I could spend 20 minutes coversing in a coherent respectful argument that a noob will ignore or say whatever to in the end. Or I can call them a fucktard point out how much of a stupid piece of trash they are, they now get the point sure most wont admit it, heres the killer, I will then offer some sort of appology or something similar for my initial harsh words saying I was just trying to get there attention. Time taken for my way 2-3 minutes.

Yodel I know what you are saying, but my way gets the results I want more often then not. Most might not admit it, but I tend to make my argument in a intelligent manner sure I tend to sprinkle in a few choice words to make to emphasize my point. So people get what I am saying even if they dont want to admit it. Smart people tend to avoid the actions that brought on my vitrol so again, my way works ;-)

In a tournament, i accepted alex' flag and he get an undeserved 3rd.. then meagles trolled that noob and he backstabbed me to get 2nd.
And alex uses aim when he plays kdice... obvious pgaing player.

Alex, the social aspect of the game lends itself to players having pre game KNOWLEDGE about each other. Like Sam said, you get used to peoples playing styles and adjust accordingly.

If I am bordered by two equally strong players, one of which I know, and one that I don't, and I'm at a point in the game where I feel I need to truce someone, I'm likely to choose the player I know every single time. This isn't PGA and it's "not quite" a game-to-game favor. It's just good strategy to truce the known quantity over the unknown quantity.

If you pay close attention to the top 25, there are usually 1 or 2 new players up there every single month. It may take a couple months to "earn" your way into the clique of upper players, but once you're there you are in forever. Once players are comfortable with you and your playing style, they'll truce or flag to you just as often as anyone else.

Is this completely fair? No, not completely. But it's the only logical evolution of a social game. All of us were noobs at some point. The good social players are able to infiltrate the upper tables pretty quickly. I was playing 10K tables in my 2nd month on this site and I didn't know a single player here. It may take a few games to get people used to you, but it's possible.

New players come along all the time and have success in the upper tier. It's the players that go to those tables expecting an unfair fight and refusing to joke around or get to know those players that come on the forum bitching about PGA amongst the top players. It's a different game up top and some people can't do well there.

Tough shit.

Still kinda new to kdice myself, but there is one thing that I've been told...be talkative!! It does help you alot bc you get to know how these people play. I watched the members evening last night bc I have had strong issues thinking that was nothing but a big PGA thing between them. Come to find out its actually more social there and hence why these players are usually in the top 100/25 w/e. I have slowly started to talk more which I didn't like to do at first but now find out that's the best way to improve your game by learning theirs. Seriously, Alex watch a few games and talk with them. Then join one and play it out being more talkative, it'll help you out on the long run.

BTW if I am not being definitive tell me for I am just like they say a "common noob" at times and still new to playing this. Good luck to you in future games.

"If I am bordered by two equally strong players, one of which I know, and one that I don't, and I'm at a point in the game where I feel I need to truce someone, I'm likely to choose the player I know every single time."

STRONGLY DISAGREE.

yes, there is pre-game-knowledge involved. but that doesnt mean i always truce the dude i know, given equal sized power between them and an unknown. for example, if das and i were in a 3way match for 1st with an unknown, we would truce each other less than 5% of the time. our pre-game-knowledge of each other means that we can trust each other to connive, backstab, and weasel our way into 1st, while giving the other guy (monte/das) 3rd. and if that aint possible, then we will take 2nd, and give the noob 1st, while strongly trying to give the other guy (monte/das) 3rd.

what sam and thrax are misrepresenting is that PGK does NOT equal PGT (pre game trust). a lot of the time PGK equals PGD (pre game distrust). at least thats how it worked for me. and das. and several other people with big egos.

ive said this before in several other threads before your time alex... id rather truce the unknown noob and then have him in my pocket for the next several games. you do a favor to a noob, and they are VERY likely to repay you later, esp when other 'elite' players are perhaps boning them to reward each other. ofc, this plays on the fact that noobs are quicker to return favors, which is what you claim is bad anyways.

basically, noobs = easily manipulated = more easy points for me.

I don't have an ego like monte, so I don't stab people, so I don't get stabbed often.

So PGK to me means PGT.

Uh monte did you read my brief list of my expectations of players? Because I am pretty sure most of them were negative qualifiers ;-)

right right, i was disagreeing with thrax's statement moreso. sorry bout that.

Sam I realize this is a social game but it is a social game to a certain extent. Sure it's fine if you know about other players and will choose to make different moves depending on who you are playing. The problem arises when making these moves starts becoming detrimental to unsuspecting players. The problem I have is with people who use their past experience with other players to give themselves (them and the people they are familiar with) an advantage over other players. I believe doing this goes against the rules of this game, and really keeps the top 25 extremely exclusive.

I think the average player (restricts the social aspect to just each game, using skills as a player to make moves and skills as a diplomat to influence and persuade others to do their will) should be given an equal shot as those who have played the game since it came out (have long-time friends that they help out, no matter how small the favors, sometimes they don't even realize it; trucing with a buddy against a newer player given relatively equal advantages)

This type of gameplay has been so widely accepted that it's not even considered cheating. This is evident by the fact that when a poster points it out he gets flamed by, well, everyone. As you can see in this thread this gameplay has even been accepted by a moderator!

The rules say that game-to-game favors are NOT allowed. Does this rule need to be changed? Do we need to adjust our gameplay in order to abide by this rule? Cheating, by definition, is going on and it needs to be either dealt with or the rules need to change.

"If I am bordered by two equally strong players, one of which I know, and one that I don't, and I'm at a point in the game where I feel I need to truce someone, I'm likely to choose the player I know every single time. This isn't PGA and it's "not quite" a game-to-game favor. It's just good strategy to truce the known quantity over the unknown quantity.

If you pay close attention to the top 25, there are usually 1 or 2 new players up there every single month. It may take a couple months to "earn" your way into the clique of upper players, but once you're there you are in forever. Once players are comfortable with you and your playing style, they'll truce or flag to you just as often as anyone else.

Is this completely fair? No, not completely. But it's the only logical evolution of a social game."

This is not how it should work. There should NOT be a clique of players at the top that you should have to earn/talk your way in to. This brings me to a favorite saying of mine; "If everyone PGA's, no one PGA's"

Imagine if, one by one, as you suggest, players are able to get into this "clique" at the top. Is there a point where this clique becomes too full? If not, what if every single player is able to gain acceptance into this "clique". Then no clique exists, and this game becomes fair. Instead of fixing the game in this manner, I think we should go in the opposite direction. Keep this clique from playing with eachother in order to eliminate unfair play especially towards players not in this clique.

I think each game should be viewed purely objectively. With NO regard to previous games to a certain extent. I discussed this in my previous post. A past relationship should not influence whether or not you truce with two different players. Each color in a game should be given an equal opportunity to succeed.

When I go in to a game I rarely look at who I'm actually playing. Sure it's useful to know that CriticalDog will respect my flag, but I don't use this knowledge to create an advantage for myself over other players. If I'm trying to connect I will choose the best logical path, and not base it on who I have known for a long time. If I do go around someone, I will use the in game chat to explain what I'm doing (very subtley of course) and hope the player I'm avoiding will recognize my move. (they usually do without me saying anything)

Finally, I'll give an example from a game I played yesterday.

I had a 4 stack, 3 stack, and 3 stack in a line along the border of the map. The green player had a 5 stack next to my middle 3 stack. When the green player's turn came, he moved away from me. I said in the chat "I'll remember that" Another player in the game asked how long I will remember that to which I replied "Just this game."