foggy games first move?

[owenshooter]

You seem to play quite a few low ranked players, and it's highly commendable. But I did notice you start rather quickly when it's your go and don't bother asking your opponent if they got a snap. Of course, why should you, they probably won't take one.

You are complaining that he doesn't see your point of view and comply, and you are doing the exact same thing in a more deliberate scale.

do you have some game numbers? if you do, post them in the C&A thread after you post them here...-jésus noir

[owenshooter]

sorry, bumped this because it got paged when i posted... didn't want to upset the demon by fast posting his post..-Jésus noir

Are you saying that it's my responsibility to come get you?

No, not yours individually -- first and foremost it's the responsibility of the person who opened the thread and made accusations -- and then if they don't do that and it becomes apparent in the discussion that I'm not there, it's also the responsibility of anyone else who writes negatively in a forum where I'm not able to defend myself.

Was it Ronc's responsibility to reply on something he'd never heard about and perhaps if he had, didn't agree with?

Yes, I do expect people who play a game with me to reply when I write to them. I do the same for them.

Since it is not a rule, then I guess there must have been people who disagreed with it becoming a rule. Does your decision that it should be a rule override his that it isn't and not one he has chosen to adhere to?

It seems you haven't read carefully what I wrote. The answer to this rhetorical question is of course, no, it doesn't.

Then you admit that you're acting like a spoiled little bitch?

[iAmCaffeine]

sabotage; just shut up.

Why should he? For joriki to act so immaturely because someone didn't abide to a courtesy is pathetic, especially when he grossly exaggerates and then deadbeats. Who the f*ck even cares that much?

No, not yours individually -- first and foremost it's the responsibility of the person who opened the thread and made accusations -- and then if they don't do that and it becomes apparent in the discussion that I'm not there, it's also the responsibility of anyone else who writes negatively in a forum where I'm not able to defend myself.

It's nobody's responsibility to play according to a courtesy.

Also, +1 to gary's comment.

[_sabotage_]

He initialized within seconds, but gave his opponent a minute to get a snap. So my bad.

When I said he is doing the exact same thing, I meant he is refusing to acknowledge and acquiesce to Ronc's decision regarding the rule, and yet demanding that Ronc's adhere to his opinion of it.

[joriki]

He initialized within seconds, but gave his opponent a minute to get a snap. So my bad.

When I said he is doing the exact same thing, I meant he is refusing to acknowledge and acquiesce to Ronc's decision regarding the rule, and yet demanding that Ronc's adhere to his opinion of it.

_sabotage_, you've either not read my post (linked to above) -- if so, please do before you go on writing -- or if you have, please stop spreading false accusations. I took a lot of time to explain that my problem was not with someone disagreeing about the convention. If you don't agree with that explanation, then please explain why; simply ignoring what I wrote is not a constructive mode of interaction.

[JBlombier]

If someone would trash me on the forums, because I behaved like a spoilt kid, I'd want to be notified as well. I know that notification is never gonna happen. And I don't behave like that. So... it seems my problem is non-existant. [this is the part where I should leave the discussion, but somehow this guy got me riled up for nothing]

Now we got two Generals (I'll explicitly name their ranks, because they seem to think that gives you any credit in here) complaining about nothing. I really think you gotta have a reasonable level of intelligence to work the game in way to become General. That makes me extra confused that these gentlemen genuinely think they are right to think unwritten rules are common knowledge and feel they are entitled to a complaint.

CC'ers that have been for an extended period of time, know that rank says nothing. This thread painfully proves that some high ranks really think better of themselves, which I find equally funny and disappointing.

And yes, I have read everything.

[_sabotage_]

Why I don't agree. When I first moved to my town of 600 people, I bought some stuff from the shop and handed the lady a check. She pointed to the sign that said, checks not accepted without six pieces of ID and a $200 deposit. I said, ah well I just bought the place up the road, so I'll be back in a sec, can I leave my stuff on the counter? She said, oh you bought the big yellow house? Sure I can take your check.

What I didn't do is argue with her, tell her she's in the wrong and picket her store. I know Ronc's isn't the friendliest of players, but your actions are your actions. Ronc wasn't required to tell you anything, I've played hundreds of fog games and have been here for 3 years and hadn't heard of your convention and don't agree with it.

The player that is likely to suffer is the creator in a 1-1. The creator chooses the grounds and the opponent chooses how he wishes to play those grounds. Why should Ronc have to respond? Why should you be allowed to ignore the rule's?

What Ronc did he did unknowingly and in a moment. What you did was prolonged and deliberate, because you didn't get your way. It was not a reasoned response.

[joriki]

And yes, I have read everything.

Then I'm just as confused as you are. If you've read everything, then you read my detailed explanation of how it wasn't the mere disagreement about the convention that I found problematic, but an entire sequence of events that I perceived as hostile. You might not perceive them as hostile, but that doesn't change the fact that they were the reason for my reaction and not the mere disagreement about an unwritten rule. I would kindly ask everyone writing here to take that into account and to stop repeating the false accusation over and over that I reacted as I did merely because someone disagreed with me on a convention.

You've also then read what I wrote about not judging people by their ranks. If despite this you repeat an accusation that I think better of myself because of my rank, it would seem a minimal requirement of constructive discussion that you explain why you apparently don't believe what I wrote there.

On the part about being "entitled to a complaint": I hope it's clear that I didn't come here to file a complaint, neither about the fog rule nor about any of the behaviour I perceived as hostile. My only complaint was in the form of a comment in the game chat: "This is extremely uncool" -- everything else is a discussion caused by others complaining about me, not the other way around.

[owenshooter]

And yes, I have read everything.

Then I'm just as confused as you are. If you've read everything, then you read my detailed explanation of how it wasn't the mere disagreement about the convention that I found problematic, but an entire sequence of events that I perceived as hostile.

doesn't give you a pass to break a written rule... in the game chat, you state that you didn't know what was being said because everyone was on FOE... soooo, you obviously know how to foe and move on... you keep changing your story, but your actions remain the same... no excuse for breaking a written rule so blatantly...-Jésus noir

[joriki]

Why I don't agree. When I first moved to my town of 600 people, I bought some stuff from the shop and handed the lady a check. She pointed to the sign that said, checks not accepted without six pieces of ID and a $200 deposit. I said, ah well I just bought the place up the road, so I'll be back in a sec, can I leave my stuff on the counter? She said, oh you bought the big yellow house? Sure I can take your check.

What I didn't do is argue with her, tell her she's in the wrong and picket her store. I know Ronc's isn't the friendliest of players, but your actions are your actions. Ronc wasn't required to tell you anything, I've played hundreds of fog games and have been here for 3 years and hadn't heard of your convention and don't agree with it.

The player that is likely to suffer is the creator in a 1-1. The creator chooses the grounds and the opponent chooses how he wishes to play those grounds. Why should Ronc have to respond? Why should you be allowed to ignore the rule's?

What Ronc did he did unknowingly and in a moment. What you did was prolonged and deliberate, because you didn't get your way. It was not a reasoned response.

I really object to this style of imputing motives to others different from the motives they themselves report, without any argument to support it. I'm well aware that people sometimes misreport their own motives, either deliberately or because they're not fully aware of them, but you still need some form of argument if you want to claim you know better about their motives than they do. Just repeating over and over that I did what I did because I didn't get my way doesn't make it so. I've explained my motives in detail; if you disagree, please disagree with specific things I said instead of just ignoring them and imputing other motives.

To answer your questions:

"Why should Ronc have to respond?" -- it's a pretty basic part of my idea of a respectful interaction that if someone asks me something or asks me to do something, I respond, whether I want to comply or not. Of course you can question everything, including this, but of course then I can also question everything and start asking fundamental questions like "Why should I have to comply with written rules?". If we don't agree that it's unfriendly behaviour to simply ignore a message (knowing that the other person is waiting for a response), then perhaps we simply don't have enough common ground on which to base common evaluations of people's behaviour.

"Why should you be allowed to ignore the rules?" -- I shouldn't. This is part of where it seems to me you didn't read carefully what I wrote.

[_sabotage_]

You missed the last 11 turns. I am reading what you're writing but for the last 11 days I've been reading this thread and the one in C&A.

I'm imparting motives on you. I'm saying you were a dick for writing in game chat and then preceding to deadbeat. You are saying it's his fault you deadbeat. Unless he is one of several personalities that you possess, there is no way that any of your actions are done by him. That you blame him for your deadbeating is a bit dickish. That you didn't even consider to check if you were called out for cheating and then state people should come find you and let you know is a bit arrogant.

A bit and a bit. Nothing grand, nothing worth punishment, but a bit.

[demonfork]

Easy way out of this...

1. Admit that you were being a little crybaby bitch that took his ball home after you didn't get your way.

2. Take your fucking turns and finish the game.

[joriki]

I'm imparting motives on you.

I know, and I'm saying, please stop doing that. It's quite rude in my book.

You are saying it's his fault you deadbeat.

That seems to be a misunderstanding. I came here, to a thread full of accusations that I was deadbeating merely because someone didn't agree to follow a convention I like. That wasn't true, so I refuted those accusations, and in doing so, I necessarily had to explain why I was in fact not taking my turns. That's not a statement about whether I was right to do so -- it's quite clear from the discussions here that while there are different opinions about whether it was right, the majority opinion seems to be that it wasn't. Independent of that, those were my motives at the time. And independent of that, I still find his original behaviour towards me quite hostile. Whether it was a reason not to take my moves is another matter. That he didn't cause me not to take my moves is obvious.

That you didn't even consider to check if you were called out for cheating and then state people should come find you and let you know is a bit arrogant.

I disagree. It simply didn't occur to me that this would be a matter of public interest; as I said, I wasn't aware that there was a formal rule against doing this. It also didn't occur to me that someone might criticize me publicly and not tell me about it. To me it's a very basic question of respect and fairness that if I criticize someone publicy I make them aware of the accusations so that they have a chance to respond.

[random21]

Joriki, ignore this thread and come join KORT

We'd be happy to play with you.

The 12 hr fog rule is common gameplay in all clan based fog of war games.

While casual game players may not always adhere to it, it is still a fairly simple and straightforward idea that seems quite fair to me as well.

Those playing fog of war games may be playing in order to influence the use of strategy, but allowing all participants to see a game and how it looks at the beginning on the drop isn't really an issue that needs a 4 page thread about it.

At the same time, if people aren't aware of it, they aren't aware of it, but there isn't really any substantial issue here.

Come play with the cows I am taking 2-3 months break from CC, but you should consider the idea. I'm sure lots of cows would be excited having you join herd.

[_sabotage_]

I wasn't aware that there was a formal rule against doing this.

Ronc started this thread an hour after you informed him of the "convention". Surprise, but he didn't take his opponents word on it. He then realized that he could make a decision on whether he agreed with the convention personally. He obviously sided with the majority.

That there are rules that others aren't aware of, written or tacit, should be quite obvious to you, since you "didn't" know about the deadbeating rule. That you feel able to decide on whether you should follow these rules is obvious since you chose not to follow it. But you don't expect the same of him. You expect him to pay attention to your messages and reply in a timely fashion so that he can give you the go ahead to take your turn.

You are engaging in double standards and are doing so from the short end of the stick.

[iAmCaffeine]

You're playing a game based on war, stop complaining about hostility.

[joriki]

I wasn't aware that there was a formal rule against doing this.

Ronc started this thread an hour after you informed him of the "convention". Surprise, but he didn't take his opponents word on it. He then realized that he could make a decision on whether he agreed with the convention personally. He obviously sided with the majority.

That there are rules that others aren't aware of, written or tacit, should be quite obvious to you, since you "didn't" know about the deadbeating rule. That you feel able to decide on whether you should follow these rules is obvious since you chose not to follow it. But you don't expect the same of him. You expect him to pay attention to your messages and reply in a timely fashion so that he can give you the go ahead to take your turn.

You are engaging in double standards and are doing so from the short end of the stick.

I won't be replying to your posts anymore. They're not carefully argued; they more often than not misrepresent at least part of what I said or did or argued; they rarely respond to specifics of what I wrote or refute counterarguments that I brought to your claims, and instead introduce new sweeping claims, often consisting in baseless accusations which you then don't carefully defend when I challenge them. You might want to take one of these courses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.

[joriki]

You're playing a game based on war, stop complaining about hostility.

Interesting; I think you're making an important point here. A lot of these threads seems to me to be a clash between two subcultures at CC (obviously I'm oversimplifying), one of which has the attitude you state and engages in relatively unrestrained hostility, whereas the other, which I identify with, sees games that are nominally about war as games more or less like any other games, with just as much reason to be friendly and respectful to our fellow humans as in other areas of life. In "real life" I'm in the German Green Party and work on peace and conflict issues; I wouldn't be playing this game if I saw it as something based on war and therefore a more appropriate setting for hostile behaviour than other games. To me it's just a strategy game.

[_sabotage_]

Don't respond. Talk is cheap and this isn't a debate.

Your actions speak volumes. And I have, am and will call you a dick based on your actions and there are no words that you can say that can take your actions away.

My mother was the lead arbitrator against Bernie Madoff. If you think I'm not used to well reasoned arguments, that's up to you. What I'm used to is not being swayed from the facts by rhetoric. So, as you are unable to change the facts of the matter, I wouldn't waste any rhetoric on me.

[owenshooter]

*COUGH*

Subject: joriki / "forfeiting" in his own words. [ka]

This has been noted. Seeing the response made by joriki that he now realizes his mistake, let this serve as his warning not to do this again. We'll take this as an isolated incident.

If you happen to be in a game where your opponent is annoying, offensive, etc. please put him on your foe list. Do not deadbeat!

Weeding out the unnecessary posts from this thread, we can also lock this as the relevant messages has already been said.

Also, guys, stop spamming that game.

soooo, i think that means, DO NOT DEADBEAT!!! king achilles has spoken and settled the debate...-Jésus noir

[ronsizzle]

soooo, it has been noted.

i still think it is funny he wasted so much time in the two threads defending himself. i would have not even posted...

[JBlombier]

I like this thread, I hope it will go on until eternity. In here those who care too much about this game can embarrass themselves in public and people who care about something else can vent and let all the frustration out. It's a genius construction, almost a kind of CC-therapy. I especially enjoy it, because there's one post in which someone bothers to attack my point of view. If only he knew how much I didn't care and how much time he wasted on this... Taking the turns would've been a lot faster and less time-consuming, I'll tell ya.

[owenshooter]

I like this thread, I hope it will go on until eternity. In here those who care too much about this game can embarrass themselves in public and people who care about something else can vent and let all the frustration out. It's a genius construction, almost a kind of CC-therapy. I especially enjoy it, because there's one post in which someone bothers to attack my point of view. If only he knew how much I didn't care and how much time he wasted on this... Taking the turns would've been a lot faster and less time-consuming, I'll tell ya.

that is what amazed me... he was posting diatribes in the game chat that lasted for far longer than turns... just books upon books of "blah, blah, blah", defending his actions explaining how it was not wrong... well, he now knows it is wrong and ronc still doesn't have to give anyone a snap of his first turn. period. i suggest they go to SUGGS and ask the site to program snaps of the maps before the first turn that just post into the game chat...-Jésus noir

[WILLIAMS5232]

some people sure get to be miss prissy pants about this.

i don't mind playing with the fog rule. usually, in casual games if i recognize a player from clan games i'll give the courtesy of posting what happened, but when i'm just playing some random goober i don't put much thought into it. if he asks me for it, depending on his ratings that he leaves and recieves i may offer it up. if the guy is a habitual dick tho'. i don't mind being a douchebag every now and again. i don't really care about my ratings so much.

[Seulessliathan]

It seems there is a lot of confusion about this gentleman agreement, if you want me to comment here or post the full version with comments how it was supposed to be used, contact me via pm.