On this particular comment ......"Now let's see... would it be better to refuse to play that person in the first place, or to sign up for a tourney the undesirable person is signed up for, while PLANNING to forfeit and disrupt the tourney? You tell me!" ....Yes you are right , i have thought about my decision to forfeit against Amplify which i have now done twice. I didnt do it to disrupt the tourneys , i did it out of a personal animosity towards him, not out of ill will towards the TD's in question. Hindsight is 20/20 they say and i apologize to you, Ivystung, who was the other td involved in a forfeit and any players that may have been offended. Next time i will withdraw from a tourney instead of playing if said asshole joins after i sign up.
While a league does function better when everyone plays everyone else we all know that is a fairy tale that will never come true. The initial issue for debate however wasnt about me forfeiting against a scumbag who was banned from 3 leaguesand who i share a great deal of mutual dislike with as well, it was about players who refuse to play someone else on the passing issue after the leagues , the tourney rules, the rules of wordox etc etc all state THAT IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO PASS AS A STRATEGY. Your words... "In the case of passing, when you know ahead of time your opponent will use that "strategy" - you can plan to play (or not play) accordingly. But you don't always know ahead of time, and that's when a pass feels "unethical" - because you've played the game under one assumption, and it got stomped on."
So in other words in my opinion if you sign up for a tourney there shouldnt be any assumptions when its LEGAL to pass and ANYONE can do so. And just for the record the reason i brought this up in the first place is because of a couple of lobby situations and conversations i saw recently , not games that i have personally been involved in, but if i feel the need to pass im going to do it up front ,im damn sure not going to feel guilty about it or worry about whether my stock in others eyes goes up or down, especially since its never been a blue chip stock anyway, anywhere .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Well said, Jeff!!!
Jeff, I don't believe that you assume everyone you play will pass because it's legal. Both of us have played long enough that we know who will pass and who won't, generally. And we know a lot of other things about the way people play, and we play accordingly. I don't pass, generally, but I WILL if my opponent passes first and I don't see a better play in time, or if I'm just feeling ornery. I STILL believe this diminishes the value of the game, even when I do it myself.
Furthermore, just because something is legal doesn't mean that it makes for good game-playing. Passing is far from the worst LEGAL thing you can do to undermine a good game, in my opinion. One of the worst things is to take advantage of an opponent who has passed back to you, in the case where you got booted, and you have been given another chance to take your turn. If you didn't have the tiles to clear or steal before the boot, it is extremely unethical to clear or steal when you are given another chance. It is perfectly LEGAL to do so, but anyone who would do so simply doesn't care about having a good (or fair) game.
I believe the whole passing issue comes down to this: Sure, it's legal, but does it make a good game? Why do so many people feel like passing is a "cheap" way to win? Why do we do things that are not REQUIRED like pass back to give others another chance, after the room (or their ISP) boots them? People who do these things CARE about the enjoyment of the game MORE than winning, and that's clearly where we differ. That doesn't make either of us WRONG. We simply have different approaches to Wordox.
It was interesting to me to find myself interpreting your PREVIOUS post along the lines of, "Why can't we all just get along?" I was even more surprised to find myself DISAGREEING. We won't all just get along, as you acknowledge in THIS post. But when we want to play, we'll either put up with our differences or go elsewhere. Clearly you and I are two of the people who are sticking around. I look forward to many more games with you!
this isnt a reply to what dorcas said, but to the whole passing issue. everyone has pussyfooted around the subject, so let's just call it what it really is....a chicken-shit play. you're playing a game and backed yourself into a corner where there's only one play and it opens a clear, so instead of making the play, you punk out and pass. this forces the other person to decide how they would like to lose, make a play and lose, or pass back to you for a new rack and an almost sure thing, guaranteed win. pretty shitty situation after two people have obviously played one helluva game, only to have the passer to take the chicken's way out. be a man, and make the play and take your loss. there's nothing wrong with being outplayed and taking a loss.
to take the problem one step further, the passers i've played aren't always the newbies or lower rated people, it's the supposed "top rated" people. come the F on, if you're such a good player then you've obviously put in the time to get there and know that there's always someone just as good if not better, or someone just plays a really great game. once again, be a man and take the loss.
now i'm sure someone is gonna say, "joey, i've seen you not take a play when the game is on the line". you'd be right, but it wasn't an intentional pass, but me running out of time trying to find the hidden play we all missed. when that has happened, obviously one of two things happen, my opponent plays or passes it to me. if they make the opening play, i won't take the clear for the win, i may block the clear, but i won't take the cheap way out. if they pass to me, i'll take the opening play i should've the first time around and take the loss. i've taken many a loss this way. there was one exception when i did INTENTIONALLY pass a rack, but it was against someone who had burned me on a punk out pass play the previous tourney and i was still a little pissed over it. i got the win from that game, but i didn't like how i won it, so i've never passed since that game and will never do it again.
in summary, don't be a chicken shit, make the play (and by play i mean put down a real word, not some BS phony we both know isn't good just so you can pretend you're not passing) and take the loss. don't ruin a well played game by passing your turn and sticking it to your opponent.
if you haven't figured out yet who this is.........it's Joey aka bigwurm
I agree with Dorcas about the bottom line "Does it make for good game playing?" But my answer would be, in some cases yes and in some cases no. If the board is so closed up that SOMEONE is going to have to make a play and you just pass to be obstinate hoping your opponent will get tired and open the pink, that is not a "strategy" in my opinion but just poor sportsmanship. If you're like "Well I'm waiting to get a Z so I can make the one play that will make sense here" that's not much better.
But on the other hand there are some situations where a player just gets totally screwed by the letters. The board is pretty open and there's stealable stuff all over the place and you just get no vowels or some other low probablility collection of crap
. In this situation I really don't think it makes sense to just make the most obvious losing play without even looking for something else and maybe trying a guess.
And if the other player in that case gets upset because you're not "givng" them the game which they feel they "deserve" because of sheer luck, I think that's a childish attitude that goes against good game-play and sportsmanship. Luck is part of the game but players should not be, in my opinion, forced to happily compound and incease their bad luck.
There are, of course, many situations in between these two extremes and I think it all comes down to whether you feel you are doing the right thing in the given situation. There are some cases when anyone will know they are screwing the other player by not making the only play obiously abvailable and other situations where I think risking a missed turn to avoid making a disasterous play is a valid stategy.
Yes it's more complicaed to take it one situation at a time then just say "I will never even risk a buzzer on a tight board" but it's also more logical and makes for better more competitiove game play.
Oh and Jeff, just one quick thing about the situation with Mario, I don't mind if you want to publically forfeit instead of withdraw when matched against him as long as it's done reasonably quietly without insult matches in the lobby. I thought you handled it fine last time.
ugh,sorry for all the typos :)
Wow I did open a can of worms when I brought up the so called passing strategy. The one that annoys me so much is when the only play opens up a pink and the coward passes, then you are damned if you go and probably damned if you pass back. If I have dithered and missed my go, like wurm, if my opponent plays I will not pink and if they pass I will try and make the play I should have made. Sure there are peeps out there that will tell you that. The placing of an illegal word to avoid giving a pink is just another form of passing - do peeps think we are stupid when they do that!! By the way if anyone is interested in using the passing strategy, a new one cropped up - if you get first go when playing 2 tile, pass lol!!!! I did get so cross after a spate of passing that I forfeited. Maybe the answer is like Olivia to stick to no pink games. I have found that most times when someone uses the passing things cos of pinks that it wins them the game. Do it if you must against me but if you want to win that much you can have the game.
Well Olivia,
Players who make up their own rules and then expect others to follow them bug me. If you can find people who agree to play with you that way fine but please don't be one of those people who enters a tourney and then whines because someone won;t follow your made up rules which are exactly opposite to the official league rules.
I never ever pass hoping my opponents will play if it isn't in their interest. If there is obviously only one play or any possible play will open the pink I will make the play, but if I get no vowels or other junk lettersand "have" to open the pink because of that or, as Mummy said, if I the only play is SH on an open board, don't expect me to rush to make the play that you want me to make. I hope my opponents won't throw the game to me by making dumb plays unless there's really little alternative. Winning that way is not fun for me, but losing by having to do that myself is even less fun. I hope people will just use common sense approach to this or avoid playing me if they absolutely expect me to make a play that I'm 100% sure of every time there's one available. I honestly do run out of time looking for a better play, never just "pass" (except in the SH situation)
Mike
As Ivy stated, when there seems to be nothing to play that won't give your opponent the clear & the win, it is a perfect time for experimentation. I discovered frit, volte & urd that way. However, I consider it "passive-aggressive passing" when an experienced player tries a play they know won't work, then says "oops." I would rather they directly passed. After all, passing is an "Acceptable Strategy"....at least the last time I read the rules it was.
Ok, I've read all the comments and felt compelled to add my own finally. As most of you probably know from playing me, I am not a passer and don't enjoy getting 'passed on'. Yes, it says in the rules that it's an acceptable form of strategy, BUT... I believe that is in the rules because a no passing rule could never be enforced. There would be no way to decide if someone passed, or really ran out of time, was distracted and missed turn or lagged, booted etc... It would cause chaos in ladder games and tournament play. 'He passed! It's against the rules!' "No, I didn't! I didn't mean to! I ran out of time!' 'You did it on purpose and you know it!' "Did not! my son/hubby/wife/father/mother/brother/sister was talking to me and I was distracted and ran out of time!'
Imagine the fights, the letters to admins etc... Anyway, that's why *I* believe it had to be put in the rules. And for those comparing to passing in scrabble, forget it... it's not a comparison. Like Mummy said, pinks don't clear the board in scrabble, and you don't collect dots in scrabble that add to your score when you clear. I believe the strategy of wordox is: playing to a) collect dots while b) avoiding opening pink while c) stealing your opponents words for extra points all for the sole purpose of clearing the board to a) collect on the dots you have painstakingly gathered and b) prevent your opponent from stealing anymore of your points. So, when it gets down to that tight board, and there aren't many places to play withOUT opening pink, I think the challenge of the game, and the part *I* love, is trying to find that last play, that nook, that cranny, where ONE last word will fit that doesn't open pink. The object is to BE the person to find that last word, then yes, it is the other person who is stuck opening pink. Does it suck to play a great game and have to open pink so your opponent can clear and win? YES!!! Do I do it anyway? YES!!! Why? Because that is the game of WORDOX. I don't play scrabble, I don't play other word games, I play WORDOX because of the thrill of trying to be the one to 'outlast' my opponent and find a place to play, or play a word they don't know, or place a steal they didn't know to be the last to make a 'safe' play. I ENJOY forcing my opponent to have to open pink. *I* thought that was the purpose of this game. I will continue playing the way I always have, and yes it loses me TONS of games, but I'm not going to all of sudden start playing differently. I'd rather lose playing the way I do, than win because I passed. My two cents :)
Nanc
amen nanc
щекотка знакомства она его
Post a Comment