[SPOILERS] Lurkerloos and map discussion

[BaII]

responded via PM. If anyone wants to read it I'll PM it to you as well.

Or you could have simply done this Bold

[Krill]

Nope, still not convinced.

I captured more cities than you did this game in total so far.

And I'm mainly just trolling Xenu to go on a murderous rampage as per his reputation, I'm not trying to give him any actual advice.

And of course if Brick is offering advice I'd do well to just ignore it, but it's damn fun advice so I think I'll give it a go.

So there is Xenu explicitly stating that lurkers are influencing his in game actions. I don't think you can argue that what is being posted isn't affecting his judgement.

Now, as to your excuse that as your brother you know him so well that the relationship should be treated differently to how lurkers interact with players, regardless of what I say now, I expect you will not listen to it. The basic problem is that it doesn't matter how well you know someone, any influencing of a players behaviour and in game actions is not acceptable for the other players in the game, specifically Serdoa posted this previously:

I don't think that your comment really hurt, but in general the attitude of EVERY lurker should be that he does not want to influence the game. Point. And not that he doesn't want to influence it too much. And most certainly one shouldn't possibly influence a game just for the laughs. That's why I am also very much against all the calls from lurkers in player-threads for blood and war. That can have an influence on the player and that's not what a lurker should do, no matter how much he personally would enjoy a war being played out. I think in the last months there is an increase in lurkers forgetting that the players don't play these games for the amusement of the lurkers but for their own. And having played quite a few games now I can tell that there are certainly players that don't find it very fun when the decisions of their fellow players are influenced by lurkers.

I'm not posting the link because it's from a lurker thread and I don't want to spoil that game. However, I can state quite fairly that at least one player will not be happy when they find out what the lurkers have been doing.

[Krill]

Or I could just link to Serdoas last post.

[SevenSpirits]

I generally have considered the posts baying for blood in all games as expected and harmless.

I also generally think that the better the player, the more sensitive one is to those outside influences, since the lurker-geist is generally in favor tightening the game.

As I've gotten better, I've gotten more sensitive to things I once found harmless. And I'm still not very good. I can't imagine what someone like Seven feels.

That all said, we might run these games for the players, but we run the forums for the community and I do think eventually you have to be careful that you're ruining all the fun.

I'm generally in favor of lurker comments. Some go too far but for the most I think we've gotten pretty good at keeping them in line.

Imo the key is to engage in a conversation confined entirely to that thread. If you're visiting to ask a question due to something external, it will often be apparent. But if you are just responding to the posts in that player thread, imo that is generally positive.

[Ceiliazul]

To Baii:

There is nothing hypocritical about Serdoa's play to attack BigLew. Isn't it the normal thing to do with an opponent who doesn't think they are dead yet... prove it to them?*

With Serdoa and Comm checked out, Lewger's chances are zero. If Plako had to guard all fronts then the CV might have a shot... but not now.

* this paragraph was typed in Serdoa's thread directly, I did choose to delete it as a result of the convo here. While I agree with Seven's post about in-thread topics being ok, I did feel I would have went to far in Serdoa's thread now .

[Sareln]

If I play against (player), I want to play (player) with all the head-games that entails. I don't want to play (player) and a chorus of lurkers shouting for blood / encouraging (player) to tilt. Just my 2 cents.

[novice]

BaII, you're way out of line in Serdoa's thread. You don't engage a player and tell him that his decisions are hypocritical. First of all, you don't diss a player in his own spoiler thread. Second, that is very actively trying to influence the game.

EDIT: I see you at least deleted your latest post.

[Mardoc]

Things get weird whenever a player is playing for any reason but to win. Does Serdoa invading Bigger make any sense from a 'win the game' perspective? Mostly no, although you could argue it. From a 'end the game' perspective, absolutely!

But then...what should Xenu do to win from here? What about ScooPin? Is that even a meaningful question? I might as well be asking 'which way is red from here?'



It's a lot easier to wreck someone's game than to win, once you're out of hope of winning yourself. And it's a fairly understandable goal - you make a noticable change in the game, in a way that just keeping to yourself you won't.

That's probably the strongest argument for concesssions. Once too many people aren't playing to win anymore, the game is fundamentally different, and not usually any more fun. I think most of the really nasty arguments happen when someone playing to win is messed up by someone playing from a hopeless position.

[Ceiliazul]

good post Mardoc

[BaII]

Honestly though it is a little hypocritical, as Serdoa was willing to war with Bigger, but not willing to war Plako, and although you could possibly claim that Bigger was dead, it seems far from it. Serdoa even claimed that Bigger had an absurd amount of troops on his border, and from what it sounds like it wouldn't be a quick and easy war to begin with.

EDIT: The above post was before I saw Mardoc's post.

Now what i'm trying to point out here is that Serdoa will have to go through the exact same thing as if he would go to war with Plako, a long drawn out war that would consume an ungodly amount of time that's why I viewed his idea of war against Bigger as hypocritical.