Forum
question on ettiquette
|
Kristel wrote
at 11:57 AM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT
I just had a discussion with Sarahxxx about a game.
The game: I was in third (think 7), blue was in second (think 9+ some dice)and purple was first (think 13+ some dice). Now blue flagged. And purple was attacking me 'cause i didn't flag. I asked blue if he would not like to try for first. Blue thought it was a good idea and unflagged. We both attacked purple. I won because i had better rolls. Blue got second as he would have gotten being flagged. Purple was screwed. For Sarah this was bad ettiquette from my part. Because blue was left alone by purple when he was flagged. I don't see what I did that was bad ettiquette. What is your opinion? |
Replies 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
sminge wrote
at 12:00 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT hi kristal, now
|
|
|
sminge wrote
at 12:10 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT whoops...lol
misclick, what i was meant to type was...now for me, that depends on how long blue was flagged to purple, if a long time, ie, purple allowed blue to build and then purple attacked none-flaggers then i believe this is bad ettiquette on blues part and yours. if blue was already 8 stacked up and u recruited blue having him not affected purples decisions this is ok in my eyes...like i said, depends on length on time blue was flagged...wana share this info? ta sminge x |
|
|
Kristel wrote
at 12:37 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT i think blue was flagged for 2 or 3 rounds,
not very long but essential to build up |
|
|
sminge wrote
at 3:21 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT well if thats the case imho, i think that blue should have remained flagged and if u wanted 1st, u go get it urself. blue was already flagged before u askd him therefore accepting third on his part, the way u have described this particular incident, sounds as tho purple COULD have wiped blue out (a clear mistake in hindsight) but he respected the fact blue was happy to finish 3rd...my verdict...bad form
|
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 5:09 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT You'll never get agreement from too many people on a point like this. Everyone will have a slightly different viewpoint. Bottom line - if you do it, you risk angering some players, but it's up to you to decide if that is a risk you want to take. Personally, I hate it when people in second are so quick to flag to number one just to get what is effectively a 1-2 truce. The game is more fun when 2-3 truce to try to take out 1. But that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
MrBooBoo wrote
at 9:51 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT If blue has been flagged for more than one round it's definately bad ettiquette imo.
|
|
Ubersmush wrote
at 10:00 PM, Monday May 21, 2007 EDT Yeah sucks for purple but a 2 + 3 truce vs 1 is always an option. I hate when it happens to me and hate when the other guys insist on flagging and not trying to attack #1
So I really depends on whether you're getting attacked or attacking :p |
|
Beals wrote
at 1:15 AM, Tuesday May 22, 2007 EDT Kristel, your actions were appropriate. It is actually quite rude when second place is left untouched by first place just because he/she is flagged. It's almost always in number one's best interest to go after number two. As far as I'm concerned, the flag means very little. I attack my strongest opponent whenever possible, regardless of flags, begging, etc.
|
|
Don Najera wrote
at 3:29 AM, Tuesday May 22, 2007 EDT The Don says no mercy hit em' till they are no longer a threat or until they are gone from the board what ever is tactical for you.
|
|
|
PercentageBoost wrote
at 3:58 AM, Tuesday May 22, 2007 EDT The Don is fucking gay
|
