Who's the "woose"?

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:27 am

I'm posting this because I'm interested in what the public opinion of my situation is.

I'm in a 3 man team game. I knock off the stronger teams partner who immediately turns around and forms an alliance with the other team. The other team of course goes on to win the game. I berate the guy and leave negative feedback for the first time ever and get slapped back with my own negative feedback for the first time.

This is what I left:

This is by for the dumbest "major" at CC. It's unfortunate that I have to leave negative feedback for the first time ever, but this player's inane strategy warrants it. Not only did he take his partner's elimination personally, he destroyed any chance of himself winning by trucing with another Team that still had BOTH team members on it. IMO this player should NOT be allowed to join "Elite" games and if you're reading this trying to determine whether or not to play with him, you should just add him to your ignore list immediately instead of suffering through a game with his child-like tactics.

Shai's response: This guy had a problem with me making a public alliance and giving myself some chance of winning! for some reason i managed to prolong the game and lost only cause i had bad dice. This guy and his teammate need a lesson in strategy! check out the game chat.

This is what he left:

This woose is a sore loser. The basics of any multiplayer strategy game is the weak players cooperating to stop the strongest! After my teammate was eliminated I truced with the other team to stop his team and wow, did we stop him.

D.IsleRealBrown's response: This is revenge feedback, I'll have it removed. You can look at what I left him and his response. D.Isle's response to Shai's response: LMAO at bad dice, the point is he was going to lose regardless and made an alliance out of spite since I knocked his partner out early. I personally have never seen an alliance formed in a doubles match. I have however certainly been in the position where my partner was knocked out early. I didn't cry about it though and form an alliance making certain the other team would lose. On a few occasions I've come back and won the game on my own. Check games: 83933 and 76257 for examples on how to play when your partner is knocked out early. I think it's obvious who the "woose" is. Whatever that means, is it kind of like a moose?

Am I in the wrong here?

Also I'm wondering if anyone has ever left negative feedback and NOT gotten revenge feedback in return?

by **AAFitz** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:56 am

its a silly disagreement...all too common, but love deadwood...sorry for this posting...ban me if you have to

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:26 pm

lol, before this I've only band multis and deadbeats.

by **Backglass** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:23 pm

woose?

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:25 pm

Backglass wrote:woose?

Shai wrote:This woose is a sore loser. The basics of any multiplayer strategy game is the weak players cooperating to stop the strongest! After my teammate was eliminated I truced with the other team to stop his team and wow, did we stop him.

You tell me.

I think he may be mentally handicapped. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

by **mightyal** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:26 pm

wus. I guess it's an English insult. Means wimp, pussy erc.

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:27 pm

mightyal wrote:wus. I guess it's an English insult. Means wimp, pussy erc.

No, wus has been used in America for quite some time...."woose" is new to me however.

by **mightyal** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:28 pm

Strange choice of insult from someone who can't fight fairly and needs to gang up.

by **what,me worry?** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:07 pm

its spelled wuss, and I think it was your bad Isle. there was no reason to leave him neg feedback for joining the other team. Its a legit strategy and if he wanted to ally himself with your team instead of the other, you probably would have been more than happy to bring him aboard. Thats half of the strategy is not upsetting the balance unless you know what the outcome will be ie not eliminating his partner which would lead to a natural alliance to survive in a teams game. And i have left neg feedback and never recived it back in retaliation except from a multi.........lol

by **c00ster** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:37 pm

Personally, I think that however a person decides to strategize to win is their own perogative. Granted, it may prove to be a poor strategy but I have seen some bone-head moves turn out pretty good with the help of the sometimes bias dice.

I agree that making an alliance in a doubles or triples game is silly, but if the other teams choose to accept the alliance, why should I cry about it? Insulting a person for the choices they make is worse to me than the stupid choices made. After all, if they are that stupid, I will probably win.

What I dont like is when your partner dont pay attention to who his partner is and messes up your game. Thats why I am playing less partners games. Half the time I suspect my partner is an alias of an opponent. Very few "partners" will play the game like a partner by fortifying each other.

As for alliances in general, I think they are for punks anyways, and I think alliances are stupid. If you are playing to win, making an alliance only serves to make someone else lose first because in the end, you will be putting each other out anyways- why help anyone if they arent already your partner? If I could change my name here it would be "alliancesR4pussies!"

We win some and lose some, most of us can gripe about the dice- usually it has everything to do with losing in a game where people are evenly matched.

I will only leave negative comments if I suspect cheating, a person with multiple accounts playing in the same game or something like that. If I get my butt kicked by someone, I leave positive- whether I think they won on skill or not, because its better to be cool about it and get a rematch than it is to never get a shot at them again, if they iggy you.

I am all about revenge on the board, not in the comments!

I agree with you that HALF of the time, negative comments are revenge comments- but you have to realize that the other HALF are the comments that made the person WANT to leave a revenge comment in the first place! Leaving a negative comment for someone is what actually starts the problem, no matter HOW stupid they are or how bad they play.

by **minihaymanz** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:07 pm

what,me worry? wrote:its spelled wuss, and I think it was your bad Isle. there was no reason to leave him neg feedback for joining the other team. Its a legit strategy and if he wanted to ally himself with your team instead of the other, you probably would have been more than happy to bring him aboard. Thats half of the strategy is not upsetting the balance unless you know what the outcome will be ie not eliminating his partner which would lead to a natural alliance to survive in a teams game. And i have left neg feedback and never recived it back in retaliation except from a multi.........lol

I think it was shai's fault...its to take out the STRONGEST team...which was not Isle. That was just very very poor strategy and he should be taken around back and shot in a very soviet russia style.

by **JOHNNYROCKET24** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:28 pm

i think its gay to join a team after he lost his partner. he was beat by a better team. to cry for an alliance just to see the team lose that beat him is simply wrong. Shai also has left me negative feedback in revenge as well. its idiots like him that ruin it for everyone.

by **dividedbyzero** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:30 pm

I'm not a fan of alliances. I don't know Shai, but having played D.Isle, I know that he is honorable and fair and a good player.

Alliances in doubles games seem like alliances in a three player game. Just plain silly. I don't like losing, but I'd rather lose with honor then be a whiner.

Just my $.02.

dbz

by **Blitzaholic** on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:33 pm

That has happened to me several times D. Isle, I agree in the fact that it is not a good feeling, but I think it is legal as long as it is posted in the game chat, I will look into it.

by **Shai** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:12 am

OK, so it's spelled wuss...
The simple fact is that :
A. I played by the rules and declared the alliance
B. I had 2 parteners in the alliance they didn't receive neg feedback
C. I left neg feedback because i thought they warranted it, i already left and received feedback without any correlation to another players feedback.
D. About teaming up out of spite? The second the teams where evened out to one player each i attacked my ally so as to still try winning, and i was left with a good winning chance!

In the end i was outplayed, i admit. but the game could have gone either way. I think the basics of this game are making and breaking alliances. Otherwise lets just play backgammon.

The worst part is if you guys didn't enjoy the game and since i think that the end goal is having a good time then i apologize for the way i played. if i would have known that you feel so strongly against alliances and truces i would have rather lost.

And again, i don't speak english as a first language so i also apologize for the misspelling. it won't happen again

by **inonzuk** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:42 am

Alliance formation is the basic building block of this game !!!! If you guys do not agree with this claim, then this discussion is usless.

Cheating or "unfair" behavior is only when you form a secret alliance, and shai did not do that.

When lossing a teammate in early stages, not forming an alliance will probably causes you to loss and fast. The strategy should be to team up with another team, and wait for your chance. Otherwise, you'll just get to be card supplier when you are eliminated.

B.t.w
A quick review of Shai's previous games (and having played him and lossing to him before), he seems like a very good team player, that many players would like to join for a game. It was even fun lossing to him, when he diplomatically convinced the other team that my team was the strongest, and they all attacked us.

by **minihaymanz** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:44 am

Shai wrote:OK, so it's spelled wuss...
The simple fact is that :
A. I played by the rules and declared the alliance
B. I had 2 parteners in the alliance they didn't receive neg feedback
C. I left neg feedback because i thought they warranted it, i already left and received feedback without any correlation to another players feedback.
D. About teaming up out of spite? The second the teams where evened out to one player each i attacked my ally so as to still try winning, and i was left with a good winning chance!

In the end i was outplayed, i admit. but the game could have gone either way. I think the basics of this game are making and breaking alliances. Otherwise lets just play backgammon.

The worst part is if you guys didn't enjoy the game and since i think that the end goal is having a good time then i apologize for the way i played. if i would have known that you feel so strongly against alliances and truces i would have rather lost.

And again, i don't speak english as a first language so i also apologize for the misspelling. it won't happen again

you still played the game extremely poorly, the feedback was just because of completely bad playing ability. I prolly would have left it too because that was just flat out poor strategy.

by **zarvinny** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:47 am

Shai wrote:OK, so it's spelled wuss...
The simple fact is that :
A. I played by the rules and declared the alliance
B. I had 2 parteners in the alliance they didn't receive neg feedback
C. I left neg feedback because i thought they warranted it, i already left and received feedback without any correlation to another players feedback.
D. About teaming up out of spite? The second the teams where evened out to one player each i attacked my ally so as to still try winning, and i was left with a good winning chance!

In the end i was outplayed, i admit. but the game could have gone either way. I think the basics of this game are making and breaking alliances. Otherwise lets just play backgammon.

The worst part is if you guys didn't enjoy the game and since i think that the end goal is having a good time then i apologize for the way i played. if i would have known that you feel so strongly against alliances and truces i would have rather lost.

And again, i don't speak english as a first language so i also apologize for the misspelling. it won't happen again

glad we got the other side of the story. D.Isle. you are a WOOSE!

by **american_ninja** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:02 am

On the "who's a wuss" issue, I'm not going to vote either way, as I wasn't in the game. I'm rather inclined to side with Shai because I've played in several games against him, and alliances and team-ups is just kind of what he does. It can be dealt with using counter-diplomacy in chat and by watching your back in the game. Still, I do recognize D. Isle's point that, especially in team games, calling for alliances feels weird. Unless there is some sort of explicit limit (a three-turn cease-fire, for example), it does rather unbalance a team game.

But addressing both sides of this argument-- you're both making too much of the whole incident. At the end of the day, this really is just a game. It's not worth elevating your blood pressure over.

by **7Deep7Green7** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:56 am

Too much is being made of this. Alliances are part of the game no matter if they are to our liking, logical or not.

by **Gen. Patton** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:15 am

Shai, or anyone for that matter, can ally with anyone they want at any point as long as it is not a secret. Obviously you knew about this alliance and it obviously made you mad. Well tough luck, that's part of the game. If you don't like it don't play.

On another note, if you are going to leave negative feedback for someone then you have to be prepared to recieve some back. In this case I don't think that negative feedback was warranted at all anyways since Shai followed all of the rules. The simple fact of the matter is that it made you mad so you wanted to get even. Once again, tough luck. If you can't handle the game don't play anymore.

by **steve monkey** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:30 am

At the point Shai made the alliance, he had lost his partner (me) and allied with the weaker of the two other teams.
I can see why D Isle wasn't happy about it, but also feel that Shai didn't break any rules.
What is saddest of all is the descent into name calling and bitterness.
Guys, it really wan't that big a deal.
Let's all move on and just enjoy the game.

by **D.IsleRealBrown** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:00 pm

zarvinny wrote:
Shai wrote:OK, so it's spelled wuss...
The simple fact is that :
A. I played by the rules and declared the alliance
B. I had 2 parteners in the alliance they didn't receive neg feedback
C. I left neg feedback because i thought they warranted it, i already left and received feedback without any correlation to another players feedback.
D. About teaming up out of spite? The second the teams where evened out to one player each i attacked my ally so as to still try winning, and i was left with a good winning chance!

In the end i was outplayed, i admit. but the game could have gone either way. I think the basics of this game are making and breaking alliances. Otherwise lets just play backgammon.

The worst part is if you guys didn't enjoy the game and since i think that the end goal is having a good time then i apologize for the way i played. if i would have known that you feel so strongly against alliances and truces i would have rather lost.

And again, i don't speak english as a first language so i also apologize for the misspelling. it won't happen again

glad we got the other side of the story. D.Isle. you are a WOOSE!

Actually I'm the one that invited Shai into this thread to defend himself.

by **JOHNNYROCKET24** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:22 pm

shai played like a jackass. if you would look at the game log before posting, you can clearly see he teamed up immediatly and "sucide" attacked the other team every turn. even after it was obvious that the team that beat him now lost, he still continued his attacks even letting the other team collect the cards. he stated he did it for a chance of winning, thats BS. he knew exactly what he was doing... being a jackass. he than left revenge feedback after the negative feedback was left for him.... breaking the feedback rules. shai proved he has no class and has been added to my ban list.

by **KoolBak** on Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:38 pm

I am on your side Mr Brown. I think allying in and of itself is disgusting but allying in a team game I persoanlly believe is reprehensible. Jeeezus Cripe on a crutch - thats what your teammate is for - expect to lose sometimes people - read up on the old Spine and Balls way of life.

I may not have left neg FB for the dumbass alliance maker but I sure as hells would set phazers to Ignore and voice my opinion.

It is all personal preference; opinions are like you-know-what...everybody has one.

Thanks for the heads up - I have incred my Ignore with this disgraceful player.....LOL!!!!