Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boba Rick

Free ParaGoomba Slayer!

Recommended Posts

I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

What did he do to deserve that?!

 

I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.

If I remember correctly, he kept trying to incite a boycott of FFG, accusing them of knowingly selling us "broken" ships with the intent of selling us fixes later on. Most people rolled their eyes and told him to pay for his ships like everyone else. Then he started getting rude when nobody wanted to jump on his bandwagon. "Someone" sent him spoilers concerning the fate of a certain nerf-herder. I think he quit the game after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

What did he do to deserve that?!

 

I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.

If I remember correctly, he kept trying to incite a boycott of FFG, accusing them of knowingly selling us "broken" ships with the intent of selling us fixes later on. Most people rolled their eyes and told him to pay for his ships like everyone else. Then he started getting rude when nobody wanted to jump on his bandwagon. "Someone" sent him spoilers concerning the fate of a certain nerf-herder. I think he quit the game after that.

Harsh!

What kind of broken did he mean. Underpowered so you have to buy a fix to make them playable? I know someone who thinks the opposite, that FFG deliberately release overpowered ships so you always have to buy the latest toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've seen any other forum where the "capital punishement" is the first ban issued. It usually goes with lighter bans at first, like a week or a month, then a few months and only then a permaban - the system is based on the assumption that people might improve their behaviour. 

Pewpewpew

 

Obviously it is impossible here because it'd require an actual moderation.

 

I don't think permaban was fair, even though some sort of ban was needed.

 

 

I really would like to meet and play against PGS if for no other reason than the first hand experience. There are a lot of things you don't pickup in reading posts.

You might want to try TTS, but you might get disappointed.

Do you know for sure it was a first?

I have not heard about anyone on this forum that has been banned at any point in the past and now is able to post. Also people were pretty shocked when he got the ban, I'd think the reaction wouldn't be that strong if it happened before or if there was any form of ban here that isn't permanent.

 

But no, I don't know for sure and I admit the possibility that I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do have the distinct feeling that the "Free PGS!" people are mostly trolling, though.

 

Really I thought they just wanted to release him into the wild, in the hope he would get eaten by bears.

And then the bears died from food poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I do have the distinct feeling that the "Free PGS!" people are mostly trolling, though.

 

Really I thought they just wanted to release him into the wild, in the hope he would get eaten by bears.

And then the bears died from food poisoning.

 

 

too much salt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rules only apply when it suits him, how does that make him a "fair" player?

Devil's advocate, it doesn't hurt to ASK for leniency. Just because a person is a rules lawyer doesn't mean everyone else has to be. I think it's only a problem if, when encountering another rules lawyer like himself, who denies his request, if he were to get upset about it.

I don't think I've seen any other forum where the "capital punishement" is the first ban issued. It usually goes with lighter bans at first, like a week or a month, then a few months and only then a permaban - the system is based on the assumption that people might improve their behaviour.

Techncially, the system here is even more lenient than temporary bans. You have to get 3 warnings to get banned. The first 2 warnings come with no consequences at all. Those first two warnings are supposed to be your opportunity to improve your behavior. Edited by DarthEnderX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still doesn't make the change to "literally" any less stupid.

Nobody ever said language wasn't stupid.

That means that his example would literally be correct, which could quite possibly literally drive people crazy and cause issues if the word cool meant both high and low temperature and we had no way of figuring which cool you meant.

I have never once been unable to tell from context which usage of literally a person meant. Mainly because almost nobody uses literal literally.

 

 

Uh, are you sure of that? I try to use the word correctly as do most of the people I know. Poor English isn't common everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor English isn't common everywhere.

Actually it is, because languages, even the same language, differ regionally. And what you might consider "proper" English might be considered "poor" English in another area.

You consider your version of English to be correct because everyone around you speaks the way you do.

Edited by DarthEnderX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#freepgs isn't trending yet... 

 

But I would vote him back if it was left to that. His derisive - or as some would say, evil - tone was often just a side-show to his play experience and some good tactical conversation. If only there was half as many FGD posts about ARCs and that void filled with PGS posts lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the rules only apply when it suits him, how does that make him a "fair" player?

Devil's advocate, it doesn't hurt to ASK for leniency. Just because a person is a rules lawyer doesn't mean everyone else has to be. I think it's only a problem if, when encountering another rules lawyer like himself, who denies his request, if he were to get upset about it.

 

I'd disagree with that: you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold your opponent. There's no consensus on where the bad sportsmanship line lies but I think the majority would agree that asking for leniency and then refusing it in return crosses that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

What did he do to deserve that?!

 

I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.

If I remember correctly, he kept trying to incite a boycott of FFG, accusing them of knowingly selling us "broken" ships with the intent of selling us fixes later on. Most people rolled their eyes and told him to pay for his ships like everyone else. Then he started getting rude when nobody wanted to jump on his bandwagon. "Someone" sent him spoilers concerning the fate of a certain nerf-herder. I think he quit the game after that.

Harsh!

What kind of broken did he mean. Underpowered so you have to buy a fix to make them playable? I know someone who thinks the opposite, that FFG deliberately release overpowered ships so you always have to buy the latest toys.

 

He was mainly fixated on the Defender, and was accusing FFG of intentionally overcosting it so they could sell Imperial Veterans. He also made similar accusations regarding the TIE Advanced. My issue was mainly the sheer level of tinhattery in his posts, because he dismissed it entirely when people tried to point out that the TIE Advanced was part of wave one (meaning FFG didn't really know how to cost ships yet) and that the Defender's white k-turn and 3/3/3/3 stat line make it seem a lot stronger than it was before titles. He was very eager to flood the forum with threads about his stupid conspiracy theory, starting two or three threads back to back on the Defender, the Imperial Raider, and...I forget the third. He also just annoyed me personally with the way he made and backed up his arguments, and I was just in a hostile mood that day.

 

I decided to PM him spoilers since I figured he probably hadn't seen The Force Awakens yet but would soon, since this was the Saturday after the movie came out. Admittedly it was a **** move on my part, but in his own way this guy was no better than PGS, and I wasn't willing to put up with his nonsense so I hit him in the most effective way I could. Then, like an idiot, he went and posted another thread called THIS IS HOW THE "COMMUNITY" DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH IT where he described himself as some sort of crusader fighting for lower prices and better value (really he just came across as cheap) and posted an unedited screenshot of the PM I sent him, with no spoiler warnings anywhere. I think that was what actually got him banned, because a lot of people hadn't seen the movie yet. I've never been especially sorry for it, but I did feel bad for the people that saw the spoiler in the thread and I've also never denied that I did deserve the warning point. 

 

 

 

 

I sent Force Awakens spoilers to a guy out of spite

What did he do to deserve that?!

 

I'd wager he disagreed over some trivial detail in a plastic miniatures game.

 

No, if that was all it took I'd have run out my three strikes many times over by now. Truth be told I'm now kind of wondering why I never did something similar to PGS (because he was more toxic than Vatutin or whatever his name was) but part of that is because PGS, ficklegreendice, and Hobojebus all had the same avatar and I sometimes got them confused. I think this all happened before I realized that if it's a vitriolic rant with a lot of personal attacks, it's always the same guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the rules only apply when it suits him, how does that make him a "fair" player?

Devil's advocate, it doesn't hurt to ASK for leniency. Just because a person is a rules lawyer doesn't mean everyone else has to be. I think it's only a problem if, when encountering another rules lawyer like himself, who denies his request, if he were to get upset about it.

 

I'd disagree with that: you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold your opponent. There's no consensus on where the bad sportsmanship line lies but I think the majority would agree that asking for leniency and then refusing it in return crosses that line.

 

I have to agree with Blue Five here. It was actually a huge point of contention between a friend and myself a while back, because we're both prone to being more or less forgiving of play mistakes depending on factors outside the game. I had recently buried the hatchet with a coworker and remembering nearly losing it when he wouldn't let me undo a move when I realized I had misread a rule and was making a very bad decision. Nowadays we have a fairly solid system of not worrying much in the first game or two (depending on rules complexity, of course) because the ugliest arguments we've ever had all stemmed from letting the other guy get away with something and then feeling that the favor wasn't returned. If I were a TO and someone tried to deny someone actions for something they had done themselves I would seriously consider disqualifying them, and if I warned them once they will not be getting warned again. 

 

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how lightly monitored these boards are, anyone who's Lightning Rod of Rudeness can be spotted by FFG deserves to be struck.

 

Moreover, I was appalled by the hubris of a person who's sig was a link to a different message boards where he was also considered a jerk.  I'm not sure what kind of person celebrates people hating them, but I won't miss PGS's special brand of vitriol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how lightly monitored these boards are, anyone who's Lightning Rod of Rudeness can be spotted by FFG deserves to be struck.

 

Moreover, I was appalled by the hubris of a person who's sig was a link to a different message boards where he was also considered a jerk.  I'm not sure what kind of person celebrates people hating them, but I won't miss PGS's special brand of vitriol.

 

People have signatures enabled?  Yuck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

Edited by FourDogsInaHorseSuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Still doesn't make the change to "literally" any less stupid.

Nobody ever said language wasn't stupid.

That means that his example would literally be correct, which could quite possibly literally drive people crazy and cause issues if the word cool meant both high and low temperature and we had no way of figuring which cool you meant.

I have never once been unable to tell from context which usage of literally a person meant. Mainly because almost nobody uses literal literally.

 

 

Uh, are you sure of that? I try to use the word correctly as do most of the people I know. Poor English isn't common everywhere.

 

 

Perhaps, but you may have missed my point. You said "Mainly because almost nobody uses literal literally." I disagree with a blanket statement like the one you used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

 

It should not be called cheating, because it is incredibly hard to tell when something similar genuinly happened. It is bad sportsmanship, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

 

It should not be called cheating, because it is incredibly hard to tell when something similar genuinly happened. It is bad sportsmanship, nothing else.

 

That depends what the rules say.  If they say it's against the rules to do so then it's cheating, even if it's the kind of cheating that's impossible to detect.  I'm not saying the rules do say so, just that rules about things that are difficult to prove can exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It is bad sportsmanship, nothing else.

 

Cheating is breaking the rules not taking simply using them to your advantage.   A lot of people here have a three strikes policy when it comes to missed opportunities.  They'll let someone take a missed opportunity a couple times and then call them on it.

 

It's not cheating or even bad sportsmanship it's just only tolerating sloppy play for so long.  However if the intention is to get someone to believe they'll get to make up missed opportunities only to call them on it when it gives you the biggest advantage, then that is clearly poor sportsmanship... It is also very hard to know what someone's intention is, unless they actually post it here... Which is what PSG did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 It is bad sportsmanship, nothing else.

 

Cheating is breaking the rules not taking simply using them to your advantage.   A lot of people here have a three strikes policy when it comes to missed opportunities.  They'll let someone take a missed opportunity a couple times and then call them on it.

 

It's not cheating or even bad sportsmanship it's just only tolerating sloppy play for so long.  However if the intention is to get someone to believe they'll get to make up missed opportunities only to call them on it when it gives you the biggest advantage, then that is clearly poor sportsmanship... It is also very hard to know what someone's intention is, unless they actually post it here... Which is what PSG did.

 

Oh yes, i was specificaly talking about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

 

Strictly speaking, he wasn't the one breaking rules because his opponent was moving out of sequence (I'm assuming this wasn't a game where he asked to do the same thing). That said, I feel that it should be a rule that you have to warn your opponent if you're revoking permission to do that, so that dirtbag moves like suddenly caring about proper move sequence when combat is about to start don't happen. While this was technically within the rules, it was so incredibly greasy that I actually dislike it more than a lot of actual cheating I've seen. There's a certain hostility to the opponent in what he did that just doesn't seem present in things like rigging your dice roll or trick shuffling your damage deck. Those suggest someone who cares too much about winning; PGS' actions suggest someone who really hates his opponent and wants to make them unhappy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

 

It should not be called cheating, because it is incredibly hard to tell when something similar genuinly happened. It is bad sportsmanship, nothing else.

 

Normally, yes. But in this scenario we're labeling as "baiting" the intent can be assumed as part of the premise. Otherwise it wouldn't be baiting. Luckily PGS took out any doubt because he admitted to that being his intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...