[Guidelines] How to play like a Gentleman

It is sexist. You can't wave something off as a joke as though somehow that makes it immune from claims of sexism. How about I break out some racial stereotype jokes, but they won't be racist because joke.

Well we have plenty of racial jokes in my country and they are just jokes and everyone understands that. That is why these things are called jokes. They are not meant serious.

Edit: If you ask what jokes, well we like to joke about gipsies a lot. Many of such jokes. Many jokes about vietnamese people as well. Nobody thinks they are racist, only people without humour do. But they are jokes and they are fun.

It's been acceptable in many times to make jokes about all sorts of thing. We don't make them now because:

a) We realised they're racist/sexist
b) We're not so naive to think slapping "joke" on the end changes anything

I deny to "evolve" this way, sorry. You will have to deal with my sexism.

I actually hate it when someone forfeits - it really takes away the glory of victory especially if its a long battle.

I'm sexist as heck, I make food for her, she makes food for me. I have a job and so does she, I play games and she reads books, I like chick flicks she like horror movies. i'm down right american i think so

Which makes a set of guidelines from you aimed at improving attitudes laughable at best and insulting at worst.

Well these guidelines have a sense. Calling funny jokes a sexist bullsh*t is not improving attitude, it is a step back.

In cases of certain but delayed defeat I typically try to offer my competitors a choice of whether they want me to fight to the bitter end or concede.

If my defeat is imminent I don't bother with that kind of thing, I'll just start using highly risky but highly destructive tactics if possible, usually meaning my demise comes slightly sooner rather than later. That way those who wish for the satisfaction of a proper kill will get their wish, and those who just want it over with also get it their way.

I appreciate and may even ask for similar behaviour from my opponents, but I never demand it.

Since I don't really have a preference whether I hone the types of skills I get from desperate last ditch maneuvers or from just spending more time playing shorter games, I suppose the only downside of doing it this way is that if I honestly didn't care about people and preferred being self righteous about my behaviour regardless of objections I'd be wasting a few seconds typing text. But that doesn't apply to me.

So instead of responding to the content of Quitch's criticism you just make an appeal to hypocrisy.

I hate sexism more because I don't really empathize well enough to understand how it affects other people, so I just try not to bring gender into discussions where it doesn't belong. Saves everyone a lot of trouble being offended or dealing with those offended. Perhaps you could make some use of such tactics.

Correct. So smaller the planet, less travel time. It's a 3 minute 45 second process, on the largest feasible planet for a 1v1, to completely surround the commander with units he can't escape from and that he can't shoot down before they kill him (4:10 for 30 t1 bombers, 4:35 for 45)

There is a fundamental difference between "conceding because the opponent hasn't swung the hammer", "conceding because the opponent is in the act of swinging the hammer" and "conceding because the opponent has actually swung the hammer". I have had quite happy games where the opponent should take 4 minutes to get in a position where commander dies in a minute, and they **** around for 10-15.

Like I said, time management isn't necessarily my problem. It is my opponent who wants to end the game sooner. Time works on my side in that scenario. The longer they delay swinging the hammer, the longer I have to recover. It is "5 - 10 minutes" I could be chilling in a lobby... but it is also "5-10 minutes" I could be watching my opponent fail to win because despite beating me, they are poor at executing the "end game".


PA already has situations where you can take advantage of the fact that the end game is being executed badly. Any kind of come from behind snipe on the commander. If it's a halfway decent strategy game, in the final product there have to be strategies you can execute against an opponent in a better position to undermine their advantage. That's what strategy means.




Tournament rules in effect, tournament rules apply. There is a fundamental difference between pub game/casual player game/ladder game in their own free time (which is what these guidelines apply to) rather than a tournament where the tournament rules have the final say.



I'm suggesting actually asking for input in this thread from such players, because ultimately it is the pub games, where there are no enforced rules, where "guidelines" come into effect.

Well, yes. I agree with you, because you are probably the only one who so far understand all of this.

There is a big difference between normal games and tournaments. These guidelines aim to address tournaments, rather than public games (at least the part about conceding, where saving time is somehow expected, there is no time for long games).

So yes, yes. I do not always concede in public games (in 1v1 I do), but in other type I don't. I ussually try to do my best, even I know I am doomed. Or I simply try to suicide on someone's base at least.