Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[castlerockgreg]

Funnily enough, all this discussion reminded me of a time I had Vancouver to Montreal and my opponent's opening moves were Vancouver to Seattle, shortly followed by Calgary to Vancouver. I've seen it happen to a >750 ELO player as well.

I had that happen one time and never again. It's possible nothing can be done about it if they play the 1 then the 3 immediately after, and you can only muster a 2. I also had that happen once but couldn't do anything about it. When I have VAN-MON or VAN-SanFe, I keep my eye out on the top left and if they grab the 1, very next move is the three everytime.

[camistired]

My take: Blocking if you need the route, ok.
Blocking because you just want to keep the other guy from winning or delay his game is bad sportsmanship.

[menettm]

Blocking because you just want to keep the other guy from winning or delay his game is bad sportsmanship.

But it is the game if you want to win when you have received only small missions that can’t be connected!

[Ceaseless]

My take: Blocking if you need the route, ok.
Blocking because you just want to keep the other guy from winning or delay his game is bad sportsmanship.

Depends on the player count and intent. If it's more than 2 players and you're doing it just to mess with them for fun, that's bad sportsmanship. If you're doing it so that they lose and you win, that's playing the game properly, and in fact it is bad sportsmanship to other players not to hit the threat for your own benefit. If it's 2 players, it is also just playing the game properly, and trying to tell your opponent not to do it in say, a ranked game, is not only horrible sportsmanship, but also cheating.

[Strode]

My take: Blocking if you need the route, ok.
Blocking because you just want to keep the other guy from winning or delay his game is bad sportsmanship.

Depends on the player count and intent. If it's more than 2 players and you're doing it just to mess with them for fun, that's bad sportsmanship.

I think any time someone is doing something "just to mess with them for fun," that's bad form. It implies that they're not even trying to win.

[Jellby]

If the goal is having fun, "messing with them for fun" must be allowed.
If the goal is winning, doing anything necessary (within the rules) to win must be allowed.

[Ceaseless]

If the goal is having fun, "messing with them for fun" must be allowed.
If the goal is winning, doing anything necessary (within the rules) to win must be allowed.

Bet the having fun groups have a real hoot if you have two players with incompatible ideas of what constitutes fun.

[speedypuzzlement]

The ideas of fun reminds me of an essay about Scrabble:

"This isn’t fun. This is war. Scrabble is about controlling the area, dominating the opportunities, and then making sure that you’re the one that comes out on top. Big words, smart words – great for showing off. You’ve got a job to do though ... If you can’t get as much as you want out of a dangerous tile, burn it to the ground so nobody else can use it. Surround it with impossible letters. Lock it up if you have to. Claim it with DOG if that’s all you’ve got in your rack. Just make sure that if you can’t have the tile, nobody else can either ...

If you play Scrabble this way, no-one else will ever want to play it with you. It’s exhausting to look at a board in terms of positional vulnerability. Nobody thinks you’re smart for exploiting the small, agile words in the Scrabble dictionary. They think you’re a ****."

https://www.meeplelikeus.co.uk/scrabble-1948/

[Strode]

If the goal is having fun, "messing with them for fun" must be allowed.

No, not if others aren't in on it. I don't want to play with someone who has some meta-game going where they aren't trying to play well.

I do agree that blocking is permissible if it makes sense as a way to do well in the game.

[Ceaseless]

The ideas of fun reminds me of an essay about Scrabble:

"This isn’t fun. This is war. Scrabble is about controlling the area, dominating the opportunities, and then making sure that you’re the one that comes out on top. Big words, smart words – great for showing off. You’ve got a job to do though ... If you can’t get as much as you want out of a dangerous tile, burn it to the ground so nobody else can use it. Surround it with impossible letters. Lock it up if you have to. Claim it with DOG if that’s all you’ve got in your rack. Just make sure that if you can’t have the tile, nobody else can either ...

If you play Scrabble this way, no-one else will ever want to play it with you. It’s exhausting to look at a board in terms of positional vulnerability. Nobody thinks you’re smart for exploiting the small, agile words in the Scrabble dictionary. They think you’re a ****."

https://www.meeplelikeus.co.uk/scrabble-1948/

Reads like a piece structured as comedy for fun readability while adding helpful tips for playing Scrabble. As someone who wasn't particularly familiar with the game before, I was unaware there were that many fun strategies to try out in it. Still, as a general rule of thumb, if someone is whining about playing by the rules, they're a jerk, and generally unpleasant people you should avoid.

Personally, I play for fun. I don't railroad people into having to play outside of the rules because some arbitrary nonsense annoys me. I enjoy playing the game and respecting my opponent's options, whether it be to disrupt their plays or to ensure they can't stop mine, etc. I didn't come to play solitaire. If there are modifications to be made to the initial gameplay rules, the players discuss clearly defined changes everyone agrees to before the game even starts.