How incredibly childish and rude. If you aren’t a good enough player to defend your title from a “lowly ranked person”, then you don’t deserve that title, and you don’t deserve to play with other people. Just play against the computer.
I’ve pretty much given up playing online against random opponents, because of people like you. Cripes, you were an incredible jerk just because you didn’t want to lose a few game points. And that “lowly ranked person” might very well have been a wizard player, who just hadn’t been playing online as much as you had.
And now likely went from “wow, I just played a really good game to beat a higher-ranked opponent” to “damn, now I have to wait for the disconnect timer to even get my points and don’t even get the acknowledgment of a ‘gg’ - what a dickhead”.
As I said, not surprised in the least.
Although I will acknowledge the either ballsiness or complete lack of awareness that goes into volunteering that you routinely engaged in the activity being universally pitted - good on ya’ OMG.
In chess, though, quitting when beat is the appropriate thing to do, so in that sense there is no rage-quitting; you might be angry, but you’re still doing the right thing. Where giving up is bothersome for your opponents when you’re playing scrabble, it’s playing on that’s obnoxious when playing chess.
I was, like 15/16. Sue me. But, yes, if you were ranked 1800+ you had no reason losing to someone ranked less than 1300, hence the disconnect. I liked my rank, plus I worked hard to get it.
But if you’re wondering how I would lose to someone ranked less than 1300 well, it’s easy. Sometimes I just played a crappy game. Sometimes I played sloppily because I figured I’d win even if I didn’t play my best. Sometimes I played a “speed game”, which I was really bad at. Sometimes I just ran out of time. And sometimes my opponent just played the best games of their life.
In all of those cases, the lower ranked player deserved to win. Yet you deprived them of an opportunity to do so. Out of, as far as I can tell, selfishness, and with no thought whatsoever that you gained your rank by higher ranked players sticking in with you and accepting a fair loss.
Technically, unplugging the modem wasn’t cheating. And I didn’t do it all the time; just against someone rated really low, and not all the time even then.
I’m not even sure what you’re getting at as I’m not defending anything. This was way back in 2000/2001 or so, and it’s not like I was looking for any validation or whatever. It was just an anecdote relating to the OP. Rage quitting is nothing new and I didn’t invent it. And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t the only one rage quitting. A lot of higher ranked players had hundreds of disconnects on their profiles. No one likes to lose, especially to someone ranked like 500 below you.
In particular I love the concession that sometimes his opponent played the best game of their lives. And his response to that, in their moment of glory, is to disconnect like a little bitch.
Right-- the key difference between a forfeit and a rage-quit is that the winner receives the meta-game credit for the win. No one gives a damn in tournament chess when a loser offers a forfeit-- you’re just saving the other guy some time. But rage-quitting is a meta-game technique to unfairly inflate your rankings above your actual skills, and it’s dickish.
It sounds like the scoring system should have started weighting the disconnect penalties according to how many disconnects a player had, perhaps adjusted for their ranking. (According to OMG’s first post here, a penalty did cost more when you had “a few of them”, but apparently not enough to be an effective deterrent against rage-quitting.)
If disconnects became progressively more expensive the more players relied on them to avoid taking a loss, rage-quitting would become a less attractive strategy.
The point is that there are degrees of cheating don’t completely destroy the game. Someone who taps their ball with their foot to nudge it back on the green is certainly breaking the rules, but that’s an entirely different category of transgression than someone who storms off the fairway entirely and leaves the game unfinished.
Well, Huizinga has been dead for quite a while. He was hounded into his grave by the Nazis, poor thing. However I suspect he’d stay that both cheats and spoilsports are perverting the play impulse, since they place a greater emphasis on winning than playing, when the only reason that winning exists in the first place is to make playing possible.
The thing I like (and hate) about WWF is that you get no penalty for throwing multiple shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. If I think I might have a play on a DW or TW with good high scoring tiles, I’ll try all sorts of various letter combos from my tiles hoping they finally form an accepted word. hen it does, a lot of the time I won’t even know it was a word. I don’t consider it cheating because I’m doing all the trial and error work and not using a website to give me the words.
Yep, folks, this OMG conservative is getting himself off on a technicality!!
Because, by any reasonable standard, this IS cheating: it’s cheating someone out of a win they earned, against (supposedly) much stronger competition.
But I guess if you can rack up your Elo points when you win, and disconnect when you’re losing to someone who’ll hurt your rating by that loss, you can get a much higher rating than your actual playing strength justifies.
Well then, it’s all OK!
Well, if a lot of people were doing it, then it must’ve been OK!
