Fulfilling a truce agreement is not a favor.

Just like fulfilling a vflag or a flag is not a favor.

You are making a commitment and you should stick to it. If you fail to honor any of the above commitments, your future commitment attempts from that player, the other players at the table, and anyone that reads and believes your reviews will fall on deaf ears.

Everyone else seems to understand that a game-to-game favor involves repayment of a prior favor that is atypical of regular gameplay. Keeping your truce commitment is considered expected gameplay... as is adhering to vflags and flags.

So what we are talking about here is not a game-to-game favor... a favor involves helping someone else in a game solely because they have helped you in a prior game. Trucing involves working with someone else for your own benefit... and if you want people to agree to work with you, you don't screw them over.

So... not only would I not truce with you... I will also not accept your vflag or regular flag, because I know you are intending to screw me the first chance you get.

"Keeping your truce commitment is considered expected gameplay... as is adhering to vflags and flags. "

This is what I don't understand. Why is doing a favour considered expected gameplay?

I'm not saying respecting truces is a 'hard' favour in the tradional sense (eg. turkish PGA). Nor am I saying that I don't respect flags/truces, I do, only because I want the favour payed back in later games, not because of any sort of morality.

SL, a response to my post would be appreciated. I really would like to know which premise you disagree with, and if you think you have much of leg to stand on when disagreeing with the guy who made the game.

Guys im suprised you havent figured this out yet. Storm= Hitler to him all his truces are like Russia. This is why he play 500+ games every month and never makes it off the 0 level tables.


Storm, i will try to equate this to you in a different way. You are playing on a soccer team its the first game of the world cup and the opposing team tells you that if you let them shoot all your players in the leg, they will let you win (by virtue of them having to forfiet due to too many red cards). Great so you won that game, but you have put yourself at a disadvantage for all subsequent games. Its the same way with trucing. If you honoring your truce typically has no ill effects and it doesnt really effect you in any future games. However not honoring your truce puts you at a disadvantage for future games. So if nothing else it is logical to honor your truce by the simple fact that by not doing so is like shooting yourself in the foot.

and i agree with everybody else you are an idiot.

also nachos > tacos > truce > flags > no comunication > vflag > counter truce > backstaabber imo

"Great so you won that game, but you have put yourself at a disadvantage for all subsequent games. Its the same way with trucing."

Dishonouring a truce will put you at a disadvantage for all subsequent games.

Honouring a truce will put you at an advantage for all subsequent games.

Vermont, my definition of a a game-to-game favour is any move in your current game for the benefit of a future game. I would have to see Ryan's definition to disagree with him.

"Dishonouring a truce will put you at a disadvantage for all subsequent games."
correct

"Honouring a truce will put you at an advantage for all subsequent games. "
semicorrect, but not on the same order of magntude.

if you say dishonering gives you an arbiterary value of "-20", then honoring migth give you a value of "+1" to "+3"

point being that the reason you do it, is NOT for the "+1", but to avoid the "-10"

SL, the logic I posted is really simple. If you disagree with the conclusion either:

1. The argument is flawed.
2. One of the premises is incorrect.

If you disagree with the conclusion, you MUST, per the rules of logic, disagree with one of those two things.

This is not a hard concept.

(Why am I still posting in this thread?)

Your arguement is flawed becuase Ryan is not infallible. Whether a game-to-game favour is legal or not, I will still argue that keeping a truce is one.

I apologize for being a logic dork here, but the argument is definitely not flawed. The argument is sound.

You may think the _conclusion_ is flawed, but given that the argument is sound, it must then be the case that one of the premises is flawed. That's how formal logic works.

You've failed to articulate, but I think it's pretty clear that you disagree with premise B: 'Making and keeping truces are a legal part of the game.'

That's fine. You have that right, even if everyone else, including Ryan, would disagree with you.

Really, your only point seems to be that Ryan himself must be wrong as to what is legal in the game that he himself created. You can't possible be so obtuse that you fail to see the fallacy there.

Do you play chess and try to convince everyone that the rook should be able to move diagonally when it would let you win? Again, another instance (albeit a bit clearer and somewhat pedantic) of you going against the established, intended, rules of the game. (Is this where you make your point about those chess rule makers not being infallible?)