What threats are fair?

Idiot · Post by **Idiot** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:33 pm

That might seem like a strange question, because the entire game is about threatening and attacking.

But what if someone says in chat, "Don't attack me, or I'll suicide on you. I don't care if it costs me the game." -- Is it wrong (legally? morally?) to make the threat in the first place? And is it wrong to act on it? Could this fall under the rule against "throwing the game"?

What about variations. For instance, someone who declares in chat, "If you break my bonus next round, I'll break your bonus for three rounds minimum, no matter what it costs me."

And if you think either the stronger form of this threat, or any weaker variation, is unfair, would it warrant a negative feedback? Would it warrant any stronger action (from admin staff or whatever)?

Syzygy · Post by **Syzygy** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:35 pm

I think it kind of depends on the exact situation.

Though, IMO suicide threats are always unwarranted and deserve a negative. Stronger action from staff though... No.

oVo · Post by **oVo** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:52 pm

Is that a threat or a warning? At least you know where their head is at and such words make me want to kick their butt.

never pull a gun if it isn't loaded

graeme89 · Post by **graeme89** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:27 pm

oVo wrote:Is that a threat or a warning? At least you know where their head is at and such words make me want to kick their butt.

never pull a gun if it isn't loaded

Exactly, when someone informs you of their intentions it gives you an advantage, threats mean nothing.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:56 pm

A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.

The Factory · Post by **The Factory** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:12 pm

MeDeFe wrote:A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.

I agree, if a player is truly good he/she should be able to manipulate his opponent's movements and actions using nothing more than intellect and clever tactics.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:21 pm

MeDeFe wrote:A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.

What about dugcarr1? He was one of the best players, and he threatened all the time.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:28 pm

Skittles! wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.
What about dugcarr1? He was one of the best players, and he threatened all the time.

That's because it is just an opinion that he was one of the best players. It is also just an opinion that the best players don't need to threaten others.

Both opinions can exist, but they both can't be right

Scott-Land · Post by **Scott-Land** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:32 am

sully800 wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.
What about dugcarr1? He was one of the best players, and he threatened all the time.
That's because it is just an opinion that he was one of the best players. It is also just an opinion that the best players don't need to threaten others.

Both opinions can exist, but they both can't be right

both opinions can can exist,-- they both can be right, just not at the same time

Visaoni · Post by **Visaoni** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:37 am

Scott-Land wrote:
sully800 wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:A good player shouldn't have to threaten the others to make them do what he wants.
What about dugcarr1? He was one of the best players, and he threatened all the time.
That's because it is just an opinion that he was one of the best players. It is also just an opinion that the best players don't need to threaten others.

Both opinions can exist, but they both can't be right
both opinions can can exist,-- they both can be right, just not at the same time

Nope. Both can be right at the same time. Just because a good player shouldn't have to make threats doesn't mean they can't.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:28 am

in some situations a nice little friendly threat is the only thing that may keep you alive...

if you need a bonus, and you cant possibly hold it...putting all the guys in one spot and threatening total annhiliation if someone breaks it may be the only way you stay in a game and win...

since I have at least one of these wins under my belt...one from a position of being dead last in the game, ...i see no problem with it at all...in the right circumstances...

this is a psychological game, and getting others not to attack you is the only real way to win.

now with duggy, his threats often got him the exact opposite response...so you have to becareful how you approach them...

it only becomes cheating, if one player is repeatedly doing it for the obvious gain of another in many games....then its a different situation all together...

in any case...if not handled properly, it may warrant feedback...so again...caution is urged

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:43 pm

I think threats become unfair when they take the form of "Let me win this game or I will kill your spouse". But up to that point they're pretty cool...

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:45 pm

AAFitz wrote:in some situations a nice little friendly threat is the only thing that may keep you alive...

if you need a bonus, and you cant possibly hold it...putting all the guys in one spot and threatening total annhiliation if someone breaks it may be the only way you stay in a game and win...

since I have at least one of these wins under my belt...one from a position of being dead last in the game, ...i see no problem with it at all...in the right circumstances...

this is a psychological game, and getting others not to attack you is the only real way to win.

now with duggy, his threats often got him the exact opposite response...so you have to becareful how you approach them...

it only becomes cheating, if one player is repeatedly doing it for the obvious gain of another in many games....then its a different situation all together...

in any case...if not handled properly, it may warrant feedback...so again...caution is urged

I feel threatened when MR AAFitz just joins my games.

graeme89 · Post by **graeme89** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:33 pm

AAFitz wrote:in some situations a nice little friendly threat is the only thing that may keep you alive...

if you need a bonus, and you cant possibly hold it...putting all the guys in one spot and threatening total annhiliation if someone breaks it may be the only way you stay in a game and win...

since I have at least one of these wins under my belt...one from a position of being dead last in the game, ...i see no problem with it at all...in the right circumstances...

this is a psychological game, and getting others not to attack you is the only real way to win.

now with duggy, his threats often got him the exact opposite response...so you have to becareful how you approach them...

it only becomes cheating, if one player is repeatedly doing it for the obvious gain of another in many games....then its a different situation all together...

in any case...if not handled properly, it may warrant feedback...so again...caution is urged

You're right about phsycological, even when you attack you have to beware of revenge attacks, and havn't you also revenge attacked, I have, for no other reason than I want to hurt someone who hurt me.A big part of CC is about mind games. thats why it's so interesting.