that you are officially better at taking foul shots than Michael Jordan.

I give up. You clearly can't or won't understand the point I'm trying to make and I'm not going to bother spending more time and energy trying to explain it.

When you beat Michael Jordan, did you not "[win] by whatever criteria the event [had] put into place?" You literally just said that fulfilling that condition makes the competitor who does so the better player, didn't you? So you must be better than Michael Jordan (at least at single-elimination foul shot competitions) You can tell me if I am wrong and your words don't mean what they actually say. I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't interested.

Is the runner who did not trip a better runner?

The runner who did not trip ran a better race, and so won the race. Not sure what's hard to understand about that.

I said more, but frankly I'm done debating such things because we've gotten so far off the topic I simply don't feel there's any reason to keep going.

If you want to claim some points in the debate feel free. I simply don't care.

The better player will be the one who won by whatever criteria the event has put into place.

that you are officially better at taking foul shots than Michael Jordan.

I give up. You clearly can't or won't understand the point I'm trying to make and I'm not going to bother spending more time and energy trying to explain it.

When you beat Michael Jordan, did you not "[win] by whatever criteria the event [had] put into place?" You literally just said that fulfilling that condition makes the competitor who does so the better player, didn't you? So you must be better than Michael Jordan (at least at single-elimination foul shot competitions) You can tell me if I am wrong and your words don't mean what they actually say. I wouldn't be asking if I wasn't interested.

I think the difference between us is that I don't believe I ever have the right to tell anyone, even myself, that I am a better player than anyone else, but that I do have the right to prove that I am better than my opponent in any given game by defeating them within the rules.

You believe that regardless of the results, you get to personally determine who is the better player, and results only matter when certain unwritten (imaginary) rules are followed.

Do you honestly think that winning proves that you are better than someone else? So test that conclusion. The two hypotheticals are the same:

Is the runner who did not trip a better runner?

Are you better at foul shots than Michael Jordan?

It has nothing to do with my personal opinions. It is perfecly reasonable for someone to be objectively better at something than someone else. Skill can be perceivable.

Yes, yes, and yes. Yes, if I beat Michael Jordan at whatever contest we are having, then I am better than Michael Jordan at that contest at that time. Yes, the runner that doesn't trip over their own feet is better at running, just like the X-Wing player that doesn't forget to use the upgrades they brought with them to the game is a better X-Wing player. And yes, I think that beating someone without helping them proves that I am better than them in that contest at that particular moment in time, and if they beat me they are better. That's what rematches are for.

I really feel like we are finally understanding each other. Even if we might still disagree.

Long story short

Play how you want

Help the other player

Don't get upset if you don't get the same treatment

Calling someone who follows the rules a poor sport is actually being a poor sport.

If someone decides not to speak up when whisper forgets to recloak, that is totally up to them and they did nothing wrong

That person is by no means a poor sport

Calling someone a poor sport for playing within the rules written by ffg is actually being a hypocrite

We are all violently agreeing with each other. At least on 99% of the issue.

I lol'd at the chair part!

Things are getting ridiculous when we're talking about hypothetical free throw shooting contests with Michael Jordan.

Look, what is it they say about the NFL? "Any given Sunday." "That's why they play the games." Everybody wanted to hand the Patriots the Super Bowl the year they got there undefeated. And there's no doubt in my mind they were a better team than the Giants. But on that given Sunday, when they actually got on the field and played the game, the Giants won. And nobody tried to say, "Well, yes, but the Giants shouldn't feel like they won." They won when it mattered.

So if I barely squeak by on MoV and I go up against the juggernaut of the tournament in the finals, and at a crucial moment, my opponent forgets to use his FCS? You're **** right I'm letting him make the mistake. Because if he's that **** good, he shouldn't be making it. And if he does make it, and I don't, it means, for that one match, I'm better than him. I don't care if he'd beat 99 times out of 100 playing casually in my basement. At that tournament, in that match, I did what was needed to win, and he didn't. And I'll take it every **** time.

Things are getting ridiculous when we're talking about hypothetical free throw shooting contests with Michael Jordan.

Look, what is it they say about the NFL? "Any given Sunday." "That's why they play the games." Everybody wanted to hand the Patriots the Super Bowl the year they got there undefeated. And there's no doubt in my mind they were a better team than the Giants. But on that given Sunday, when they actually got on the field and played the game, the Giants won. And nobody tried to say, "Well, yes, but the Giants shouldn't feel like they won." They won when it mattered.

So if I barely squeak by on MoV and I go up against the juggernaut of the tournament in the finals, and at a crucial moment, my opponent forgets to use his FCS? You're **** right I'm letting him make the mistake. Because if he's that **** good, he shouldn't be making it. And if he does make it, and I don't, it means, for that one match, I'm better than him. I don't care if he'd beat 99 times out of 100 playing casually in my basement. At that tournament, in that match, I did what was needed to win, and he didn't. And I'll take it every **** time.

I suppose that does define the difference in players, then.

I mean, the analogy works, and I totally get your position on it.

But, myself, I'm not playing a match "just to see who manages to be better that one time". I'm interested in playing a match in such a way as to find out who is the better player. That is, playing it as a proxy for ACTUALLY PLAYING that same pairing 'played in the basement 99 times'. Since nobody has time for that, I want this match to be representative - to work in such a way that playing it one time is 'clean' enough that it can tell the same story that repeating it 99 times would tell.

nor is reminding people a way to cover up an inferiority complex.

I don't think anyone was saying that. It's when people expect you to remind someone, and call it poor sportsmanship if you don't that there's an issue.

Well, I suppose just as one has to live with forgotten actions, you'll just have to live with that.

1. No, it's by your logic, you just don't want to agree that you're fallible. So a player that forgets their cards isn't inadequate to move ahead of you in a tournament. What about a player who continually chooses the wrong maneuvers, goes after the wrong ship, doesn't focus fire? Are they also adequate to move up in a tournament due to you letting them go back and change their maneuvers, you telling them what ship would be best to attack, you telling them how focus firing is a proven strategy?

2. It is if it costs them the game/tournament, absolutely. Not my fault and not my obligation to correct it. In a tournament I'd be too worried about remembering my own cards than helping someone with theirs.

3. Helping them is against the very point of going to a higher level competitive tournament.

4. Reminding your opponent of their optional effects does not make you a good sport, this has already been discussed earlier in this thread. Some people seem to be confusing being helpful (possibly to the point of your own loss) with being a good sport.

5. Honestly I'm tired of seeing this word used. Sportsmanship is for sports and this is not a sport. If I am not interested in the win or I am more interested in fun than winning, I really shouldn't be competing in a tournament in the first place. It's pretty simple really. Playing at home or in casual tournaments is for fun, playing in competitive and premiere tournaments, don't kid yourself, you are there to win.

6. Your example is not really what we are talking about here. I'd feel bad for the guy who signs up to a competitive tournament and can't make it on time but it has nothing in common with the concept of reminding players about their own cards.

7. Pretty sure the spirit of the game is just to play and have fun.

1) I don't know much else to say so I suppose this will probably be my last attempt to argue this but if you honestly cannot see the difference between choosing the wrong maneuver or chasing the wrong ship (which are poor tactical decisions) and completely forgetting to take an action with a ship (which is a simple oversight) then we are simply at an impasse.

3) Helping someone isn't even remotely against the point of good sportsmanship (read: sporting competition). However, you conflate making decisions for your opponent with reminding your opponent of mistakes so I suppose we'll never see eye-to-eye on this.

4) There's no confusion. It does make you a good sport.

5) This is simply pedantry on your part.

6) It has more in common with letting your opponent accidentally skip an action than it does with reminding your opponent to take said action.

7) Well, you'd be wrong. The "spirit of the game" refers to the design goal of the game. Is it a test of speed? A test of strength? A test of tactics? A test of strategy? A test of execution? Playing in the spirit of the game means to play strictly within the intent of the game.

As example of playing within the spirit of the game (i.e., sportsmanship):

"In soccer, it is considered good sportsmanship to kick the ball out of play if a player on the opposing side is injured; when the ball is to be thrown in, it is also considered to be good sportsmanship in this situation to kick it (or throw it) back to the other team who had intentionally kicked it out. Gamesmanship arises in this situation when, rather than passing the ball back to the side who kicked the ball out, the injured player's teammates keep the ball after the throw-in. Whilst not illegal or against the rules of the sport, it is heavily frowned upon."

But, you've already made it quite clear that you see nothing unsporting about such behavior so I suppose we'll just have to disagree. What you're advocating is gamesmanship, not sportsmanship. They are opposites.

5) This is simply pedantry on your part.

That is true.

7) Well, you'd be wrong. The "spirit of the game" refers to the design goal of the game. Is it a test of speed? A test of strength? A test of tactics? A test of strategy? A test of execution? Playing in the spirit of the game means to play strictly within the intent of the game.

As example of playing within the spirit of the game (i.e., sportsmanship):

"In soccer, it is considered good sportsmanship to kick the ball out of play if a player on the opposing side is injured; when the ball is to be thrown in, it is also considered to be good sportsmanship in this situation to kick it (or throw it) back to the other team who had intentionally kicked it out. Gamesmanship arises in this situation when, rather than passing the ball back to the side who kicked the ball out, the injured player's teammates keep the ball after the throw-in. Whilst not illegal or against the rules of the sport, it is heavily frowned upon."

But, you've already made it quite clear that you see nothing unsporting about such behavior so I suppose we'll just have to disagree. What you're advocating is gamesmanship, not sportsmanship. They are opposites.

Interestingly enough, the "spirit of the game" is clearly defined for each specific sport it pertains to. The most common one I came across is Ultimate Frisbee. It isn't some made-up ruleset outside of the normal game rules defined only in certain players minds to reinforce the way they want the game to be played. It would be a neatly, cleanly written ruleset that would define how players should interact when playing in a competitive environment. Do note that we do not have such a document for X-Wing Miniatures. What we do have, however, is a couple paragraphs within the Tournament Rules. Let's take a look at them.

"Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden. The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct."

I see nothing about your opponent forgetting things obligating you to remind them or you are not a sportsman. Do you?

"Missed Opportunities

Players are expected to play optimally, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his opponent. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity.

So this is actually what we have written down, for tournaments about missing your own opportunities. Let's note what it says.

1. Players are expected to play optimally, remembering to perform actions and use card effects when indicated.

2. If a player forgets to use an effect during the timing specified by that effect, he cannot retroactively use it without the consent of his opponent.

3. Players are expected to act with respect and not intentionally distract or rush an opponent with the intent of forcing a missed opportunity.

To sum it up. Remembering your own cards and effects is your own obligation. If you forget to use an optional effect, you cannot go back and do it later if your opponent says no. Be respectful, don't rush your opponent or intentionally make them miss an opportunity.

So player A and player B are in a tournament match. Player A has just attacked player B's ship and missed but he hasn't yet used Gunner. Player B doesn't rush things along and go to the next ship, because that is clearly wrong. So player B waits a little bit, hoping his opponent notices the mistake. He does not, so player B then proceeds to shoot back with his ship. When the next round begins, player A remembers about Gunner. He mentions he forgot to use it to player B and asks if he might do so. Player B, calmly and nicely replies that he cannot as it is too far past that time. Player A understands that he missed the opportunity and the onus was upon himself to remember his effect. He also knows that player B has not given his consent to retroactively using Gunner. He also had noticed that player B had waited a bit longer before moving on, so he realizes that player B was not trying to intentionally rush him. So instead of making a fuss about it, player A accepts the situation as it is and they both continue the game in a respectful manner.

Were you playing for large sums of money?

If not, I assume you are playing for fun. Probably so was the other guy. Seems to me the right thing to do was to be helpful and remind him 'hey you got a hit but I rolled an evade, so you can use gunner' or whatever the case may be. First, it makes his play experience better. Second, maybe he is having a really bad day, or is starting some new medication and it's not working for him, or whatever... and would like nothing less than to yank his ships off the table and go home, but he realizes that in doing so he could ruin your game, so he sticks it out. Third, from a totally selfish standpoint, do you have more fun beating the tar out of an opponent who is clearly distracted, making errors, etc, or do you have more fun in more challenging games. I'd think for your own enjoyment you'd help him out.

Oh wow

I cannot believe some of the replies I'm seeing here

"maybe your opponent is on medication"

"no sleep"

"having a bad day"

I'm sorry but that is not my problem

I'm not traveling away, or attending the only tournament months apart from one another in my area only to help someone play their list.

Imo if they cannot remember to use their abilities then they don't deserve to win the tournament which ya could happen if every game they were allowed to rewind

I'll say tthis again

I went to Imdaar alpha with no sleep and was coming down with something. I got second place.

I don't make excuses. I did well. I did my best, and coming near the end I could see a huge difference on my game.

So suck it up.

If it's that bad then maybe they shouldn't

shouldn't be attending.

All im hearing is excuses.

If someone is there for just fun, fine, they probably won't care.

If someone is there with the intent to win, then they better be on top of their game.

I cannot believe the excuses I've read through this post.

Well its nice to see some here have no pride

I mean if you are happy with yourself knowing you won a tournament with the help of an opponent who reminded you of gunner and you one shot fel.

Ya what a proud moment.

If I win, I'll do it on my own. Not with assistance from others

I can't believe people wouldn't be embarrassed honestly.

Shaking everyone hand, smiling for pictures or however you celebrate knowing, that you would have likely lost without assistance and that there is better players more deserving for top spot.

I honestly wouldn't be able look anyone in the eye.

BuT I guess pride is not ssomething everyone has

This thread has become ridiculous. Give it up with the foolish sport analogies. This isn't the Olympics. This isn't a marathon, nobody here is Michael bloody Jordan ( the first one or two comparisons was ok) but now it's beyond foolish

Were you playing for large sums of money?

If not, I assume you are playing for fun. Probably so was the other guy. Seems to me the right thing to do was to be helpful and remind him 'hey you got a hit but I rolled an evade, so you can use gunner' or whatever the case may be. First, it makes his play experience better. Second, maybe he is having a really bad day, or is starting some new medication and it's not working for him, or whatever... and would like nothing less than to yank his ships off the table and go home, but he realizes that in doing so he could ruin your game, so he sticks it out. Third, from a totally selfish standpoint, do you have more fun beating the tar out of an opponent who is clearly distracted, making errors, etc, or do you have more fun in more challenging games. I'd think for your own enjoyment you'd help him out.

Well, most tournaments charge an entry fee, so you many not be playing for money, but you did pay money to play. And there is usually prize support. So there's more to a tournament than just a chance to hold hands and become friends and make everyone the best gosh-darned player they can be. That's what non-tournament/casual games are for. And every non-tournament game I've played, I've asked my opponent if they want to take actions, if they want to use abilities, etc. Because it's casual. We're there for fun.

All this talk about how it's my obligation to make sure my opponent plays well so that my victory is somehow more legitimate, and yet no one seems to want to put the onus on my opponent to play well.

All this talk about how it's my obligation to make sure my opponent plays well so that my victory is somehow more legitimate, and yet no one seems to want to put the onus on my opponent to play well.

Maybe I missed the post, but I don't remember anyone suggesting that people should not play well at tournaments. The common theory for the side that you are opposing seems to be that mistakes that they don't want impacting the game eventually happen and, when they do, they should be corrected to preserve the competition.

I get a kick out of the whole

"I want to win with my opponent at his best"

But it doesnt seem to bother those to say

"I want to win without having any assistance"

Or

"I want to win on my own"

I guess those who think this way are comfortable winning with assistance

I also guess they'd be comfortable winning knowing **** well that they would not be there if it wasn't for backsies

I guess it is also these people who are more likely to forget things?

Which is maybe why they are so defensive.

This thread has become ridiculous. Give it up with the foolish sport analogies. This isn't the Olympics. This isn't a marathon, nobody here is Michael bloody Jordan ( the first one or two comparisons was ok) but now it's beyond foolish

Those hypothetical questions were designed to test the theory that someone who wins something is better than the other competitors. They could have been about car racing, flipping cups, or Godzilla vs. Mothra - the subject is not what matters. Using hypotheticals like that is not foolish, it is a common way to expose extreme conclusions and errors of logic. Calling them ridiculous, foolish, or unrelated is a very common way to deflect such hypotheticals, but it is pretty transparent.

With regard to your comment on "pride," you will have to forgive me if I don't get down on my knees and cut my belly open in shame. Your idea of pride and mine are different. If pride did impact my decisions when playing a game of strategy and tactics in a tournament where it is a legitimate possibility that my opponent could be a 12-year-old who has never played the game before, it would cause me to sour at the prospect of winning based on a lapse of memory by my opponent. Several people have expressed this, but winning well is more important than winning - maybe you feel differently, and that is perfectly fine.

All this talk about how it's my obligation to make sure my opponent plays well so that my victory is somehow more legitimate, and yet no one seems to want to put the onus on my opponent to play well.

Maybe I missed the post, but I don't remember anyone suggesting that people should not play well at tournaments. The common theory for the side that you are opposing seems to be that mistakes that they don't want impacting the game eventually happen and, when they do, they should be corrected to preserve the competition.

That is going a little far.

If your opponent is obviously new then I'm sure even those like myself are more lenient

I'm talking about playing with other experienced players.

I take pride winning any event on my own.

I guess your comfortable winning an event with assistance if it was needed.

Knowing full well you would not be in the top spot if your opponent didnt remind you of a crucial ability you forgot and let you have it.

Knowing full well that there is someone else that deserve the top spot over you.

Congratulations on your half ass win

There is such a thing about having pride in doing something on your own, knowing you earned it,

Being proud of yourself for getting there without any assistance. If I make a mistake I go forward, not backwards and if I can recover from my mistake, then I'm the better player, and not having to compare to to dramatic events such as seppuku which is totally irrelevant to this conversation, but rather just makes you sound like a drama queen

Edit

For the record. My first opponent in one tournament was his first game ever as he just bought someone's collection

I helped him as best I could to teach him how to play, reminding him of his actions and etc.

Only thing I didn't do was set up his ships and select his dials.

If your going to lose to a new player, then I guess you need all the help you can get

I get a kick out of the whole

"I want to win with my opponent at his best"

But it doesnt seem to bother those to say

"I want to win without having any assistance"

Or

"I want to win on my own"

I guess those who think this way are comfortable winning with assistance

I also guess they'd be comfortable winning knowing **** well that they would not be there if it wasn't for backsies

I guess it is also these people who are more likely to forget things?

Which is maybe why they are so defensive.

I don't think that's true. I haven't seen anyone say that they expect "backsies" from their opponent even if they are willing to give them, nor have I really seen anyone demand that that's the way others play in general.

I actually think it's the other half of the argument where people are bristling a bit more (edit: for example, you've now started implying that people who play this way are actually bad players) because they think they are being perceived as "unsportsmanlike," which again, many have said isn't the case.

I'm not trying to say they are bad players

But if a person is willing to let their opponent go back or remind them of their moves, then I think it is safe to say they would expect the same treatment

I know I wouldn't be overly happy if I reminded you to use gunner, but later on you would not allow me to put a cloak on whisper after he attacked and we are now in the planning phase.

I'm pretty sure we can agree on that

Now maybe these people would refuse to go back and fix a missed opportunity, but again I believe if your likely to allow it, then you'd also be likely to accept it, which again just brings me to being proud of winning without needed to be reminded or having to go back and fix a mistake

I think you missed my point

I'm only trying to turn the argument around

To those claiming winning on your opponents mistake is some sort of crutch, isn't winning in the same circumstances (and by that I mean being reminded of missed opportunity) the same thing?

Edit

Th last sentence in the above quote is more out of frustration with this whole topic.

I never tried to say that they're bad players.

But if someone is going to try to say your a bad sport for not letting your opponent go back on a mistake or remind them. Then they should give their head a shake.

By their standards technicaly if it is bad sportsmanship then technicaly by ffg tournament rules they should be dq. As their is a unsportsmanlike conduct section in the tournament rules

To those claiming winning on your opponents mistake is some sort of crutch, isn't winning in the same circumstances the same thing?

I see your point, but it's not a dichotomous argument. IE, If I prefer a win where I help remind my opponent to use predator in a situation where there's no reason not to, that does not mean if he wins that I consider him having won with a crutch. Nor does it mean that I think less of my opponent if he wins because I forgot to use a card that I should have remembered.

Maybe I missed the post, but I don't remember anyone suggesting that people should not play well at tournaments. The common theory for the side that you are opposing seems to be that mistakes that they don't want impacting the game eventually happen and, when they do, they should be corrected to preserve the competition.

My whole point is not making mistakes is part of competition. Knowing what your build does is the most basic thing the game asks you to do. If you can't remember that, you shouldn't be playing competitively, nor should you expect your opponent to pick up your slack for you.

And this is a huge part if it

Remembering your own abilities is part of the competition

If a strong players does forget or makes a mistake, he can still turn the game around.

If someone wants to remind a player of a missed opportunity that is fine, nobody is stopping them

Just don't always except the same in return.

And don't say they are not being good sports.

In doing so, your actually being a bad sport for insulting them for not playing by your standards which are not defined by ffg.

I'm not trying to say they are bad players

But if a person is willing to let their opponent go back or remind them of their moves, then I think it is safe to say they would expect the same treatment

I know I wouldn't be overly happy if I reminded you to use gunner, but later on you would not allow me to put a cloak on whisper after he attacked and we are now in the planning phase.

I'm pretty sure we can agree on that

Now maybe these people would refuse to go back and fix a missed opportunity, but again I believe if your likely to allow it, then you'd also be likely to accept it, which again just brings me to being proud of winning without needed to be reminded or having to go back and fix a mistake

I think you missed my point

I'm only trying to turn the argument around

To those claiming winning on your opponents mistake is some sort of crutch, isn't winning in the same circumstances (and by that I mean being reminded of missed opportunity) the same thing?

Edit

Th last sentence in the above quote is more out of frustration with this whole topic.

I never tried to say that they're bad players.

But if someone is going to try to say your a bad sport for not letting your opponent go back on a mistake or remind them. Then they should give their head a shake.

By their standards technicaly if it is bad sportsmanship then technicaly by ffg tournament rules they should be dq. As their is a unsportsmanlike conduct section in the tournament rules

You mentioned pride a few times and I think that is the heart of my own struggles. I take pride in out maneuvering my opponent, looking at the board and having that aha moment when I think I figured out exactly how they are going to set their dials. I take pride in my list, perfecting my winning combination and watching it pull off things that according to many it shouldn't be able to do. I take pride in being abel to shake my opponent's hand and congratulate them on their win without whinging or complaining about dice or their list. I take pride being able to have fun playing this game weather I'm winning or getting the snot beat out of me.

The problem and question from the original post is not necessarily only about sportsmanship, but I feel that it might be a sticking point for many people. I remember the days of 40k where many tournaments had a sportsmanship score that effected your final points and how ANGRY people got at that. "If you win then you win, doesn't matter what you say to the guy. Only the results of the game matter." There would be threads like this that would go on for ages about how sportsmanship was getting in the way. Even the phrase "sportsmanship" sometimes has a negative connotation among gamers now. Personally, I just try to play with a good attitude and have fun, if that is good sportsmanship then awesome.

Putting sportsmanship aside for a moment, what I have gathered from this thread so far, and I think I have read every single post that has been made here, is that it's not a crime to point out someone's mistake as long as your not a jerk about it. It also isn't a crime to stay silent and let your opponent handle their own list and mistakes (as long as they don't break the rules). Frankly these things are not mutually exclusive, I think I have done both and honestly I did both during the game that I posted at the beginning of this whole discussion. If you read my initial post again, I didn't tell the guy about what gunner does the entire game, I just let him miss over and over again.

You don't always have to extend a hand to help. Sometimes it might make the situation worse, but sometimes you might help someone realize their mistakes. The important thing is to remember to have fun and enjoy the game, if you aren't enjoying the game then trying to fix whatever the problem is and get back to having fun is perfectly reasonable.

I look at it like this,

I play to have fun and when I have forgotten things in the past I got pissed at myself. so I tend to remind players who forget things and they in turn see my generous nature and return the favor, even in tournaments.

I think its very sportsman like. but if a player continues to forget, I mean like weeks and weeks of forgetting how to play his cards, then I wont remind him every time, I still find myself reminding them, but not always at that point.

we are not machines, we cant remember everything, so lets help each other out and all have a fun experience, even if that means you lose as a result.

@resv

I can agree with your post.

I mentioned pride because (and coming from a long background of playing competitive sports growing up) if I won, I did it on my own.

I've never felt happier knowing that I did my best and despite how well I placed, knowing I did my best and earned my achievement.

Which is why I've refused going back in some of my games when I realized I forgot something and my opponent was kind enough to try to let me have it.

I just tell them, no I missed it and that is my fault

I'll either make up for it and win, or be it my downfall and lose, but if it's the latter it doesn't happen again.

Which actually for me, makes me a stronger player