Stackers

This comes from a player named Forever_Forwards .... thanks for the input....


Further to your recent posts about 'stacking' I would like write as briefly as possible about its relevance to game/group dynamic. I notice, especially in the social rooms, that stacking has become very frequent. I beleive that it has become such a preference that when new players emerge, they adopt the stacking technique because they have entered into an environment that is now educating them this way of play.

So recognisable is the dependency that some have on stacking, that the standard of the game can be questioned. Constant stacking slams breaks onto any momentum the game is trying to create, and in my point of view its overuse shows a lack of integrity to both the game and opponent. The community was once understood to be a place of energy and diligence, but now fewer players play in way that hints that they admire the game.

The main objection that a traditional (I loosely define traditional as word focused players) player has with players who stack is an imbalance of effort. It can be controversial to assume this, we do not know how much effort our opponent is putting into a game. However, the situation remains that a player who reveals and plays a very good word can then watch its value overtaken by the next player who decides to stack. Whether they do that decently, indecently, or with the perception of 'im just playing the game', doesnt really matter to the traditional player; the traditional player is aiming to set a high standard of play, and the second is using this to his/her advantage, constantly.

Stacking qualifies as an acceptable technique and can be used effectively. We should however be responsible for how much we depend on it. I beleive it boils down to game integrity. A game with integrity conforms to these rules;


(1) Both players consider their options and make diverse decisions. They want to be in the game to maintain or improve their standard. They wish that the other player admires their efforts.

(2) Both players respond well to each others calls. They do not resort to a technique that constantly & directly opposes the other players preference because this is a damaging indication and it narrows the games potential to a minimum.

(3) Both players understand that compromise can exist in a competitve enivornment. If one player shows example of risky (in a sensible way) play and is conveying a great sense of effort, then do not be obliged to up your game too - it can be callous to constantly take advantage of someones efforts by relying on them to screw up aswell as playing a safe game.

So that is my observed view of 'stacking' and the integrity of the game. These opinions are not meant to insult and they are entirely objectionable.