I guess I’ll just smile and nod my head in agreement. So… smiles and nods his head in agreement
smiles and nods his head in agreement
Because I don’t care so much about online rankings anymore.*
(*Except on CoD. I hate when my kill ratio gets screwed up because I keep getting killed by n00bs randomly throwing grenades into the sky from half way across the map.)
I’d lose respect for you, if I had any left to lose. So…nothing, I guess.
Offering this explanation implies that if you did care, you believe you would be justified in continuing to disconnect to avoid losses. Is that correct?
Hey, if the President does it, it’s not illegal.
Well, you can rest assured that I won’t lose any sleep over the fact that someone on the internet whom I don’t know nor remember interacting with, this time excluded, loses some amount of her non-existent respect for me.
Ummm, yeah. If I did care, I probably would. But I don’t care anymore, so I don’t.
Don’t ask the question if you can’t handle the answer.
You’re telling me you would do it but what I asked is do you think you’d be justified in doing it. Do you?
Ahhh… as a neighbor says about her thoughtless asshole brother: “Of course he doesn’t feel guilty – he’s unencumbered by self-reflection.”
No one will ever finish a game of Monopoly with me because I’ll always just buy up all the houses. There are a finite number of houses in the game, and if you own them all and never free any up by converting them to hotels, no one else can build anything.
Some think that’s dirty pool, but I consider it a brilliant strategy. They’re just mad they didn’t think of it first.
Wouldn’t bother me-- I’d just say “OK, buying houses for the Green Color Group”, pay my money and place tic-tacs on the properties.
Now, if you said my houses have to be square and red, and the game was basically over, THEN you’d be a dick.
It’s a rule of Monopoly–the houses are limited to those that came in the box.
To use tic tacs you would have to agree together to a house rule prior to beginning the game.
Buying all the houses and not building hotels is a standard tactic.
It’s in the official rules:
“When the Bank has no houses to sell, players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell their houses to the Bank before building. If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.”
It’s a totally valid strategy, and if people want to play a variant, they should negotiate that rule change in advance. Although, it’s also an interesting example of how two people can still play a game together even if they possess different interpretations of what the rules are … .
So you’ve stopped being an ordinary asshole in order to become a lazy asshole.
I sometimes resign games like that when I can tell the other person is cheating. If you start out not being able to make more than four letter words, then all of a sudden you bust out ones that fill the board and are completely obscure, well, I’ll go ahead and give you what you wanted in the first place… an easy win. Because I’m not wasting my time with someone who cheats.
Backgammon cheaters and Johan Huizinga?
This thread is a total nostalgia trip back to grad school! 
Sounds like a failure of imagination. Especially if your lameness metric is based entirely on having interests that differ from yours.
That’s true - those are the official rules, and always have been.
However, even though I’ve been aware for decades not only that these rules exist, and that in serious Monopoly competition, the official rules are THE rules, I’ve never in my life, in hundreds of games of Monopoly, played with anyone who took this rule seriously. Ditto the related rule that says you’ve got to have four houses before you have a hotel, that you can’t just go directly from getting a monopoly to building hotels in one fell swoop if you’ve got the cash. And I’m sure ditto a number of other rules.
I think with a game like Monopoly, you’ve got to know who you’re playing with, whether you’re playing with a follow-the-rules crowd, or a tic-tacs-for-houses crowd. Because if you’re playing with the latter group and you start being a hardass over the rules everyone ignores, then you may win the point, but you won’t win any friends.
well see, in a friendly game, not accepting M&Ms as an appropriately coloured alternative would be lawyering, and dickish. the only reason the official rules are stated as such is because they do not want to admit to the insufficient amount of houses available in the box.
Why would you think that?
So you’re saying… make sure everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Why do you think you’re disagreeing with the person you’re responding to?