Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Sat, 30 April 2011 04:26

never seen anyone build a 1 yak mine sweeper.

I've seen 1 Coll mine sweepers designed to be easily replaced when killed. I wonder where you draw the line.

Quote:

I am lumping that statement into the rule bender group. Or, a better name would be a rules lawyer.

I am much relieved to hear that.

Quote:

That type of BS is why make a lot of specific rules. And, yes, I would punish you,

And that kind of ruling is why you get the "lawyers" fighting you every inch of the way. It would seem there's people who thrive with that kind of "metagame", both the rule-makers and the rule-benders...

Quote:

If they were ever mainline ships at some point, then they had 3 Coll, not 1. Also, the fact that they were a main line ships, in and of itself, answers the question of their true purpose. So, go ahead and use them in battle. It's sad you can't see the line that is so obviously there.

What line? That you can call someone a cheater and in the next sentence a bender and in the next sentence justified in their acts? That would be more like a net, and I sure am not entangled in it, nor want to ever be.

But then I've never liked complex rules where the letter is more important than the spirit.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 30 April 2011 06:22

But then I've never liked complex rules where the letter is more important than the spirit.

I started the conversation on a 1 Yak "minesweeper", and you are twisting it to be something else to fit your "spirit of the rules".

I know another person who liked to say the "spirit of the rules" too. In Twin World Wonder (If I remember the name correctly), Micha was the host, and used that line repeatedly when I asked him about specific actions we could take. He refused to answer straight. Instead he used that line "spirit of the rules". Me and my team mate learned later that his spirit differed from our spirit, and frankly we felt he cheated.

Fast forward to another game, where I took over a dying race that had been temporarily played by Micha in the interium. I questioned some things about how micha had played, that it was not actually how I read the rules, and asked the host if I should fix the items in question. I copied both host and Micha in that mail. Micha defended himself by pulling out that "spirit of the rules" BS, and the host took issue with Micha's interpretation of his rules.

Another game, Digital Domination, Micha was downloading my m and x files. I am sure he would have claimed that was in the "spirit of the rules" too...

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Sat, 30 April 2011 20:25

I started the conversation on a 1 Yak "minesweeper", and you are twisting it to be something else to fit your "spirit of the rules".

Well, that's what you get when there's too many or too strict rules. And I'm just citing real-game examples.

Quote:

I know another person who liked to say the "spirit of the rules" too.

Now you're implying that anyone who says that is a cheater too?

Quote:

...the host took issue with Micha's interpretation of his rules. Another game, Digital Domination, Micha was downloading my m and x files. I am sure he would have claimed that was in the "spirit of the rules" too...

It's kind of sad that you seem to ignore the abyss that so obviously separates both cases.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 30 April 2011 17:25

Now you're implying that anyone who says that is a cheater too?

You made a troll argument, so I slapped you with that response. If you don't like it, then don't be a troll.

Quote:

It's kind of sad that you seem to ignore the abyss that so obviously separates both cases.

It is a slippery slope, well documented in just about any abuse. Just ask any law officer. Criminals, addicts, soldiers, or whoever is breaking the rules. It doesn't matter. The first time it is your "interpretation" of the rules, fully justified by some argument. Heck, it might even make sense, but instead of asking the law, you boss, or your host, you just do it. You obviously know better than the host, what was meant by the rule.

You back up your logic by BS. First it is because this yak frigate "could" be used for mine sweeping, so you will just bring along a few hundred. You really need that many, cause they can't sweep worth sh*t.

Next game, you take the next step, and so on. Till, finally, one day you are justifying downloading and inspecting other peoples turns, on the off chance they might be uploading minerals to your bomber fleet. Who cares that it is turn 7, and no one has any bombing fleets, you are being proactive! You are protecting yourself from others cheating!

So, what I am saying is the abyss seems wide, but if you started down that path already, you really don't know how close the other side has gotten. And, based on your arguments, it sounds like you have already done some traveling.

Do everyone a favor, and ask the host directly what he meant by the rules, don't make your own interpretation, or you might be cheating, intentionally or not.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Sun, 01 May 2011 02:59

You made a troll argument, so I slapped you with that response. If you don't like it, then don't be a troll.

Wow, seems you don't like it when your logic flaws are pointed out.

Or perhaps you're just being consistent, lumping together all kinds of people that don't quite like your rulings?

Quote:

It is a slippery slope, well documented in just about any abuse. Just ask any law officer. Criminals, addicts, soldiers, or whoever is breaking the rules. It doesn't matter. The first time it is your "interpretation" of the rules,

Speaking of slippery slopes, probably you 1st made a simple rule about something mostly trivial, because it was "good to have rules for everything" then you kept refining and extending the rules network because you felt "the more rules the better" until you had everything and everyone perfectly covered with your rulings and in the end only the rules mattered and anything and anyone outside your perfect house of cards was bad, troll, cheater, criminal.

Quote:

So, what I am saying is the abyss seems wide, but if you started down that path already, you really don't know how close the other side has gotten. And, based on your arguments, it sounds like you have already done some traveling.

Oh no, the abyss is wide and people aren't mindless billiard balls tumbling down slippery slopes. Most can in fact look into the abyss and not fall inside, and don't need an artificial moral compass made of countless rules to keep a straight course.

You don't like it, fine, that's your problem. I don't care. And you only make it worse by labelling everybody else with the wrong labels.

The final irony would be that the more you stick to your rules, the more people don't want to agree with you. But hey, what do you care, as long as you have your rules!

Report message to a moderator

Actually M.A... You do look like a troll, and I fully back and I fully agree with Mlaub posts.

Just so you know...

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Sun, 01 May 2011 17:53

You don't like it, fine, that's your problem. I don't care. And you only make it worse by labelling everybody else with the wrong labels.

Yep, you are definately a troll.

Quote:

The final irony would be that the more you stick to your rules, the more people don't want to agree with you. But hey, what do you care, as long as you have your rules!

Actually, you have never hosted a game, have you? I don't see any posts by you in the new game section. That would be the ultimate irony.

Well, no matter. It is clear you have no interest in rules. Please never join a game I host.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 02:13

Actually M.A... You do look like a troll, and I fully back and I fully agree with Mlaub posts.

Well, that would make two of you that are wholly wrong. Ain't democracy fun? Or should I say illiteracy?

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 02:19

It is clear you have no interest in rules.

I have an interest in rules equal or greater than yours. I just cannot stand absurd or useless rules!

Quote:

Please never join a game I host.

You'd be so lucky... but no, I have far better uses for my time than trying to shed light thru that thick skull of yours, sorry.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 13:25

mlaub wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 02:19 It is clear you have no interest in rules. I have an interest in rules equal or greater than yours. I just cannot stand absurd or useless rules! Quote: Please never join a game I host. You'd be so lucky... but no, I have far better uses for my time than trying to shed light thru that thick skull of yours, sorry.

Would you terribly mind not being so rude?

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 29 April 2011 14:11

Rule bending happen every game. Example: in a previous game I played, there was a clear max allies of 2 per alliance. When me and my ally began to ram another player, the said player was "rescued" by another alliance (which won the game in the end), supposedly done by a trade and/or NAP. So the player we were ramming got supplied with defense, tech and free planets in the middle of the other alliance territory so we could not reach that player and grab his planets easily. How was that not a 3 player alliance, against the specific rules of that game? Yet, they won and they were not even seriously accused of cheating... Or, more to the point, of "bending the rules" to their advantage.

I feel like a ramble after all I've read. Here it comes

Helping the enemy of your enemy is not bending the rules. Its a genuine tactic if the game allows such: it certainly occurs in real-life and I feel sure Sun Tzu would have approved.

If the winning alliance comprised solely of the "allied two", then they won fairly. It was your responsibility to take such a possibility into account if it lay within the scope of the rules.

If the host is intent on 2 players only against all the rest, then a rule is required to be able to enforce it e.g. all others must be set to enemy. But even that doesn't prevent two teams working together by simply agreeing not to attack each other.

You don't even have to have explicit communication to accomplish this. Alliance 1 & 2 simply don't antagonise other while both attack alliance 3.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I see a game advertised with unusual rules I always try to consider what race and design will give me an edge over the other players because of those rules - I'd then play such a race if was the kind of race I enjoyed/wanted to have a go at. OTOH, if a game is advertised where certain play objectives are desired e.g. to experience the "Fog of War", I do the same thing, but this time inform the host of any significant advantages a particular race might have, so that suitable rules are in place to take account of that. More specifically, when playing the game itself, I'd be aiming to succeed within the spirit of the objective. Judging by my observations of HWF discussions, many of you concur with me on the latter and the general aim of discussions appears to be to obtain a reasonably level playing field to compete on.

Bending rules, my interpretation:

No chaff.

Perfectly legitimate is:

You build a cheap hull for a specific purpose early in the game. You actually use it for said purpose. It becomes obsolete. You get them altogether again and use them in an attack to get rid of them and take advantage of their "decoy" potential.

Bending the rule:

At the world you are collecting the fleet you build some more of that design.

Deliberately subverting the intent of the rule/effectively cheating:

Knowing that you can get away with saying your "decoy" isn't chaff, you build more at multiple worlds with the intent of using it as chaff in that collected fleet.

Cheating:

Continuing to build your "decoy" in numbers and not using it for original purpose beyond the "suicide" mission where they should have had their last hurrah.

You can probably find shades of grey within this spectrum.

Hosting:

Kudos to all those hosts who've come up with game ideas and imposed/enforced rules within them to widen the variety of our playing experience. Particular KUDOS to those who've carefully considered what rules need to be in place to maximise the levelness of the playing field and our enjoyment of the game.

When we play a game, while we may briefly offer an argument to the "referee" to support our claim, it is accepted that the "referees" word is law, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Our job as players is to live with that decision and do the best we can from there.

Centaurian.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 01:31

Well, you see... There was in that game a very clear rule stating that you could only have one ally with you in any given time.

"Ally" needed to be defined more clearly within the context of the game.

Once a game has started, its hard to adjust the rules. So unless a clear "spirit/play objective" has been defined where you might later reasonably argue that this possibility hadn't been taken into account and so shouldn't be allowed, although "legal" as the rules currently stand, you just have to suck it up. Even then, the hosts decision is final.

Hence, you need to be clear before the game starts what is meant/desired by the host. That is your responsibility.

Perhaps there should be glossary of terms that hosts could refer to when advertising games to minimize interpretation problems.

e.g. This games advertisement uses the Standard Glossary in the Need to Know forum. Off the top of my head, and by no means to be taken as definitive, a few terms could be:

Team Alliance: group of players that agree to a gamelength mutual assistance agreement with a view to "win together" and set each other to friend.

Exclusive Alliance: group of players that set each other to friend and only exchange tech/resources/ships between themselves. Battle orders must be set to attack enemy.

NAP partners: group of players that set each other to friend and agree a border.

Strict NAP partners: group of players that set each other to neutral, agree a border and do not intersettle.

Intersettle ...

Hosts could also use modified glossaries to suit their specific aims.

Sound's like a job for the Stars! lawyers to get their collective teeth into


Centaurian.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 04:18

I swear I got tired of this argument sometime during 2006.

Secretly, I subscribe to the following:

Play against others as you would have them play against you.

Can't go wrong if you abide by the principle and don't let it worry you when other folks can't live up to your standards.

Centaurian.

Report message to a moderator

Centaurian wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 21:39

Play against others as you would have them play against you.

Yes.

ETA: actually...I'd prefer it if they played a bit worse... and predictably... and no planet hopping.

Quote:

Can't go wrong if you abide by the principle and don't let it worry you when other folks can't live up to your standards.

I'm well use to people not meeting my standards. I have a disappointing habit of expecting people to live up to their own standards tho - anti-hypocrisy ftw . Unfortunately expecting things from people that I don't/won't do myself irritates my GF, apparently I'm only supposed to compare people's actions to my own standards, but given that's what she does I guess I can't get too pissed at her.

[Updated on: Mon, 02 May 2011 06:13]

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 20:02

ETA: actually...I'd prefer it if they played a bit worse... and predictably... and no planet hopping.

Someone regrets taking NAS

Report message to a moderator

What was this thread about again lol
This is the most entertainment Iv had in awhile.

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 06:35

Would you terribly mind not being so rude?

Would you so terribly mind asking that to those that have 1st ignored my valid questioning and perfectly legit concerns and then shamelessly insulted me several times without any reason or counterargument of their own to offer?

Report message to a moderator

Centaurian wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 06:52

I feel like a ramble after all I've read. Here it comes Bending rules, my interpretation:

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 07:31

you will never make me believe that it wasn't a rule bent in that game. It was nothing short of a 3 players alliance at that time, and they simply got away with it.

What did the game host say about the whole affair? And why aren't you accepting his ruling about it?

Quote:

the only way you can prevent from being disappointed from rule bending is making sure you enter games in which there is no special awkward rules that the host himself would need to judge at to begin with.

That has long been my policy, with special avoidance measures towards hosts too fond of complex silly rulesets, easiest to exploit, hardest to enforce, and most conducive to aborted games.

This thread has reinforced said policy. I sincerely hope players who engage in such ruleset minefields have the best of luck, because they'll need it.

Report message to a moderator

Centaurian wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 11:39

Play against others as you would have them play against you.

Otherwise known as "honor system"

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 15:33

What was this thread about again lol This is the most entertainment Iv had in awhile.

Seems some apparently reasonable people can't actually stand shades of grey, or perhaps their vocabulary is so limited that the only words they can use to label others are "cheater" or "troll".

Just to keep the interest up:

What should we call those who break/avoid/counter bad/wrong/silly rules?

Where do we draw the line between enlightening the illiterate (arguably an off-topic endeavour) and trolling?

Where's the :troll: icon?

[Updated on: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:32]

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Mon, 02 May 2011 10:18

I swear I got tired of this argument sometime during 2006.

2006? How about 1998?

Report message to a moderator