that, but this is why I don't try to enforce the rule through deadbeating. I tend to mention it in chat. If it's respected, the opponent receives praise. If it's ignored, the opponent receives no praise.

rich does have a point. that's why ronc isn't so much to blame and joriki's reaction is.
Personally, i don't really apply it to 1v1, even less in freestyle games (don't mind telling if i'm asked). for team/ multiplayer/ poly it is just the right thing to do. It's not the end of the world if your opponent doesn't agree to do it, but i think the opponent is being a dick if things are explained nicely and that he doesn't agree to do it, as it's obviously legitimate to ask for it. It just seems like a loophole that a player isn't always able to see the original board before any move is done.

[BigBallinStalin]

Good to see that BBS does not discriminate between CC, and life outside CC. This is a war/conquest game. Not a game of diplomacy, bowing and air kissing.
Is it against the rules?
Y - Report to relevant moderation experts
N - Pull up your big girl panties and get on with your life

I'm just stating the obvious that people follow formal rules and informal rules, which you disagreed with. Even in CC, people follow formal rules and informal rules.

In CC, some players 'game the system' while technically following the rules. Of course, this violates our sense of the informal rules: e.g. don't exploit some loophole in the CC legal system. But, that's exactly what barbarians do: exploit weaknesses within the formal legal system. Instead of being gentlemen who respect a mutually beneficial arrangement, they instead exploit a weakness to gain at the expense of another. No barbarian has yet to challenge this claim.

[BigBallinStalin]

A gentleman's agreement would require both players to know about it from the off. I've been around CC for a few years and was unaware of it before this thread.

I'm pretty surprised to read that, but this is why I don't try to enforce the rule through deadbeating. I tend to mention it in chat. If it's respected, the opponent receives praise. If it's ignored, the opponent receives no praise.

rich does have a point. that's why ronc isn't so much to blame and joriki's reaction is.
Personally, i don't really apply it to 1v1, even less in freestyle games (don't mind telling if i'm asked). for team/ multiplayer/ poly it is just the right thing to do. It's not the end of the world if your opponent doesn't agree to do it, but i think the opponent is being a dick if things are explained nicely and that he doesn't agree to do it, as it's obviously legitimate to ask for it. It just seems like a loophole that a player isn't always able to see the original board before any move is done.

Ideally, I'd like people to respect a mutually beneficial rule for all types of games, but I'm fine with one set of games since we gotta start somewhere.

Yes, it's definitely exploiting a loophole. It's amazing how the barbarians think that not exploiting people is worthy of insult. That's backwards.

[BoganGod]

Name calling does not prove your point bbs. Control the narrative and you control the conversation. The law needs to keep up with those that exploit the loopholes. Otherwise those loopholes are at least quasi sanctioned. With in the rules, been within the rules for years, multiple suggestions to change the FOW thing, still within the rules atm. QED taking turn straight away is sanctioned and endorsed by site.

[BigBallinStalin]

Name calling does not prove your point bbs. Control the narrative and you control the conversation. The law needs to keep up with those that exploit the loopholes. Otherwise those loopholes are at least quasi sanctioned. With in the rules, been within the rules for years, multiple suggestions to change the FOW thing, still within the rules atm. QED taking turn straight away is sanctioned and endorsed by site.

How did "quasi-sanctioned" become "(fully) sanctioned" in your argument? Without explaining this, your "QED..." doesn't follow.

Even if you did explain it, there's still a big problem with your argument. Simply because the law hasn't closed a loophole, it doesn't follow that CC "quasi-sanctions" the exploitative play. Perhaps CC has bigger issues, or perhaps CC would rather rule in neither case and wants to let its users 'figure it out for themselves'--whatever the users' informal rules may be. Saying nothing officially about an informal rule != saying something officially about that informal rule. It's an odd position, BG.


What does "quasi-sanctioned" even mean?
If we apply your current reasoning consistently, then CC fully (or quasi) sanctions exploitative 'farming'. Technically, 'farming' isn't farming because farming is not sanctioned while (according to your reasoning) 'farming' is "quasi-sanctioned" because there's a loophole. But, obviously there's an informal rule against 'farming': again, "don't exploit loopholes." By analogy, your post doesn't make sense.

[BigBallinStalin]

Name calling does not prove your point bbs.

This is what [group X] does: exploit weaknesses within the formal legal system. Instead of being [group Y] who respect a mutually beneficial arrangement, [group X] instead exploits a weakness to gain at the expense of another. No one of [group X] has yet to challenge this claim.

Regardless of the name-calling, my point still stands.

(Besides, how are people, who exploit weaknesses to gain at the expense of others, worthy of a positive label?)

[owenshooter]

Name calling does not prove your point bbs.

This is what [group X] does: exploit weaknesses within the formal legal system. Instead of being [group Y] who respect a mutually beneficial arrangement, [group X] instead exploits a weakness to gain at the expense of another. No one of [group X] has yet to challenge this claim.

Regardless of the name-calling, my point still stands.

(Besides, how are people, who exploit weaknesses to gain at the expense of others, worthy of a positive label?)

sorry, a mod stated there is no rule that you have to do what the other player requested... i'm sticking with the CC official response on this one... Ron did nothing wrong...-Jésus noir

[iAmCaffeine]

This would become a major issue if people started gambling on games.

[nietzsche]

My take:

1) ronc didn t really know the rule, or doesn t play by this unwritten rule that isn't one, it s just sportsmanship. It should be absolutely normal to have an auto snapshot for any given game when it starts as both players should see the initial board, unfortunately it s not the case so players should just do this out of respect.

2) joriki wants to know the original board, which is a normal request. Ronc doesn t want to because he is unaware of this common gentleman agreement

3) joriki decides to deadbeat the game.

Ronc kind of did a dick move, but he clearly isn t familiar with this gentleman agreement. Joriki s answer to it is totally a dick move.
Conclusions: ronc enjoy the general points, and do apply the unwritten fog rule next time. It just seems fair that you let your opponent know the original drop or that your opponent lets you know the original drop. Refusing to play the game because you didn t get the original snapshot is for little girls though.

BS. This is not a rule, it's not a dick move, it's not for sportsmanship.

It's for pussies.

Totally agree with demonfork in this.

[BoganGod]

but what does that mean?

[Ika Pakao]

It's amazing how you guys are quick to jump to conclusions around here.

Joriki is top10 player with impeccable reputation. Kaskavel is 2nd rated player at the Club and the former Conqueror, Betiko and BigBallinStalin are very highly rated players. All of them are very good in this hobby of ours.

Maybe they know what they are talking about.

Maybe you could learn something from them.

Maybe these unwritten rules and norms are improving sportsmanship and playing experience.

Maybe you want to be more than a mob.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry dude. In my world, you don't get respect for getting the most points. It's mutual. When a player comes into a game and leaves a comment and then misses that turn and every following one because he didn't get his way, it's nonsense.

He expects people to be polite to him and follow his rules? They did, they joined a game of his settings. He choose it, and if he doesn't like it, then he can choose different settings or put in a suggestion for autosnap.

That you somehow think you can point to your anal accumulation of points as justification deeply saddens me. We are the mob, not your point obsessed bedfellows.

[owenshooter]

It's amazing how you guys are quick to jump to conclusions around here.

sorry... since then he has admitted to "forfeiting" the game in game chat and explained why he is not playing and why it is not wrong.

Subject: joriki / "forfeiting" in his own words.

he just makes his own rules up. he gets mad because a member doesn't follow some unwritten rule that ronc had never heard of, then admits to not taking turns and defending his "forfeit" while missing turns in the game and taking turns in other games. there is only one conclusion. he is dead beating the game as he has stated he is!!! i would love it if ron point dumped right before he won this game on turns missed, to totally bone over this user. guess what? i bet ron would get busted and the dead beater would still not be punished due to his rank and ron's past infractions. the rules are the rules and they are to be enforced evenly and equally. what he is doing is against the rules, there is no defense.-Jésus noir

[joriki]

I was unaware of this thread while most of the discussion took place. I find it highly disrespectful to publicly discuss other players' behaviour in this way without telling them about it.

A new C & A thread has now been opened, owenshooter notified me of it, and I've posted my perspective there: viewtopic.php?p=4596774#p4596894

[_sabotage_]

You've been shirking. "Why didn't someone come get me? Why didn't he notify me so I could take my turn? I couldn't take my turn because of him. Why didn't he apologize? "

You seem to require a lot out of your opponents. I don't think this is a punishable matter, but I do think your response of "I can do whatever I want because I have contrived a grievance" is quite unbecoming.

[joriki]

You've been shirking. "Why didn't someone come get me? [...]"

I'm not sure I understand -- are you saying it's my own responsibility to check the forums once in a while to see whether people are publicly discussing my behaviour there, and I shouldn't expect people to let me know when they do?

[_sabotage_]

Are you saying that it's my responsibility to come get you?

Was it Ronc's responsibility to reply on something he'd never heard about and perhaps if he had, didn't agree with?

Since it is not a rule, then I guess there must have been people who disagreed with it becoming a rule. Does your decision that it should be a rule override his that it isn't and not one he has chosen to adhere to?

You sound like a spoilt kid. We are not here to serve you or bow down to your every decree. There are rules and if you don't wish to stick to them, man up and say, "yeah I was pissed I didn't get a good drop, went second and didn't see that single tert that he had conquered, so I made him suffer through twelve rounds of dead beating. "

[betiko]

Are you saying that it's my responsibility to come get you?

Was it Ronc's responsibility to reply on something he'd never heard about and perhaps if he had, didn't agree with?

Since it is not a rule, then I guess there must have been people who disagreed with it becoming a rule. Does your decision that it should be a rule override his that it isn't and not one he has chosen to adhere to?

You sound like a spoilt kid. We are not here to serve you or bow down to your every decree. There are rules and if you don't wish to stick to them, man up and say, "yeah I was pissed I didn't get a good drop, went second and didn't see that single tert that he had conquered, so I made him suffer through twelve rounds of dead beating. "

sabotage; just shut up.

[_sabotage_]

sabotage;
just shut up,
And make love to me.

Sorry bro, but it's going to have to be rape, cuz I don't dig ya.

[joriki]

Are you saying that it's my responsibility to come get you?

No, not yours individually -- first and foremost it's the responsibility of the person who opened the thread and made accusations -- and then if they don't do that and it becomes apparent in the discussion that I'm not there, it's also the responsibility of anyone else who writes negatively in a forum where I'm not able to defend myself.

Was it Ronc's responsibility to reply on something he'd never heard about and perhaps if he had, didn't agree with?

Yes, I do expect people who play a game with me to reply when I write to them. I do the same for them.

Since it is not a rule, then I guess there must have been people who disagreed with it becoming a rule. Does your decision that it should be a rule override his that it isn't and not one he has chosen to adhere to?

It seems you haven't read carefully what I wrote. The answer to this rhetorical question is of course, no, it doesn't.

[_sabotage_]

You felt wronged and retaliated.

You seem to play quite a few low ranked players, and it's highly commendable. But I did notice you start rather quickly when it's your go and don't bother asking your opponent if they got a snap. Of course, why should you, they probably won't take one.

So to me, you feeling wronged is more a question of you feeling you know better and hence should be accommodated and you're wrong here isn't so much the players failure to recognize the rule as your feeling that he should acquiesce to you. And since he has failed to do so, you are retaliating.

In my book and in those who disagree with you as to the rule, your retaliation was the actual offence.

You are complaining that he doesn't see your point of view and comply, and you are doing the exact same thing in a more deliberate scale.

[demonfork]

Are you saying that it's my responsibility to come get you?

No, not yours individually -- first and foremost it's the responsibility of the person who opened the thread and made accusations -- and then if they don't do that and it becomes apparent in the discussion that I'm not there, it's also the responsibility of anyone else who writes negatively in a forum where I'm not able to defend myself.

Was it Ronc's responsibility to reply on something he'd never heard about and perhaps if he had, didn't agree with?

Yes, I do expect people who play a game with me to reply when I write to them. I do the same for them.

Since it is not a rule, then I guess there must have been people who disagreed with it becoming a rule. Does your decision that it should be a rule override his that it isn't and not one he has chosen to adhere to?

It seems you haven't read carefully what I wrote. The answer to this rhetorical question is of course, no, it doesn't.

Then you admit that you're acting like a spoiled little bitch?