Quote:
Reverend Zombie said:
Shorter Original Post?:
"I'm entitled to everything you own in pristine condition because I attacked you."
|
Really, there's no need to make such an inflammatory and blatantly misrepresentative statement. I view Dominions as primarily a strategy game played by all for fun, and when I lose I congratulate my opponent and honestly wish him luck in the rest of the game. If the response is a screw you, I hope you die and get eliminated next, I don't think its too hard to see how some would view that as bad sportsmanship. My point is *so* not about being entitled to anything, I may be a bit biased but I think that's pretty obvious by my posts if you're not trying to deliberately misunderstand me.
Quote:
Stryke11 said:
You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss.
....
The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.
|
Yep, you hit the nail on the head, I see it as bad sportsmanship to try to sabotage the guy I lost to so he subsequently loses. I don't get upset when somebody attacks me in a war game, and I don't bear them bad will if they do it successfully. I'm not sure why this causes you to claim I'm a "wuss", it's kinda the definition of poor sportsmanship. From wikipedia: "Poor sportsmanship can either be the winners "rubbing salt in the wounds" of the losers, or the losers expressing their frustration at not winning, even to the point of holding a grudge." The only real justifications for it I've seen on this thread are basically that people don't view it as a sport/competition/game, but rather a simulation/roleplaying experience. That's a valid position I guess, though I tend to see little enough roleplaying up until that point.