retaliatory feedback beamer88 [eticket]

[friendjonny]

The whining he is talking about is the negative feedback I left him for suiciding into another player and thereby handing the game to the player who was already the strongest.

"friendjonny tried to team up with green so i had no choice but to attack one of you even if it weakened me. I would have been done anyway with both of you coming at me from both sides.At that point I was ahead in the game.Over 150 games played this is the first time i had trouble with players.friendjonny just mad I went afer him first. Your a poor loser.It's only a game you cry baby,maybe you should play on-line checkers or connect four with some younger children more your age. You whiner,Players BEWARE of this cry baby.Don't attack him or you get a negative. lol - LOSER"

Someone with those admin powers, please remove this feedback. Thanks!

[SirSebstar]

fill out an e-ticket.

[TheTrust]

*whispers to fj*...

I dont think thats retaliatory. It is 2 sides of 1 story. In your view he suicided into you giving the game to the strongest player. In his view, you and another player had put him in a bad situation where he lost control of the game and had to make a desperate move. Thats why diplomacy in games is so important, not even spoken diplomacy but the way you set up your men, the way you put pressure on certain players and most importantly to keep an eye on whats happening around you, not just as it relates to you but... "What does player X's decision mean for player Y next round?"

Sometimes when you get involved, especially in bringing down other players, you lose that objectivity and if you lose that you leave yourself open to this. If he was in such a desperate situation then perhaps you should have been careful in who you were helping. Likewise you couldnt expect him to attack another player and give you the game. players in that situation (not necessarily "players like that" but actual situations that any players can meet) are going to make a move that pisses off somebody. If he had attacked the other player you would not have left him a neg, you would have said it was strategy. But because you were on the receiving end, suddenly it isnt strategy, its a "stupid move".

Players that do these moves are often cornered at a point and lash out into someone (who then complains...) I dont believe the whole... "suicided into me" bit is grounds for a negative because depending on conditions it could just be a fouled up strategy or a legitimate plan that just never worked out. You have to be careful not to put yourself in a situation that it is so easy to be suicided against. When I play I like to keep "mobile" armies and not get tied down to 1 territory or continent.

("you" of course being the typical player that would be attacked by the desperate player or could be players pissed that the desperate player took action at all. Sometimes it just seems that "you" would like desperate players in a bad situation to not do anything to "rock a boat" if there is another stronger player. Or you'd like them to do something convenient for you. The game just doesnt work like that and it is not grounds for a negative.

[friendjonny]

*whispers to fj*...

I dont think thats retaliatory. It is 2 sides of 1 story. In your view he suicided into you giving the game to the strongest player. In his view, you and another player had put him in a bad situation where he lost control of the game and had to make a desperate move. Thats why diplomacy in games is so important, not even spoken diplomacy but the way you set up your men, the way you put pressure on certain players and most importantly to keep an eye on whats happening around you, not just as it relates to you but... "What does player X's decision mean for player Y next round?"

Sometimes when you get involved, especially in bringing down other players, you lose that objectivity and if you lose that you leave yourself open to this. If he was in such a desperate situation then perhaps you should have been careful in who you were helping. Likewise you couldnt expect him to attack another player and give you the game. players in that situation (not necessarily "players like that" but actual situations that any players can meet) are going to make a move that pisses off somebody. If he had attacked the other player you would not have left him a neg, you would have said it was strategy. But because you were on the receiving end, suddenly it isnt strategy, its a "stupid move".

Players that do these moves are often cornered at a point and lash out into someone (who then complains...) I dont believe the whole... "suicided into me" bit is grounds for a negative because depending on conditions it could just be a fouled up strategy or a legitimate plan that just never worked out. You have to be careful not to put yourself in a situation that it is so easy to be suicided against. When I play I like to keep "mobile" armies and not get tied down to 1 territory or continent.

It wasn't me he suicided into. He did eliminate me but he had enough armies to do it without it losing him the game... that I just thought was bad strategy. The player he suicided into (green) was the second strongest player but significantly weaker than the strongest player. Green and I (the ones yellow attacked) weren't the only players to call beamer88 out on his actions. I was the only one not too lazy to leave him a neg.

[spearfish]

Don't worry about it.... everyone runs into idiots who are just angry they lost.... e.g., Blackgums100

[sully800]

Go to the help tab and fill out an eticket to have a feedback removed if it doesn't fit in the guidelines.

[friendjonny]

eticket eh? I'll just have to try this legendary eticket! (thanks by the way guys)

[oVo]

I don't think either friendjonny's ("I don't like your flawed strategy') or beamer88's ("You both came after me so I came after one of you") negs have a lot of merit.

[friendjonny]

suiciding isn't a good reason for a neg?