Forum
a short discussion on niceness.
|
Sophalis wrote
at 10:01 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST
so, i'm writing this about a phenomenon i've noticed increasingly recently in kdice since the introduction of the flagging system.
i was watching a game just now on the hundred tables. one player had a clear first after four rounds and quickly elicited panic flags from the second and third largest players, both of whom were next to him and weakly stacked. the fourth largest, who was well stacked but a little to the side, asked if he could fight for third and moved towards the third place player, but was immediately cut by first, then repeatedly attacked by all three larger players, despite clearly having stated the situation in the chat box. the first and second place players, even though they had a safe first and second and were not being threatened, despite the fact that there is no dom on hundred tables and they had absolutely nothing to lose by being gentlemen and sitting still for a couple rounds and letting 3rd and 4th sort it out between themselves, continued to hit this player until the guy flagged fourth. what the hell is with people being so rude and nasty? since when does getting a good start mean you get to play the little dictator and screw other people's chances of doing well just so the game ends two rounds earlier? yes, it's a war game, and hitting other people is not only normal but expected, but in a situation like that it's completely uncalled for and unnecessary. those of you who have been around here for a while will remember my previous posts, so i guess you'll be used to me trying to make the kdice community a little nicer now and then. it would be interesting to hear what you all think about this one. ps. i clicked discussion already. |
|
ProxyCheater wrote
at 10:13 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST I think what you described is very much a grey area, and a lot of factors could influence what happens. One or more of the players could know each other.
The 3rd place player might have an expectation that by flagging, he "gets" 3rd place because he flagged 3rd before anyone else, and a fair number of people share that view--I flagged 2nd when 2nd was clearly still up for grabs--but the 1st place player fought tooth and nail to defend me simply because I flagged first (I didn't get 2nd, but the 1st place player fought my opponents, but the 1st place player fought for me to the end). Someone might simply be in a hurry to finish and move on to the next game, so they don't want to sit around for 10+ rounds while it's sorted out. None of that is necessarily being "mean", it's just differing views of how things should go. Besides, the person who wants to fight for 3rd might consider it "nicer" to wait, while the person who already flagged might consider that "mean". When I'm in the lead, I generally let people fight for lower places unless there's no reasonable way for them to reach each other. But there are also circumstances where I think it makes sense to basically award places, based on who truced, whether someone helped me win or didn't hurt me when they could have, etc. I don't think there's any way you can please everybody, and I don't think there needs to be one right answer. There are some general norms, but they're not at all universal. |
|
Rorschach wrote
at 10:56 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST Click.. oh.
|
|
kam|k2 wrote
at 11:28 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST "i was watching a game just now on the >>>hundred<<< tables"
> think sophalis, think! ;> |
|
Sophalis wrote
at 11:53 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST proxy-- yea, i agree. this game just jarred with my own opinions about what is and is not nice, i guess. only four rounds had passed, the two weaker players in question were right by eachother and the player who wanted to fight for the place was clearly stronger. the larger players just kept repeating "yellow flagged first" like robots and decimating this guy without giving him a chance, which just seemed really off to me. there's no rule about the person who flagged first owning that place anywhere on the site, but common courtesy was in the rules even back when there were only three of them.. (well, "be nice")
kamlk-- shh. im not a 10k player like some people! |
|
nuflis wrote
at 11:55 AM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST Hi Sophie!
Being first I would have waited and let people fight for place, unless one of them was previously truced with me. On the other hand, I don't think 1st's behaviour in that game (I don't know about the chat) can be consider "rude" or "nasty", just a little lack of k-etiquette. And, as kam said, it was a 100 game... |
|
Sophalis wrote
at 12:09 PM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST alright mr patronising, some people never get higher than 100 or 500 tables! just because the people who play on a table may have less points doesn't mean they are any more or less important than anyone else. in fact it's because it was on a lower table that this situation struck me as so silly, because there was no dom to lose.
in general you're right, it isn't "rude" to finish a game quickly, but in this particular game that's the only word i can use to describe how the players were acting. it would be nice to see a lot more friendliness around.. people would never act like that if they were face to face with their opponents. |
|
nuflis wrote
at 12:36 PM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST Ok Ok Sophie, maybe that sounded cocky, my bad.
You are right, good manners and niceness are always welcome. Remember the original rules: no hate, no porn, be nice. |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 1:06 PM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 1:07 PM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST ... and then click Discussion.
;) |
|
Sophalis wrote
at 1:37 PM, Wednesday November 5, 2008 EST monte you're useless.
|