Test pitboss

[Lord Parkin]

We really don't need to turn this into a flame war.

BCLG100's was perfectly reasonable in the fairly casual spirit of this game.

Lord Parkin's response was a fair cop, if you're going to suggest everyone dogpile a player then you can expect them to hit back by doing such things as questioning your integrity. Your actual integrity is somewhat beside the point in that sort of a comeback. It's like if you posted how fast your car was and someone responded by suggesting you have a small winkle. No-one really knows or cares how big anyone's winkle is, but the reality is you're setting yourself up for the comment by making the post in the first place.

Of course CDZ obviously take their reputation for sticking to deals very seriously, and an important part of doing that is to (over-) react any time anyone questions it, particularly if it's unfounded (as it always will be in the case of banter). Maybe Lord Parkin should have known that, maybe not.

Everything else just seems a little unnecessary to me.

Amen.

Breaking deals is not different to cheating

I'm going to ignore all of the rest of your bait and just deal with this one issue. I can't tell if you're deliberately obfuscating the point, or are seriously and genuinely unable to tell the difference between metagaming and treaty breaking. I'll assume the latter.

Everyone would agree that it is cheating to hack into the game and alter it to your advantage (e.g. by giving yourself 100 nukes). But while going back on a deal is dishonest, it is by no stretch of the imagination "cheating".

Cheating involves manipulating the rules of a game. Treaty breaking involves manipulating the players of a game. The two are not the same. One violates the spirit of the game and gets you kicked out for good; the other violates the trust of other players at the cost of personal reputation, but the game goes on.

There is no rule that says "everyone must be 100% honest and keep 100% of their deals 100% of the time". If you have somehow falsely got the impression that there is such a rule, I don't know how to help you. Certainly though, if there was no chance of backstabbing anyone ever, and everyone had no option but to keep every single deal they made, it'd be one unsuspenseful and boring game.

So you said that I would break deals, as breaking deals can be equivocated to cheating you have just called me a cheater, perhaps you don't realise that doing so is an insult.

If you have understood the difference between metagaming and breaking treaties as I pointed out above (neither of which I seriously accused you of), then you should have no reason to continue to feel insulted.

Did someone say nukes?

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Breaking deals is not different to cheating

I have to say, I agree with the general gist of what BCLG is saying on this... If we make a deal and then you break the deal, then you have cheated me. For example ... if I give you tech up front in exchange for your promise to give me tech in X turns, and then you break your promise and cancel the deal... well then you have cheated me out of my tech, and you are a cheat.

If you tell others (or even suggest or imply or "joke") that so-and-so is a cheat, those folks might take it seriously, and choose not to deal with that person... just like if someone gets accused of cheating a different way, people might not want to play with that person anymore.

There are different ways to cheat people, but all result in people not trusting you anymore.

You were insulting in the first post and attempted to justify it in the second post thereby reiterating the original insult

I also agree with this. An "apology" that contains sarcasm, and patronizing language is no apology at all... it just compounds the original insult.

A good example of this is when someone says "I am sorry that YOU were offended" rather than saying "I am sorry for saying what I said and I won't say that anymore"... One is a patronizing insult disguised as an apology, the other is more sincere.

At any rate this flame/fight has been top-notch... makes me miss the old Kazakhstan days... sigh

 

[Darkness]

Wow, did I just waste 5 minutes of my life reading Lady Parkin's whining and nagginging?

I know people will probably read this as me supporting another CDZ member, but BCLG is 100% correct here. And had Lady Parkin actually gone over to CDZ and read up on how seriously CDZ-players take deal-breaking, perhaps she would not have whined, nagged and gossipped about this subject with regards to a CDZ member. But then again, that would imply a capacity of reasonable thought without overreacting. So that seems rather unlikely.


@BCLG & Robi: Maybe we should start a new thread at CDZ about the demogame and the potential for backstabbing team Sirius?
Because I am so anxious to hear Lady Parkin whine again after we break some more deals... After all, we can't disappoint her, can we? And this does seem to be what she's expecting of us...

 

[Shabbaman]

However, it really should have been obvious to everyone that there's no way I could have built that many wonders without having some friends on my continent. I assumed that BCLG would have realised this, and as such you have to admit that a comment like "How have you let him build nearly every single wonder going without at least taking a crack at wiping him out?" implies an expectation that there is no excuse - friends or not - for letting someone build a lot of wonders without attacking them. Don't you agree?

Apparently you've made vassals, not friends.

 

[Robi D]

@ Darkness, take a deep breathe and read my post at CDZ


@LP Going back to the earlier part of the conversation, I do understand about taking the piss, if you notice I only highlighted one sentence of your original post, which I (along with other) found offensive. There are some subject that will hit a raw nerve with some people. It also doesn't help matters when an apology is done in non serious way.

There is no rule that says "everyone must be 100% honest and keep 100% of their deals 100% of the time". If you have somehow falsely got the impression that there is such a rule, I don't know how to help you. Certainly though, if there was no chance of backstabbing anyone ever, and everyone had no option but to keep every single deal they made, it'd be one unsuspenseful and boring game.

No there is no "rule" but I personally would treat breaking a deal as seriously as someone cheating by adding units or whatever else. And I don't agree that honouring all deals all the time makes a game boring, I've played many MP games at the CDZ where no one broke a deal but the games were very interesting to play. The only thing that I have found that makes MP games boring and unsuspenseful is having tech trading on, since they tend to boil down to 2 main alliances that run indefinately with a tech rate thats so quick only a space race win is possible.

Just look at how processional this game is (apart from the running battle of words in this thread) as well as the MTDG one.

 

[Darkness]

@ Darkness, take a deep breathe and read my post at CDZ

Don't need to. If you look past all the dead, backstabbed bunnies lying around me, you can see I am perfectly calm.

 

[Lord Parkin]

If we make a deal and then you break the deal, then you have cheated me. For example ... if I give you tech up front in exchange for your promise to give me tech in X turns, and then you break your promise and cancel the deal... well then you have cheated me out of my tech, and you are a cheat.

You're playing with words though, using the word "cheat" in a different context, as a substitude for "breaking a promise". "Cheat" in the context I was using it referred to the much more serious, game-tampering kind. For example, in the exact game you were referring to, the event of breaking a promise merely caused ill feelings between a couple of teams, but the game went on. Whereas the same game ended abruptly at a later date due to mere allegations of real, serious cheating. I cannot agree that the word-play version of cheating is even close equivalent to serious, game-tampering cheating.

At any rate this flame/fight has been top-notch... makes me miss the old Kazakhstan days... sigh

You are certainly a weird person. No offence.

[snip]

Thank you for that needless and humourless string of flames. Because everyone knows that trolling someone is always the most effective way to defuse an argument and encourage apologies. So thank you, sir, for that invaluable contribution to raising the atmosphere of the thread. Ta-ta now.

@BCLG & Robi: Maybe we should start a new thread at CDZ about the demogame and the potential for backstabbing team Sirius?

For the record, I should point out that I haven't really had the time to be involved on the Sirius team for several months now. So such a complete and ridiculous overreaction to an event in a different game that doesn't even concern you would be pointless and futile anyway.

Apparently you've made vassals, not friends.

If you think so. You're welcome to your perspective. Just as my friends are welcome to theirs.

@LP Going back to the earlier part of the conversation, I do understand about taking the piss, if you notice I only highlighted one sentence of your original post, which I (along with other) found offensive. There are some subject that will hit a raw nerve with some people. It also doesn't help matters when an apology is done in non serious way.

Okay, fair point. Although please realise that my intention was only to lighten up the increasingly toxic atmosphere with a little levity. Being morbidly serious is not exactly my thing, as you may have noticed.

But I'm sorry for offending BCLG (and apparently almost the entirety of the CDZ site, by the sound of things) with a comment that was never intended to be offensive in the first place. If I'd realised it would have caused such a stir, at least amongst certain individuals, I wouldn't have bothered.

No there is no "rule" but I personally would treat breaking a deal as seriously as someone cheating by adding units or whatever else.

Okay, fair enough, that's your choice. Personally I don't consider them the slightest bit equivalent, but everyone's entitled to their opinion.

And I don't agree that honouring all deals all the time makes a game boring, I've played many MP games at the CDZ where no one broke a deal but the games were very interesting to play.

That's true, and I've also played in many games where all deals were kept to the very end, and several of them were quite thrilling. So I take back my earlier comment about it being "boring" to play without backstabbing. However, I still think that the potential for backstabbing makes games more interesting. If you're completely certain that no-one will ever backstab you, there's never any risk in making any deals. Personally that doesn't feel right to me.

The only thing that I have found that makes MP games boring and unsuspenseful is having tech trading on, since they tend to boil down to 2 main alliances that run indefinately with a tech rate thats so quick only a space race win is possible.

I have to agree here. Generally this is how games with tech trading play out sooner or later (usually sooner). In retrospect I would have preferred having tech trading off in this game, but ah well, we can't change it now.

 

[Darkness]

Thank you for that needless and humourless string of flames. Because everyone knows that trolling someone is always the most effective way to defuse an argument and encourage apologies. So thank you, sir, for that invaluable contribution to raising the atmosphere of the thread. Ta-ta now.

You're quite welcome.
I hope it was enjoyable for you as it was for me, miss Parkin...

BTW: What made you think I was trying to defuse an argument or encourage apologies? This game is dreadfully dull without any arguments and I'm not really interested in an apologies you might utter.... So consider my "invaluable contribution" to be freely and happily given.

And why wouldn't this game concern me? I like reading good spoilers at CDZ. And in this game the spoilers are boring. BTW BLCG, are you really still in the stone age or are you just lazy updating?



All kidding aside: Why do you now claim that everyone is overreacting when it was you who started the overreacting by your response to BCLG's perfectly normal post?

 

[Lord Parkin]

You're quite welcome.
I hope it was enjoyable for you as it was for me, miss Parkin...

I've had better.

BTW: What made you think I was trying to defuse an argument or encourage apologies?

My bad. I somehow got the impression that you might be a decent person, or at least one who didn't want to risk being banned for butting into a thread for the sole purpose of stirring things up and trolling. Silly mistake really.

This game is dreadfully dull without any arguments and I'm not really interested in an apologies you might utter.... So consider my "invaluable contribution" to be freely and happily given.

Great, because this game is definitely all about you and your personal entertainment. Glad we've all got our priorities straight.

Okay, I'm done feeding the troll for tonight. Time for bed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You're playing with words though, using the word "cheat" in a different context, as a substitude for "breaking a promise". "Cheat" in the context I was using it referred to the much more serious, game-tampering kind. For example, in the exact game you were referring to, the event of breaking a promise merely caused ill feelings between a couple of teams, but the game went on. Whereas the same game ended abruptly at a later date due to mere allegations of real, serious cheating. I cannot agree that the word-play version of cheating is even close equivalent to serious, game-tampering cheating.

No, I am not playing with words. I am very plainly stating that there are different kinds of cheating... but the common thread for all of them is that they involve dishonesty, and result in irreparable damage to the players reputation. It seems that many share this view, and so I can't see why you attempt to deny it, except that it might be a very inconvenient concept for you to accept.

I am not "playing with words." I am using the dictionary definition of cheating. And your statement that I am " playing with words " is an implication that I am being dishonest, which I find insulting... but I'll live don't worry.

You are certainly a weird person. No offence.

No offense? You think you can resort to name-calling and then stop it from being offensive with a sarcastic "no offense" and a smiley face? And this isn't the first time you have called me names... although I have NEVER done the same to you... perfect example of an insincere apology/ backhanded insult disguised as a joke... which is what started this whole thing in the first place AFAICT...

And judging from the above posts it seems like I'm not the only person who enjoys a good argument/flame war... So Are you going to call darkness a wierdo too? Or do you just have a special animus towards me?

Seems to me that you are the only one who is trying to split hairs over the concept of dishonesty is such a blatantly self-serving way. Most players seem to agree that dishonesty is dishonesty, lying is lying and cheating is cheating... and people who do any are not to be trusted... period. I certainly did not want to invoke any past games mischief:well maybe I did a little, but just because it was the first example that came to mind) but thanks for proving my point... seems that my example struck a little close too home no?

And why is it that when others say the same thing I said, they get a "OK fair point, we just have a difference of opinion", but I get a "Youre wrong, you're playing with words" What's that about?

This game is dreadfully dull without any arguments

This.

 

[Darkness]

No offense? You think you can resort to name-calling and then stop it from being offensive with a sarcastic "no offense" and a smiley face?

I was kind of wondering about that one too...

And judging from the above posts it seems like I'm not the only person who enjoys a good argument/flame war... So Are you going to call darkness a wierdo too?

I don't mind that actually. Name-calling actually tells you quite a lot about a person. And as long as it's not my wife calling me a weirdo then you won't hear me whining about being misunderstood...

And why is it that when others say the same thing I said, they get a "OK fair point, we just have a difference of opinion", but I get a "Youre wrong, you're playing with words" What's that about?

This.

It's not just you, this troll is actually also still wondering why Lady Parkin saw fit to answer the not so serious part of my post, yet blatantly ignored the real question? But at least I am one step ahead of you. At least she didn't whine and cry about me "being wrong".

 

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: Let's stop the trolling and flaming on all sides.

 

[DaveShack]

I see a clear gap between actual cheating and deal breaking, and believe cheating is far worse. But I do value keeping deals, and try to structure treaties with an escape clause so that it is possible to take down the former allies without backstabbing.

Haven't managed the part about taking down allies yet though, they usually take me down instead.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Since the Moderator Action post comes right before a post which takes a position in the argument, I am unclear about whether the Moderator Action post was meant to end the discussion, or merely to stop the name calling...

Assuming the latter... I would like to respond that I acknowledge that there is a difference or "gap" between different types of game-related dishonesty... Of course, there will be differences of opinion as to what forms of dishonesty are more or less "serious"... Some may find all dishonesty equal in value (or infamy) others may find some forms far worse than others... its all up for debate.

What IS NOT up for debate, is that both deal-breaking AND rule-breaking involve dishonesty. All this hair-splitting about whether lying is equal to rule breaking, and whether deal-breaking is equal to cheating is just a distraction which obfuscates the real point.

When one player implies that another player is dishonest... especially when the dishonesty relates to the way they play the game... they run the risk of irreparably damaging the players reputation. That is why BLCG felt insulted, that is why Memphus quit, etc. It's not about whether cheating is equal to backstabbing, is equal to rule breaking... its about not accusing people of game related dishonesty without proof.

 

[DaveShack]

Since the Moderator Action post comes right before a post which takes a position in the argument, I am unclear about whether the Moderator Action post was meant to end the discussion, or merely to stop the name calling...

Correct assumption, it was about the name calling. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

When one player implies that another player is dishonest... especially when the dishonesty relates to the way they play the game... they run the risk of irreparably damaging the players reputation.

IMO there are things which should not be the subject of jokes or sarcasm, and this is one of them. It is too easy to go down the path to the dark side.

 

[Lord Parkin]

No, I am not playing with words. I am very plainly stating that there are different kinds of cheating... but the common thread for all of them is that they involve dishonesty, and result in irreparable damage to the players reputation. It seems that many share this view, and so I can't see why you attempt to deny it, except that it might be a very inconvenient concept for you to accept.

Eh, we're obviously not going to agree on this, so let's just amicably agree to disagree and let it rest. Thrashing this topic to death isn't achieving anything.

I am not "playing with words." I am using the dictionary definition of cheating. And your statement that I am " playing with words " is an implication that I am being dishonest, which I find insulting... but I'll live don't worry.

Seriously? Is it that easy for you to take offense at a benign statement, or are you joking? I was simply pointing out that we were using the word "cheating" in different contexts. Let's just call the two different cases "metagaming" and "deal breaking" instead, and consequently both avoid potentially warping any definitions. OK?

No offense? You think you can resort to name-calling and then stop it from being offensive with a sarcastic "no offense" and a smiley face? And this isn't the first time you have called me names... although I have NEVER done the same to you... perfect example of an insincere apology/ backhanded insult disguised as a joke... which is what started this whole thing in the first place AFAICT...

This baffles me. I don't, nor have I ever, considered the word "weird" an insult. So if you took it as an offensive, please don't. I was simply referring to your unusual quirk of responding to arguments I get in with great enthusiasm and relish. But in reality we're all pretty weird. I'm weird, you're weird, pretty much everyone in this thread is weird, because here we are reading and/or arguing about a trivial matter on a fansite for a nerdy computer game like it's a life or death matter, rather than going out and socialising or doing something useful.

And judging from the above posts it seems like I'm not the only person who enjoys a good argument/flame war... So Are you going to call darkness a wierdo too? Or do you just have a special animus towards me?

Sure, Darkness is weird, just like the rest of us.

And why is it that when others say the same thing I said, they get a "OK fair point, we just have a difference of opinion", but I get a "Youre wrong, you're playing with words" What's that about?

Pretty much because you responded first and he responded second, and I didn't feel like reiterating the same points after the first time, so I just let it be. If you'd responded in the opposite order I probably would have had the responses reversed. You're really reading too much into this.

I don't mind that actually. Name-calling actually tells you quite a lot about a person. And as long as it's not my wife calling me a weirdo then you won't hear me whining about being misunderstood...

Really? My girlfriend and I call each other weird all the time. Neither of us cares or finds it offensive, because we know it's the truth. We're both weird nerds and proud of it.

It's not just you, this troll is actually also still wondering why Lady Parkin saw fit to answer the not so serious part of my post, yet blatantly ignored the real question?

Because I thought it was such an obvious troll that it wasn't worth my time.

SAssuming the latter... I would like to respond that I acknowledge that there is a difference or "gap" between different types of game-related dishonesty...

Okay, great.

both deal-breaking AND rule-breaking involve dishonesty

I can agree to this part, no question. My point is that one involves metagaming, while the other does not.

It's not about whether cheating is equal to backstabbing, is equal to rule breaking... its about not accusing people of game related dishonesty without proof.

And for the last time, I never accused anyone of this. I simply made the mistake of joking with someone who didn't appreciate my sense of humour. That's it.

 

[Darkness]

Because I thought it was such an obvious troll that it wasn't worth my time.

Then why do you respond at all?
And then only to all the side-issues?
And not to the real question?

'Cause if I'm not worth your time, you sure have a funny way of showing that...

 

[Elkad]

No there is no "rule" but I personally would treat breaking a deal as seriously as someone cheating by adding units or whatever else.

Well be aware that several people in this game HAVE broken deals before. My personal deal-breaking record says deals you make with me are about 95% sure. Which is probably safer than the odds that a civ will have a player-change (which tends to end all alliances/deals, at least temporarily).

 

[Sommerswerd]

I never accused anyone of this. I simply made the mistake of joking with someone who didn't appreciate my sense of humour. That's it.

For the record, (lest I be accused of selective editing) this is what you said to BCLG in full:

Spoiler :

Dear BCLG (aka self-appointed "everyone"),

You may not be aware of it, but in these multiplayer games there are things you can enter into called "deals", "treaties" and "diplomacy". Crazy stuff, I know. Of course, the level of trust in these deals varies from player to player. For instance, I'm now fairly convinced that had you been my neighbour, even if we had a deal you'd probably take a crack at wiping me out behind my back if I got beyond a certain threshold of points. Thankfully, other people who play this game are apparently willing to act honestly and keep their word, allowing long-term deals which have large benefits for everyone involved. You should try it sometime.

Kindly,
Your apparent nemesis.

In the BOLDed portion, you claimed that you were "convinced that had [BCLG] been [your] neighbor... even if [the two of you] had a deal [BCLG would] take a crack at wiping [you] out behind [your] back", directly implying that BCLG was a backstabber and a deal breaker, and not to be trusted. Then you said "thankfully other people who play this game... act honestly and keep their word", directly implying that BCLG did not play honestly and did not keep his word.

You accused BCLG of being dishonest... period. Its right there in black and white, clear as crystal. You leveled an accusation of dishonesty against BCLG, with no basis and no proof. The fact that you were subjectively, in your own mind making a joke is irrelevant. You still accused the player of being dishonest. It is mind boggling that you are still trying to squirm your way out of this.

Eh, we're obviously not going to agree on this, so let's just amicably agree to disagree and let it rest. Thrashing this topic to death isn't achieving anything.

Who said getting the other side to agree is the point of a debate? As you well know... I enjoy endlessly arguing just for the sake of arguing... especially when I know that I am right and the other person is so obviously, blatantly wrong. Thrashing this topic to death acheives a very important, very valuable purpose IMNSHO... Specifically, arguing ad nauseum gives me great enjoyment, pleasure and is a huge amount of fun... and since as you pointed out, this whole exercise is trivial... isn't FUN the whole point?

Seriously? Is it that easy for you to take offense at a benign statement...

This baffles me. I don't, nor have I ever, considered the word "weird" an insult. So if you took it as an offensive, please don't

For someone who bemoans that other people don't get his jokes, you sure do have a hard time getting other peoples jokes... "I guess that the emotions (and emoticons) don't come across in a post the same as real life"

 

[azzaman333]

Seriously guys, chill out. Wait til we actually start fighting ingame.