Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[barsooma]

Note that the other guy only did it because, rightly or wrongly, he thought the OP was doing something similar to him (by not finishing when he could) - my advice to him would be the same also. There's no winner here, both have coming away thinking the other person is an ass and now there's a whole thread about it. What a fuss over childish nonsense. Just quit, forget about it and move on if it's bothering you that much.

Baloney. There is a huge difference between not ending as quickly as possible and purposely taking the maximum time between actions.
In one case you're playing the game, in the other you're just being an asshole.

[Octo]

@def: No you misunderstand. I'm not saying "quit immediately at the first sign", I'm saying "if something really bother you that much then..." If you want to stay in, stay in, but this is the first time it's happened to the OP and he's already posted a thread about it. It sounds like it bothered him/her a lot.

Douchebags will be douchebags. This guy wasn't necessarily trying to get a free win, he was (as described) trying to "punish" the other player. In staying in the game, you're letting them grief you - that's what he/she wants. Why give them the satisfaction? Who cares if they get a free win? Whoopee-frikkin'-do. I like to win as much as the next guy, but not if it's a really irritating and frustrating game - that's not why I play dominion. Sticking it out in some kind of misguided idealistic stoicism isn't going to stop douchebags being douchebags. The other alternative is to not let it bother you, just open a browser and read some news while you wait.

If it did become common practice then well, maybe something should be done about it. But it's not right now. Yet already we're talking about wanting to do something about it. How about we wait until it's actually a frequently occurring problem (eg like drop-hacks in some games) before grabbing the pitchforks eh? People will be douchebags now and then, especially on the internet. Just deal with it.

@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat

[barsooma]

@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat

I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.

[Beyond Awesome]

If we saw the game log, we would also have a better idea as to whether or not the OP had plenty of opportunities to end the game. Anyway, if what the OP says is true, then, yes, the opponent was being a jerk.

[Yariv]

game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html

As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...

[Octo]

......morally wrong? .....what?

And you think deliberately antagonising him back by continuing to not end it  is some how a morally superior choice? Please explain. This kind of bullshit of "Well he started it!" is where this stuff gets us - no-one's a winner, both people are pissed off. Just ignore it.

Also just to clarify - I do think he was being a douche, and I wasn't looking to excuse his behaviour, I'm just saying "a guy on the internet was a douchebag......more news at 10".

[Fabian]

game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html

As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...

How to handle people delaying games on purpose? I'd start with not being a superdouche myself, that way it's pretty unlikely the situation will come up. Can't figure out why you'd start a thread on this when you're to blame yourself. None of this makes any sense to me, why would you continue playing instead of ending the game after he announces he will slowplay?

[WanderingWinder]

Just what we need, a race to the bottom....

[barsooma]

game log:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120113-155711-d8b7ad19.html

As you can see I could end the game on turns 14/15, bought 2 colonies+alchemist in both instead. The conversion were during his turn 15, and as a result I didn't end the game on my turn 16 (I probably would have bought the alchemist if I wasn't so angry with him). BTW, I won't resign in such circumstances, it seems morally wrong to me...

How to handle people delaying games on purpose? I'd start with not being a superdouche myself, that way it's pretty unlikely the situation will come up. Can't figure out why you'd start a thread on this when you're to blame yourself. None of this makes any sense to me, why would you continue playing instead of ending the game after he announces he will slowplay?

Bullshit.

I have plenty of experience with this issue, being an accomplished asshole myself.
Slowplaying has happened to me on several occasions and each time the perpetrator has been on a hair trigger.
Stop blaming the victim.

[RisingJaguar]

What's worse?

Player A antagonizing B by taking an extra 20-30 seconds per action?

Player B playing 2-3 minute turns and extending the game (accidentally then purposefully)? Between the hamlet discards, embassy discards and 20 actions per turn.  Those look loooooooooooooong. 

I think Player A has just as much reason to be upset.  How is he supposed to know you didn't see three piles and is lengthening the game on purposely? Was A's decision to stall a great one... probably not, but B's decision to extend the game some more wasn't heavenly either.

[RisingJaguar]

@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat

I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.

1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)

[barsooma]

@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat

I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.

1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)

NO.

Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).

[RisingJaguar]

@barsooma - I agree there is a big difference (though deliberately not ending it and toying with them is actually pretty damn obnoxious in my mind), but we've only had one side of the story. Maybe there were loads of opportunities? Maybe the other guy doesn't agree, maybe he finds it really really obnoxious to not end the game - who's to say our view is right? Why is it only us that gets to judge what behaviour is and isn't acceptable? Just because one guy posts a bit of chat from a game, I'm not going to instantly assume the accused is a completely reprehensible twat

I take your point that chat text is not exactly a high standard of proof, but if things did go as reported:
1) The person who is so annoyed at the game not being ended is presumably losing, so they can always resign or just close the tab with no change in outcome for them.
2) Active game delay is literally the worst thing someone can do in an isotropic game - I can't think of anything which the poster could possibly have done which justifies that level of douchbaggery.
3) Who else is going to judge what behavior is acceptable if not us? Since there's no admins or authorities on isotropic, the most we can do is shame and ostracize people who act like this.

1. His intentions are to annoy, not get a win (which is wrong for different reasons)
2. Now what does it say about the opponent delaying the game? are they both guilty of high levels of 'douchbaggery'
3. Octo meant it isn't right to judge someone on one side of the story and a bit of evidence (the chat log) especially when the person isn't a third party (i added this last part myself but i can assume Octo meant this too)

NO.

Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).

Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game (he assumes purposefully), and decides to lengthen the game

Player B sees that Player A isn't ending the game and decides to lengthen the game. 

Is one that much more wronger because we know with perfect information Player A was the instigator? From player A's eyes, Player B seems like the instigator. 

[mnavratil]

Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game..

How can Player A ever be mad about this (even if it is purposeful)?

There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
'Player B' could have won, but didn't; giving 'Player A' a chance to win, or (more likely)
'Player A' has no chance to win and should therefore resign.

[barsooma]

\
NO.

Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).

Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game (he assumes purposefully), and decides to lengthen the game

Player B sees that Player A isn't ending the game and decides to lengthen the game. 

Is one that much more wronger because we know with perfect information Player A was the instigator? From player A's eyes, Player B seems like the instigator.

We don't have to go by intent because they are doing completely different things.
One is continuing to play the game, one is refusing to.
Just because you can boil them down to the same bullet point ("Lengthening the game") does not make them the same.

[barsooma]

Lets go by intent, Player A sees Player B isn't ending the game..

How can Player A ever be mad about this (even if it is purposeful)?

There are only 2 possible scenarios here:
'Player B' could have won, but didn't; giving 'Player A' a chance to win, or (more likely)
'Player A' has no chance to win and should therefore resign.

Exactly

[sjelkjd]

Delaying the end of the game (by continuing to play) is not the same thing at all as delaying the game (by purposefully slowing your actions).

Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions.  That's just rude.  Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign.  One player may not have been tracking the points and thought they were behind(or it was close), or maybe didn't realize they could 3 pile(if they were intent on emptying provinces for instance).

In the end, it's just a game, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and ask in chat if you really think they are screwing with you.  It's not worth getting worked up over trolls and jerks.

[sjelkjd]

Here's another example:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120107-231529-4563f573.html

Look at the final turn.  I played 5 Saboteurs and bought 2 provinces to end the game.  I knew I was winning even without the Saboteurs.  Was I a jerk to play them?  You decide...

The problem is once you start declaring things like "you could have ended the game but made me play extra turns, you're a jerk," is that you quickly get into this morass where it's impossible to discern intent.  Did the person make a mistake?  Have they been counting wrong?  Did they just want to see their deck get its mega turn?  Maybe they've always dreamed of pulling off KC/goons/masq, and now they can finally do it.  They're playing the game the way it's meant to be played, following the rules.  That's ok in my book.  Maybe annoying, but hey, you should have played better and you wouldn't be stuck in that situation.  Or you could resign.

[Fabian]

sjelkld, I think you're missing the point. Yariv was informed that he could have ended the game on previous turns, and then on his next turn, decided to again not end the game because he was mad at his opponent for playing slow, thus being just as huge a douche himself. It's very different from what you describe, which I agree isn't a very big deal either way.

[sjelkjd]

sjelkld, I think you're missing the point. Yariv was informed that he could have ended the game on previous turns, and then on his next turn, decided to again not end the game because he was mad at his opponent for playing slow, thus being just as huge a douche himself. It's very different from what you describe, which I agree isn't a very big deal either way.

I don't think they're equivalent, but you're right that dragging out the game on purpose as "punishment" is not really any better than the behavior he was punishing.

Here's the thing I don't get.  Wasn't player 1 mad that player 2 was playing slow?  And the answer to that is you're going to give him more chances to play slow?

[Fabian]

I don't get it either. It makes no sense to me at all. douches gonna douche I guess?

[dondon151]

I don't get it either. It makes no sense to me at all. douches gonna douche I guess?

Makes sense to me. People like to be spiteful when provoked; I think that it was not a wise decision for Yariv to do retaliatory stalling, but I can certainly understand why he did it, and I don't really blame him too much for it.

Bottom line is that it's perfectly legitimate for someone not to end the game when he's ahead; if the losing player notices it, what doesn't make sense to me is why he would not resign. I mean, if I hypothetically missed the possibility of a 3-pile ending and got stalled out as a result, I would be hoppin' furious.

[buggibum]

When you are winning in any game against a clear underclass or underskilled opponent, you just don't punish them anymore with all the great skills you have to fullfill some super-duper achievements you dreamt of, just end the game. Show some respect for your opponent and don't torture him. Those achievements when you already won against underskilled opponents are cheap shots of bad players.

There is something about Respect and Fair Play for the game, it's called sportsmanship. Show some love for the game!

[greatexpectations]

Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions.  That's just rude.  Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign.

unless i am missing something, the cases are very similar. you recommend that the losing player just resign, but it should be noted that the winning player can resign just as easily if they don't like the retaliatory stall tactics.  if getting the win was that important they should take advantage of their opportunities to end the game.

[barsooma]

Agreed, it should never be acceptable to purposefully delay the game by slowing your actions.  That's just rude.  Not ending the game(while making legal plays) could be annoying, but as others have said, if you're that far behind and the other guy is dragging it out, just resign.

unless i am missing something, the cases are very similar. you recommend that the losing player just resign, but it should be noted that the winning player can resign just as easily if they don't like the retaliatory stall tactics.  if getting the win was that important they should take advantage of their opportunities to end the game.

AAAAAAAH!!!!!
I can't believe anyone thinks this way, let alone that there are at least 3 of you .... Editor's note: trying to avoid this thread being frozen.  The case are not alike. Suggesting that people ought to give in to this kind of douchebaggery is asinine.