Fyrdraca, JPlo64, groovysmurf - is this poor sportmanship?

[itstheGeneral]

I don't normally respond to this rhetoric.. Yes I stop reading after 4 pages... All I know is, this is a so-called war game.. So are there rules in a knife fight. hell no.. Did Stalin say Hitler cheated by doing a sneak attack ?? Did FRD cry out foul when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor ?? The only rule I know of is. In war the object is to win by any and all means. THERE ARE NO RULES IN LOVE AND WAR..

[Elaterate]

You really want to talk about putting things out of context??

2017-11-10 18:47:07 - josko.ri: I know not everyone agrees but that is just my opinion. In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree.


I toldi WOULD ask opponents for permission in 1v1 and team games IF i want to use this loophole. But since i have never asked that simply means that I wwould NEVER use this loophole in 1v1 and teamgames. And I never used it indeed.


YOU are now ADDING words to your statements to twist it to fit your narrative

"I ask my opponents" is now "I WOULD ask".... and "I use it only if they agree" is now "IF i want to use it".

You've used it, plain and simple, clear as day.

I will enjoy ignoring your reply like you've done to so many others

[HardAttack]

I don't normally respond to this rhetoric.. Yes I stop reading after 4 pages... All I know is, this is a so-called war game.. So are there rules in a knife fight. hell no.. Did Stalin say Hitler cheated by doing a sneak attack ?? Did FRD cry out foul when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor ?? The only rule I know of is. In war the object is to win by any and all means. THERE ARE NO RULES IN LOVE AND WAR..

did not stalin know attack by hitler was going to come ?
he still kept his words of cooperation and common sense with hitler no matter what he knew it was going to happen...
it was inevitable but he wanted that to happen as late as possibple to gain advnatgae for preperations...

there are rules in love and war of course.
are you allowed, welcomed, to beat the girl into trauma out of your loving her ? i know so strange of an example but to collapse your point maybe such an example is neccesary.
lets say/assume you are someone enjoying such sick manners, and you love a girl then tell her you are beating her out of your love... see it the result if there are rules in love or not.

in/about war,
rule number 1;
you can not win a single battle without getting well understood by your nation and taking their full support. (italy/ww2)
a lot of more rules i may tell but not neccecary.

[Swimmerdude99]

In the game where i used this loophole i wrote this:

josko.ri: "In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement"

To me, this argument makes no sense. If its bad sportsmanship to do it, then its bad sportsmanship to ask. If they say no, now they seem like a bad sportsman even if you did ask in a 1v1 or multiplayer situation.

If you actually followed your own logic, you would have instead NOT used it in that game since you couldn't get everyone's support. By using it and not getting everyone's approval, you officially acted unsportsmanlike. If you had wanted to be sportsmanlike you would have taken non-consent from every player as deeming it not worth being done if you ACTUALLY cared about it being unsportsmanlike.

And this is where things you point out generally break down. You will always try to spin things in your favor, it was a "different scenario" blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, if its bad sportsmanship for opponent to use it without asking all players, then its also bad sportsmanship for YOU to use it without all players' consent. Therefore, you don't have a reason to call anyone out for it once you lose to it. You are just being a "bad sport" by complaining publicly about something that most people don't even view the same as you. But even for the ones that do... You don't actually follow your own logic So now they should likely support the poll, but not support your actions.

But like others have said, its often not worth the time to make a reply because you are a master of validating your actions, its almost as though you see yourself as infallible, yet you are clearly too smart to actually think that. So I can never quite tell if you are trolling or actually think you are in the right when doing things, and others are in the wrong when doing them. I'm starting to think you are actually a troll that just laughs as you form things eloquently

[HardAttack]

out of very topic, sorry...

i miss
Deli and Master Fenrir so much
i hope they are doing well

[Shannon Apple]

One you start your turn you have 1 hour. The wait would be a litttttlllleeee shorter.

I honestly don't know where I put my brain these days. Yes, that makes sense.

After reading all the posts in this thread it can turn your brain into mush. I just wish I could use that excuse.

Sometimes... I think that might actually be the case. At least, I feel like I've lost a few brain cells every time I start reading through the posts on this forum.

[Donelladan]

A majority of the skilled players in freestyle brs used this strategy, me included (though I like to think I only used it when I knew the opposition would too).

I disagree with that statement. Some players, skilled or not were using it. I've never seen a majority of player using it. There is no statistics on this therefore this is pretty much impossible to state any facts. But to my recollection it was never a majority of people using it.

The consequences are quite different, and I would not consider the loopholes to be the same at all. Imo this is illustrated by the fix for one but not for the other too.

Ok the consequences are "different" because it's different spoils. But the loophole is exactly the same, there is only one loophole, it's running out of time to avoid taking a card. That it is escalating, flat, nuke, zombie, it's still running out of time to avoid taking a card.
If you think running out time to avoid taking a card is a loophole, because it's not possible to not take a card when playing "real" risk game, then it's a loophole regardless of the spoils you're using. And it's the same loophole.

Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?

And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)

It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.

[IcePack]

it's not possible to not take a card when playing "real" risk game

Countless times in real games, people forgot to take a card for taking a territory. In those games, we would tell the ppl to bad, you forgot to and you're punished remember next time.

Online is different, theres no "forgetting" (I guess unless you time out mid turn accidentally because RL emergency) but its certainly possible to miss a card in real game.

(of course, the counter point is if it was advantageous for them to miss a card and they were honestly forgetting, you could "remind" them they need to draw in a real risk game and they would have to draw and there is no equivalent of forcing your opponent to draw or miss)

Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?

And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)

It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 5#p4993274

Relevant link to actual post (not thread)

[Swimmerdude99]

Well that's damning lol. And supports my last post above. Generally, josko feels how he feels about rules in the case of how they might benefit him, not actually based on good sportsmanship. Either that... or my other suspicion which is that he is just pretending to actually care about good sportsmanship and just trolling us along as the wind blow. But both come back to the same general principle. You only really care because it was used against you. Clearly, in the past, and in solo games you have thought of it as strategic and therefore, you have chosen to use it.

[mookiemcgee]

InB4 - "I only meant it was a valid strategy in a specific context and not this context"

[Extreme Ways]

A majority of the skilled players in freestyle brs used this strategy, me included (though I like to think I only used it when I knew the opposition would too).

I disagree with that statement. Some players, skilled or not were using it. I've never seen a majority of player using it. There is no statistics on this therefore this is pretty much impossible to state any facts. But to my recollection it was never a majority of people using it.

Could very well be that my memory failed me and that youre right. In any case I agree that it's difficult to check, and it's also difficult to decide on what constitutes a 'skilled' player in those nuclear freestyle brs.

The consequences are quite different, and I would not consider the loopholes to be the same at all. Imo this is illustrated by the fix for one but not for the other too.

Ok the consequences are "different" because it's different spoils. But the loophole is exactly the same, there is only one loophole, it's running out of time to avoid taking a card. That it is escalating, flat, nuke, zombie, it's still running out of time to avoid taking a card.
If you think running out time to avoid taking a card is a loophole, because it's not possible to not take a card when playing "real" risk game, then it's a loophole regardless of the spoils you're using. And it's the same loophole.

Agree to disagree.

Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?

And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)

It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.

Dukasaur already mentioned the escalating part before Josko posted that too, so no argument that this was only about nuclear (which is the main abuse case stated in the OP):

Normal rules of Risk, from which CC is copied, state that if you successfully attack someone during your turn, you will get a card. But sometimes, people who don't want a card will successfully attack, but then let their time run out so that they don't get one. This is usually in nuclear or zombie, but once in a whlle in escalating also.

From: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 6#p4993223

Spoiler

PS @HA: I can't respond to your wall post because you prefer one-directional conversations, but I'll link you to this quote of yours: [quote]"EW is a respectable and nice individual most of times as far as i know. Sometimes talks more than needed, should be out of boredom. Probably there is a missunderstanding in what is/was said..."[/quote] https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=235491&p=5196152#p5196152

[Evil Semp]

ive got a good stat

90% of the posts in this thread are not worth reading, and about 70% of those posts are made by people who aren't worth reading, 98.5% of the time

you're welcome

Hello Mr. 98%er

[josko.ri]

Btw, I found an interesting topic in the archived suggestion :
Is it time to close the timing-out loophole?

And the infamous josko.ri had an opinion back then : (page 2)

It seems I am minority who supports to leave it as it is, Given that in my opinion it is only additional strategic option, not cheating in any way.

2017-11-10 18:45:56 - josko.ri: I consider running out of time as additional strategy element which may or may not be used
2017-11-10 18:47:07 - josko.ri: I know not everyone agrees but that is just my opinion. In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree. however in multiplayer games I cannot ask everyone for agreement

I do not know how your new quote of me adds any new information to the previous quote of me, didnt I tell the same previously also? So, which is purpose of showing duplicate evidence which states the same my opinion?

To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game. On this way, both teams would play using the same and equal set of rules, which was originally not the case in our baseball game because josko.ri said: "In team games and in 1v1 games I ask my opponents do they agree to use that strategy and I use it only if they agree."

Also, Don and every other underminers, I see you are still active searching for evidence to undermine me. Couldnt you find a single 1v1 or team game where I used this strategy to throw it directly to my face? I have played 80% of my games ever (more than 14.400) in escalating 1v1 or team mode so it shouldnt be a problem to you to find one game where I used this strategy, if such game exists. Of course you could not find because I am not such cheap player to use this kind of unsportmanship strategy.

While I may think the strategy is/was not against rules, I never used it in 1v1 and team games because my opponents might think differently and therefore my using of it would give me an unfair strategical advantage. Similarly is with 12 hour fog rule, some players thinks it is not unsportmanship behavior to play turns right away but they still do not do it to give fair play consideration to their opponents. I have enough confidence in my skills to be qualified enough to earn my wins by outplaying my opponents, so I do not need to use such unsportmanship strategy as Fyrdraca's team, who otherwise lost with 6-0 clean sheet from my team in circumstances when they did not use such unsportmanship strategy.

Interestingly, 89% of voters in the thread posted by Don voted that this loophole should be closed in 24 hour games. This means that Fyrdraca's team conducted kind of move which is not supported by 89% of CC players. Therefore, that result of the poll is actual measure of what people want rather than result of this poll where I made honest mistake putting three names in the thread title. I dont know why escalating loophole was not fixed back then given that majority voted for it.

[Caymanmew]

Also, Don and every other underminers, I see you are still active searching for evidence to undermine me. Couldnt you find a single 1v1 or team game where I used this strategy to throw it directly to my face? I have played 80% of my games ever (more than 14.400) in escalating 1v1 or team mode so it shouldnt be a problem to you to find one game where I used this strategy, if such game exists. Of course you could not find because I am not such cheap player to use this kind of unsportmanship strategy.

Do you realize how long this would take? Like I'll brb I got to quickly read the logs of 14k games of Josko's to find the handful of times he used a rarely useful cheap play... can anyone sit my account while I do this during all my free time for the next few weeks...

[Nut Shot Scott]

Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not

Everyone does have the choice, as is evidenced by your entire complaint. You had the choice, you chose to take a card. They had the choice, they chose not to take a card. There. Done. Argument over. Glad you agree.

[josko.ri]

Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not

Everyone does have the choice, as is evidenced by your entire complaint. You had the choice, you chose to take a card. They had the choice, they chose not to take a card. There. Done. Argument over. Glad you agree.

Funny how you do not even quote my full sentence which says "... by the site feature." So, if it is done by the site feature then it is all correct and i support it. But currently there is not a site feature for it but rather a loophole, therefore it is unsportmanship behaviour to use the loophole.

[BabySasuke]

InB4 - "I only meant it was a valid strategy in a specific context and not this context"

this lol


still unsportsmanlike to be a twat with the tribe games, but here you are going on about sportsmanship (not you mookie mc mookface)

[Nut Shot Scott]

Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not

Everyone does have the choice, as is evidenced by your entire complaint. You had the choice, you chose to take a card. They had the choice, they chose not to take a card. There. Done. Argument over. Glad you agree.

Funny how you do not even quote my full sentence which says "... by the site feature." So, if it is done by the site feature then it is all correct and i support it. But currently there is not a site feature for it but rather a loophole, therefore it is unsportmanship behaviour to use the loophole.

Lmao.

1. The site fixed your loophole for other game sets and chose not to adjust this one. This is the equivalent of doing what you're asking - by acknowledging it exists and doing nothing, they acknowledge that your choice to take or leave the card is an acceptable practice. By not acquiescing to your complaint, they have also acknowledged it's acceptance as a valid practice. Just because you do not like it, does not make it so.

2. Regardless of this, you're asking for everyone to have the choice. The choice exists, we all have it. Use it or don't, but there is less than a leg to stand on here if that's your latest horribly made point.

3. You're either trolling (if so, excellent work man) or you're a complete and utter brainless jackhole who somehow has, against all odds, figured out how to play a basic turned based strategy game quite well. You pick.

[Caymanmew]

Umm Josko's record vs erazor is now 20 - 17...

Looks like Josko's going to win the Poly 4 Unlimited Zombie World 2.1 though

Still he will be under 50%

[Donelladan]

To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.

Seriously, do you expect anyone to believe that ? That's not what the topic where you responded is about and you never suggested that.
You're just making up stuff up on the spot.

I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.

[josko.ri]

To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.

Seriously, do you expect anyone to believe that ? That's not what the topic where you responded is about and you never suggested that.
You're just making up stuff up on the spot.

I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.

This is what i meant when i told quotes that you mentioned in past. But my suggestion was not accepted. If my suggestion was accepted then i would have the sameopportunity to use this strategy as Fyrdraca team had.

[Silly Knig-it]

It seems that 10/47 people who voted thinks this is poor sportmanship which is 21%. It is quite a big number of % for something that can be decider in some games. Obviously, 21% of CC users would have never used this unsportmanship behaviour even if they have chance which make them disadvantaged over 79% of CC users who does not see problems in using this kind of strategy.

My team will anyway beat Fyrdraca team in the series of 9 sets so the win that they achieved on this shameful way will anyway be phyrric. Hopefully this shameful way of winning makes Fydraca and his company of friends happy and fullfilled

When they did not use such shameful strategy, in group phase of the championships tournament, my team kicked their asses with 6-0 victory, which shows enough how much are strategic differences between our teams. With such strategic inferiority, it is no wonder that they thought of different ways for achieving their win which are on the borderline of good sportmanship.

Honestly, Josko, I think it would be higher, but I am sure that there all people that voted against you just to be against you. Just for the record, I am one of the 21% who believe it is poor sportsmanship and 1 of the people who do not have anything against you.

I very much respect Josko. Both as a player, for what he as achomplished; and as a human being for the respectful and kind way he approaches people. I just don't agree with him in this situation.

[josko.ri]

It seems that 10/47 people who voted thinks this is poor sportmanship which is 21%. It is quite a big number of % for something that can be decider in some games. Obviously, 21% of CC users would have never used this unsportmanship behaviour even if they have chance which make them disadvantaged over 79% of CC users who does not see problems in using this kind of strategy.

My team will anyway beat Fyrdraca team in the series of 9 sets so the win that they achieved on this shameful way will anyway be phyrric. Hopefully this shameful way of winning makes Fydraca and his company of friends happy and fullfilled

When they did not use such shameful strategy, in group phase of the championships tournament, my team kicked their asses with 6-0 victory, which shows enough how much are strategic differences between our teams. With such strategic inferiority, it is no wonder that they thought of different ways for achieving their win which are on the borderline of good sportmanship.

Honestly, Josko, I think it would be higher, but I am sure that there all people that voted against you just to be against you. Just for the record, I am one of the 21% who believe it is poor sportsmanship and 1 of the people who do not have anything against you.

I very much respect Josko. Both as a player, for what he as achomplished; and as a human being for the respectful and kind way he approaches people. I just don't agree with him in this situation.

That is totally fine, we dont need toagree on everything.

[Nut Shot Scott]

I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.

This is what i meant when i told quotes that you mentioned in past. But my suggestion was not accepted. If my suggestion was accepted then i would have the sameopportunity to use this strategy as Fyrdraca team had.

there is no way you aren't trolling. nobody is this dense.

Also, if i ever start a Euro synth pop band, i am 100% calling it Nu Schot Scoot. this is amazing.

[Conchobar]

To explain that quote in detail, I indeed think that "not taking card after territory is taken" should be additional strategic option, just as nuclear or zombie are additional strategic options. If my opinion is accepted by the site, then the site would implement question "do you indeed want to get card?" at the end of the turn, to which the player can respond with "yes" or "no". Therefore, everyone on the site would have CHOICE to take card or not by the site feature. THIS is what I support and if this is implemented then both Fyrdraca team and me would have the same strategical possibilities in baseball and every other game.

Seriously, do you expect anyone to believe that ? That's not what the topic where you responded is about and you never suggested that.
You're just making up stuff up on the spot.

I think swimmer and Nu Schot Scoot are right, you must be trolling.

This is what i meant when i told quotes that you mentioned in past. But my suggestion was not accepted. If my suggestion was accepted then i would have the sameopportunity to use this strategy as Fyrdraca team had.

Could you stop calling them Fyrdraca team? It's Sausy Smurf & The Slippery Sleeveens. Please get it right.