For the life of me I cant decide whats worse: people who whine and complain or those who whine and complain about their whining and complaining ?!
There have been a few instances in this thread so far where people leap on what they think are logical inconsitencies when there haven't been any.
TheGrobe challenged Suggo on hypocrasy when he framed the situation as both sides arguing about what people should do, etc - he's wrong - pointing out a list of options isn't telling people what they should do, it's merely making a list of their options.
Another that I saw as a possible response to my time question was that I'm now spending time on the thread - but I never implied that spending time on the thread in itself was wrong, it only dwarfs the amount of time causing the intial problem.
Now Reb - you're not actually catching me out because I'm not complaining - neither is Suggo. We're making reasonable points, mixed with some insults, to correct behaviour we thing hurts the original poster. We're trying to help, actually - none of what I've said involves a whine or a complaint; I invite you to try and point one of them out.
Attempts to find paradoxical circumlocutions in a persons argument can often be winning - like a chess tactic - IF they're sound. Like a chess tactic they're witty and quick and try to win with the merest amount of effort (a single sentence?).
In this case, it simply doesn't fly. If you want to win, you have to look deeper into the position.
Well, correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you dont like threads like this one in which you view people as "whining and complaining" . Am I wrong ? Your advice to them is , basically, to "suck it up". I am just a bit confused because there are also topics/thread that I dont like either and I simply dont go to them, period. Why do you ? Perhaps you could follow your own advice to the complainers and just "suck it up" yourself ? I am a firm believer that the best way to lead is by example.
People- lets all agree to diagree. This post will get nothing done. Is it really nessecary to argue about this while you could be playing chess? Seriously, this is pointless.
The best way to lead being by example here involves coming in and saying "Here is how I would deal with this if I were you."
The equivocation you're making is false.
I am not to the OP as the OP is to the bad loser.
If a thread is like a chess game it's like he played 1. E1?? (haha I'm trying to spell whine) eee one, haha, and then it's up to me to decide, like vote chess, which side am I on?
Suggo decides 1. Whine?? is a game losing blunder, and responds 1... Insult OP for whining. (which is not whining).
There is nothing to "suck up" in this instance. I'm merely making arguments, I'm actually not put out or frustrated in any way - I'm having fun and I'm happy to argue, and ridiculing OP's point is my aim.
The mentality of not going into threads you disagree with is untenable in the long term, and moreover - it's much more sporting to nip them in the bud with a good counter argument.
That's like saying - why respond on a chess game if you don't like your opponent's opening? Misses the point of why we play the game at all.
Rael, it's subjective of course, but boy Suggo sounded pretty frustrated if you go a few pages back, lol. If he's gotten over it, then that's great and this part of the discussion can finally rest. Still, it's pretty hard to defend Suggo's other point:
One side is trying to impose their thoughts and ideals upon the other. Only one side is doing that, if that side stops trying to do that, well, that will end my conversation right there and then.
This reminds me of a poor, oppressed minority group, victims of discrimination, who needs a hero to speak up against the injustice. I can understand if one feels no sympathy towards the "complainers," but isn't it somewhat odd to save your sympathy instead for the "bad losers," to the point where you feel that they are victims and that you are obligated to defend them? Rael, I can see that you are here to teach a very nice attitude ("don't let rude people bother you, just move on"), but is that also Suggo's only intent, or is he in fact here to defend whom he believes are "victims"?
While I agree with suggo that people have a "right" to be rude/inconsiderate/unsportsmanlike since it isnt strictly forbidden by the written rules of the game I think those who feel slighted by such behavior have an equal right to complain about it. The game we play ( Chess ) is called the King of games, the game of Kings and a gentleman's game. What does this all mean ? Well, I think it means that there are also accepted ( by the majority ) and unaccepted behaviors connected to the game. The majority of such behaviors are NOT addressed by any written rules connected to the game. Its rather depressing to me that it seems some SHOULD be written as I think people have sunk rather low when good manners and consideration of others needs to be enforced by some sort of written rule. If you are facing mate in one and instead of resigning ( honorably ) you decide to let your time run out you are simply being a jerk and are not exhibiting good sportsmanship, period. There is no rule to prevent jerks from being jerks but there is also no rule preventing people from pointing the jerks out. This type of behavior doesnt happen nearly so much in otb chess as on the net and I think all of us know why. Especially the "trash talk" during a game that some engage in. In tournament otb chess there IS a rule against such trash talk during a game and the jerk can be punished at the discretion of the arbiter, after a complaint is made. I have had more than one opponent here rated over 2500 that displayed such inconsiderate behavior, one continuing a lost game for several moves down a whole queen ! In otb play even B and C class players have NEVER done this to me. Why would one here rated over 2500 ? Perhaps because the beasts dont tell them when to resign ? It really makes one wonder sometimes......
The game I refer to http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13383856
When would YOU have resigned this game ? I would have resigned about move 50 , if not sooner.
great post!!couldn't agree more...
It is possible to start another game and play that whilst waiting for your other opponents time to run out.
I would only leave someone waiting like that if I had to go and in an obviously winning position. Usually I offer a draw then go, and if they dont want it they can win the points using patience!
You offer a draw when you are clearly losing ?
The way I read it, he is winning but suddenly has to leave.
Good point, maybe I got it wrong. Its also not clear what time control he's talking about, to me.
And what about those that would feel pressured to not speak out against injustice because of posts like yours Suggo? I'm astounded that you fail to recognize that you're doing exactly what your purporting to be speaking out against.
There are so few people that would get upset over a rule against stalling. And it has so many benefits, from preventing the game from preventing boredom and uninstructive games, to minimizing the chance of a win being awarded to the wrong person because of a chance disconnect, to minimizing the chance of a dilemma between chess and other obligations.
It's true, you are defending a few people that might be upset that they can't stall, especially if they were able to stall on other sites. But I predict that they will quickly get over it, and again, their pleasure comes at the cost of so many!
And this suggo, is why people are so amazed you are supporting your opinion. You are putting the needs of the few above the needs of the many.
Edit: In addition to implying you are better then others, arguing semantics (see defender vs imposer), making several useless posts (good post!), and hypocrisy (making a useless posts about how useless everyones posts are).
You keep guessing Suker, if nothing else I get a giggle out of it.
lol, since you are repeatedly avoiding my questions, I could only guess.
I disagree. I don't think there should be any rule; I mean, seriously. Let them wait. Say some random dude was losing to random dude 2. It's an online match.
random dude just leaves the computer feeling grouchy.
random dude 2 realizes this, and happily walks away and plans his party for, say, Thanksgiving(example).
WHO IS HAPPIER?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Random dude 2.
This is my point: let it wait. The person who is losing feels awful and rotten. The person who is winning feels happy and content. JUST LEARN TO ACCEPT IT AND MAKE A HAMBURGER 2 EAT WHILE YOURE WAITING!!!(or something like that). Take my example above. Random dude 2 can just go to check his computer every once in a while, skipping and smiling, while random dude goes to his comp stomping and cussing.
If everyone else gets used to this, you will be wrong b/c then it is pleasure for all or pleasure for all but 15. So, everyone, get used to the fact that these guys are out there, and there's nothing you can do about it. So, WHY COMPLAIN??? Just like that one song's lyrics that I hear in the Y a lot,"Don't worry. Be happy."
If this happens, I highly suggest you to go do something you like, and check your comp once in a while.
It would seem that you care little about the topic at hand, but just don't like the way I have gone about voicing my opinion, and that I should in some way feel obligated to extend my attitude to those complaining in this thread.
You keep arguing about something that I already agree with you on: yes, feel free to extend your attitude. It's a great attitude to have.
If I agree, then why am I here? Because you also have a second point, which I disagree with: "leave these poor people alone. it's their right to be rude, so don't discuss this anyone." I'm sorry, but isn't it also within everyone else's rights to discuss about this? Like you said so yourself...
(And not to mention you sound as if we are abusing these "poor" people simply by starting a discussion of this sort, lol)
I have argued the point because there are many people out there that will feel pressured by the posters in this thread into not making their own decisions/resigning even though that is not what they would/want to do. I have friends on here (yes some of you may find that amazing) who have resigned because they thought it was the right thing to do and had been pressured into doing so, only to find that they could have quite easily won the game. Granted this pressure is self imposed, but where did they get these ideas from? Threads like this!
So I come into threads like this so those people out there that would otherwise read this thread, even though really there is only a small number of people posting, and go away thinking they have to conform to what has been said.
It's everyone's right to talk about these things. I'm surprised that you of all people would be concerned about things like that.
What happened to over-sensitivity?
What happened to your philosophy: "don't be so sensitive, just deal with it and get over it."
What happened to your other philosophy: "if it's within the rights/rules, then I'm okay with it."
Perhaps this is a tad unfair of me, as I have been highly trained in the art of argument and rhetoric...well, just to give you an example: once in college our debate team was down by three hundred points with only fifteen seconds to go in the match and I, captain of the team, led a miraculous comeback by first clearing my throat, then in a burst of sheer inspiration triggered no doubt by our desperate situation I began loudly uttering a few Latin words I recalled reading from the back of a penny, followed by staring maniacally at the judges while raising my left eyebrow. This turned the tide. I was the first and to my knowledge the last one to ever be carried out of that auditorium on the shoulders of his debate squad teammates in the school's history. Glory days indeed. Now as I was saying, maybe this is unfair of me because of my erudite background but I feel the message and the need to say it outweighs who is doing the saying. YOU ARE ALL IMBECILES! Thank you.
Rude people will always ruffle the feathers of some people , you may call them over-sensitive if you like but that doesnt change the simple fact that rude people do piss some people off. I saw such an incident irl lead to blows in a public place but it had nothing to do with chess. In a public store two people were standing in the door talking blocking everyone trying to enter or leave the store ( extremely rude ! ) when one rather large farm boy just walked right into one of them almost knocking him down which led the fella who was run into making some smart alek remark which led after a few more remarks to a fight right there...... the farm boy had no problem kicking this rude person's ass and most of the people that knew what was going on was cheering on the farm boy. Incidents like this is why you dont see rude people so often in public plying their trade as there are often consequences that they dont have to worry about on the net. Now, who was in the wrong in this incident ?
Suker is right, you made one philosophy and broke it with another, so why should we listen to it whatsoever?