[OT] The Art of Winning Games

[Loser]

Originally posted by Starhawk:
... I would never seek to kill another person unless they threatened the life of a person I loved or myself and even then I would most likely try and just disable them instead of kill them.

Depending on what state you live in it might be better to just kill them. Check and see if you have a Make My Day law.

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
there's another option for population control: self-control.

Self Control is and illusion. The effect you are actually describing is an effect of peer pressure and so depends heavily on the folk to which you peer. After all, I call it Self Control when I get my inhibitions under control enough to do the sorts of things that rid one of one's virginity.

Originally posted by Narratio:
Genghis Khan took his lads for a stroll across Europe for perfectly good reasons in his opinion.

That would be Batu Khan.

Thanks for the link Erax. You've definitely got me there. It's often said these days that we are moving closer to Brave New World than 1984, but I'm fairly sure both of them were good Self-Preventing Prophecies.

[ December 11, 2003, 12:39: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Fyron]

I hear people say that by basic nature humans are killers far too often and quite frankly it is a stereotype as most humans can't even stand the site of a corpse in RL (I've seen a few in my short time on earth and almost threw up even though they were in a medical school type environment). I mean humans are not naturally KILLERS we are naturally competitors which leads to a brutal form of game called war. The AVERAGEindividual is not a killer and would never think of killing another human being.

That would be based off of a narrow slice of the world that is not representative of people in general.

[geoschmo]

I think by and large most people are basically "good" as individuals, and treat other individuals well an with respect. But it is when we get together in Groups that we tend to lose it. Even among petty criminals and stickup men, they often work in at least pairs. The murderer who kills alone is typically the psyochotic individual who has something wrong with him and so doesn't fit the normal human pattern. The human race has a nasty tendancy to sink to the basest level of any particular group. I don't know why, but I think it's because when we start thinking of ourself as part of a group, and others as part of a different group, we start to see them as objects rather then people.

[Stone Mill]

If you'll allow, I'll stick more to the "winning games" topic, rather than winning and losing in real life, which is somewhat subjective and relative to personal experience and the situation.

When it comes to playing games, I enage with the attitude that I'm going try and win; giving my opponents hell by leveraging any legal asset at hand.

I find they appreciate me for it, as much as I love someone throwing their best at me.

"I like a man who smiles when he fights" -Winston Churchill

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Self Control is and illusion. The effect you are actually describing is an effect of peer pressure and so depends heavily on the folk to which you peer. After all, I call it Self Control when I get my inhibitions under control enough to do the sorts of things that rid one of one's virginity.

while my morales and my actions may be influenced by the people i'm around, there's plenty of times when those people are not around. if nothing else, i'm pretty sure i could find some private time in the bathroom - and clean up after myself.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
If you'll allow, I'll stick more to the "winning games" topic, rather than winning and losing in real life, which is somewhat subjective and relative to personal experience and the situation.

When it comes to playing games, I enage with the attitude that I'm going try and win; giving my opponents hell by leveraging any legal asset at hand.

I find they appreciate me for it, as much as I love someone throwing their best at me.

I'll stick to the topic as well:

I agree with the "King". I'll add another thought, though, since I have a suspicion this thread started as a result of the Mediocrity posting (and because this thread seems civil enough):

I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game. I don't believe in dropping any kind of treaty the same turn as I attack. I don't believe in, for example, agreeing to 5 turn notice of impending attack when dropping a treaty with someone and then attacking before the 5 turns is up. Why? Winning is not as important as keeping my reputation. What reputation is that? One that follows me from game to game. I want anyone I have a treaty with to know they can trust what I agree to in future games. That's just me. I just want people to know they have a treaty they can depend on and if they know the way I play, then they will know they can trust what I say and I wan't jeopardize that for a siingle win in a single game and put future games at risk. Those who have played with me also know I don't mind taking a "backseat" in an alliance. I did it in the infamous "Challenge" game. I had planned to do it with Lord Chane in Mediocrity (but the attack came and Lord Chane dropped the game keeping the Stellar Manipulation ships we had built for deep attacks). And who knows what roll I'll take in Anklebiters (it's still shaping up) but I want people to know what they can expect from my reputation.

As to other people who disagree...that's up to them. They may make and break treaties as they see fit for that game. All it means to me is that THEIR reputation has followed them to any game I find myself in with them. While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.

In the end, it's just a game, they are most always fun, and I don't really get angry when someone plays in a way I don't agree with. I just remember them for future games.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Slynky:
I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game.

What happens is people confuse doing this with being honorable. It's not being honorable, per se, it is more of a metagame behavior aimed at winning you more games.

I do the same thing, mostly. I'll "backstab" someone who irks me, but I won't go back on my word. For me, making a T&R agreement with someone, for example, does not include with it any promise to not attack the same turn it is dropped. However, if I had made a "gentleman's" pact with that person, such as the five-turn warning you mentioned, then I will always wait the five turns, for the reasons you state (reputation).