Reality check

[ejl]

Normally I wouldn't care about one person's opinion when I think they are way off base. But when I hear from 2 people, I start to wonder if maybe I am missing something.

In the following game I made a couple of comments to a specific player (banshe) that I didn't intend attacking him because we both had other problems to worry about. I lived up to that nearly the whole game even though there wasn't any agreement on his end and he ended up attacking me multiple times during the game to remove my bonus for North America. My only retatiliation was to take back my territory. He also made the comment to another player that he would get to me eventually.

Then when banshe finally took over all of Europe and Africa and there were only 3 of us left I attacked him to remove most of his bonuses. Immediately both remaining players acted as if I had stabbed someone in the back. One (who seems to have some problems) compared me to Stalin and recently called me garbage. I think he was just mad that I was his main opponent most of the game and outplayed him. The player I attacked (banshe) seemed very surprised that I attacked him (although I'm sure he was going to attack me next).

I would appreciate if someone could review the following game log and see if I acted contrary to commonly accepted practices around here. I always stay true to my word and never break alliances so I need to know if anything I did or said in this game would be considered out of line given my approach. Or if I'm just unlucky with my choice of players.

Game: 1262460

[Proximus Ventor]

dude, just crush them and move on. Who cares what others think.
I've been back stabbed on this site so many times i have lost count.The only thing that matters is that you won.

If your here to make friends your in the wrong place, this is war
Oh and stalin flogged hitler in the end

[wcaclimbing]

naw, reds just causing trouble.

You are playing a manipulative game, i like it.

red is just being a big baby.
I expect he will be giving you a negative feedback, though.

You should give him one also, cause that game is pretty messed up.
But be careful, include enough stuff about the game that it won't be called retaliatory if he negs you first.

[wcaclimbing]

And i left a nice big comment in that game. I hope red likes it.

[Heimdall]

Reality check confirmed. You're ok ejl. I see no fault in how you played the game.

GG

[owenshooter]

good game, you did nothing wrong... you just kicked ass!! there may be a spot for you in owen's dojo if you keep it up!-0

[wcaclimbing]

red got owned in the game chat

[ejl]

Thanks for the check up guys. I haven't played that much around here compared to some of you and I thought perhaps I was missing some subtle parts of alliances or something. There's always unwritten rules that newbies usually learn the hard way.

I always try to not be a jerk if I can help it so I figured I better ask.

[TheTeacher]

er...

Friendlyness is friendlyness, even if there isn't an official agreement. And feedback is just what others collectivly think of u, and if somebody thinks poorly of u 'cause u extended friendlyness for a long time and then suddenly changed faces that's their problem, and one neg out of 30 won't do u that much harm. However, if u openly say something along the lines of "I don't plan to..." or "I won't..." or "I will only attack..." and change plans some time later even if there isn't a official agreement, what is the feedback system anyway other than a way for people who have had experience with you to tell others their oppinion of how you play? and if u don't take unofficial remarks seriously, the way the feedback system is designed, they have a right to make a permanent mark on ur record that says so. However, most players won't not play you over something as trivial as not taking "I don't plan to attack you" seriously. A smart player uses the feedback system by checking the feedback of the players he/she will play before joining a game, and then keeping that in mind when dealing with them. and one addisional negative feedback out of 30 won't make them decide just not to play with you. However, they may decide to be more cautious with you and not take any remarks u make about plans of who to attack seriously, and u may loose ur ability to influence a game by making unofficial remarks about need and planning to attack somebody else. And if u don't take remarks like "I don't plan to attack you" seriously, then i don't supose that remark should influence the game. Some folks will take any such remark they make very seriously, and they deserve to have their remarks be able to influence games then since they actually mean something. There's nothing wrong with going either way, don't bother crying over ur not so great pos-neg feedback ratio. This is just a website after all.

[ejl]

I pretty much agree with that and try to live up to my word even in the absence of an official alliance.

It just seemed to me that these guys were being totally unreasonable about expecting me to never attack the rest of the game based on a couple of comments made early when the game was still full (especially considering the way I was attacked and then threatened by my "friend").

IMO, any reasonable person will reevaluate the relationships as the game situation changes. I do that all the time. Today's enemy is tomorrow's friend when someone else gets too powerful. At least that's my approach. I expected it was everyone's here (or at least the players who have a clue).