Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:46 pm
by jiminski
hehe, the whole point you were making earlier was that you agreed to the truce on the basis that it was ended when the other player was dead.
However, in the process of ironing out the deal; to allow you to attack your 'partner' but only in order to reach the 3rd party 'victim' to kill him, the cad dishonourably attacked you.
.....I don't think it was a practical suggestion of terms, but I wouldn't have called it dishonorable. It just wouldn't work because we'd probably have to attack each other in order to take the other player out.
Your point of argument is simply about nuance not essence.
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:57 pm
by billval3
jiminski wrote:hehe, the whole point you were making earlier was that you agreed to the truce on the basis that it was ended when the other player was dead.
However, in the process of ironing out the deal; to allow you to attack your 'partner' but only in order to reach the 3rd party 'victim' to kill him, the cad dishonourably attacked you.
.....I don't think it was a practical suggestion of terms, but I wouldn't have called it dishonorable. It just wouldn't work because we'd probably have to attack each other in order to take the other player out.
Your point of argument is simply about nuance not essence.
OKAY, this is getting really confusing. I DID NOT agree to the terms as given by the other guy. I was NOT interested in a truce (in this case) that ended when the third party was eliminated.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:39 am
by jiminski
OK mate. So we agree that a pact which ends only once the 3rd player is dead (accepting deadbeating and the other player being unnecessarily abusive) is in fact not an honourable one?
good luck! hehe and keep it clean.
Re: Attacking while making a truce
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:38 am
by firth4eva
firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
billval3: green, i will take that truce
firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
billval3: that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue
billval3: you attack me while we're discussing a truce?
birol: huh ?
billval3: WTF?!?
billval3: all i did was raise a perfectly valid point about your offer...we could have come to an agreement
firth4eva: well you took too long
billval3: no way, man, that's b.s.
firth4eva: what? its all a strategy isnt it
billval3: you said you were interested and then attacked me while we were discussing it
this is what he said after waiting 15mins in an rt.
And you are calling me dishonourable?
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:41 am
by jiminski
Well no! i was actually calling you both dishonourable.
Hehe now you are allied again...... I wonder who breaks your treacherous pact this time!
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:45 am
by firth4eva
WTF
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:48 am
by AAFitz
treaties are sometimes necessary, but when it includes the elimination of a player it ends the game right there...its no longer a game...almost no player can withstand two players making that truce, so it is one of the most dishonorable agreements that can be made
there are a few exceptions: use it on extremely abusive players or cheaters... nothing wrong with keeping them in check...if you act like an idiot in a game, expect to be taken down...it shoudnt even have to be said...
if someone goes off in my games...i will avoid him as long as i can, but in the end, they will not win...simple as that...
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:52 am
by chessplaya
AAFitz wrote:treaties are sometimes necessary, but when it includes the elimination of a player it ends the game right there...its no longer a game...almost no player can withstand two players making that truce, so it is one of the most dishonorable agreements that can be made
there are a few exceptions: use it on extremely abusive players or cheaters... nothing wrong with keeping them in check...if you act like an idiot in a game, expect to be taken down...it shoudnt even have to be said...
if someone goes off in my games...i will avoid him as long as i can, but in the end, they will not win...simple as that...
when do u find the time to always post long POSTS i mean really long posts and have 1800+ posts....damn u fitz...damn u
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:25 pm
by firth4eva
but i was never going to stick to it . oviously. i was just gonna get the 2 extra men and eliminate him
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:01 pm
by KidWhisky
I personaly think that there is nothing wrong with making the truce after all like you said Billval you do what it takes to win. However with that attitude you realy have no complaint since the other player did what he needed to to win. Or at least to gain the advantage. If you play to win you have to expect that the other players are going to as well. Hmm seems that it doesnt realy matter since neither of you won anyway.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:43 pm
by myx
yes..war is hell
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:22 am
by Skoffin
Personally, I hate any and all truces made in games. Teaming up is for team games only.
Re: Attacking while making a truce
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:04 am
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
billval3: green, i will take that truce
firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
billval3: that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue
billval3: you attack me while we're discussing a truce?
birol: huh ?
billval3: WTF?!?
billval3: all i did was raise a perfectly valid point about your offer...we could have come to an agreement
firth4eva: well you took too long
billval3: no way, man, that's b.s.
firth4eva: what? its all a strategy isnt it
billval3: you said you were interested and then attacked me while we were discussing it
this is what he said after waiting 15mins in an rt.
And you are calling me dishonourable?
You're a liar. When did I wait 15 minutes? Show me in the game log. I just looked at it and see nothing of the sort.
And I'm not sure what the post above is supposed to prove. All it shows is that you attacked me while we were discussing and then were a jerk about it.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:05 am
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:but i was never going to stick to it . oviously. i was just gonna get the 2 extra men and eliminate him
You admit that you were going to break the truce?!? I can't believe you're actually saying that! Do you expect people to want to play with you?
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:08 am
by billval3
KidWhisky wrote:I personaly think that there is nothing wrong with making the truce after all like you said Billval you do what it takes to win. However with that attitude you realy have no complaint since the other player did what he needed to to win. Or at least to gain the advantage. If you play to win you have to expect that the other players are going to as well. Hmm seems that it doesnt realy matter since neither of you won anyway.
There's a difference between doing what it takes to win and dishonorable play. I definitely DO expect the other players to win, which is why I'm always surprised when people whine about some tactic they don't agree with.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:12 am
by billval3
Skoffin wrote:Personally, I hate any and all truces made in games. Teaming up is for team games only.
Check the rules. That simply isn't true. You may WANT it to be true, but it's not.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:34 am
by firth4eva
i dont like people who make truces. I just use the people that do
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:52 am
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:i dont like people who make truces. I just use the people that do
If you can use a truce to your advantage then great. Breaking one on purpose just makes you untrustworthy.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:52 am
by firth4eva
i never made one
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:56 am
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:i never made one
From chat log of game #461741:
2007-05-26 14:25:58 - firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
2007-05-26 14:26:08 - billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
2007-05-26 14:26:46 - billval3: green, i will take that truce
2007-05-26 14:27:39 - firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
2007-05-26 14:28:14 - billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
2007-05-26 14:28:39 - firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
How do you explain that conversation then?
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:03 pm
by firth4eva
firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
billval3: green, i will take that truce
firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
billval3: that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue
it was never finalised.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:05 pm
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:firth4eva: blue u wanna truce?
billval3: and green really has nothing to lose by waiting
billval3: green, i will take that truce
firth4eva: if you cash first i will take it
billval3: okay, what's the truce and till what round?
firth4eva: tuce until blue is eliminated
billval3: that's not really gonna work because we might have to attack each other in tryiong to eliminate blue
it was never finalised.
The point is that we were in the middle of discussing it. And if you had just apologized and stated that during the game we probably wouldn't have a problem.
You stated above that you don't like people who make truces and yet you were the one who initially suggested it and stated your terms. How does that make any sense?
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:06 pm
by firth4eva
i said i dont liek people who make truces and take advantage of those that do. the whole reason for the truce was so that i got 2 extra men
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:09 pm
by billval3
firth4eva wrote:i said i dont liek people who make truces and take advantage of those that do. the whole reason for the truce was so that i got 2 extra men
Basically what you're saying is that you only made a truce because it would be to your advantage. That's the reason everyone makes truces, though, unless they're just plain stupid (or maybe just doing things for emotional reasons). What I can't believe is that you are publicly stating that you did not intend to keep the truce. Do you really expect people to want to play with you when you go out of your way to state that you are not trustworthy?
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:22 pm
by firth4eva
Actually i have clearly stated that i do not do truces and only take advantage of people that do.
But do you just wanna call a truce and let this thread die. Add me to you ignore list by all means but just leave it ok?