Bad Sportsmanship

If you were Player A, how would you react?

  • I would play with him.

    Votes: 13 20.0%
  • I would not play with him until he apologized. Then I would play.

    Votes: 12 18.5%
  • I would not play with him for quite some time. (days, weeks, months) Then I would play.

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • I would not play with him ever, ever again.

    Votes: 9 13.8%
  • I would punch him in the face.

    Votes: 25 38.5%

  • Total voters
    65

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
Suppose there are two people, A and B, who agree to play a friendly game of chess together. As the game opens, it looks as though the players are evenly matched. Gradually, the game shifts towards Player B's favor.

In the early middle phase of the game, Player A discovers that one of his pawns is missing from the board. He does not remember it being killed. In fact, he is sure it has not been killed. Yet there it lies, in Player B's pool of captured pieces.

Player A asks Player B, "Have you pocketed one of my pawns?"
"Why, yes, I have," nonchalantly replies Player B.
"So you don't deny it!?" asks player A, incredulous.
"No," says Player B. "I didn't think it would be a big deal. In fact, I can assure you that it will not make any difference as to who the winner of this game is."
Player A can't believe what he is hearing.

The game ends, and indeed, Player B is the winner by a landslide. "See? I told you it wouldn't matter," says Player B. But Player A is visibly upset. So Player B says, "Say, how about another game? I didn't realize that that would upset you so much. Let's play again. This time it will be fair, I promise."

How would you react?
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
I would not play with him ever again.

Why? Some people would say that this is too drastic. "Have a heart." "Forgive him." "Get over it, it was just a game." These people and I do not, and perhaps will not ever, see eye to eye. But I can at least explain my reasoning. Maybe it will make sense to some of you who feel like forgiveness is in order:

Children are to be forgiven for this sort of transgression. Grown men, not so much. If you're 25 years old and you're still the type of person who cheats for petty gain, I doubt that you're going to change just because I become angry with you when you cheat me in a game. Sure, you may try to win me back by offering to play me fairly next round. And the next round. And the next after that. But eventually you will cheat me again, and I will have been the deserving sucker for it should I let myself fall for your deception. You may not even cheat me in the original game, but instead in a different venue: perhaps at backgammon? perhaps in the workplace? perhaps with relationships? Somewhere, some day, you will cheat me again -- because it is in your nature to cheat for petty gain, and opportunities for petty gain are all around us.

And so instead of being cheated by you in the future, I will cut you off at the pass, here and now, by vowing to never play you again. Good-bye. One less cheater I have to worry about.
 

Aqua2213

New Member
Jul 23, 2008
777
59
"Fool me once, Shame on you, Fool me twice, Shame on me" :bye:

There ain't gonna be no "twice".
 

lowleg26

non-active
Oct 25, 2009
1,766
212
If I actually found myself in the situation you've described, I wouldn't be pondering whether or not to play another game with this guy. I'd be questioning why I'm hanging around with such a douche bag. :puzzled:
 
Jul 1, 2009
225
10
It strikes me a bit odd someone who would agree to sit down and play chess would be so childish. :surprised:

I'd play with person X again if they apologized... for me at least, people who will agree to play chess with me are few and far between. :notagain:
 

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,034
There are never enough options in these polls. I strongly suggest all polls inlclude the option:"other"

For one thing I probably would not have finished the game unless he put the pawn back. If I did agree to finish the game I have no one but myself to blame for allowing him to cheat me. I happen to play chess and a good player of any real note does not need a chess board. He knows where his and his opponents pieces are. So I would not worry about playing him again because I do not think he could cheat me if he wanted to. I would give him props for fessing up though, many people will stick to a lie even when they are caught red-handed.

Now I do not wish you to think I am missing the whole point here. People cheat, lie, and steal. Good people do bad things. I have done bad things. Nobody is perfect. Trust and forgiveness go hand in hand. But there are untrustworthy people out there. People who will take advantage of you time and time again if you give them the opportunity. Some people are users and abusers and that is how they choose to live. Making the right choices on who to trust is not easy and even people who you truly love will disappoint you. But if you are not willing to forgive others then do not ever expect to be forgiven by others.

I think we are all children, after a fashion. That we all continue to grow and evolve until the day we die. Now maybe I am reading to much into this. This is just about some game. And cheating at a board game is not an indicator of a strong character. It is a rather petty and insecure thing to do. So I would not be inclined to trust such an individual, if that was all I had to go by. But forgive him for his transgression? I most certainly would.
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
The real game was not chess, but Pokémon. Perhaps that answers mister_playboy's concern about the childish chess player? And as to Ceewan's concerns ... well, let me explain the real situation, and you tell me what you think. I provided a chess analogue because it would be readily familiar to most readers internationally and it would also be very simple. The true story is somewhat complex:

[hide]In Pokémon, one player has a team of six creatures and he fights against another player who also has his own team of six creatures. Whoever is left standing by the end of the battle is declared the winner. Each Pokémon is allowed one item to hold. These so-called "hold items" or "held items" affect the Pokémon in different ways. One item, called a Choice Band, increases a Pokémon's strength by a factor of 1½. Another item, called BrightPowder, increases a Pokémon's evasion stat. These items can determine the course of a battle.

One particular item, Leftovers, heals a Pokémon by one-sixteenth (1/16) its total HP per turn. This item is often used to help Pokémon survive one or more turns extra than they would have otherwise been able to do.

Leftovers is considered one of the best items in the game. You will find somebody holding onto Leftovers on almost every single team. Because this item, and other items, are so good at aiding one's team achieve victory, the fans as well as the company who makes the games established rules of etiquette back in 2000-2001 regarding the use of these items. And one of the first rules was, you can only have one copy of any item on your team. In other words, you can have one Choice Band but not two. You can have one BrightPowder but not three. You can have one Leftovers but not six.

This evening, two members of a forum I go to had their match in a tournament we are conducting. The loser of this match was Player B. (The winner was some other person C.) Shortly after their match concluded, Player B asked me, "Do you want to play?" I obliged, knowing that I would not get a chance to see his team with my own eyes since he was now knocked out of the tournament.

My team members each had different items. Some items are better than others. Indeed, several of my team members occupy roles which both would benefit best from the same item, forcing me to give one of the two of them an inferior item due to the rules of conduct we've all been following for the last decade.

My opponent, I discovered halfway through battle, had not one, not two, but three Leftovers. To make matters even worse ...

(1) One of the creatures was reduced (by me) to 5% of its health bar following earlier damage in the fight and one use of its Leftovers. 1/16, or 6.25%, is the amount Leftovers heals. In other words, I would have KO'd this creature that turn had it not been for Leftovers.

(2) Another of the creatures, the very same scenario. This creature KO'd me when I failed to KO it, despite the fact that, without Leftovers, the roles would have been reversed.

(3) And finally, the last creature with Leftovers. This would normally have taken two hits to kill, but thanks to its Leftovers it required three hits to kill. My very last Pokemon brought it from full health down to 15% health. The thing is, earlier in the battle, another of my Pokemon had brought it down to 60% health and, bit by bit, the creature returned to 100% health through the use of its Leftovers. Were it not for this item, I would have had another KO instead of being the KO victim myself.


The better analogy, then, to a game of chess would not be the palming of one pawn; but rather the introduction of one additional bishop and one additional rook to the board. Naturally, I couldn't use this analogy since there is no such thing as having three rooks or three bishops at such an early stage in the game.

Furthermore, to address Ceewan's complaint, "I would have refused to continue until he put the pawn back," Pokemon is unfortunately designed such that whichever player disconnects first is automatically declared the loser. I would have had to have either disconnected (and handed him the win) or else continued playing (as I did), since he would of course refuse to disconnect from his end. (His idea of a fair trade-off was to let me kill one of his creatures for free. Of course, he picked the one which I had reduced to 5% HP! The jerk!)

Anyway, when the match was over, he asked if I wanted to play again. I told him I never wanted to play with him again. He accused me of being a sour sport over losing to him so badly (4 Pokemon of his remaining standing to my 0, a handy loss in Pokemon). And our peers on the webforum all sided with him, accusing me of overreacting by saying I would never play with him again and of accusing him of cheating. They all claimed, "It was just a casual friendly game." When I pointed out his unfair advantage, they acted like it wasn't a big deal.

I agree that the game itself isn't a big deal. But to me, if he's that fucking petty that he'll cheat to win at Poke-fucking-mon for Christ's sake, then I never want to play him ever again.

Furthermore, he wouldn't have won 4-0 had it been fair and balanced use of items. Two of his guys, I would have killed before he could kill me. So right off the bat, that makes the score go from 4-0 to 2-2. And since we both still would have Pokemon (2-2), we'd play until someone reached 0. At worst, the final score would have been 2-0, a respectable loss. Most realistic, 1-0, a very respectable loss. Not very realistic, I admit, but still possible, would have been my victory 0-1 or 0-2. But instead, he gloats that he beat me 4-0. And says I'm just sad that I couldn't do better. Why would I want to play with him again to prove him wrong? It'd accomplish nothing. He's just an asshole who is baiting me, and I really don't want to play with an asshole. Games are supposed to be fun, and playing him would be anything but fun.[/hide]
 

lowleg26

non-active
Oct 25, 2009
1,766
212
I'll freely admit that I didn't understand most of what you said, but I'm pretty sure I was able to discern what you're getting at.

You played an online match with a person who violated the informal rules of etiquette of the game. Since you followed a different set of rules, you were automatically at a disadvantage.

I think you're just a victim of circumstance in this instance. I don't think you're wrong in feeling cheated, but, if there are no hard-and-fast rules against what he did, he didn't technically do anything wrong.

Back when I still played MtG, me and my friends who played consciously agreed that we would conduct our games under "tournament" rules. There was no actual addendum to any rule book that we had to limit certain cards or refrain from using certain cards in informal settings, but we wanted to be as "official" as possible. Consequently, we had to make sure that anyone not in the regular group either already adhered to the same rules or adjusted their deck accordingly (it was actually pretty rare to find people who didn't play by tournament rules).

I guess what I'm getting at is this: If a games rules of etiquette are "informal", make sure that you're not the only one following them BEFORE the game starts. Its just unavoidable that you'll run across some douche who prefers to disregard etiquette to gain advantage.

Also, I agree with Ceewan. Not enough choices in the poll! Where's the "choke him" option?
 

Rhinosaur

Outside Context Problem
Sep 23, 2007
2,008
614
Pokemon! At 25!!
Sakun, you reeeeeeeaaaalllllly need a blowjob, mate! (not offering!)
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
Pokemon! At 25!!
Sakun, you reeeeeeeaaaalllllly need a blowjob, mate! (not offering!)
Yes, because no man has ever successfully balanced hobbies deemed by society as childish with successful relationships with adult women. ;p

You're still probably right, but not for the reason you've latched onto today. ;)
 

DevilXdevil

creatively retarded
Former Staff
Sep 24, 2008
446
1
i would punch him then play with him after i cool down

i am sore loser but i really hate when someone cheats while playing like it wouldnt matter anyway well it does :sadomaso:
 

scorres

Hetero-sapien
Apr 12, 2009
1,106
73
the games settings should not allow deviance. If that kind of
hoarding is not blocked and not ruled out at start time, then
you need to do it too. If he has an unfair advantage to begin,
like playing from the red tees, don't play.
 

kagami hawke

Member
Apr 27, 2010
86
2
I would never play with him again. If someone is going to cheat in any kind of game, why should I trust that they aren't going to keep doing it every single time. Especially if they admitted to cheating during the match.
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
I'd really like to know who the three people are who voted "I would play with him again," meaning "I would play with him again even without an apology" since the apology option is the one directly beneath it.

I mean, ... what the fuck, guys? Are your names George McFly I, II, and III?
 

RyuKaze

龍風
Jun 22, 2010
83
4
I am more of a forgiving person, but even I would expect an apology at the very least. I would agree with you on the point that despite it is simply a 'game' this could easily be replicated in a life affecting way; but under this analogy I would forgive him.

Reading through your true-life scenario, I can emphasise with that. When I played YGO back in the day, I used to play with mates online with a free network client version which you had to update the cards, place them, apply counters for effects etc. manually. This required a form of trust to implement in itself and he; not to be out-done by me, not only stacked his deck with multiple limited (1-card per deck) and semi-limited (2-cards per deck), but he used a specific card (Necrovalley) and thought that he was immune to it's effect. (Despite the fact it clearly states "...in either player's Graveyard.") This was when we were both teenagers, and he has since developed a sense of fair-play, so it is a happy ending on this end. :tea:
 
Jul 1, 2009
225
10
I'd really like to know who the three people are who voted "I would play with him again," meaning "I would play with him again even without an apology" since the apology option is the one directly beneath it.

It is really so surprising? I'll read more of your threads in the future, even if you did purposely misrepresent the game you were playing in this thread... :joker:
 

Sakunyuusha

New Member
Jan 27, 2008
1,855
3
What are you talking about? "purposely misrepresent," wtf, man? I already explained why I went with the chess example first: less complexity.