nick13, Micker (defacto double move)

[alster]

Sorry, one more thing. Since "proper play" is so hard to define, I suppose it would be cool to do the following:

Three player game on the classic map. One guy gets 3 of the countries in Aussie on the flop. The other two use that as an excuse to make an offical and announced alliance and spend the first few rounds only attacking him. Soon enough, he's pretty much toast and the other two get to play head to head. Officially nothing "illegal" happened since the alliance was announced.

Is this just something that one has to learn? Would your reply be to never join a 3 player game? Is that the catch-all excuse for poor sportsmanship to simply tell those who want to engage in fair battle to avoid all games where there's some chance that an a-hole can abuse the rules?

That example. Yes. No rule violation was made. All is good. Entering a standard game, one is (or should be) aware of the possibility of alliances being made.

My reply is: It happens. Sometimes you’re just unlucky. Whether it’s the dice or alliances being build up. To bad. Shit happens. Don’t play a standard, three player game without being aware that this can happen.

Alliances are part of the game. It’s not an abuse. If you start making up rules when an alliance is ok or not, well, then you have a mess on your hands. How would it be possible to say when an alliance is fair or not?

[alster]

1. You acknowledge that your personal views are merely a subjective view. What you find to be unsportsmanlike is not an objective, general standard.

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike.

I don't know, it sounds like an objective, general standard to me.

Then you don’t understand the meaning of the terms “subjective” and “objective”. It’s subjective because it’s your opinion. It cannot be an “objective” standard since it’s not an official general rule of the game.

2. Absolutely. Don’t like freestyle if you don’t like the setting.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. But if I had to guess it would be something like: "if you don't like how freestyle is implemented, then don't play freestyle." Well, I don't and I don't. I sort of tried to say that already, here's an edited version to make it clearer:

The freestyle play at this site doesn't prohibit this de facto double turn [and that] is sufficient reason for me not to play freestyle games on this site.

I’m not getting at anything besides the obvious fact that you don’t like the freestyle setting and therefore don’t play it.

Let me repeat myself so you understand: Don’t play freestyle if you don’t like the setting.

A “like” had been typed instead of “play”. Typo. My bad.

3. But. With respect to delaying the game. Dunno. You know very well when you enter a game that skipping a turn is perfectly alright. If you don’t like it, play RT games instead.

There's no lesser benefit or greater penalty to skipping a turn in a RT game than a non-RT game. At present the rules for RT games are exactly the same as the rules for non-RT games. Applying my objective, general standard of sportsmanship I'm compelled to consider that purposely skipping a turn is as wrong in a non-RT as it is in a RT game. However, since this standard of sportsmanship is not enforced by the game engine, I fail to see how playing a RT game offers me any more protection against a player purposely missing his turn than a non-RT game.

Dude. If people sign up for a RT, it’s implied that they will take consecutive rounds. I’ve never encountered anyone just disappearing from RT in order to purposely skip a turn. Of course it can happen, but it happens very, very seldom. Odds are definitely in favor of it happening in a non-RT game. Thus, your reasoning is completely irrelevant. Since there is no option taking away the benefits of missing a turn, you cannot escape it. However, playing RT or with people you know is the way to minimize it.

I get the impression that you’re just arguing for arguments sake. Try to come up with a reasonable argument instead of these nonsense ones.

And. The standard you’re applying is your subjective, personal standard. Not an objective standard of sportsmanship that applies all over CC.

[carblue5757]

Wow this post is booming =D.

Anyways, back to the original intent of the post....

alstergren: You understand that these quirks in the engine are inevitable and you must embrace them rather than moan about them in order for CC to strive. I understand that. But on what level are you willing to accept this, where do you draw the line.

CC is a fast growing gaming sight. When I first joined I knew nothing of the "glitches" (I call them that for a lack of a better word). But now as I gain more experience I learn that there are all sorts of "tricks" I can use to out wit my opponents. Am I to become the type of player that abuses these glitches? Whose to say that as people gain more and more experience they all dont become that way? Then instead of a game based on dice rolls and attack and defend strategies, you have to learn CC Engine strategies...ways to outsmart the entire system.

I allready know what your giong to say. You dont like it then dont play. But the thing is I do like the game, but the stance you take, takes away from what makes this game so great to me , and to a lot of other people out there.

Just my opinion =P. Hope all my thoughts came out clear in this post, if not, just ask me =D.

Happy gaming all!

[detlef]

Dude. If people sign up for a RT, it’s implied that they will take consecutive rounds.

OK then by the same account, if someone signs up for a 3 player game, shouldn't they be able to assume that the other two players wont just drum up some lame excuse to make an alliance on the first turn and simply eliminate them? Once again, are we here to entertain ourselves or learn that life is not fair?

Believe me, each and every day I experience things that remind me that life is not about always getting what you want. Further, completely outplaying your opponents only to lose a very crutial battle because of some insane dice rolls is bad enough. None the less, shit happens.

However, if a couple of jerk-offs want pull some BS tactic to gain an advantage because they can't beat me straight up, they're going to hear about it. Then you can run to their defense and remind me that there's not a rule against it and we can start this thing all over again.

[tahitiwahini]

Then you don’t understand the meaning of the terms “subjective” and “objective”. It’s subjective because it’s your opinion. It cannot be an “objective” standard since it’s not an official general rule of the game.

ob·jec·tive
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

sub·jec·tive
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

I don't think I'm the one having problem distinguishing between "objective" and "subjective."

I'm using the word "objective" in sense of meaning 3.b. above, that is, "based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal."

The point is that my statement:

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike.

is based on observable phenomena, is presented factually, and it is possible for anyone to apply my statement to a set of particular set of facts and reach an objective appraisal. Since my statement can be applied by anyone, it is not particular, nor personal, and is not in the 1.b sense of the word, "subjective."

It is in fact an objective and general statement related to sportsmanship. It is almost universally applicable to many different games.

It is of course not an official rule, but that fact is immaterial as to whether it is objective.

If you are going to base your argument on the meaning of words, you should at least take the time to reference a dictionary. Your use of the terms is imprecise and misleading.

My statement is an objective statement of a standard of sportsmanship, or rather the lack thereof.

You don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be an official rule, it's a standard of sportsmanship that's thankfully and generally observed by the majority of players on this site. You're on really shaky ground when you argue that it's not an objective standard. You don't have to ascribe to that standard of sportsmanship but you can at least recognize that it's not a subjective standard.

The person who delays taking his turn or misses his turn for tactical gain knows what he is doing. Many would regard that behavior as unsportsmanlike. In that sense it's an objective standard of sportsmanship.

[alex_white101]

ummmm tahitiwahini i have absolutely no idea what u just said. way too confusing! can we just stick with simpleton language and discuss what this thread was about please?

[tahitiwahini]

It's OK, you don't have to understand everything.

If it bothers you, then you can always skip over it.

[ClessAlvein]

The fact that he added "I fundamentally believe [...]" makes it a personal claim, not a subjective statement. There is, however, some subjectivity in the word "sportsmanlike", as there is no single universal standard of sportsmanship, at least for this move (as evidenced by the polarity of this thread). It is not an objective statement in the same sense as "this apple is red", as other people have no choice but to see the apple as red (barring some physical defect), whereas there can be varying opinions reagarding how "sportsmanlike" something is.

In the same way, "I fundamentally believe that murder is wrong," for example, makes that sentence subjective, not objective, even if plenty of people agree.

[alster]

ob·jec·tive
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

sub·jec·tive
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

I don't think I'm the one having problem distinguishing between "objective" and "subjective."

I'm using the word "objective" in sense of meaning 3.b. above, that is, "based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal."

The point is that my statement:

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike.

is based on observable phenomena, is presented factually, and it is possible for anyone to apply my statement to a set of particular set of facts and reach an objective appraisal. Since my statement can be applied by anyone, it is not particular, nor personal, and is not in the 1.b sense of the word, "subjective."

I’m pleased to see that you refer to some dictionary entries. Having a positivist approach to rules as well as being a textualist, it warms my heart (to quote judge Scalia, “better to be a pure textualist than not being a textualist at all”). There may be a slight discrepancy though between your use of the dictionary entries describing what you meant by stating that your notions are “objective” and taking a positivist/textualist approach to rules. However, we don’t have to bother with this since you’re completely off the mark anyway.

The way you snatch a possible meaning of the word “objective” from a dictionary entry is, I’m sorry to say, misleading and wrong. Your own notion of sportsmanship cannot be any kind of objective standard viewed nether in the light of the official CC rules, not viewed in the light of commonly, acceptable social behavior within the CC site.

The objective/subjective division may be explained like this: The subjective depends on values or attitudes. For example, if you say that Rembrandt was a “good” painter, then you are clearly saying something about your appreciation of his work. However, objective statements are independent of such judgments. For example, if you say that Rembrandt lived in 1632, you are not suggesting that such a fact is a good or bad thing - it is just the way it was. Thus, the subjective depends on their being experienced by subjects while the objective is where their existence is independent of any perceiver or mental state.

In CC, peoples’ notion of sportsmanship is dependent on how they experience various moves, tactics, strategies etc. Stating that certain moves are unfair is a subjective statement, I can never be an objective one. Few objective statements can be made. One such would possibly be that a move is not a violation or is a violation of the official rules set up (but even such statements may not be entirely objective since applying rules to a certain situation involves interpretation and construction of the rules).

[alster]

It is in fact an objective and general statement related to sportsmanship. It is almost universally applicable to many different games.

It is of course not an official rule, but that fact is immaterial as to whether it is objective.

If you are going to base your argument on the meaning of words, you should at least take the time to reference a dictionary. Your use of the terms is imprecise and misleading.

My statement is an objective statement of a standard of sportsmanship, or rather the lack thereof.

You don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be an official rule, it's a standard of sportsmanship that's thankfully and generally observed by the majority of players on this site. You're on really shaky ground when you argue that it's not an objective standard. You don't have to ascribe to that standard of sportsmanship but you can at least recognize that it's not a subjective standard.

The person who delays taking his turn or misses his turn for tactical gain knows what he is doing. Many would regard that behavior as unsportsmanlike. In that sense it's an objective standard of sportsmanship.

Going back to the dictionary: The ambiguity of words does not realty come into play here. However, this ambiguity plays a role when applying the CC Rules to a specific situation. There are only two rules, (i) No multiple accounts, and (ii) No secret alliances.

Words are, more or less, ambiguous, thus making the interpretations of these words to a certain extent unpredictable. First, many words are ambiguous; our language simply fails to provide a precise definition for a word. Second, even if some words may seem clear enough in abstract, these words may nevertheless have different meanings to different people since we all read and interpret words differently due to our own experiences. In other words, our own experiences tell us the meaning of these words, what they represent.

So, how far do we stretch the words “no multiple accounts”. Will a situation where your friend is gone for a week and gives you access to his account fall within it? The wording of the rule allows for it, even though most people wouldn’t interpret it that way. This is an issue of dictionaries and interpretation. However, the two rules are objectively there. But, any notions of fair play etc. outside those rules is per definitions subjective notions.

Your ideas about “objective” standards of sportsmanship makes me draw an analogy to old pre-positivist notions of Common Law. Before the positive notion of rules/law gained ground Common Law judges especially saw legal reasoning as discovering “reason” and “custom”. The idea was that the law did or should reflect community custom asising from social values. This changed with the positivist school (Austin as an early and great example.)

Now. What I have stated in this thread (and others) are merely that doing the de facto double move is perfectly within the scope of the CC rules (Rule no. 1 and 2). People may have a personal subjective opinions about the sportsmanship of the move, but I think people should be more humble and not be upset when other people don’t share their subjective views of fair play.

All in all: Your statements that an objective standard of sportsmanship is what many people think it is just baffles me. It’s simply bs.

Again. You don’t make the correct distinction between subjective and objective here.

[alster]

It's OK, you don't have to understand everything.

If it bothers you, then you can always skip over it.

I wished that you had skipped over the things you didn’t understand instead of writing a novel taking a starting-point that pretty much was as wrong as it could be.

[alster]

OK then by the same account, if someone signs up for a 3 player game, shouldn't they be able to assume that the other two players wont just drum up some lame excuse to make an alliance on the first turn and simply eliminate them? Once again, are we here to entertain ourselves or learn that life is not fair?

However, if a couple of jerk-offs want pull some BS tactic to gain an advantage because they can't beat me straight up, they're going to hear about it. Then you can run to their defense and remind me that there's not a rule against it and we can start this thing all over again.

Well. I agree. Life isn’t fair.

The problem is: There are so many people in here, so many players etc. etc. And, if you don’t know the guys you’re playing with, you may be subjected to something you percieve as unfair or unjust. It’s never nice, but it’s a risk we take everytime we sign up for a game. Luckily, most games goes perfectly well with people being nice and being good sports. If that wouldn’t be the case, most people would leave pretty soon.

But, you saying that the de facto double move is a “BS tactic” is a subjective statement. Personally I agree with you, I think so as well. But still, we have to admit that people are perfectly within the rules when they pull it. We may be pissed off. But, we could get on with our games, learn from it and try to avoid it happening again. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s running to someone’s defese, well, that I leave to you to decide.

[ClessAlvein]

If you use language like that in your post, quoting all the Scalia in the world won't convince him.

[tahitiwahini]

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike.

That foregoing statement contains a value judgment, namely that purposeful delay of the game is unsportsmanlike. Whether you accept the value judgment or not, the statement proposes a standard of conduct, that is, something established for use as a rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging a type of conduct, namely that of sportsmanship. That standard of conduct can be applied objectively by anyone to a certain set of circumstances. Whether someone purposely delays their turn is not a subjective matter. They either did or didn't delay their turn. If they did, which can be determined objectively, and you accept the value judgment that purposeful delay of the game is unsportsmanlike, then the statement proposes an objective standard of sportsmanlike conduct. It doesn't state that it is the only valid measure of sportsmanship. Rather it asserts that purposeful delay of the game is a measure of sportsmanship and it's a fact that whether someone did or did not purposefully delay the game can be objectively determined.

[Ham]

I doubt Micker knew what he was doing. Unless the other guy told him how to do it.

I referred Micker to the site and beleive me he isnt that knowledgable of the system. He's still learning how all the settings work.

[alster]

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike.

That foregoing statement contains a value judgment, namely that purposeful delay of the game is unsportsmanlike. Whether you accept the value judgment or not, the statement proposes a standard of conduct, that is, something established for use as a rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging a type of conduct, namely that of sportsmanship. That standard of conduct can be applied objectively by anyone to a certain set of circumstances. Whether someone purposely delays their turn is not a subjective matter. They either did or didn't delay their turn. If they did, which can be determined objectively, and you accept the value judgment that purposeful delay of the game is unsportsmanlike, then the statement proposes an objective standard of sportsmanlike conduct. It doesn't state that it is the only valid measure of sportsmanship. Rather it asserts that purposeful delay of the game is a measure of sportsmanship and it's a fact that whether someone did or did not purposefully delay the game can be objectively determined.

Ok.

Your entire quote was this:

I fundamentally believe that any tactic that requires delaying the game to succeed is unsportsmanlike. It follows from this that those that employ those techniques or defend those techniques are behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner. Unsportsmanlike behavior is best dealt with here with negative feedback.

Perhaps the inherent vagueness of words is the problem with our discussion here.

Now: When reading your statement, I get the impression that you’re saying that your fundamental belief of what is sportsmanlike or not is a general, objective standard of behavior on the CC site. This impression is reinforced when you later make statements about most people / the majority thinking the same.

But – if what you’re saying is that you have put up some kind of objective criteria for your own subjective ideas/notions, then I don’t disagree. Then you’re using the term objective in a fair way.

However – if you’re indeed saying that your own ideas about sportsmanship is a general rule of CC that ought to be abided to by all players. Then you’re using the term objective in the wrong way. After all, you’re not King Rex I (to paraphrase Kelsen) setting up rules of behavior to be abided to. You’re merely a player, stating your subjective opinion about this matter.

So, which one of the two possible interpretations of your statement is the correct one? Did you state your own subjective ideas of sportsmanship or were you in fact claiming to state an objective and general rule?

[tahitiwahini]

The former.

What I objected to was the implication that the standard was somehow subjective in that it wasn't possible to objectively determine whether the standard would apply to a particular set of circumstances. I maintain that the applicability of the standard is objective, whilst not making a claim that my definition of sportsmanship (or at least this aspect thereof) must be universally accepted by everyone. Nonetheless, I would wager that many people would agree that purposefully delaying the taking of one's turn in the service of a tactic is not a desirable behavior and would go against many people's sense of fair play.

[alster]

Great. Then we spent hours arguing about nothing...

Well, well... back to the game I guess...

[Lev306]

I'm not 100% clear on how they got that double move. My impression was that they waited till the last 10 or so minutes left in a round to take their turns and for some reason their opponents ran out of time to take theirs? Which would mean that the timer starts 24 hours as soon as the round starts and doesn't reset after a team or an individual takes their turn. Is that right?

[alster]

I'm not 100% clear on how they got that double move. My impression was that they waited till the last 10 or so minutes left in a round to take their turns and for some reason their opponents ran out of time to take theirs? Which would mean that the timer starts 24 hours as soon as the round starts and doesn't reset after a team or an individual takes their turn. Is that right?

Basically. If you don't finish your turn and let the time run out, the game engine don't register is as you've made a turn. I.e. by starting a move in a freestyle game during the last hour of game play, and not finishing your turn, you can take a brand new turn once the 24 hour is up and next round begins.

Of course. If playing a doubles game, if your team is to begin a round, you can wait until 23.55 before taking your turn. Then, not only do you get a double move, your opponents don't get a move that round.