Forum
unknown5202145
|
Buton wrote
at 1:59 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST
You ruin the spirit of this game. Situational alliances are understandable and completely expected but having something setup before the game starts is absolutely disgracefull and un-sportsmanlike. I have absolutely no respect for people who form such alliances.
Buton |
Replies 1 - 8 of 8
|
no_moniker wrote
at 2:56 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST seconded
|
|
joby.d wrote
at 3:50 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST But if we celebrate such alliances then everyone shall know about them and thus no one shall play them causing everyone else to pass them!
|
|
zyrex wrote
at 3:54 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST Thirded.
By the way a certain 'bear' can be a bit delusional. He/She/It seems to think that any uncanny alliance that forms against he/she/it has to be predetermined. Lets have a sportsMan/sportsWoman/sportsIt like spirit, pleeeeeeease. I respect the drive to attain a higher rating. In fact I encourage it, because frankly it gives me better opponents to play against. But if one suffer a loss in the climb up the ladder, one should take it in stride, and not throw wild assumptions in the air and have a hissy fit. Heil Melons! P.S. 'burying the hatchet' needs to be brought back into vogue. |
|
leucaruth wrote
at 4:31 PM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST SportsItlike. Way to be inclusive. :)
|
|
TheYellowMole wrote
at 5:39 PM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST I agree. Situational alliances are strategic, pre-game alliances are cheap.
|
|
Tech wrote
at 10:30 PM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST What about an alliance that worked well from last game continuing into the next? Heck, you could end up on the same map with about 4 of the same people...
|
|
|
joby.d wrote
at 10:47 PM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST even if the game was unrated i'd be ticked off by people who did that before i joined in, it's overwhelming to be an unfair target of collusion
|
|
kdicefhghfhf wrote
at 2:46 PM, Friday November 11, 2011 EST b
|
