Conquer Club

Is it just me or are the responses to this suggestion a little overreactive lol?

Mr_Adams wrote:just no. this is a war game, and information is a legitimate bartering tool.

Perfectly stated.

Dukasaur wrote:

Mr_Adams wrote:just no. this is a war game, and information is a legitimate bartering tool.

Perfectly stated.

Agreed.

Funkyterrance wrote:Is it just me or are the responses to this suggestion a little overreactive lol?

They are not overreactions. This topic has been discussed in General Discussion and in Suggestions now, as I'm sure in countless games. The whiners just don't get it. I have never once actually given away information in a fog game, but I consider it a right, as there are countless circumstances that call for it.

Bones2484 wrote:

mc05025 wrote:Even if his teamate(s) is alive?

I guess since we're getting technical...

The ONLY time this should be punishable is if a player or team is eliminated and THEN discloses information about the game.

i disagree with this. I can imagine it as a bargaining chip: if you kill me, i will tell everyone where your armies are.

TheForgivenOne wrote:I am going to move this back into the main area, as I felt there was discussion being created about what could be done/what is considered cheating for this concept.

This topic had it's chance before:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=136438&p=2979844&hilit=reveal+fog#p2979844

DoomYoshi wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

mc05025 wrote:Even if his teamate(s) is alive?

I guess since we're getting technical...

The ONLY time this should be punishable is if a player or team is eliminated and THEN discloses information about the game.

i disagree with this. I can imagine it as a bargaining chip: if you kill me, i will tell everyone where your armies are.

I don't think so. If we are trying to make this more realistic in being able to bargain information, you can't have it that someone can give away information after they're dead.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

It seems rather inconsistent to say that it's not against the rules, but then say that we would only act on it if it occurred multiple times over the course of many games. Those two approaches are philosophically incompatible. Either it's acceptable and you can't be punished for it at all, or it's unacceptable but is only actually punished if done multiple times (similar to the way we treat vindictive ratings).

I think writing "No, just no", using exclamation points, caps and the like is overreaction. If you don't like a suggestion the best way to say so is to leave the thread alone, otherwise you are simply bumping the thing.

If someone`s armies had died, it doesn`t mean the general dies. Or the information. Conquer Club is not promoting genocide.

It`s not exactly a question of realism either, it`s a question of gamism.

Funkyterrance wrote:I think writing "No, just no", using exclamation points, caps and the like is overreaction. If you don't like a suggestion the best way to say so is to leave the thread alone, otherwise you are simply bumping the thing.

If everyone did that then no opposition would be posted and all suggestions would seem like they have 100% approval, even though they don't.

Mr_Adams wrote:just no. this is a war game, and information is a legitimate bartering tool.

^

Singles, with more then 2 players, one player becomes too strong, you want to make sure that you break his bonuses. This is nothing a "blanket" rule will fix.

nope, diplomatics is part of the game. i would think its crazy if you're not allowed to discuss some parts of the game while you're in it.

Fircoal,

A suggestion falling to the bottom of the pile is a better indication of disinterest than posts staunchly opposing an idea. This thread was somewhat dead for a while until someone decided to opine on how bad an idea it was. Now it's getting attention again, good or bad. Is this productive?

Bones2484 wrote:The ONLY time this should be punishable is if a player is eliminated and THEN discloses information about the game.

In other situations it is annoying, but shouldn't be regarded as an offense.

Funkyterrance wrote:Fircoal,

A suggestion falling to the bottom of the pile is a better indication of disinterest than posts staunchly opposing an idea. This thread was somewhat dead for a while until someone decided to opine on how bad an idea it was. Now it's getting attention again, good or bad. Is this productive?

In this case, yes, it shows that there is even less support for the suggestion than when blake considered it time to close and move the thread.

For the record, I'm also against it.

Ok, you get the last word folks. I'm dropping it for the sake of HaireWolf's thread.

just one of those discussions that take place everywhere because it happens all the time... like bad dice threads.
I personally disagree that it should be against the rules. 1st Amendment rules.

jefjef wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:The ONLY time this should be punishable is if a player is eliminated and THEN discloses information about the game.

Yes.

Very hard to check, how can a C&A mod decide if its a matter of life and death??

sniff

If anyone gives away my positions and troop numbers in a FOW game, I simply reduce their evaluation when doing their rating under fair play and attitude, and then move on. To be honest I can only remember 2 games where this has happened.

I understand that but how could you feel good about rating someone low if they are playing by the rules as they are set by Admin?

HaireWolf1 wrote:I understand that but how could you feel good about rating someone low if they are playing by the rules as they are set by Admin?

If someone cusses at me and says I'm only winning because I had "lucky dice" then you best believe they are getting a low rating, even though they are not breaking any rules through their speech.

For Fog of War, rate low, foe, move on. If you don't want people revealing your position, don't screw them over, or at least be ready for the consequences.

HaireWolf1 wrote:I understand that but how could you feel good about rating someone low if they are playing by the rules as they are set by Admin?

The ratings system is only designed to rate people for actions/behavior that aren't rule-breaking. An entirely separate system, managed by the mods, comes into play if they do violate the rules. Since we have a system to deal with rule breaking, we don't need low ratings to deal with that.

Funkyterrance wrote:I think writing "No, just no", using exclamation points, caps and the like is overreaction. If you don't like a suggestion the best way to say so is to leave the thread alone, otherwise you are simply bumping the thing.

No, because if a suggestion needs to be opposed it needs to be opposed. The last thing we need is for a bad idea to be implemented just because the people in favour of it had their say and the people opposed to it didn't bother speaking up.

It happens in real life all the time. Some kook comes up with a new rule to propose in Parliament, and the reasonable people figure it's too ridiculous to pass and don't bother saying anything, and next thing you know it's passed.