Fog of war and liars

[Donelladan]

Some folks on here need to get a life.

Delf posted an out of date snap to prove he wasn't lying. He was very careful to edit the snap to only show the stack of troops concerned. Troops that had moved elsewhere by the time he posted the 'snap', so the information was as useful as a chocolate fire guard.

Can someone please explain what the effing issue is here, because I can't see one.

The debate here isn't about Delf, I understand you want to defend a clanmate, but the vast majority of the posts ( except mainly mine) in this topic are not talking about Delf himself but about the possibility to put snapshot or screenshot into to game chat during multiplayers fog games.

In addition to all of the above, I think we need to validate what Delf is saying. If someone is called a liar, he has a right to bring proof that he is not. Being called a liar is to many people the worst insult imaginable. Duels to the death have many times resulted from it.

People are called being many things here on CC, CC allow me to call someone a retard or all a bunch of insults, and you're saying it is not ok to call someone a liar ?

If we just speak about the Delf case, he has been over reacting a lot. If you want to comment on it read the game chat Game 16135720.
No one called Delf a liar. Those are exact Lonous word

2016-02-04 14:46:50 - Lonous: Are you on medication? Seriously. 450 army lol? And commenting on Mr Horn asking for help, he hasn't said a word in 2 weeks now
2016-02-04 14:48:11 - Lonous: I don't care for lies nor for bluster. Your threats mean little. I will happily be the first to attack you and draw your anger.
2016-02-04 14:49:11 - Lonous: Chomp and Su can hit you from other directions and break different bonuses.

Speaking more generally, discarding someone comments about troops position and strength by saying that is not true ( = saying that's lies ) is like one of the most basic strategy playing fog game when you use the game chat. Would you disagree with that ?

[ConfederateSS]

-------1st) Snapshots and bluffing are not the same thing. Taking a snapshot is a cowardly act. The word liar is strong. When it is bluffing,and should be called what it is. Bluffing is what people are trying to do. They are far from each other. Example...someone is bluffing in poker. Taking a snapshot in a fog game. Is like reaching over grabbing the person's cards and throwing them face up on the table.
-------2nd) Like I said in C and A...The snapshot setting should be removed from settings. They should be forbidden in FOG...PERIOD....ONE MORE TIME...BLUFFING...AND TAKING A SNAPSHOT OF THE BATTLEFIELD ARE NOT THE SAME THING... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

------I wish people would quit using the word LIAR...This is a war gaming venue. People bluff just like real people would in a real war.
------You would not go to a poker game. Someone bluffs and wins. You would not call that person a liar/cheater. When you realize you have been fooled out of the pot.
------BUT TAKING A SNAPSHOT GOES WAY BEYOND THE GAME OF FOG SETTING/THE ART OF BLUFFING...SNAPSHOTS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM PERSONAL MENU SETTINGS AND NOT ALLOWED ON C.C...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

Taking a snapshot in a fog game. Is like reaching over grabbing the person's cards and throwing them face up on the table.

Its not, its like telling everyone you have a pair of aces and the showing them your own cards.

------And The People's cards on both sides of you...So YES it is...
------It looks like most people on the site(not you Wing). Don't know what the word BLUFF means...They should find out ,before throwing the word LIAR around...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Delf]

I am a little clearer in my mind at the moment and can concentrate more on what the issues are.

First, “Fog of War” – the fog is controlled by the system – it puts a double question mark on what the game decides needs to be hidden.
If a person can see information then that information is not covered by the “FOG” - So technically how can anyone say that informing others of what can be seen is against the rules. If players interpret more into a "Fog" game than is provided then they should make their "Extra rules" known to all. (We do in Clan Matches regarding waiting for snaps and not allowing time outs to avoid cards in Nuclear etc) Let us be totally clear - "Fog" games are inherently controlled by the program and do not rely on external rules. Same as all the other options available.

There are 3 separate issues here.

1. Did I breach any rules and by that I include spirit of the game.
2. Is there any difference between a clip and text in relaying information.
3. Lying.

Now I can only fairly give opinions and to that end I must say I am biased in my opinion due to circumstances; however, I will try as best as possible to neutralise any bias in my opinions.

1. I believe that the current “Fog” scenario adequately allows players to hide their troop strengths and weaknesses until they put those troops in play. Once that has occurred whether voluntary or involuntary due to an attack, there is to all intents and purposes no “Fog” in evidence in that area. Hence, If I were to make my troops visible, or have my troops made visible, they are in essence no longer covered by the “Fog” or any perceived protection that the “Fog” games afford.

2. A picture paints a thousand words – the chat is limited to only a few. Furthermore, we are playing on a Multilanguage platform and pictures/clips are needed. I have in the past used an annotated screenshot overlaid with arrows to pass on to Clan Members our attack or forting strategy and to lose that facility would be a great loss, further a stupid one in my opinion as it would not stop the action as it could still be passed by IGM. So would it be practicle?

3. Lying is a personal choice, calling another person is not a personal choice it is a direct act of aggression. Although some may argue that laws differ from country to country, I would say categorically that all countries recognise the acts of slander and other libations. As a point of note in the UK you cannot cross examine a witness statement under oath for that very reason. If a person wishes to lie, that is their right. But to call another a lair is not a right nor permissible action unless you have sufficient proof. Hence to call a person a lair you are in effect expressing your permission for them to prove their innocence by any method they can regardless whether or not in doing so results in a personal loss. Ie If you say I lied and in proving my innocence I revealed information that damages your company or business, you have no claim to my estate for that action. (this again is set down by the Law Lords so international accepted)

Having stated my opinions – I would like to go on to say that I would be disheartened to say the least if the result of Lonous’s post led to a physical stoppage of being allowed to pass Links in chat. It would not benefit the membership and would furthermore not prevent circumnavigation around the restriction.

In a nutshell, Don't let this topic lean towards preventing links being used. It would be a wrong outcome and reduce the benefit others have enjoyed. A players disgruntlement should not be used to force unneccasary action that will not stop any dissemination of information but could in essence augment any perceaved problems by leading to players using other methods of chat outside of the game.

Did I over react in this game - Then yes, But reading the chat does not show the full story, it misses what was occurring throughout. However, saying that I did not disclose any information detremental to the players' game, and I'm sure if I had'nt had 700 troops able to respond to his attack and that he had wiped me out that he would not have raised the post. (I beleave in my own heart that this is the main factor and obviously that any person who tells porky's hates to be called out)

He may not be the oldest member but he did know full well that the information the clip revealed was no loger pertinant to the game nor did it effect the actual game itself. So the question is again. What is the real point of this post! It truely began with a players attept to cause another harm, Lonous knew before posting that I had not "Spoiled the Game" nor "revealed tacticle information" he wanted to cause trouble in my opinion. Obviously your opinions may differ, but I doubt many wil

[Delf]

ConfederateSS

Not sure how many actual wars you have been in, ignoring the gulf wars, I fought in two. In war you will find that Soldiers are VERY honest, Politicians my mislead, Bluff or down right lie. But Generals, commanders and troops tend to ensure what they say is absolutely correct. In the “movies” a general may bluster and play a poker hand – In reality, not ever. Tactics are based upon certainties. You never bluff when lives are at stake.

Not a criticism – Just Hollywood and Historians like to add spin to the actual events. And the Military would never reveal the real truth. Best to keep the reasons for success or defeat a secret sort of attitude.

As an Aside

I have a sort of feeling I am going to regret this! "What is the Blue and Silver Rebellion?"

[ConfederateSS]

-------- --------There is no deception in War...as you say...you fought in some...THANK GOD ....you were not the strategist behind them....
--------The fact that you don't know strategy...Is very clear when you said Ignore the Gulf Wars. Gen.Schwatz...used a play out of Rommel's text book. Building up in front of the Iraq's front...Going around Iraq's poorly defended left flank...Typical Rommel...At Inchon MacArthur used a strategy from The attack on Montreal by the British in the French and Indian War...During the American Civil War..A Confederate Leader...Out numbered 5,000 troops to the Union's 100,000 troops....Picture a Long High Wall...There is an Opening in that wall that the Union troops can see through. Behind that opening is another High Wall(Kind of like a place in the C.C.Map..Siege)...The Confederate had is men march around the inner wall non-stop for 6-8 hours,so the Union troops could see them only when they passed the opening...The Union troops thought WOW!That's the whole Rebel Army. Buying time for 60,000 more Confederate troops to arrive. Bluffing The Union out of an easy Victory.
--------During WW2 North Africa...When Rommel took over he was out numbered 50 tanks to the British's 400 tanks. He put wood cut out of tanks on cars.To make it look like he had 800 or more tanks....The British did not attack his forces. Once again a Bluff pays off. The British hired a Magician to trick the Axis in North Africa. He Hid the city of Alexandria through deception/magic. The Axis bombed else where. The Allies Bluffed Hitler in thinking their attack would take place at The Pas Callis...The Closest point between England and France....WE ALL KNOW HOW GREAT THAT BLUFF TURNED OUT. NORMANDY BABY!!!
--------But on C.C. FOG players might like...The Americans knew the Japanese were going to attack. They thought MIDWAY...To confirm it. They put out a message on open air over the radio. That MIDWAY had water treatment problems. They found in a Japanese message,American code breakers broke. We will need to bring a water treatment with us when we invade AF...Which turned out to be MIDWAY...THE AMERICANS set the trap and the Japanese fell for it...That is what FOG players do in game chat. To regroup when needed...Or set a trap. Through Bluffing...Snapshots would ruin the art of playing the fog setting....
--------No,I wouldn't serve this crap country or spit on it if it was on fire. I watched my Father who served in Korea and Vietnam. Booed,had eggs ,tomatoes thrown on him,and spit at by a bunch of dumb ass so called Americans.When he came home from a lost war. The drive home was the only time I seen him ashamed to be an American.
--------If you know C.C. Colors...RED/GOLD...BLUE/SILVER next to our names. It is like the colors from the game STRATEGO...The Blue and Silver Rebellion(me) speaks out for the casual player/the regular joe. The Conquer Club High Command likes forgetting who makes up the majority of the site. As they cater to the few who complain,get things changed their way...For their cliques,clans and tourneys. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...ONCE AGAIN ...BLUFFING IS A PART OF WAR....LYING AND BLUFFING ARE NOT THE SAME THING...SO WILL PEOPLE QUIT USING THE WORD LIAR.....

[Delf]

Lol, Is it best to use a straw or a tube? Sucking eggs, that is?

So was Bill Clinton "Bluffing" when he said he didn't have sexual congress? I mean strategically, Going on your numerous examples above of success by desperation, Clinton was in a sort of desperate situation there with such Allegations flying around. I was unaware that in the USA you could impeach a President because he was Bluffing?

FYI - I disincluded, the Gulf Wars, as who were the apposing army? Terrorists? Freedom Fighters? Mobs? Liberation, extremists. I chose to ignore the Gulf as is it a War? or as first claimed a Peace Keeping exercise. Before you answer remember as British a few months prior to the first war we were training the Iraqis. Arming them too. Against the Iranians.

Now be honest, if a person can't tell the difference between a lie and a bluff - The medical term is Asperger syndrome. Usually found in children - And No I'm not being Ageist against Lonous. just a point of fact. "Say what you mean and Mean what you say" It's either a spade or a shovel it can't be both but can be used to do the same job. A bit like lying and Bluffing.

As for the "FoG" rules - I can see them on the screen, they are the area's covered in Question Marks - Guess why - "It's supposed to be representative of the foggy areas!" Amazing what graphic designers can accomplish. Now if the areas I faced were also covered in ?? it would be totally foggy (interesting game adaption there) But the designers of the game didn't want that to be a part of the game play.

Please I can see you are well versed on "Published History" Try a little War I was involved in - How many British troops were actually fighting on the Falkland Islands and Against how many fortified troops. Now we won - But I assure you we didn't Bluff or Lie to do it - We used that thing you claim I would know nothing about - Strategy. Watching too many War Films and reading Autobiographies or biases accounts written by the winning side most of the time or by what people believe was occurring, are not a substitute for planning and tactics.

I hate to break it to you but Risk is not anything like a battle. More like chess with luck thrown in. In the faulklands most of the British troops who did get to fight were crippled by trench foot and wearing inappropriate clothing. We still won - If gaining a heap of worthless mud at the cost of thousands of lives (most due to suicide afterwards) is winning.

Please don't spurt useless drivel regarding tactics you have read about to try and impress, It belittles you. There is a huge difference between Knowledge and Understanding. And to state "THANK GOD ....you were not the strategist behind them....The fact that you don't know strategy...Is very clear when you said Ignore the Gulf Wars." Is both showing your stupidity and immaturity.

Please why not go to bed early and get up for school tomorrow like a good little boy and leave this post to the grown ups. If one behaves like a child, they should be treated like one.

MODERATOR - Is this post finished, It seems that there is no further intelligent posts forthcoming - only repetition and members who think 20 hyphens between statements and a childish battle calls is all that’s forthcoming.

[Keefie]

^^^^^ ^^^^^

[owenshooter]

the issue being debated was ruled on:

Subject: Delf violating fog of war [tg]

and as ALWAYS, the Black Jesus was 100% correct... sadly, the thread remains locked, it should be opened, it is a great thread...
when people get involved on CC, they should let it go... it rarely happens these days... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

[ConfederateSS]

-------You said,ignore the Gulf Wars, not me. I like how you tried to switch it ,nice...U.S. also supplied Iraq against Iran...Back the Taliban in Afgan. to fight the Russians. But you right. England is to Blame for the Gulf War....After WWI...The Middle East was divided up ,mostly in England's favor ....
-------I already know what the game of R.I.S.K..is. I doubt you're familiar with Stratego. A mix of Chess,Battleship ,the card game WAR. Or the real life game..capture the flag.
-------AS FOR SNAPSHOTS...You said,"MY CLAN uses them"...SURPRISE ...like I said in C and A...if players are as good as they think they are,they don't need them...GET RID OF THEM...
-------The Falks. ,just like Grenada for the U.S....If you needed Strategy to beat the Argentinians...I can see why The Once Great British Empire is down to Northern Ireland.
-----But don't Worry Delf...You don't need sleep...OLD SOLDIERS NEVER DIE...THEY JUST FADE AWAY... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion). ...FOR GARRY OWEN AND GLORY ....What's the matter?...You want the moderator to end things for you?....TRY THE UN....

[BrutalBob]

the issue being debated was ruled on:

Subject: Delf violating fog of war [tg]

[wildly erroneous claims deleted]... sadly, the thread remains locked, it should be opened, it is a great thread...
when people get involved on CC, they should let it go... it rarely happens these days... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Agree. I thought this thread was going to be a debate on the issue, but it seems to have taken quite a left turn

[owenshooter]

the issue being debated was ruled on:

Subject: Delf violating fog of war [tg]

[wildly erroneous claims deleted]... sadly, the thread remains locked, it should be opened, it is a great thread...
when people get involved on CC, they should let it go... it rarely happens these days... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Agree. I thought this thread was going to be a debate on the issue, but it seems to have taken quite a left turn

they need to open that thread back up now that there is a decision...-Jn

[BrutalBob]

the issue being debated was ruled on:

Subject: Delf violating fog of war [tg]

[wildly erroneous claims deleted]... sadly, the thread remains locked, it should be opened, it is a great thread...
when people get involved on CC, they should let it go... it rarely happens these days... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Agree. I thought this thread was going to be a debate on the issue, but it seems to have taken quite a left turn

they need to open that thread back up now that there is a decision...-Jn

You mean the C&A thread? Wouldn't suggestions or Discussion be a better spot?

[nippersean]

I think this is the correct spot. That (c+a) was for in particular Delf.

I guess here the discussion was should snaps in the chatbox be banned?

Yes. imo

[BrutalBob]

I think this is the correct spot. That (c+a) was for in particular Delf.

I guess here the discussion was should snaps in the chatbox be banned?

Yes. imo

+1 for yes

[Silly Knig-it]

I agree with those who take the position that once troops are in play all bets are off. If I am in danger of being wiped out, I am going to shout it out, in hopes others will come to my rescue. Fog or no fog.

Indeed we are a world wide game, Why not a picture? Better than words if I am trying to get someone's attention. Is this cheating, violating the spirit?
I would like to use another analogy, that I believe is realted/similar. Suicide. If I have a 2% chance of winning by attacking but in doing so I destroy your chance of winning, is that suiciding? I have had people accuse me of that. I think I am taking my shot at a 2% chance. We say this is a war game and we admire warrior cultures. Well if I were a Japanese Samauri, I would not question the 2% chance, not taking it would be considered cowardice. Is it suicide or fighting to the last man?

So in a foggy game, if I talk about how many of your troops I see and where is it cheating or is it spreading intelligence, maybe trading for favors, maybe just disadvantaging you so others will attack you and not me. A battle plan never survives the opening shot. This would be an easy game if all of you would just do what I expect.

And how do you post a snap to chat as an open snap? I would like to know. Promise (fingers crossed) that I won't do it.

[BrutalBob]

I agree with those who take the position that once troops are in play all bets are off. If I am in danger of being wiped out, I am going to shout it out, in hopes others will come to my rescue. Fog or no fog.

Indeed we are a world wide game, Why not a picture? Better than words if I am trying to get someone's attention. Is this cheating, violating the spirit?
I would like to use another analogy, that I believe is realted/similar. Suicide. If I have a 2% chance of winning by attacking but in doing so I destroy your chance of winning, is that suiciding? I have had people accuse me of that. I think I am taking my shot at a 2% chance. We say this is a war game and we admire warrior cultures. Well if I were a Japanese Samauri, I would not question the 2% chance, not taking it would be considered cowardice. Is it suicide or fighting to the last man?

So in a foggy game, if I talk about how many of your troops I see and where is it cheating or is it spreading intelligence, maybe trading for favors, maybe just disadvantaging you so others will attack you and not me. A battle plan never survives the opening shot. This would be an easy game if all of you would just do what I expect.

And how do you post a snap to chat as an open snap? I would like to know. Promise (fingers crossed) that I won't do it.

Well if you promise that you wont do it then I guess its ok.

Go into your game using panel interface and take your snap.
Then you turn off panel interface, go back into the game and copy the self msg which is a bunch of gibberish text.
Post that as a message, then turn on panel interface and go back into game

You can have a look at this game Game 16326300 and see that you can also manipulate snaps. If everyone could do this I think there is no need to ban posting them, but it takes a little knowledge (not too much).

If you look at the the round 4 snap after round 100 in my chats you will see that one has a mystery 156 troops.

[waauw]

I agree with those who take the position that once troops are in play all bets are off. If I am in danger of being wiped out, I am going to shout it out, in hopes others will come to my rescue. Fog or no fog.

Indeed we are a world wide game, Why not a picture? Better than words if I am trying to get someone's attention. Is this cheating, violating the spirit?
I would like to use another analogy, that I believe is realted/similar. Suicide. If I have a 2% chance of winning by attacking but in doing so I destroy your chance of winning, is that suiciding? I have had people accuse me of that. I think I am taking my shot at a 2% chance. We say this is a war game and we admire warrior cultures. Well if I were a Japanese Samauri, I would not question the 2% chance, not taking it would be considered cowardice. Is it suicide or fighting to the last man?

So in a foggy game, if I talk about how many of your troops I see and where is it cheating or is it spreading intelligence, maybe trading for favors, maybe just disadvantaging you so others will attack you and not me. A battle plan never survives the opening shot. This would be an easy game if all of you would just do what I expect.

And how do you post a snap to chat as an open snap? I would like to know. Promise (fingers crossed) that I won't do it.

Well if you promise that you wont do it then I guess its ok.

Go into your game using panel interface and take your snap.
Then you turn off panel interface, go back into the game and copy the self msg which is a bunch of gibberish text.
Post that as a message, then turn on panel interface and go back into game

Donelladan discovered you just have to click the snap button 2-3 times rapidly and the gibberish text will appear in your text box.

[owenshooter]

I think this is the correct spot. That (c+a) was for in particular Delf.

I guess here the discussion was should snaps in the chatbox be banned?

Yes. imo

and this is why the C&A thread is the place for the discussion. it wasn't about DELF, it was about snaps in chat. it isn't against the rules. they just ruled it isn't against the rules. and it will never be against the rules. the discussion was about snaps being against the rules. sooooo, thanks for your input, but you have already been proven wrong...-Jn

[BrutalBob]

I think this is the correct spot. That (c+a) was for in particular Delf.

I guess here the discussion was should snaps in the chatbox be banned?

Yes. imo

and this is why the C&A thread is the place for the discussion. it wasn't about DELF, it was about snaps in chat. it isn't against the rules. they just ruled it isn't against the rules. and it will never be against the rules. the discussion was about snaps being against the rules. sooooo, thanks for your input, but you have already been proven wrong...-Jn

The C&A post WAS about Delf and specifically about posting screenshots not snaps. The subsequent slightly off-topic or expanded discussion included posting snaps.

C&A is not the place for policy discussion. Its for discussing the facts of a case, as Tee Gee pointed out and was therefore locked.

Could you clarify something for me about the part i highlighted in red. Your poor capitalisation and/or sentence structure makes it hard for me to understand what you mean. Do you mean "they just ruled it isn't against the rules and it is my opinion that it will never be against the rules." or do you mean that it never will be against the rules is part of the ruling? I didnt see this bit so am just curious.

[riskllama]

yer all a bunch of foggin' liars...

[Delf]

One Point I would like to make and I think it deserves serious concideration.

The heading. "Subject: Delf violating fog of war"

This is VERY misleading. It almost makes the definition of any discusion pointless. The heading should have been WAS! Delf Violating Fog of War!

Let us be totally honest the heading convicted me unfairly as it implied that I had! It most certainly did not imply it was a discussion nor did it wait to accertain the facts before jumping in!

Although in a world were time is abundant and evryone meticulas then the heading would not pose a problem. We All Know This Is Not The Case1

Many read the headings only and skip to the end or glance at the contents. The Heading therfore Informs Everyone that I had Violated Fog! That is not fair to any member.

I do not know if the MultiHunters can change the topic created by an individual, but if thay can and the topic is open to discussions then it would be fair that it is worded so as not to imply that someone has committed an act when that decission is in debate.

(This is not a critisim against the Multihunters, who's efforts deserve praise; more on the system that allows individuals to word their complaints. Re-wording or deleting the post and starting a post with a different heading would be fairer to other members in the future.)

[BrutalBob]

All the titles in the C&A forum state the allegation in the title. Its a requirement.

Right next to the claim about you it says "cleared"

I wouldnt get too worried about it. Anyone browsing the archived reports would know that this is the format and you were cleared.

[iAmCaffeine]

All the titles in the C&A forum state the allegation in the title. Its a requirement.

Might want to check that.

[BrutalBob]

All the titles in the C&A forum state the allegation in the title. Its a requirement.

Might want to check that.

Nah, I cant be bothered. Too much advice to dispense

[Delf]

Agreed, AFTER I was cleared - but before it states for all to read "Delf Vilolating Fog of War" Which is a statement. However, as I said, it is not about me/ More of suggesting a procedural change: that would prevent misunderstandings