Moderator: Community Team
Yes, if you come from one of those countries where the exchange rate makes it harsh. $25 equates to +-R200 which equates close to $200 on the 'Big Mac' index. Unfortunately for me this is a rough expenditure when you're a student, heh.mightyleemoon wrote:And...out of curiosity...is 25 bucks reallyl that much money?
You dumbass. I was premium from May 07-08, I joined the site in March 27th. Over 90% of my games were under premium..... and get a premium, you only played 490 games for free.
I hit about 2100 points or so until I got bored with trying to scour the Waiting For Players for standard, escalating, unlimited games that weren't overrun by stripers. Folks in that point range have started to spend more time playing with the elites, playing team games, and private games. I don't have an interest to spend that much time on this site to protect my hard earned score. I didn't play for awhile, then came back and decided I didn't care about being point anal and figured I'd give the idiots another chance to prove me wrong. They failed fairly disastrously.i love how shortly ago you would have been a striper yourself, its the "free rank upgrade" that makes you only one rank better...
Well, if/when you get above 2000 again, you'll be able to find lots of escalating games with people of equal rank in the callouts forum. The point of these games is two fold. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the points part of them. The reason I play so many of those games is because of the competition aspect of them. Joining those games, I know it's not going to be a cake walk, and I'm going to have to be on the top of my game to win. to me, there's nothing better than a fierce competition between great players.State409c wrote:I hit about 2100 points or so until I got bored with trying to scour the Waiting For Players for standard, escalating, unlimited games that weren't overrun by stripers. Folks in that point range have started to spend more time playing with the elites, playing team games, and private games. I don't have an interest to spend that much time on this site to protect my hard earned score. I didn't play for awhile, then came back and decided I didn't care about being point anal and figured I'd give the idiots another chance to prove me wrong. They failed fairly disastrously.
If you're looking to address a "hater and retard without a clue", proceed to the nearest mirror and start talking.State409c wrote:Ah, to address the haters and retards that don't have a clue
You dumbass. I was premium from May 07-08, I joined the site in March 27th. Over 90% of my games were under premium..... and get a premium, you only played 490 games for free.
I hit about 2100 points or so until I got bored with trying to scour the Waiting For Players for standard, escalating, unlimited games that weren't overrun by stripers. Folks in that point range have started to spend more time playing with the elites, playing team games, and private games. I don't have an interest to spend that much time on this site to protect my hard earned score. I didn't play for awhile, then came back and decided I didn't care about being point anal and figured I'd give the idiots another chance to prove me wrong. They failed fairly disastrously.i love how shortly ago you would have been a striper yourself, its the "free rank upgrade" that makes you only one rank better...

In fact, it's almost exactly 90% who are below 1600.detlef wrote:I would think calling out about 90% of the CC population (don't quote me on that but I'm guessing it's close)
If you're looking to address a "hater and retard without a clue", proceed to the nearest mirror and start talking.
inorite?Really, how insightful.
That doesn't even make sense.a very clueless slant on a very obvious point
No shit sherlock. Did you read the fucking thread? Did you read what you just stuck in the quote box?if you want to avoid games against lower ranked players, don't play them, it's really simple actually.
You really can't say conclusively either way. Seeing as how there are 4-7 losers and 1 winner per game, it's statistically more likely to hurt you in the long run. If you let each opponent have an equal opportunity to win at the start of the round, getting suicided on makes your percentage go way down, but a noob suiciding another player doesn't make it go way up, just means it could make it easier for a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) to get cards and take the win.However, assuming that you're good, you should find that the poor play of others is about as likely to benefit you as hurt you.
No shit, classic striper trait - don't give a shit about score or winning, just suicide the guy that pissed you off. This doesn't happen with higher ranked players. Thanks for proving my points!I think you're getting peed upon because you're coming off like an a-hole.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
That's funny, I wasn't referring to you getting peed on in games, rather here in the forums. Then I read your feedback. Imagine that, you're an a-hole in games as well. Color me surprised. Well, if you're a big enough jack-ass to start this thread, you're a big enough jack-ass not to realize that being a dick to people in the game will typically come back to bite you in the ass.State409c wrote: No shit, classic striper trait - don't give a shit about score or winning, just suicide the guy that pissed you off. This doesn't happen with higher ranked players. Thanks for proving my points!

No shit, classic striper trait - don't give a shit about score or winning, just suicide the guy that pissed you off. This doesn't happen with higher ranked players. Thanks for proving my points![/quote]I think you're getting peed upon because you're coming off like an a-hole.
Congrats, this thread doesn't apply to you. Moving right along.I dare you to find more than 3 or 4 examples where I have made "terrible" moves in any of my games. I can think of 1 off the top of my head, but it was due to a mis-understanding during a real-time game, so nobody held it against me.
Sure, so long as you don't set them off. You guys get together in your blissfully ignorant woefully strategically inferior world where those damn dice just weren't friendly today. The only thing my attitude has to do with stripers, is the fact that it will set them off into suiciding you.By your logic, if I was as sub-par a player as you seem to think I am because I have "stripes" then I should have at least a handful of negative feedbacks at this point, especially given that I've played just short of 1000 games. You really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about do you? To be honest, I spend most of my time playing with these "stripers" and even the Cadets and Cooks and they all have a better attitude than you do about playing this game we all love.
BFD. A blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.I'd play with them any day over someone with the attitude you have, and yes, if I was in game with you, I would probably have a decent shot of kicking your ass so far you'd never even think of returning. I've done it to games full of Captains, Majors, and Colonels before when I was nothing more than stuck at Corporal for months on end, and I have full confidence that given the right circumstances I could kick your ass as well.
Did you read the first 2 posts I made in this thread before you dropped this wonderful observation?So just to clarify.
State409c as a striper = "high ranked players aren't that good"
State409c as non-striper = "These guys (stripers) just suck"
You sure you aren't looking at this the wrong way?
Oh, and btw. Here's my point in regards to it equaling out. You make a very well stated version of a poorly thought out point but here's the rub:State409c wrote: You really can't say conclusively either way. Seeing as how there are 4-7 losers and 1 winner per game, it's statistically more likely to hurt you in the long run. If you let each opponent have an equal opportunity to win at the start of the round, getting suicided on makes your percentage go way down, but a noob suiciding another player doesn't make it go way up, just means it could make it easier for a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or sixth) to get cards and take the win.



Incorrect. It is a very refutable statement. Almost no high rank I know would take bullshit from another player. I will suicide a player that does something retarded. I've seen Oggiss do it multiple times. I've seen Scott-Land do it quite a bit of times, including once to me. I've seen MANY top players do it, and considering that I know a decent amount of high rankers, I can very well say that if you do something of utter retardation you can expect to get heavy retaliation instead of focusing on the win, for most high rankers are willing to sacrifice a single game worth of points in order to assure the retard doesn't win, and gets on the foe list. Therefore it is also very stupid to say that it's "common knowledge," especially when the collective group of "high rankers" consists of like 50 people (and I know a lot of them).State409c wrote:You know, when people make blanket statements about anything, what is it with the people that come out of the woodworks to say they don't fit the stereotype.
No shit. Every single person doesn't fit under a certain umbrella? Groundbreaking observation. Is there a Nobel Price for social science work?
It is irrefutable common knowledge that a striper will play more erratically and most likely to your detriment than a higher ranked player. This just can't be debated.
FabledIntegral wrote:Incorrect. It is a very refutable statement. Almost no high rank I know would take bullshit from another player. I will suicide a player that does something retarded. I've seen Oggiss do it multiple times. I've seen Scott-Land do it quite a bit of times, including once to me. I've seen MANY top players do it, and considering that I know a decent amount of high rankers, I can very well say that if you do something of utter retardation you can expect to get heavy retaliation instead of focusing on the win, for most high rankers are willing to sacrifice a single game worth of points in order to assure the retard doesn't win, and gets on the foe list. Therefore it is also very stupid to say that it's "common knowledge," especially when the collective group of "high rankers" consists of like 50 people (and I know a lot of them).State409c wrote:You know, when people make blanket statements about anything, what is it with the people that come out of the woodworks to say they don't fit the stereotype.
No shit. Every single person doesn't fit under a certain umbrella? Groundbreaking observation. Is there a Nobel Price for social science work?
It is irrefutable common knowledge that a striper will play more erratically and most likely to your detriment than a higher ranked player. This just can't be debated.
Soloman wrote:FabledIntegral wrote:Incorrect. It is a very refutable statement. Almost no high rank I know would take bullshit from another player. I will suicide a player that does something retarded. I've seen Oggiss do it multiple times. I've seen Scott-Land do it quite a bit of times, including once to me. I've seen MANY top players do it, and considering that I know a decent amount of high rankers, I can very well say that if you do something of utter retardation you can expect to get heavy retaliation instead of focusing on the win, for most high rankers are willing to sacrifice a single game worth of points in order to assure the retard doesn't win, and gets on the foe list. Therefore it is also very stupid to say that it's "common knowledge," especially when the collective group of "high rankers" consists of like 50 people (and I know a lot of them).State409c wrote:You know, when people make blanket statements about anything, what is it with the people that come out of the woodworks to say they don't fit the stereotype.
No shit. Every single person doesn't fit under a certain umbrella? Groundbreaking observation. Is there a Nobel Price for social science work?
It is irrefutable common knowledge that a striper will play more erratically and most likely to your detriment than a higher ranked player. This just can't be debated.
There is almost a funny irony in your statement they will do anything to make sure the retard does not win...LOl why because there bold move is outside the ultra cautious moves of a lot so called leets? and thus since they are playing in a way that may give them the game with there audacity and risky behaviour they must be punished???
Sounds awfully petty to me to suicide against a player because his strategy is not the norm, the other irony is people call bold moves suicide hat are not suicidal at all as the person is not trying to just end there game but they are trying to win yet these other players who label bold as suicide tend to legitimately throw away the game if you do not play as they like just seems awfully petty and against the spirit of the game...
codeblue1018 wrote:Soloman wrote:FabledIntegral wrote:Incorrect. It is a very refutable statement. Almost no high rank I know would take bullshit from another player. I will suicide a player that does something retarded. I've seen Oggiss do it multiple times. I've seen Scott-Land do it quite a bit of times, including once to me. I've seen MANY top players do it, and considering that I know a decent amount of high rankers, I can very well say that if you do something of utter retardation you can expect to get heavy retaliation instead of focusing on the win, for most high rankers are willing to sacrifice a single game worth of points in order to assure the retard doesn't win, and gets on the foe list. Therefore it is also very stupid to say that it's "common knowledge," especially when the collective group of "high rankers" consists of like 50 people (and I know a lot of them).State409c wrote:You know, when people make blanket statements about anything, what is it with the people that come out of the woodworks to say they don't fit the stereotype.
No shit. Every single person doesn't fit under a certain umbrella? Groundbreaking observation. Is there a Nobel Price for social science work?
It is irrefutable common knowledge that a striper will play more erratically and most likely to your detriment than a higher ranked player. This just can't be debated.
There is almost a funny irony in your statement they will do anything to make sure the retard does not win...LOl why because there bold move is outside the ultra cautious moves of a lot so called leets? and thus since they are playing in a way that may give them the game with there audacity and risky behaviour they must be punished???
Sounds awfully petty to me to suicide against a player because his strategy is not the norm, the other irony is people call bold moves suicide hat are not suicidal at all as the person is not trying to just end there game but they are trying to win yet these other players who label bold as suicide tend to legitimately throw away the game if you do not play as they like just seems awfully petty and against the spirit of the game...
Easy test Soloman; attain a high rank and see for yourself. Stripers have a tendency more often than not to "attack" to just attack not having idea why or what for. Secondly, they often view higher ranked players as a threat and therefore attack when the high ranked player may have not been winning to begin with. Another classic statement that I do love is when they say "I play for fun, it is just a game". LOL, yes, games are meant to be won! BTW, you are on here quite enough, how about possibly taking back some empty cans and pay for a premium membership. WOW!
Are you kidding? It was a poorly thought out point. So poorly, that all you did was restate what I said? I clearly articulated that a suiciding striper doesn't necessarily benefit you if you weren't the target, which is what you have just restated by "benefit any more or less".Oh, and btw. Here's my point in regards to it equaling out. You make a very well stated version of a poorly thought out point but here's the rub:
Say you always play 6 player games. In every game, there's one idiot who throws the game at some point cost himself and one random player the game. Over time, why would any one of the other 5 equally skilled players benefit any more or less from this random act.
Um, no my intention was to prove my point, which I did. That you fail to grasp basic odds is of no surprise to me. I'm not going to bother to restate the obvious. Enjoy your special place.State409c wrote:Are you kidding? It was a poorly thought out point. So poorly, that all you did was restate what I said? I clearly articulated that a suiciding striper doesn't necessarily benefit you if you weren't the target, which is what you have just restated by "benefit any more or less".Oh, and btw. Here's my point in regards to it equaling out. You make a very well stated version of a poorly thought out point but here's the rub:
Say you always play 6 player games. In every game, there's one idiot who throws the game at some point cost himself and one random player the game. Over time, why would any one of the other 5 equally skilled players benefit any more or less from this random act.
...unless, the whole point of your comment was to get to your punchline, which may be the case. I hope so for you, because otherwise, this is just another post in the retardation belt that you are attempting to wear with pride.

State409c wrote:Jesus Christ detlef, just how moronic do you get? That last post said nothing. Do you realize that? It just reeks of your defeat when you have no coherent argument left.
In your last post, you simply restated what I said in a different way with some other cute comments surrounding it to make you feel good, so you claiming I don't know odds is an indictment on yourself? So, lets get this straight for those playing along.
You're an idiot
You don't know it
Please consider hari kari is your only viable option
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.