It must have been a rabbit wearing a duck mask! Watch the full movie here.
The 4th wrote:
This member happily fleeces average members of ELO points, in 2-player games - but abuses the same people when they play at the same level as a partner, in a 4-player game, after a loss.Good grief - Daffers sighted in non-memberland? Nay laddie, it must surely have been a rabbit wearing a duck mask.
This member will play a 4-player game with a non-member for 2 rounds of a rotation, and ALWAYS "have to go" when it's the member's turn to partner the non-member. The member can always be found in another room next door, 5 minutes later.
The rotating 4-some system was established to both reduce incidents of cheating and provide the most level playing field for all players. To abuse this system, by milking 2 relatively easy wins from a member/non-member team and then running away when it's your turn to partner the non is too lame - even for me. I respect my own ability (real or imagined) too much, to pull such a stunt.
This is ELO manipulation - that is increasing your odds of winning by any means other than you own ability in a fair game played on a level playing field.
For the record, I'm not against ELO manipulation. If someone wants to voluntarily give their ELO to other members, that's their business. But our mystery member is quite vocal on the evils of ELO manipulation.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Enough innuendo. It is Daffy. The 1st time it happened, I wrote it off as bad luck. The 2nd time it happened, I became suspicious. The 3rd time it happened, a pattern had been established. After posting this message, other members correctly guessed the culprit (in-room chat) and told me they had similar experiences.
Stacking the teams is like stacking the deck. Just plain unfair.
I avoid non-memberland because of the very stunts Grumma is eluding to in another topical thread. The place is crawling with undressed members, albeit most with nicer agendas than others, but with some whose motives are downright pathological. I do play there with my good mate Gus, an undressed member, and very occasionally when invited to partner with other members. Being the pompous old killjoy we all love to hate, however, I don't partner non-members without a credit reference and a CV.
By the way, I thought you "won" ELO off other members in 2 handers. Still, if he wants to call it "fleecing" I'll play along with his fantasy. If he comes dressed as Little Bo Peep, cries and wails a lot and brings a few shorn sheep next time perhaps I'll dress up as the Big Bad Duck - could be fun ;))
But why did the twat keep coming into my rooms night after night, month after month, challenging me to 2 handed games of ATF500? Did the sheep want to get shorn? Didn't he know that the evil duck was lurking there waiting to fleece the poor bugger of his silly ELO? Didn't he notice that the first two members who joined us were always welcomed when they asked to join in? Doesn't he realise good partners critique, but don't "abuse", each others play but never that of their opponents? There's no explaining some clowns in cyberspace.
2 comments:
Daffy, Daffy, Daffy. You should have quit after your initial single-line reply,
Daffy: “Daffers in non-memberland?!! It must have been a rabbit wearing a duck mask LOL.”
At least then you could have simply been embraced as an amoral card shark, albeit one with a sense of humour.
Alas, you chose to defend your honour with a poorly cobbled together mix of half-truths, blatant lies and unrelated anecdotes. You revealed for all to see, that your ego is not quite as robust as you wish to project.
Half-truth:
Daffy: “I don't partner non-members without a credit reference and a CV .”
Cute. What you fail to mention is that you play AGAINST non-member/member teams. By cashing in on the 2 relatively easy wins, before quitting the room, you make reference to “the very stunts Grumma is eluding to in another topical thread.” REDUNDANT. Very poor smoke screen. The possibility of these stunts only makes your behaviour more objectionable.
Half-truth:
Daffy: “Doesn't he realise good partners critique, but don't "abuse", each others play but never that of their opponents? “
This is true. I thank you for more than a few helpful suggestions. Personally, I have never copped anything worse than “silly” or “Twat” from you. But calling your partner a moron does not qualify as critique. (see : Name calling thread)
Blatant lie:
Daffy: “I avoid non-memberland because of the very stunts Grumma is eluding to in another topical thread.”
If there's a whiff of 3 member/1 non-member action, your first in line for the easy wins and first out the door when it's your turn to partner the non.
Daffy: “By the way, I thought you "won" ELO off other members in 2 handers.”
Without any doubt you "win" ELO off other members in 2 handers . In like manner, you must accept that you also “lose” with these same members from time to time in 4-player games. Quid pro quo. Any unwillingness to accept these “inferior” members as your partner is stacking the teams. Hence, the fleecing analogy.
Daffy: But why did the twat keep coming into my rooms night after night, month after month, challenging me to 2 handed games of ATF500?
1.I enjoyed the challenge of playing someone consistently ranked in top 10.
2.I beat you as often as you beat me.
3.The times we play coincide with a dearth of members in the rooms.
4.At the time, getting a 4 player game going required perfect timing – making 2 player a viable option
Daffy: Still, if he wants to call it "fleecing" I'll play along with his fantasy. If he comes dressed as Little Bo Peep, cries and wails a lot and brings a few shorn sheep next time perhaps I'll dress up as the Big Bad Duck - could be fun ;))
It's nice to know I hit a soft spot. To observe the degeneration from citing evidence and making arguments to name calling and animal fetish jokes gives me great satisfaction. I'm sure Toby and Lee would give the thumbs-up.
Lies built upon lies will always come tumbling down.
Only the truth stands up to scrutiny.
p.s. Allude: to refer casually or indirectly
Daffy was never one to use one word when 357 will suffice.
Post a Comment