That said, I feel that it should be a rule that you have to warn your opponent if you're revoking permission to do that

But the thing is, you never have permission to take a missed opportunity unless the other guy expressly allows it. So it's not like someone actually revokes permission, rather they are no longer giving permission, and it should never be assumed you have permission in the first place.

Edit: That said... I do think you should let the other person know upfront if there is any sort of three strikes policy you're following, or if you'll allow missed opportunities the whole game.

That said I do think what PGS was a prime example of the WAAC attitude.

As we've seen I'm no stranger to **** moves but I feel like baiting your opponent (by letting them do it a certain way, then suddenly insisting that they get no actions when it's beneficial) and refusing them the same courtesy they extended to you are both crossing the line.

It's cheating: Baiting requires you to notice, and allow rule breaking for part of the game to get an advantage later in the game. I'm not sure there's a definition of cheating this doesn't fall into, one where you selectively break the rules to your advantage.

Strictly speaking, he wasn't the one breaking rules because his opponent was moving out of sequence (I'm assuming this wasn't a game where he asked to do the same thing). That said, I feel that it should be a rule that you have to warn your opponent if you're revoking permission to do that, so that dirtbag moves like suddenly caring about proper move sequence when combat is about to start don't happen. While this was technically within the rules, it was so incredibly greasy that I actually dislike it more than a lot of actual cheating I've seen. There's a certain hostility to the opponent in what he did that just doesn't seem present in things like rigging your dice roll or trick shuffling your damage deck. Those suggest someone who cares too much about winning; PGS' actions suggest someone who really hates his opponent and wants to make them unhappy.

Facilitation of breaking the rules is breaking the rules.

But in this scenario we're labeling as "baiting" the intent can be assumed as part of the premise.

But we can only do so because we already know the intention.

Even if someone refused to allow a missed opportunity at point that gave them the greatest advantage, perhaps even set them up to win the game, that doesn't prove intention, and unless you can prove intention I'd be hesitant to even call it poor sportsmanship.

But in this scenario we're labeling as "baiting" the intent can be assumed as part of the premise.

But we can only do so because we already know the intention.

Even if someone refused to allow a missed opportunity at point that gave them the greatest advantage, perhaps even set them up to win the game, that doesn't prove intention, and unless you can prove intention I'd be hesitant to even call it poor sportsmanship.

Again, if you didn't have any intent, you weren't laying bait for a trap.

It doesn't matter that for other situations you can't know, it matters only for the one I was talking about: Where intent is known. (You can't bait a trap that doesn't exist)

Ribann was toxic beyond belief. A seriously disturbed individual.

Not to derail from this PGS roast, I remember Ribann but I don't particularly remember any unpleasantness. Was I just lucky?

Was I just lucky?

Amazingly lucky if you don't remember anything bad about him.

He was a fairly classic troll, he'd come here and post something like "Girls are bad at miniature games" and keep posting just enough to keep the thread on page 1.

Ribann was toxic beyond belief. A seriously disturbed individual.

Not to derail from this PGS roast, I remember Ribann but I don't particularly remember any unpleasantness. Was I just lucky?

You were lucky. He was normally just a little abrasive, but something snapped just before the end and just went all gansta on anyone. The abuse he suddenly dished out was highly offensive, and he got a pretty quick ban. But he managed to sneak back in with a different log on, and try and stand up for "poor Ribann", until he went down the exact same track, and earned another ban.

Oh boy, the only thing that really needs banning is this thread. Talk about non- FFG game related. But, anyone who openly cheats, as I gave up after his rules threads, after his asking "is it cheating when I allow my opponent to remove a ship that is not destroyed or allow too few die rolled" silliness. But when you openly call out, personally insult, and disparages people by name (Not that they care), you have no business in his forum. Besides, he already likely has another account here so who cares?

Oh boy, the only thing that really needs banning is this thread. Talk about non- FFG game related. But, anyone who openly cheats, as I gave up after his rules threads, after his asking "is it cheating when I allow my opponent to remove a ship that is not destroyed or allow too few die rolled" silliness. But when you openly call out, personally insult, and disparages people by name (Not that they care), you have no business in his forum. Besides, he already likely has another account here so who cares?

Lol j/k. Like any game, sportsmanship is PARAMOUNT. If you win, win graciously. Don't rub it in their face. If you lose, don't mope or blame the dice or insist they cheated. Figure out what went wrong and learn from it. And above all, don't become an internet troll. You're better than that.

Oh boy, the only thing that really needs banning is this thread. Talk about non- FFG game related. But, anyone who openly cheats, as I gave up after his rules threads, after his asking "is it cheating when I allow my opponent to remove a ship that is not destroyed or allow too few die rolled" silliness. But when you openly call out, personally insult, and disparages people by name (Not that they care), you have no business in his forum. Besides, he already likely has another account here so who cares?

Amraam01 confirmed to be PGS alt.

Lol j/k. Like any game, sportsmanship is PARAMOUNT. If you win, win graciously. Don't rub it in their face. If you lose, don't mope or blame the dice or insist they cheated. Figure out what went wrong and learn from it. And above all, don't become an internet troll. You're better than that.

a) But rubbing it in their face is the whole point!

b) Sometimes it is the dice's fault.

c) No I'm not.

Perhaps, but you may have missed my point. You said "Mainly because almost nobody uses literal literally." I disagree with a blanket statement like the one you used.

There's only one definition of literally. When it is used in lieu of figuratively it's being used to reinforce a hyperbole: it isn't being used figuratively but not to mean figuratively. It makes the statement incorrect but hyperbole and figurative speech in general is usually incorrect in the literal sense anyway. Using literally figuratively is empirically not paradoxial in that it conveys the intended meaning to the majority of listeners or readers: such is the purpose of language, no? Based on context the literal use of literally and the figurative use of literally can be distinguished, just as the figurative and literal uses of any turn of phrase can be distinguished by most. The addition of the informal figurative use to the dictionaries is either for the benefit of those unable to distinguish it normally or a consequence of said lexicon keepers falling into the subset unable to separate the two.

OED has figurative usage of literally going back to 17xx. Great great great great great great great etc grand parents these days are the worst. In my day we had respectable ancestors, like Herodotus

Are we literally arguing about the correct use of literally right now?

Are we literally arguing about the correct use of literally right now?

Figuratively speaking, yes.

All I know is that due to semantic satiation, figuratively and literally literally have no more meaning to me.

The spirit of PGS approves of the etymological trolling in this thread.

Why?

Why?

Because Palpatine should have been one epic point and FFG should have made Tarkin playable in standard format.

Why?

Because Palpatine should have been one epic point and FFG should have made Tarkin playable in standard format.

I would go troll hunting in this topic but i'd be over the quota in a jiffy.

At least it's mostly good troll. Because PGS isn't here. I'm sorry but he was so vitriolic that it was painful.

Perhaps, but you may have missed my point. You said "Mainly because almost nobody uses literal literally." I disagree with a blanket statement like the one you used.

Based on context the literal use of literally and the figurative use of literally can be distinguished, just as the figurative and literal uses of any turn of phrase can be distinguished by most.

That's just not true. If someone says "I literally threw up" how would you know which they meant? I think people are just assuming people mean it figuratively so when somebody actually does mean it literally that meaning is lost, and they have to say something else to demonstrate that they mean it literally literally.

Actually works... I Actually threw up.

I'm amazed this thread is still going. Thought it would be locked down by page 3 at most.

I'm amazed this thread is still going. Thought it would be locked down by page 3 at most.

You realise you just bumped it back up to the top of the list .... OH Irony... I love thee.

I'm amazed this thread is still going. Thought it would be locked down by page 3 at most.

Why would a thread about the English language be locked?

Free Literally Slayer!