I absolutely play slower when it's not going well. It's human nature. If I'm ahead in a game, the orders are more straight forward. If I'm behind, partly I'm less keen to play, partly I want to make sure I've really thought about it before I do my orders. I of course stop short of extending games when I've clearly lost, and if people are doing that, I suppose I disapprove, but I'm certainly not going to start checking game links to find it happening from others.

When you have a list of 20 games I think it's very natural that the easier games are played first. And I don't feel bad about this at all.

This is unnecessary drama, chill out guys, and let's remember we're on the site to enjoy ourselves.

The Window Cleaner, I completely agree with everything you said.

I've already stated the truth regarding my primary motivations, but now that Ace the Psychiatrist has delved deep into my psyche, I'm beginning to worry about my smacking ego and wonder if that was the curious odor my wife mentioned today...

I'm glad you like my analogies, A&W. I'd be glad to give you another, but since you most remind me of a high school girl who gossips about a prettier girl with her gossip buddy (MathWolf), I would then become the prettier girl in the analogy who ends up with the boy you have a crush on (the #1 ranking), and I don't want to be a girl with a boyfriend. So no more analogies.

you were a reasonable person for so long, gui. has something changed in your life to make you this way? are you being bullied by schoolchildren or something?

AceWindu Quote:

Assumption #6: Gui cheats the system by playing opponents rated 1900+.
Yes that is my assumption and it still is. If you only play the best, your rating will be higher. You forego the risk of an upset from 1700/1800 players which is always a possibility. Even if you do it only to gain more interesting games, that does not absolve you of the fact that you're gaming the system.

@AceWindu : I don`t quite understand that, if you play only the best and by doing so, you win, don`t you deserve to be number one then? And how is that cheating?
Its a bit like a boxer or mma pro, who complains that he had a long career path behind him to get a title shot, while another guy beat the number one contender without that career path. Has he not beaten the number one ? Has he cheated the system by fighting the best right from the start?

I should say that I have not much to add to my words in that chat and I don't mind other people reading them.
But as this seems to be a trending topic, I'll give my 5 cents as one of the protagonists.

Fair way to keep Ace on top: Yes, I knew a way and it would have been completely fair.
How: Ask Fizzer to implement TrueSkill within those 9 days, in TS games don't expire as their weight gradually decreases anyway. Seeing how 10000 dollars is over 300 memberships, it may have been worth trying. I don't know if and when TS will be implemented and if it would have been ready on time, but it may have been possible.

I didn't doubt the bet was a figure of speech as Gui mentioned a few times he didn't even want to support Warlight by buying a membership of his own.

Why I don't particularly like Gui: it's very difficult to get along with someone who is so full of himself, behaves as if he owns Warlight, knows everything better, criticizes everything he didn't invent himself, has no respect for other people's opinions or dismisses them completely in a ridiculous way if too far from his own.
I'm sure he has some good sides too though, sadly enough I didn't see many of them yet.

That said, I never had problems with Gui myself, just don't like his attitude. I'm sure many people don't like mine either. So be it.


Other than that: feel free to overanalyse everything I say in chat as much as you want. I mostly type before I think and I'm way too busy (and ill lately) to look back at things and think twice about them. Besides, English is my third language, so I'm sure there'll be plenty of possible hidden messages you'll find under my at times strange grammar.

You guys are kidding about actually betting 10,000$ ... right ?

@myhand
The point is that he is avoiding the risk of losing a large number of points by losing to a player outside of the top 10/15.

If you play only the best then you lose less points if you lose and gain more if you win.

And I think it's also unfair to players outside the top ranks who could otherwise be matched against Gui, they are being denied the opportunity of playing against him.

@Knoebber

I don't think anyone believed Gui was going to bet $10,000.

lobstrosity: 2054
zaeban: 2107
2/15/2012 8:50:14 PM [中国阳朔] V: 1968
2/13/2012 8:44:16 PM 13CHRIS37: 1972
2/5/2012 10:02:51 AM Barney Stinson: 1705
1/23/2012 9:28:43 PM boobsy: 1580
12/28/2011 8:37:53 AM Tor: 1780
12/25/2011 7:28:41 AM Xyphistor: 1748
12/21/2011 7:14:13 AM ixouaeouxi: 1296
12/19/2011 11:53:47 PM WL Fanatic: 1772

Ace, your argument is fine in theory, but in reality it just isn't the case, as I've already said. Above, my games since I've been in contention for first. Why your assumption is wrong:

1. I've only twice increased my game count to try to play a certain player. I wanted to play V (he is a rising star, I had never played him 1v1 before, I was curious how good he is since he is one of the best players on the 2v2 ladder where we had 2 great games already). I wanted to play the best 1v1 player on the ladder since Impaller quit: zaeban. #1 vs #2 is interesting. #1 vs #30 is not.

2. None of the other guys I've played since being in contention were players I sought out. All were given to me randomly when one guy surrendered and another game was given to me. 10 names listed above. I tried to play 2. A system that only operates 20% of the time is not very effective.

3. I did say it would be a good idea to pick my opponents to make my games more interesting. But I have not cared enough to truly implement that idea, partly for the following two reasons.

4. I suspect Fizzer has slightly restricted (improved!) the algorithm that determines who the top rated players play. I've noticed a few more top players being paired up with other top players recently. Eg, when zaeban increased his games from 1 to 5, he waited a very long time before he got opponents (a couple days maybe). And look at the opponents he got (4 past #1s, 1 future #1):

fwiw: 1900
zibik21: 2008
[REGL] ferbi1982_PL: 1664
Mian: 1823
Guillaume le Bâtard: 2168
bytjie: 1861
2/13/2012 6:59:20 AM Heyheuhei: 1986
2/13/2012 12:44:55 AM Niko: 1737

5. If Fizzer hasn't adjusted his algorithm, according to his old algorithm, my rising rating restricts who can play me anyway, especially since there are so many top rated players I've never played on the ladder, who, according to Fizzer's match selection process, get first dibs: lobstrosity (the system recently paired me up with him), zibik, Teddy, unknown, Dr. Typesomething, alababi. I'm assuming a good number of my next few games will be with these guys.

Oh my gosh, look at all this drama!

I don't quite understand, how is Gui gaming the system?

Ace, I think your argument is false for a much simpler reason, since you stated Gui played only with top players, and seeing he won last 10 games in a row, how would you expect to lose against someone weaker when he gets 100% wins against the best ;)

@Gui, fair enough. Thank you for addressing my point rather than spouting crap like you did with your previous post.

@sze, nobody's perfect.

Ace, all you had to do was look at my games (again) to see my most recent opponents and/or reread my original post. It's all there.

Such a sad state of affairs. Accused without evidence. Bad-mouthed behind my back. The truth is stated. Yet I'm still guilty until proven innocent. And MathWolf wants me to pray to the shrine of Fizzer. MathWolf and Ace seem to have a little totalitarian in their blood. Or are you high ranking Iranian generals who do your war games on WL?

More crap? Right, I said fair enough. You aren't gaming the system to a large degree. You did make sure or at least attempt to make sure you got certain games. That is evidence at the very least.

Don't call me totalitarian please. Your hyperbolic statements have never been an asset to you.

Fair enough: Yes, you said it. But you didn't mean it. Now that I've made my jokes, I'd rather end this discussion by saying the truth:

This is a site for games. A week ago in your congratulatory thread, I invited you to a match. #1 vs #2. The winner is #1, without doubt. That would be competitive and interesting. Hell, it's manly.

Instead of responding, you rejoined the ladder to spite me (without playing me) and talked shit about me in public. If you had accepted my match, I'd think you are a man worthy of respect. You reply to everything I have ever said to you; but when I ask you for a game to see who deserves to be #1 more, you gossip like a teenage girl in public chat about how I cheat the system, as if my wins against quality opponents were some fluke. That's disrespectful to me and the people I played.

After being attacked in public by you twice now, I have lost respect for you and no longer wish to play you. The only game you are willing to play is a verbal one. In this game, I surrender.

@Math Wolf:
|> Fair way to keep Ace on top: (..) Ask Fizzer to implement TrueSkill within those 9 days

So you have a problem with someone gaming the system by (attempting to) only play the highest ranked players (regardless of whether that accusation is true or false), but completely overhauling the entire scoring system counts as "fair"? Sure, it was planned already anyway, but you propose doing it on exactly the moment which suits you best.

---

@Gui

Ace Windu wrote:
|> @Gui, fair enough. Thank you for addressing my point rather than spouting crap like you did with your previous post.

Sounds like a fair attempt at closing the discussion. But you reply with another whiny post full of over-the-top statements. I don't care whether you're right in the post after that (AW: "Right, I said fair enough."; Gui: "Yes, you said it. But you didn't mean it."), you don't get to make statements like that *in the very same post* you yourself use the phrase "That would be competitive and interesting. *Hell, it's manly.* ".

Also, your entire reasoning "I wanted to play you (yadda yadda) you would have earned my respect (yadda yadda random-insult-for-good-measure yadda) *but now I don't want to any more" sure sounds like a cheap excuse for not daring to play him for fear of losing.

And finally, please make up your mind; *why* are you in the ladder? You're completely contradicting yourself (if "I don't like to" + "I'm only there as a courtesy" + "I play as few games as possible" + "I increased my number of simultaneous games from 1 to 5" isn't a contradiction then I don't know what is).

Does it still count as Godwin's Law if the totalitarian dictators being mentioned are Iranian, not Nazis?

This is crazy drama, I feel like I am back in high school. This is a game, people, just enjoy it! Being good at Warlight doesn't make you a better person, just as being terrible at Warlight (like me!) doesn't make you a worse person.

RvW, your response inspired me to make [a new thread](http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=3055).

TexasJohn, you might have me on a technicality. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." I didn't mention any dictators, but by mentioning traces of totalitarianism, I did open the door to your comment about the law, which fulfills the law completely. My comment "approached;" your comment explicitly "made a comparison involving Nazis." lol We did it together! Good job! (see my new thread's discussion of bonhommie to understand my enthusiasm).