Conquer Club

I think this whole policy of FAMO is a bit silly for personal misunderstandings. By all means, if the other player is a multi, suicides into you, tries to exploit freestyle or does anything underhanded in the course of playing games, then by all means foe him or her.

However, if you have a problem with someone through something that was said via PM or forum or game chat, I do think there is a better alternative to FAMO. Find a good even 1v1 map that both players are comfortable playing and do a 3, 5, or 7 game set to settle the beef. I personally had a disagreement with danryan once back when we were in O&H over something in a team game I think. We had a nice quick 3 game 1v1 Poland set and then it was water under the bridge. I don't even remember the reason and we both have a lot of respect for each other (at least I do, don't wanna be speaking for anyone).

So I suggest this as a more civil alternative to growing your Foe list. Don't know if it's going to catch on too much, but it would certainly cut down on the C&A reports and might spice up callouts a bit.

alternately...don't foe and move on...just suck it up and come back in a later game and squash the f....ker....it' a war game after all and enemies aren't always nice...have only one play due to a sick, perverted 7158968.....otherwise just kill em if poss and if not it's down to experience?

how would this work for the players that foe because they lose to you.

Unfortunately, this plan works only for the Gentleman. There are people out there, whos only objective is to spread negativity. They get a rise out of seeing you get mad. Its the main reason some are even here, although, some do not even realize this themselves. They crave the adrenaline of the altercation, and by not Foeing and moving on, you are just subjecting yourself to some toxic personality disorder behavior, and a few more games will only make it worse.

It is a great idea for two balanced individuals who just somehow ended up getting frustrated with each other, though in that case, the 1v1 game shouldnt even be necessary. Two gentlemen(women) should inherently know it is only a game, and one prone to disagreement, and that one argument does not a feud make. The game is a nice olive branch though to another player you feel is worth your time, but for the ones simply out to cause trouble, FAMO is the absolutely best thing you can do. They prey on your willingness to work things out, and will prey on your patience until every bit of it is removed.

What happens when you foe people because you don't want to read their posts in the forum and don't want to play them because they are annoying in game chat as well? It has nothing to do with being a Gentleman , it has to do with not wanting to see or play with a user who causes intentional problems in the forums and in games. I only have 6 people on my foe list and that's because I can't stand their posts in the forum and they are just as bad in games. They might not be terrible players, but I find games much more enjoyable with respectful players.

1. The forums and games are 2 different issues. I have occasionally foed people for reasons like not wanting to wait for a huge sig to download, etc. (before there were sig limits, etc.) or just not wanting to see, again a post with 100 pictures or even just one picture I found "distasteful". (I could then just skip to the next comment and view that post)

2. When I foe someone, it is because they are a plain, absolute, jerk. Note that in my entire 3+ year term here, I have foed probably less than a dozen people (most I have removed from my list because were since ousted). These people include someone who issued a serious threat against me, "2" people who repeatedly teamed up (multis) against me, folks who did a lot more than just cursing because I won .. who insisted on carrying it into PMs or long-winded very nasty chat, etc. In other words, these are people I just don't wish to deal with... in even 1 more game.

3. Winning a game proves nothing. It is as assinine as the old idea that a duel would somehow prove who was more honest. In fact, it really will just perpetuate jerks who happen to be decent players. I can see it solving some issues within a clan, or what amounts ot more or less "freindly badgering"/"bragging rights" type stuff, but not real foe-worthy issues.

In reference to your #1 player, you can turn off signatures and avatars and you wouldn't have to foe anyone for that reason

InsomniaRed wrote:In reference to your #1 player, you can turn off signatures and avatars and you wouldn't have to foe anyone for that reason

lol... yes, this goes back to before that option was available. I have edited it to give some other examples.


One thing I did not mention, I know a few people will occasionally foe someone temporarily just because they are trying for "unique wins" and don't want to keep playing the same person... or because the same person has joined a BUNCH of games and they just want to play other people for a while. This is a bit different from the high rank players, poor sports who exclude anyone who beats them.

With respect to posts in a forum, I do not believe there is any reason to foe... you can simply not read that person's posts. Of course, for convenience sake perhaps foeing is desired in that instance.

thegreekdog wrote:With respect to posts in a forum, I do not believe there is any reason to foe... you can simply not read that person's posts. Of course, for convenience sake perhaps foeing is desired in that instance.

Yes, I have sometimes foed someone while actively debating a particular thread so I did not have to wait for 100 pictures to download (now, my computer is much faster and its not such an issue) or becuase I did not want to see some particular pictures (i.e. to me offensive, but not necessarily per CC definition)

Anyway, given that the most people I have EVER had on my foe list/ignore list was about 20, including the multiple names of a couple multis... I hardly think I am using it inappropraitely .

I don't think there is any inappropriate way to use a foe list. It's there at your disposal and you can do what you like with it. Some people foe 1000 people, others foe none, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's their choice who to foe. I always thought FAMO was the easiest way to avoid further conflict and I still think it's a good use of the 'foe' system.

InsomniaRed wrote:I don't think there is any inappropriate way to use a foe list. It's there at your disposal and you can do what you like with it. Some people foe 1000 people, others foe none, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's their choice who to foe. I always thought FAMO was the easiest way to avoid further conflict and I still think it's a good use of the 'foe' system.

Of course everyone is entitled to use the foe list any way they want. I'm just saying that you can be "the bigger person" so to speak and try to work things out on the battlefield. Isn't that how nations settle disputes anyways?

Saf wrote:Isn't that how nations settle disputes anyways?

lol. So is the U.S. doing the ol' FAMO to Cuba? How ungentlemanly.

-TG

Nah Nations settle disputes by America rushing in, though unwanted, and settling it for them....or trying. Duh!

InsomniaRed wrote: I only have 6 people on my foe list and that's because I can't stand their posts in the forum and they are just as bad in games. They might not be terrible players, but I find games much more enjoyable with respectful players.

Please unfoe me.

jefjef wrote:

InsomniaRed wrote: I only have 6 people on my foe list and that's because I can't stand their posts in the forum and they are just as bad in games. They might not be terrible players, but I find games much more enjoyable with respectful players.

Please unfoe me.

Never ever ever ever ever.

safariguy5 wrote:

InsomniaRed wrote:I don't think there is any inappropriate way to use a foe list. It's there at your disposal and you can do what you like with it. Some people foe 1000 people, others foe none, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's their choice who to foe. I always thought FAMO was the easiest way to avoid further conflict and I still think it's a good use of the 'foe' system.

Of course everyone is entitled to use the foe list any way they want. I'm just saying that you can be "the bigger person" so to speak and try to work things out on the battlefield. Isn't that how nations settle disputes anyways?

No, generally even nations use discussion. Battles are only the absolute last result.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Saf wrote:Isn't that how nations settle disputes anyways?

lol. So is the U.S. doing the ol' FAMO to Cuba? How ungentlemanly.

-TG

Well, obviously Castro was the Assassin Target, but they didn't manage to eliminate him.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

safariguy5 wrote:

InsomniaRed wrote:I don't think there is any inappropriate way to use a foe list. It's there at your disposal and you can do what you like with it. Some people foe 1000 people, others foe none, I really don't think it's a big deal. It's their choice who to foe. I always thought FAMO was the easiest way to avoid further conflict and I still think it's a good use of the 'foe' system.

Of course everyone is entitled to use the foe list any way they want. I'm just saying that you can be "the bigger person" so to speak and try to work things out on the battlefield. Isn't that how nations settle disputes anyways?

No, generally even nations use discussion. Battles are only the absolute last result.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17123_the-5-most-retarded-wars-ever-fought.html

Battles may often be the last resort in the real world, but here I think they can be productive in settling disputes. 1vs1, game up.


--Andy

FAMO does not work on pm's. Equally battle's are the fianl famo. If i kill you, will you please disappear?!?

cuba was russia's multi. they deserved to be foed.