View previous topic :: View next topic |
Did I just waste my day? |
Yes; you did! |
|
65% |
[ 13 ] |
Yes; and now I realize I wasted my time with them before! |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
I am Beirdo and/or Thyrza, Where do I vote? |
|
30% |
[ 6 ] |
|
Total Votes : 20 |
|
Author |
Message |
mrbass
Joined: 05 Apr 06 Posts: 182
Location: Las Vegas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beirdo wrote: |
It's more of "I won't attack you if you don't attack me". And in a face-to-face game, that would be pretty obvious anyways. In most board games I've played, I've attempted to take it easier on my wife than the others, often to my detriment. And yes, when it's a 3-player game, that only leaves one other to attack.
|
I don't see anything wrong with that. I see many games where opponents won't stop someone in Hacienda as they're intimidated that they'll be blocked from building large land chains too. If you don't touch my land chain I won't touch yours. I usually have to be the one breaking them up without any help from the other players.
So yes I'd like to file a formal complaint against the other two players for doing the same thing as Beirdo and Thyrza........just kidding...it's all in a game and you just have to play each game with the hand your dealt with and make the best of it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beirdo
Joined: 05 Jul 06 Posts: 16
Location: Puerto Rico
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: Re: I am in the Gische/Kanga camp |
|
|
fr33py wrote: | I am in the Gische/Kanga camp on this one. While I know nothing of the individuals involved, I do agree that coming into a game with a friend/spouse/random person with an implied agreement to "not" play against each other but rather take out the other person first mentality is most definitely collusion. |
Whatever. Collusion has the denotation of the purpose of defrauding (by your own definitions). There is no defrauding in a game that has nothing to do with money. There is only winning and losing. And in a game of three players, it is nearly a guarantee (barring a tie) that two of the players are going to lose. The players haven't put any money into playing the game, they can't be defrauded.
It's not "collusion", its "strategy". Spoken or unspoken, choosing to take out one player first with or without cooperation is not cheating. The rules of the game were followed. The rules of the site were followed. Calling it cheating is inflammatory, and bordering on being rude.
fr33py wrote: |
Collusion is considered cheating. Therefor the two in question coming into a game with the intention of working together as to elminate the other player would be considered collusion and or cheating. |
Show me in the rules where it says that you are not allowed to broker side deals with other players... If you can find that in the rules of Wallenstein, I will apologize and back down. The rules of poker or any other game are completely irrelevant. Collusion in *poker* is considered cheating. This isn't poker.
Even if it seems unfair, people will gang up on others in Wallenstein and other similar games. This is a fact of life. It's a war game, and in war, there are often alliances of some sorts, whether overt or covert. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
craw-daddy
Joined: 09 Feb 06 Posts: 59
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I get one of my friends to join the site, make a bunch of games where s/he joins (and others too, if I want), then I tell him/her exactly which moves to make (all for academic purposes, of course). Then I haven't violated the rules of the site, haven't violated the rules of the game (provided, of course, that this isn't prohibited in the game rules), and have only engaged in "strategy" or "diplomacy". So that's okay? (A bit extreme, mind you...)
(Not that this would be any fun for me either, as then the real strategizing is then somewhat lost, being altered to some weird new thing.)
Maybe what we should really be arguing about is this rule for playing on SpielbyWeb.
* You must treat your fellow gamers politely. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gische
Joined: 12 Oct 05 Posts: 186
Location: San Carlos, CA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Collusion has the denotation of the purpose of defrauding (by your own definitions). There is no defrauding in a game that has nothing to do with money. |
Defraud : to deprive of something by deception or fraud
synonym see CHEAT
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=defraud
I see no mention of money. You are depriving the other players of the opportunity for a fair competition.
Quote: | It's not "collusion", its "strategy". |
Your strategy is collusion.
Quote: | Spoken or unspoken, choosing to take out one player first with or without cooperation is not cheating. The rules of the game were followed. |
I agree that this would be a valid way to play a game, certainly a war game. But the decision to act this way has to be one made as part of the current game, not a preordained agreement between two parties.
Quote: | Calling it cheating is inflammatory, and bordering on being rude. |
Well, I find your attitude of "It's not explicitly stated anywhere that I can't collude with my spouse" to be rather rude. You seem to completely miss the point that there is an accepted gaming etiquette that each game is something to be played as an individual. It sounds like you do this in live games as well, but that doesn't make it any better or more defensible.
Quote: | Even if it seems unfair, people will gang up on others in Wallenstein and other similar games. This is a fact of life. It's a war game, and in war, there are often alliances of some sorts, whether overt or covert. |
So now your defense seems to be "life isn't fair."
Great.
It's a GAME, not war.
Going into a game with two players having the intent to play as a team rather than as individuals is incredibly against the spirit of gaming. Yes, it is a "strategy" that will help you win the game. It is also a strategy that will get you many years of playing 2-player games when people get tired of your colluding. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beirdo
Joined: 05 Jul 06 Posts: 16
Location: Puerto Rico
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
craw-daddy wrote: | So I get one of my friends to join the site, make a bunch of games where s/he joins (and others too, if I want), then I tell him/her exactly which moves to make (all for academic purposes, of course). Then I haven't violated the rules of the site, haven't violated the rules of the game (provided, of course, that this isn't prohibited in the game rules), and have only engaged in "strategy" or "diplomacy". So that's okay? (A bit extreme, mind you...) |
Ummm, this isn't even close to what we did. We just decided to avoid attacking each other. There is NO rule that says you must attack every opponent, and none that says you can't choose to avoid attacking one altogether. I didn't tell Thyrza what to play, and she didn't tell me what to play.
craw-daddy wrote: |
Maybe what we should really be arguing about is this rule for playing on SpielbyWeb.
* You must treat your fellow gamers politely. |
Yes, come to think of it. The people who are calling us cheaters are not following that rule. There is nothing impolite about not attacking each other and choosing to attack the remaining player(s). As a matter of fact, his messages to us were a bit impolite. Just because you don't like how someone plays doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.
demarryl wrote: | Just play a two player game and STOP WASTING MY TIME! |
That seems rather impolite to me.
demarryl wrote: | Perhaps you find things are too difficult when it is just the two of you? I've heard somepeople do some wierd things to 'perform', but this is the strangest by far! |
That is also not polite. And posting "don't play against these two" onto the forum isn't terribly polite or mature in my mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrbass
Joined: 05 Apr 06 Posts: 182
Location: Las Vegas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's the way I've read this whole thread. Just two people not ganging up on each other. True if they say "you play this and I'll play this then" yes that's way overboard but they're not doing that. Trust me if this was an issue I would've stopped playing on spielbyweb over 200 games ago for sure the 'not ganging up on each other' factor which I see all the time in games I play with 4 or 5 players. If it's an issue stick to 2 player games like many do and I suppose we'd never see you in a 6 player Hoity Toity game now would we....hehe.
Does it frustrate me that not everyone plays cutthroat like I do? Sure, a little, but forcing someone to play your style isn't gonna happen so enjoy the ride for what it's worth. Like someone previously commented about Amun-Re he's only seen one instance where it was obvious with the sacrifice taking rewards phase out of 100 games he played. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Bad Lex
Joined: 16 Oct 05 Posts: 114
Location: Epsom, UK
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gische you are entitled to have an opinion on this but you cannot impose your own definition on terms such as 'diplomacy' and emotive phrases like 'cheating'.
diplomacy
n.
The art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements.
Tact and skill in dealing with people.
Cheating
v. intr.
To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game.
You may not like it but this couple have negotiated an alliance. It doesn't matter whether its at the start middle or end of the game. Their actions haven't violated the published rules only perhaps your own house rules. _________________ It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gische
Joined: 12 Oct 05 Posts: 186
Location: San Carlos, CA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe this is even arguable.
Creating an alliance before a game even starts is against the spirit of boardgaming.
If everyone violated that unwritten rule, games would cease to be fun. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beirdo
Joined: 05 Jul 06 Posts: 16
Location: Puerto Rico
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gische wrote: |
I see no mention of money. You are depriving the other players of the opportunity for a fair competition.
|
He had the opportunity. He chose to throw turns away by building buildings instead of counter-attacking, and by not using both Move A and Move B. If you know the others are going to be attacking a lot, and you choose not to attack, you can't subsequently complain that you weren't given a chance. After the first round, it should have been abundantly clear that both Thyrza and I were playing an aggressive game with a lot of attacks. Choosing not to attack was a mistake, regardless of whether we ganged up or not.
gische wrote: | Your strategy is collusion. |
Our strategy was to not attack each other unless necessary. If you don't like that, too bad.
gische wrote: | I agree that this would be a valid way to play a game, certainly a war game. But the decision to act this way has to be one made as part of the current game, not a preordained agreement between two parties. |
And why must it be part of the current game? Because you say so?
gische wrote: | Well, I find your attitude of "It's not explicitly stated anywhere that I can't collude with my spouse" to be rather rude. You seem to completely miss the point that there is an accepted gaming etiquette that each game is something to be played as an individual. It sounds like you do this in live games as well, but that doesn't make it any better or more defensible. |
I don't need to defend myself. Your gaming etiquette that you mentioned is hardly universally accepted. And for your edification, we WERE playing as individuals. Alliances don't in any way negate the individuality.
gische wrote: |
Quote: | Even if it seems unfair, people will gang up on others in Wallenstein and other similar games. This is a fact of life. It's a war game, and in war, there are often alliances of some sorts, whether overt or covert. |
So now your defense seems to be "life isn't fair."
Great.
It's a GAME, not war. |
How about you READ before you answer. It's a war game. As a war game, some alliances are to be somewhat expected. If you want a perfect example, look at the game of Diplomacy. Not having to worry about your allies attacking means you can concentrate other places. This is how war works, and the game is a game of war, not of hand-holding and playing fair.
gische wrote: |
Going into a game with two players having the intent to play as a team rather than as individuals is incredibly against the spirit of gaming. Yes, it is a "strategy" that will help you win the game. It is also a strategy that will get you many years of playing 2-player games when people get tired of your colluding. |
The spirit of gaming is to win at all costs within the rules. You seem to forget this. And in a war game, this is even more the case. Just because I may choose to play more cut-throat than you do when playing a war game, that does NOT make me a cheater. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sparrowhawk
Joined: 14 Mar 06 Posts: 16
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beirdo wrote: | The spirit of gaming is to win at all costs within the rules. |
I am the most competetive person I know and I would never use that as a definition of the 'spirit of gaming'.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beirdo
Joined: 05 Jul 06 Posts: 16
Location: Puerto Rico
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sparrowhawk wrote: | Beirdo wrote: | The spirit of gaming is to win at all costs within the rules. |
I am the most competetive person I know and I would never use that as a definition of the 'spirit of gaming'.
|
Oh, I forgot... and to have fun. But one person's definition of fun will vary from another's. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HappyProle SBW Developer
Joined: 28 Oct 05 Posts: 409
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems to me that what should be discussed here is whether it's acceptable to form alliances outside the scope of a particular game. While there's strictly no way to prohibit this from happening, it would seem like a fair expectation that everyone starts the game on equal footing with no pre-set alliances or agreements.
Several people have made references to Diplomacy, but Wallenstein is not Diplomacy. In Diplomacy there are specific phases to conduct secret or open negotiations with other players. When played in person it's acceptable (and encouraged) to meet away from the table and out of earshot of other players when negotiating. When played online, Diplomacy normally offers similar options, including letting players play blindly (i.e. you don't know who Turkey is).
In Wallenstein there is no diplomacy phase. There's no provision for conducting negotiations in secret or away from the table. I think it's reasonable to expect that players would treat a game of Wallenstein on SBW like the board game and negotiate in the open OR disclose the fact that in your game secret negotiations will be allowed and make an effort so that everyone has equal access (email, SBW PM, IM etc.) to all players.
There's a decent solution to all of this of course, if you play a game with someone and find that you don't like their style of gaming, whatever the reason, don't play games with them anymore! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stargate
Joined: 09 Dec 04 Posts: 603
Location: North Attleboro, Ma USA
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this thread is a great lesson on Damage Control -- or lack of it
1) to start -- a three player game involving a newbie and a married couple does not go well
2) the newbie posts a very imflammatory message and poll
(this was a great move by -- demarryl)
3) the alpha male of the couple takes up the challange and posts
the first of at least 10 replies --with a hint of apology --but the reply is
short on apology --and long on defense --the fish has taken the bait
4) the views of this thread and the posts start building
demarryl adds one (only one) additional post which is polite
(another good move)
5) more posts and more replies continue (last look was 34 posts
and 472 views)
6) the food fight is out of control ---users read the thread and post
comments --the alpha male posts long replies and adds ammo to
the thread --repeat, repeat, repeat
7) demarryl must be pleased, very pleased
his problem is front and center on the message board
and forget about right or wrong the couple now has a reputation
they did not want
lesson --- if you find yourself on the wrong side of a
comment, questionable action or appearance of being on the
wrong side -- your best action may be to apologize both
publicly and privately -- and MOVE ON
9) lets play some games |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beirdo
Joined: 05 Jul 06 Posts: 16
Location: Puerto Rico
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stargate wrote: | 9) lets play some games |
Yes, let's. This is pointless. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrbass
Joined: 05 Apr 06 Posts: 182
Location: Las Vegas
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HappyProle wrote: |
There's a decent solution to all of this of course, if you play a game with someone and find that you don't like their style of gaming, whatever the reason, don't play games with them anymore! |
Once again, site admin steps in and solves the problem. Couldn't said it better myself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|