Is this bad sportsmanship in FoW? (different issue)

[Renee_W]

But currently there is a solid argument that community consensus exists to make it unsporting just like it used to be considered dishonorable to shoot from the trees.

...but this is entirely wrong. Based on this thread alone, you couldn't even say that the majority of people who have voiced their opinion believe it's unsportsmanlike to share that information; forget having anything close to a consensus.

I didn't make a solid assertion, no one has taken a poll one way or another. I remain convinced however that sufficient evidence exists a solid argument could be made. Unless you have clear evidence the community is fine w/ talk in FoW I think you're reaching a huge amount to claim I'm entirely wrong in saying the people who call it unsporting have a solid argument. I submit as Exhibit A this thread, I'm not going to count on both sides because I'm not trying to prove it's unsporting, but I think it's apparent "unsporting" has a strong base of support, and I think it's strong enough they could make a reasonable argument. What evidence do you have I'm totally off base in thinking the "it's unsporting" group large enough they have a solid argument?

My point wasn't to make a case for either side and I'm not going to be drawn into trying make it. My point was that sportsmanship isn't about rules and there is a large enough contingent who view sharing info as unsporting they can't be dismissed out of hand.

[Metsfanmax]

But currently there is a solid argument that community consensus exists to make it unsporting just like it used to be considered dishonorable to shoot from the trees.

...but this is entirely wrong. Based on this thread alone, you couldn't even say that the majority of people who have voiced their opinion believe it's unsportsmanlike to share that information; forget having anything close to a consensus.

I didn't make a solid assertion, no one has taken a poll one way or another. I remain convinced however that sufficient evidence exists a solid argument could be made. Unless you have clear evidence the community is fine w/ talk in FoW I think you're reaching a huge amount to claim I'm entirely wrong in saying the people who call it unsporting have a solid argument. I submit as Exhibit A this thread, I'm not going to count on both sides because I'm not trying to prove it's unsporting, but I think it's apparent "unsporting" has a strong base of support, and I think it's strong enough they could make a reasonable argument. What evidence do you have I'm totally off base in thinking the "it's unsporting" group large enough they have a solid argument?

My point wasn't to make a case for either side and I'm not going to be drawn into trying make it. My point was that sportsmanship isn't about rules and there is a large enough contingent who view sharing info as unsporting they can't be dismissed out of hand.

The whole issue here is that for the "unsporting" side to have some sort of moral high ground or a better argument than the "sporting" side, it has to be based on some sort of community consensus. That is, if 90% of people agreed that it's poor conduct to reveal such info on FOW games, then they would be justified in ostracizing the few who don't conform, because in that case a consensus has been established. But if you cannot establish a community-wide consensus (and the "unsporting" side cannot, as evidenced by this thread) then you lose all legitimacy in the claim that your point of view is superior. The fact that they have a "solid argument" is not particularly relevant, since what is important is convincing everyone else to go along with them, not saying "I want it to be this way so it has to be this way." This is a case where the burden of proof lies on the unsporting side -- they need to justify a restriction in behavior.

[Renee_W]

The whole issue here is that for the "unsporting" side to have some sort of moral high ground or a better argument than the "sporting" side, it has to be based on some sort of community consensus. That is, if 90% of people agreed that it's poor conduct to reveal such info on FOW games, then they would be justified in ostracizing the few who don't conform, because in that case a consensus has been established. But if you cannot establish a community-wide consensus (and the "unsporting" side cannot, as evidenced by this thread) then you lose all legitimacy in the claim that your point of view is superior.

Moral high ground was never the issue. Playing in a way that isn't going to piss off the opposition and make things worse for you is the issue. If the consensus is that information sharing is unsporting you have a problem no matter how much you argue consensus isn't proven, if the consensus isn't there the people who weaken their own play by not engaging in the action have a problem no matter how much they think it's unsporting.

The fact that they have a "solid argument" is not particularly relevant

The strong argument I said they have is that concensus exists. However I'm not going to try to firmly establish it, that's an argument I have no wish to wade into.

since what is important is convincing everyone else to go along with them, not saying "I want it to be this way so it has to be this way." This is a case where the burden of proof lies on the unsporting side -- they need to justify a restriction in behavior.

Totally wrong, You're talking about rules, sportsmanship doesn't work that way at all. Each person forms their own opinion of what is sporting or not and acts accordingly. If enough people agree the backlash for "unsporting" behavior will discourage (some not all) others from doing it. The stronger the consensus the frequent the backlash and the more it will modify the behavior and perceptions of others. If the opinion is rare the backlash will be rare and conversely the advantages of the behavior will frequently work against those who consider it unsporting and (some not all) of them will decide if you can't beat them join them.

There is no burden of proof required to use the "cheap tactics" tag and rating accordingly. There is no burden of proof required to focus your aggression on the person that violated your sense of fair play. No burden of proof lays on the people who say it's unsporting if they are common enough they will modify community behavior without having to prove anything. The burden lies entirely with each individual to decide which course of action will benefit them most.

[stahrgazer]

So, I know a LOT of people say you shouldn't give away info in FoW, because it defeats the purpose. Well, what if you point out what can be logically deduced from the log? For example, in a feudal fog game, you point out that somebody has a village? Well, you can see that from the log, so it's information available to everybody, so is it somehow bad sportsmanship to point that out?

Good sportsmanship to help a less-experienced player understand how to use CC's tools to his/her advantage, especially if you mention how that can be read in the log.

Opponents won't like your nudge, but so what?

Actually, one opponent may appreciate the nudge while the other will be infuriated by it. Either way, they're both out to get you.

the MOST "sportsmanlike" would be for the player with the village to point out that he has a village bonus, but who's going to do that?

[Metsfanmax]

Moral high ground was never the issue. Playing in a way that isn't going to piss off the opposition and make things worse for you is the issue. If the consensus is that information sharing is unsporting you have a problem no matter how much you argue consensus isn't proven, if the consensus isn't there the people who weaken their own play by not engaging in the action have a problem no matter how much they think it's unsporting.

This will never be a clean issue -- even if there's a consensus that information sharing is a legitimate tactic, there's always going to be a few bad apples that respond vindictively when you blow their cover. It seems that the number of people who would do this now is actually not small, but that just needs to be worked into your tactics as well. If you know your opponent is going to seek revenge, then it's just stupid to reveal the information -- but at that point it's about strategy and tactics, not about sportsmanship.

The strong argument I said they have is that concensus exists. However I'm not going to try to firmly establish it, that's an argument I have no wish to wade into.

This argument does not exist in a vacuum. If we have any evidence one way or the other it is this thread, and this thread has established that there is no such consensus. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that there is.

Totally wrong, You're talking about rules, sportsmanship doesn't work that way at all. Each person forms their own opinion of what is sporting or not and acts accordingly. If enough people agree the backlash for "unsporting" behavior will discourage (some not all) others from doing it. The stronger the consensus the frequent the backlash and the more it will modify the behavior and perceptions of others. If the opinion is rare the backlash will be rare and conversely the advantages of the behavior will frequently work against those who consider it unsporting and (some not all) of them will decide if you can't beat them join them.

This is not just about how people will respond in-game. That's not what sportsmanship is about. Sportsmanship is about upholding yourself to a particular standard of integrity in the game even if it's not going to negatively affect you substantially to break the code. While vindictive alliances or attacks in games might convince people to abide by the code a posteriori, that's not the same as establishing it a priori and then punishing people who violate the code afterwards. The latter is sportsmanship; the former is thuggery.

[Renee_W]

and this thread has established that there is no such consensus. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that there is.

And I think the argument could reasonably be made.

integrity in the game even if it's not going to negatively affect you substantially to break the code. While vindictive alliances or attacks in games might convince people to abide by the code a posteriori, that's not the same as establishing it a priori and then punishing people who violate the code afterwards. The latter is sportsmanship; the former is thuggery.

Maybe this is true in a mythical world where everyone has the same sense of fairness. In the real world it's a mix of people who uphold a code out of a sense of honor and people who uphold it to get along. For the OP it's the latter. The OP doesn't have to ask anyone to define his personal code of honor for him, he does however have to ask for clarification if a certain action falls w/i the common code of this community.

[Metsfanmax]

And I think the argument could reasonably be made.

Uh... are you going to make the argument, or just keep on asserting that it can be made?

Maybe this is true in a mythical world where everyone has the same sense of fairness. In the real world it's a mix of people who uphold a code out of a sense of honor and people who uphold it to get along. For the OP it's the latter. The OP doesn't have to ask anyone to define his personal code of honor for him, he does however have to ask for clarification if a certain action falls w/i the common code of this community.

And if the community does not have a agreed-upon standard when it comes to this, then the question simply leaves the realm of sportsmanship and exists only in the realm of strategy. The OP should not be worried that it is bad sportmanship because the answer is quite definitely no if the community hasn't agreed that it is. The OP should just be worried that someone's going to go on a suicide revenge run against him for doing it, or rate him poorly.

[Renee_W]

Uh... are you going to make the argument, or just keep on asserting that it can be made?

I've said several times no I'm not going to try to make it, goading me won't change that. I've played just a handful of 3+ player FoW games my impression is based on those and this thread but I don't have the depth of experience w/ the setting to make the argument and have no interest in researching it.

And if the community does not have a agreed-upon standard when it comes to this, then the question simply leaves the realm of sportsmanship and exists only in the realm of strategy. The OP should not be worried that it is bad sportmanship because the answer is quite definitely no if the community hasn't agreed that it is. The OP should just be worried that someone's going to go on a suicide revenge run against him for doing it, or rate him poorly.

You seem to think unanimity is required for agreement and the presence of any vocal dissent disproves it. That position would exclude pretty much anything.

[Metsfanmax]

And if the community does not have a agreed-upon standard when it comes to this, then the question simply leaves the realm of sportsmanship and exists only in the realm of strategy. The OP should not be worried that it is bad sportmanship because the answer is quite definitely no if the community hasn't agreed that it is. The OP should just be worried that someone's going to go on a suicide revenge run against him for doing it, or rate him poorly.

You seem to think unanimity is required for agreement and the presence of any vocal dissent disproves it. That position would exclude pretty much anything.

Not unanimity, but at least the hint of something approaching a consensus. Based on this thread, we do not have that consensus.

[Renee_W]

Based on this thread, we do not have that consensus.

That is opinion, mine disagrees with yours and I still don't intend to argue it or try to prove it.

[T7]

It is obvious from this thread there is not a consensus.