Who's the "woose"?

[D.IsleRealBrown]

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

This isn't about spelling, it about comprehension of basic strategy, as well as having fun and keeping the game fair. The other team didn't receive neg feedback because they were using you and I would have done the same thing. I know you're lying about leaving us negative feedback. You did so only after you got yours and before the game was finished. I'm upset that my record is tarnished as I have learned your gibberish will not be removed.

I received this earlier:

Well you're not going to be thanking me now, because it's not clear revenge feedback to me. He wrote the feedback in such a way that it stands alone, so any 3rd party reading it would not presume it was revenge if they read that first. It's really a grey area, so when it's not blatantly clear that it's revenge (e.g. "I'm leaving this feedback b/c he left me feedback"), I let it stand.

It's obvious you guys disagree about how to play, and both of your feedbacks are legit in warning others against certain styles of play. I will watch the thread you started about this closely though to see what others think as well.

Sorry MAB!!

I think lack should chime in on this and explain to me who would actually say they're leaving feedback in revenge. People understand that blatent revenge feedback will be removed so now they're trying to disguise it.

This is the fundamental problem:

I think the basics of this game are making and breaking alliances.

I think you'll find most players here will have a problem with this, especially in Team games. As it stands I don't think you'll ever play another Elite game because JOHNNY and I are in most of them. It's unfortunate that you can't rely on your own intellectual prowess to win games and feel that tag teaming others is "part of the game". I noticed that after you crippled me that you both still kept attacking instead of breaking the truce that was set up when I was a threat. That in itself shows that you're a coward.

Good luck to you in the future. I'm glad you will not be a part of mine.

Shalom. You have a beautiful baby and wish the best for you in life outside this site.

[reverend_kyle]

this is why I only play 4 person doubles games.. in my opinion any alliance in a 6 person doubles game is unfair. and by allying it is almost alwyas out of spite because unless you can get the other 2 teams down to one guy your chance of losing is slim... thats just IMO.. it seems as if in those type of games its like teaming in a 3 person singles which isnt cool.

[stache hag]

It appears as though I broke the tie.

First of all, I have never left negative feedback, even when it was warranted, for this reason. Owl has said, on many occasions when I wanted to leave feedback, "You'll get it in return, don't bother."

This is a prime example of that. Shai did not comment on your play, he commented on the feedback you left, and resorted to calling names. So, grow the f*ck up and learn how to spell.

[stache hag]

Also, I have never seen an alliance in a doubles game, and 98% of the games I have played are doubles.

[evilclown]

I think alliances (announced or otherwise) in team games upset the integrity of the game b/c they are less about strengthening yourself or 'giving yourself a chance at victory and more about putting the third team at an unfair disadvantage. The same goes in 3 person singles games. It just reeks of unfair play especially in this case when one team works hard to eliminate a player and then gets teamed up against for obvious revenge reasons.

[Freetymes]

After waiting to see what would be said on this subject I am a bit amazed. In the "Honor" poll and thread it was almost totally overwhelmingly that people here played with honor. Now we get to this and several people are all like... It didn't "Technically" break the rules and "But it is part of the game" (I hear this as said with a long whine). This is all true but Shai acted with a comlete lack of honor.

Still the bigger question here is the Feedback and again Shai acted without honor and IMHO broke the stated guidlines of feedback.
I'm sorry wicked but I think you are splitting hairs here, Shai's feedback would never have been written if MAB had not left his. This is a cause and effect therefore it is by definition revenge feedback.

It seems simple enough to me too erase both feedbacks make them shake virtual hands and then they both can put each other on ignore and everyone will be happy, or not, but this is beyond...

[evilclown]

Shai's negative feedback to D.IsleRealBrown is obviously revenge feedback and should definitely be removed.

Back on the topic of whether or not Shai's alliance was unfair or not, he admits in the feedback that he gave Brown that his alliance was for the sole purpose of stopping Brown's team. Therefore his play, by his own admission, was for revenge and not for strategic purposes.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

After waiting to see what would be said on this subject I am a bit amazed. In the "Honor" poll and thread it was almost totally overwhelmingly that people here played with honor. Now we get to this and several people are all like... It didn't "Technically" break the rules and "But it is part of the game" (I hear this as said with a long whine). This is all true but Shai acted with a comlete lack of honor.

Still the bigger question here is the Feedback and again Shai acted without honor and IMHO broke the stated guidlines of feedback.
I'm sorry wicked but I think you are splitting hairs here, Shai's feedback would never have been written if MAB had not left his. This is a cause and effect therefore it is by definition revenge feedback.

It seems simple enough to me too erase both feedbacks make them shake virtual hands and then they both can put each other on ignore and everyone will be happy, or not, but this is beyond...

agreed...except for the part where our feedback should be removed from shai's account. he left both feedbacks vs us out of revenge. so his should be removed from our account and ours should stay on his.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Shai's negative feedback to D.IsleRealBrown is obviously revenge feedback and should definitely be removed.

Back on the topic of whether or not Shai's alliance was unfair or not, he admits in the feedback that he gave Brown that his alliance was for the sole purpose of stopping Brown's team. Therefore his play, by his own admission, was for revenge and not for strategic purposes.

and also agreed

[D.IsleRealBrown]

I don't know. I'd consider removing my feedback if he removed his. If I thought he clearly understood the problem. I may have over-reacted. I still think I was right though.

[american_ninja]

What's all this tripe about "honor" and "technically not breaking the rules"? It's right there on the front page: "Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader." How is what Shai did different? Why is this dishonorable when it's the very first thing you see when you open this site? The founders of Conquer Club are encouraging this tactic, so why condemn a player who uses it?

I know it's irritating when an alliance is formed against you, but you have to respond by either counter-diplomacy or simply taking out the player who tries to initiate the alliance. All this negative feedback is overreaction.

[reverend_kyle]

What's all this tripe about "honor" and "technically not breaking the rules"? It's right there on the front page: "Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader." How is what Shai did different? Why is this dishonorable when it's the very first thing you see when you open this site? The founders of Conquer Club are encouraging this tactic, so why condemn a player who uses it?

I know it's irritating when an alliance is formed against you, but you have to respond by either counter-diplomacy or simply taking out the player who tries to initiate the alliance. All this negative feedback is overreaction.

its irritating when its suicide vengeance in a team game.

[american_ninja]

its irritating when its suicide vengeance in a team game

Sure. It's also irritating in a standard, every-man-for-himself game as well. However, irritating shouldn't result in a flurry of negative feedback and the-page long forum discussions about honor and strategy.

[Shai]

as i stated in a negative feedback i left for XXX (i don't remember who) in a game where i was attacked even though a cease fire was in place i said something i stick by:
"i think personal integrity and keeping my word is a little bigger than a few points in game!"
If i would have been told that there is a law against alliances then i wouldn't have thought of it, in many games once i at a disadvantage i use the game chat to get out of a tight spot, and sometimes, when it works, i feel much better with the win than when winning because of lucky dice or a goos starting position.
In a 6 player doubles game there are always three teams, storngest, weakest and medium, right? once the strongest eliminates a teammate it is only natural they grow stronger from the cards and territories and other gets weaker! what am i supposed to do ? i see no other option than using diplomacy in order to even out the game! look at game 98007, we where in the same situation and the game is interesting because everytime the tides change the alliances change!
And an important note to end this:
when i saw that pink eliminated Mr. brown i broke our alliance (which was made under the terms: "until we weaken team 1") and attacked his undefended borders! I lost because i had 4 cards with no sets twice and pink had gotten sets very fast because he eliminated D brown!
I lost to the better player, not as brown stated in his feedback: because of dumb revenge tactics!"
My feedback to brown and johnny was on their gameplay , and their feedback was unwarranted for (and if to set the record straight, Johnny began with the name calling and insults)
I will correct my feedback to further stress my points, ok?

[D.IsleRealBrown]

as i stated in a negative feedback i left for XXX (i don't remember who) in a game where i was attacked even though a cease fire was in place i said something i stick by:
"i think personal integrity and keeping my word is a little bigger than a few points in game!"
If i would have been told that there is a law against alliances then i wouldn't have thought of it, in many games once i at a disadvantage i use the game chat to get out of a tight spot, and sometimes, when it works, i feel much better with the win than when winning because of lucky dice or a goos starting position.
In a 6 player doubles game there are always three teams, storngest, weakest and medium, right? once the strongest eliminates a teammate it is only natural they grow stronger from the cards and territories and other gets weaker! what am i supposed to do ? i see no other option than using diplomacy in order to even out the game! look at game 98007, we where in the same situation and the game is interesting because everytime the tides change the alliances change!
And an important note to end this:
when i saw that pink eliminated Mr. brown i broke our alliance (which was made under the terms: "until we weaken team 1") and attacked his undefended borders! I lost because i had 4 cards with no sets twice and pink had gotten sets very fast because he eliminated D brown!
I lost to the better player, not as brown stated in his feedback: because of dumb revenge tactics!"
My feedback to brown and johnny was on their gameplay , and their feedback was unwarranted for (and if to set the record straight, Johnny began with the name calling and insults)
I will correct my feedback to further stress my points, ok?

No.

As you stated, I was continually attacked and you maintained your "alliance" until I was eliminated, not weakened.

Get rid of your feedback and I'll get rid of mine.

[Shai]

Sorry D.isle, I'm Israeli, we never blink first
i think the feedback i left is fair and warns your future opponents of your "rules"

[Jolly Roger]

Sorry D.isle, I'm Israeli, we never blink first :)
i think the feedback i left is fair and warns your future opponents of your "rules"

Would you blink first in a game where the winner was the one to blink first?

[D.IsleRealBrown]

Sorry D.isle, I'm Israeli, we never blink first
i think the feedback i left is fair and warns your future opponents of your "rules"

This isn't a staring contest Shai. I don't have rules, I just believe there is a certain etiquette followed by higher level players on this site.

I'll remove mine first and give you a 24 hr window to remove yours. After that time I'll give players a warning of my own.

[JTFR]

Being from Israel you'd assume "honour" would be high on the integrity scale. Apparently not. Anyone who agrees with Shai's cowardly tactics is a complete tool.

[american_ninja]

Being from Israel you'd assume "honour" would be high on the integrity scale. Apparently not. Anyone who agrees with Shai's cowardly tactics is a complete tool.

Wait, what? Did you seriously just write that? Are we talking about Conquer Club (an online version of Risk), or some kind of Hatfield-McCoy family vendetta?

I'd much rather play against Shai, who always keeps the in-game chat light and entertaining, than anyone who takes a game, any game, this seriously.