Conquer Club

saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you've made the choice to feel that way, Mr. Changsha.

As a professional in this field, I feel safe in counseling you that you would find greater personal satisfaction if you simply choose not to participate in threads that disinterest you instead of participating but loudly announcing your disinterest every few moments.

I know many of us appreciate the self-appointed discussion ombudsman in the forums but perhaps there are other threads that could better benefit from your spirit of volunteerism?

I'd like to now return to a tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion of public stacking in fogged games and move away from this derailed line-of-thought.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Oh no, you don't get away so easily....

I am confused by your desire to return to a 'tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion' on...when, in fact, not one poster has actually engaged you on that topic. So who were you discussing it with? Yourself?

I see you went for the old 'I'm far too busy to read that essay' (100 words) as a way of avoiding a challenge last time. Very weak of course but not entirely unexpected.

So maybe you could tell me who you were discussing stacking in fogged games with?

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you've made the choice to feel that way, Mr. Changsha.

As a professional in this field, I feel safe in counseling you that you would find greater personal satisfaction if you simply choose not to participate in threads that disinterest you instead of participating but loudly announcing your disinterest every few moments.

I know many of us appreciate the self-appointed discussion ombudsman in the forums but perhaps there are other threads that could better benefit from your spirit of volunteerism?

I'd like to now return to a tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion of public stacking in fogged games and move away from this derailed line-of-thought.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Oh no, you don't get away so easily....

I am confused by your desire to return to a 'tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion' on...when, in fact, not one poster has actually engaged you on that topic. So who were you discussing it with? Yourself?

I see you went for the old 'I'm far too busy to read that essay' (100 words) as a way of avoiding a challenge last time. Very weak of course but not entirely unexpected.

So maybe you could tell me who you were discussing stacking in fogged games with?

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel confused.

I hope you find continued personal satisfaction in your passionate and extremely frequent participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

I want to know what a nuclear weapon is in relation to cc?

saxitoxin wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you've made the choice to feel that way, Mr. Changsha.

As a professional in this field, I feel safe in counseling you that you would find greater personal satisfaction if you simply choose not to participate in threads that disinterest you instead of participating but loudly announcing your disinterest every few moments.

I know many of us appreciate the self-appointed discussion ombudsman in the forums but perhaps there are other threads that could better benefit from your spirit of volunteerism?

I'd like to now return to a tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion of public stacking in fogged games and move away from this derailed line-of-thought.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Oh no, you don't get away so easily....

I am confused by your desire to return to a 'tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion' on...when, in fact, not one poster has actually engaged you on that topic. So who were you discussing it with? Yourself?

I see you went for the old 'I'm far too busy to read that essay' (100 words) as a way of avoiding a challenge last time. Very weak of course but not entirely unexpected.

So maybe you could tell me who you were discussing stacking in fogged games with?

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel confused.

I hope you find continued personal satisfaction in your passionate and extremely frequent participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

You do realise that you are just writing meaningless crap at this point?

Fruitcake wrote:I want to know what a nuclear weapon is in relation to cc?

Fruitcake - advance appreciation for your proactive participation in this thread.

"Nuclear weapon" is popular nomenclature to refer to revealing one's own troop quantities during a fogged game by - truthfully or otherwise - indicating large stacks of troops held in reserve and using them to extort concessions from other players. The controversy in this tactic is not in the use of psychology to gain competitive advantage but in the revelation of troop quantities or positions in contravention to the spirit of a fogged game.

Thanks, Fruitcake!

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you've made the choice to feel that way, Mr. Changsha.

As a professional in this field, I feel safe in counseling you that you would find greater personal satisfaction if you simply choose not to participate in threads that disinterest you instead of participating but loudly announcing your disinterest every few moments.

I know many of us appreciate the self-appointed discussion ombudsman in the forums but perhaps there are other threads that could better benefit from your spirit of volunteerism?

I'd like to now return to a tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion of public stacking in fogged games and move away from this derailed line-of-thought.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Oh no, you don't get away so easily....

I am confused by your desire to return to a 'tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion' on...when, in fact, not one poster has actually engaged you on that topic. So who were you discussing it with? Yourself?

I see you went for the old 'I'm far too busy to read that essay' (100 words) as a way of avoiding a challenge last time. Very weak of course but not entirely unexpected.

So maybe you could tell me who you were discussing stacking in fogged games with?

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel confused.

I hope you find continued personal satisfaction in your passionate and extremely frequent participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

You do realise that you are just writing meaningless crap at this point?

(To the rest of the forum - This is what we, in the business, refer to as "handling" of a disruptive personality. Eventually the personality terminates the disrupting activity and moves on when their exhortations for attention produce only platitudes in reply. I frequently use this on "problem patients" [I prefer the term 'eventually cooperative patients'] in my group sessions who are assigned on an "involuntary" basis and create disruptions for the rest of the group. When 'handling' doesn't work sometimes I'll need to have the nurse give the eventually cooperative patient a 'prickly pete' of delvinal-sodium but I prefer to not go that route too often.)

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel disappointed with the evolution of our dialog.

I hope you continue to enjoy your vibrant and electric participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

saxitoxin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:I want to know what a nuclear weapon is in relation to cc?

Fruitcake - advance appreciation for your proactive participation in this thread.

"Nuclear weapon" is popular nomenclature to refer to revealing one's own troop quantities during a fogged game by - truthfully or otherwise - indicating large stacks of troops held in reserve and using them to extort concessions from other players. The controversy in this tactic is not in the use of psychology to gain competitive advantage but in the revelation of troop quantities or positions in contravention to the spirit of a fogged game.

Thanks, Fruitcake!

Well you learn something every day.

Aren't these stacks?

Fruitcake wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:I want to know what a nuclear weapon is in relation to cc?

Fruitcake - advance appreciation for your proactive participation in this thread.

"Nuclear weapon" is popular nomenclature to refer to revealing one's own troop quantities during a fogged game by - truthfully or otherwise - indicating large stacks of troops held in reserve and using them to extort concessions from other players. The controversy in this tactic is not in the use of psychology to gain competitive advantage but in the revelation of troop quantities or positions in contravention to the spirit of a fogged game.

Thanks, Fruitcake!

Well you learn something every day.

Aren't these stacks?

They're like stacks but when done in a fogged game have the effect of intimidation without verification of status, much like Israel's rumored nuclear weapons stockpile, ergo the genesis of the name.

Now, nuclear weapons in relation to CC are, of course, not as controversial as pancake fiestas or armenian clown parades, but I still have an ethical issue with them.

Do others think they're okay? What are the group's thoughts and opinions?

Interested in getting some thoughts and feedback here, whether you agree or disagree. Thanks, gang!

saxitoxin wrote:What the hell does it even mean? A large stack?

Yes, during a fogged game revealing your own stack - sometimes as a faux reveal - to intimidate other players. Sorry if that needed clarification.

Just shut up and play Risk like everyone else. - Dancing Mustard

saxitoxin wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you've made the choice to feel that way, Mr. Changsha.

As a professional in this field, I feel safe in counseling you that you would find greater personal satisfaction if you simply choose not to participate in threads that disinterest you instead of participating but loudly announcing your disinterest every few moments.

I know many of us appreciate the self-appointed discussion ombudsman in the forums but perhaps there are other threads that could better benefit from your spirit of volunteerism?

I'd like to now return to a tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion of public stacking in fogged games and move away from this derailed line-of-thought.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Oh no, you don't get away so easily....

I am confused by your desire to return to a 'tempered, mature, rational and polite discussion' on...when, in fact, not one poster has actually engaged you on that topic. So who were you discussing it with? Yourself?

I see you went for the old 'I'm far too busy to read that essay' (100 words) as a way of avoiding a challenge last time. Very weak of course but not entirely unexpected.

So maybe you could tell me who you were discussing stacking in fogged games with?

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel confused.

I hope you find continued personal satisfaction in your passionate and extremely frequent participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

You do realise that you are just writing meaningless crap at this point?

(To the rest of the forum - This is what we, in the business, refer to as "handling" of a disruptive personality. Eventually the personality terminates the disrupting activity and moves on when their exhortations for attention produce only platitudes in reply. I frequently use this on "problem patients" [I prefer the term 'eventually cooperative patients'] in my group sessions who are assigned on an "involuntary" basis and create disruptions for the rest of the group. When 'handling' doesn't work sometimes I'll need to have the nurse give the eventually cooperative patient a 'prickly pete' of delvinal-sodium but I prefer to not go that route too often.)

Mr. Changsha - I'm sorry you feel disappointed with the evolution of our dialog.

I hope you continue to enjoy your vibrant and electric participation in these forums.

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Ah, the wonders of the internet. I wonder what I should pretend to be today? I know, I'll be an astronaut! That'll be fun! I'll float around the 'space station' (technical term for those not 'in the business'), I'll contact aliens from the planet Zog, I'll play chess with the obligatory Russian, I'll eat food that looks like pop tarts out of silver packets, I'll shit in a bag, I'll masturbate and then try and catch my splooge. It'll be great!

If you want to be a psychiatrist today then by god I'll be an astronaut and in a battle of 'Top Trumps Pretend Jobs' I win. Everyone knows being an imaginary astronaut gets you WAY more respect than being an imaginary psychiatrist. You may try and sex it up with the needles and restraints but we all know it is all dusty old books, crazy people and the faint smell of wee.

Oh and Fc, he does indeed mean 'stacks'.

So, this is the attempt to a serious reply to the original post:
First off, I don't like fogged games, they're more like a lottery than like risk and in one of the few fogged games I played, I've been called a cheater for revealing someones position to the rest of the players (alas, as far as I know the player complaining about me didn't do so on the forums, that would've been just hilarious).
That said, I don't see your problem. When someone tells you their stacks or anything else you can't see, you can choose to believe them or not and act accordingly. In a fogged game, the game chat is a completely new level of tactics, you should learn to use it to your advantage instead of complaining that others do.

Anyway you said:

saxitoxin wrote:Frequently I'm in a game and close to winning and another player will say they have atomics and if I don't stop advancing they'll use them on me. Naturally I'll stop, but then they invariably come back and hit me in the junk and I end up losing

Frankly, that makes no sense at all. If you end up being beaten, you weren't close to winning at all. If you believed you were close to winning, you'd have no reason to stop just because someone threatens you.

====================

This is the attempt to a serious reply to the whole thread...

Muahahaha, forget serious, it's totally hilarious! You guys are an awesome entertainment, please keep up the good work. saxitoxin, I have to agree with Changsha on some points: It took me one and a half pages to realise, that you're actually serious and not trying to be funny.

That said, I don't see your problem. When someone tells you their stacks or anything else you can't see, you can choose to believe them or not and act accordingly. In a fogged game, the game chat is a completely new level of tactics, you should learn to use it to your advantage instead of complaining that others do.

Interesting perspective!

What do other people think?

I too like to make up terminology, and call it "popular nomenclature". And when people have no idea what I'm talking about, I like to pretend it's because of some flaw they have.

Hey everyone, look at the cute little kitten-troll.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, all.

Mr Changsha wrote: Ah, the wonders of the internet. I wonder what I should pretend to be today? I know, I'll be an astronaut! That'll be fun! I'll float around the 'space station' (technical term for those not 'in the business'), I'll contact aliens from the planet Zog, I'll play chess with the obligatory Russian, I'll eat food that looks like pop tarts out of silver packets, I'll shit in a bag, I'll masturbate and then try and catch my splooge. It'll be great!

If you want to be a psychiatrist today then by god I'll be an astronaut and in a battle of 'Top Trumps Pretend Jobs' I win. Everyone knows being an imaginary astronaut gets you WAY more respect than being an imaginary psychiatrist. You may try and sex it up with the needles and restraints but we all know it is all dusty old books, crazy people and the faint smell of wee.

Oh and Fc, he does indeed mean 'stacks'.

Mr. Changsha - I'm glad you feel empowered to continue participating in this thread. The community appreciates your contribution!

Thanks, Mr. Changsha!

Timminz wrote:I too like to make up terminology, and call it "popular nomenclature". And when people have no idea what I'm talking about, I like to pretend it's because of some flaw they have.

Hey everyone, look at the cute little kitten-troll.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, all.

Timminz - I'm sorry you made the choice not to participate in this thread in a more constructive and cooperative manner.

Often we find more personal satisfaction choosing not to participate in threads that disinterest us, as opposed to participating but loudly proclaiming our disinterest every few moments. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

Thanks, Timminz!

Has this really not gotten locked and/or moved yet?

the.killing.44 wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

Has this really not gotten locked and/or moved yet?

I had hopes he might have been playing a deep game but it looks like he is just a one trick pony.

Shame.

[quote="saxitoxin"]Is anyone else SICK AND TIRED of players who threaten other players with nuclear weapons?

Frequently I'm in a game and close to winning and another player will say they have atomics and if I don't stop advancing they'll use them on me. Naturally I'll stop, but then they invariably come back and hit me in the junk and I end up losing.

I would like to suggest a new rule prohibiting these kind of threats in-game. They are non-productive and contrary to a spirit of cooperation and casual game playeah that is bull@##$

if it is a fog game you could be lieing right so its all in psycology of the players to belive or not to beleive him i think its an ok tatic to use. i have never used it but i see that it could be useful.

targetman377 wrote:if it is a fog game you could be lieing right so its all in psycology of the players to belive or not to beleive him i think its an ok tatic to use. i have never used it but i see that it could be useful.

True, that is a good point. Technically I suppose there are no rules about revealing troop positions in a fog game anyway?

[quote="saxitoxin"]Is anyone else SICK AND TIRED of players who threaten other players with nuclear weapons?

Frequently I'm in a game and close to winning and another player will say they have atomics and if I don't stop advancing they'll use them on me. Naturally I'll stop, but then they invariably come back and hit me in the junk and I end up losing.

I would like to suggest a new rule prohibiting these kind of threats in-game. They are non-productive and contrary to a spirit of cooperation and casual game playeah that is bull@##$


Saxitoxin I have a question, why don't you just attack them? If you check the game log you might see a common trend of a person deploying a conspicuous number of troops on a country that you don't border. If they have the troops they will eventually use them against you, and if they are smart they won't tell you about it. otherwise take them out.

Crazyirishman wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Is anyone else SICK AND TIRED of players who threaten other players with nuclear weapons?

Frequently I'm in a game and close to winning and another player will say they have atomics and if I don't stop advancing they'll use them on me. Naturally I'll stop, but then they invariably come back and hit me in the junk and I end up losing.

I would like to suggest a new rule prohibiting these kind of threats in-game. They are non-productive and contrary to a spirit of cooperation and casual game playeah that is bull@##$


Saxitoxin I have a question, why don't you just attack them? If you check the game log you might see a common trend of a person deploying a conspicuous number of troops on a country that you don't border. If they have the troops they will eventually use them against you, and if they are smart they won't tell you about it. otherwise take them out.

Great point! I guess my problem is I'm sometimes intimidated too easily. You have a salient and useful suggestion, though. I think I need to be more confident in my play style and situations like nuclear weapons won't be an issue. (This still, perhaps, doesn't resolve similar situations with pancake fiestas but that's a topic for a different thread.)

What do other members of the community think?

I love pancake fiestas. It's when players complain that the milk was off that the problems start, and before you know it there's an e-ticket filed. Don't let that put you off though, they can be truly great. As you experience more saxitoxin I'm sure you'll come to love them too.

If someone threatens me with a nuclear weapon in game chat I attack their president or launch code. 4 times out of 5 it works, though sometimes it's too late.

The Gozar administration does not respond to blackmail, nuclear or otherwise.

Gozar wrote:The Gozar administration does not respond to blackmail, nuclear or otherwise.

Even if I mailed a nuclear letter to you?

Or how about a nuclear swine flu pandemic letter?

Rocket?