Azul Etiquette?

[Meeplelowda]

You have to think more

And many people don't realize how much thinking is involved and don't want to do any more than they already do. So anything that forces them to actually have to think more is uncomfortable and objectionable.

This is not to say wanting less strategic depth in a game is wrong. That's a preference and there are games that cater to that preference. There is something wrong with trying to impose less strategic depth by restricting someone from making legal moves in a game.

[Meeplelowda]

So many people don’t understand that there is no only one way to win.

There are a lot of ways to lose according to your Elo rating though

I'm on your side of this debate, but this ELO shaming stuff is offsides. Just because you have a low ELO doesn't mean you can't express an opinion about something. You should easily be able to pick apart the logical flaws in this person's argument without reference to their ELO.

[ExaltedAngel]

I'm on your side of this debate, but this ELO shaming stuff is offsides. Just because you have a low ELO doesn't mean you can't express an opinion about something. You should easily be able to pick apart the logical flaws in this person's argument without reference to their ELO.

That's what I did: they claimed they can win in other ways (and implied everyone should do the same as them) when it's clear that's false when putting off the copium and looking at real data. I exposed a flaw in their argument, it's more a fallacy of false premise than a logical one but it's good the same. I didn't say anything to skyeofskynet who clearly stated they don't play to win, it's their choice and they are free to do so.

[pahakuukkeli]

So many people don’t understand that there is no only one way to win.

Actually, there IS only one way to win - score more points than your opponent(s).

[Jellby]

Actually, there IS only one way to win - score more points than your opponent(s).

Or score the same points, but have more complete horizontal lines.

Or make your opponent resign.

[FrankJones]

I'm on your side of this debate, but this ELO shaming stuff is offsides. Just because you have a low ELO doesn't mean you can't express an opinion about something. You should easily be able to pick apart the logical flaws in this person's argument without reference to their ELO.

I modified my post to avoid Elo shaming. If you could modify the quoting of what I first posted, I would appreciate it. Thanks

[landyshka]

There is a word we use to call people that try to force their opponents to not make legal moves in a normal game. We call them cheaters. That is what many of these anti-blockers are, underhanded cheaters that should be shunned from the Azul community for their attempts to hurt people. To call them players would be an exaggeration, because they aren't really playing Azul, they're just trying to bully other people. I don't mind those that choose not to block, they can do what they want with their own moves after all, but I have no respect for those that try to force their opponents not to block in any of their games.

Exactly. You have found a right word - this is bulling. Their aim is not to play but to hurt. And many times İ saw how they cheat even if it is not good for them - and loose the game.

[landyshka]

I modified my post to avoid Elo shaming. If you could modify the quoting of what I first posted, I would appreciate it. Thanks

There is no reason to modify, İ have already seen it. That was exactly what İ mean - if you want not to play but to hurt, you will try to hurt everytime everybody, even just comenting those who is on your side.

[FrankJones]

I modified my post to avoid Elo shaming. If you could modify the quoting of what I first posted, I would appreciate it. Thanks

There is no reason to modify, İ have already seen it. That was exactly what İ mean - if you want not to play but to hurt, you will try to hurt everytime everybody, even just comenting those who is on your side.

I'm confused. My post was directed toward MeepleLowda, who was kind enough to help with what I requested. Meeplelowda made a very good point that it is not appropriate to reference a player's Elo when making a point.

I believe this thread has established a clear consensus that playing Azul within the rules with the goal of attaining more points than the opponent is a valid way to play. In fact, someone correctly pointed out that the ONLY way to win at Azul is to score more points than the opponent.

At least one person in this thread (possibly 2 or 3; it is a long thread at this point) believes it is "dirty play" to take tiles the other player needs. That's a bizarre opinion, to me, but, these people are entitled to their opinions.

What is not appropriate is for those people to call out such players as "dirty" for simply playing strategically to try to win.

And, I agree with others who have said that such behavior is essentially bullying and cheating to make players feel bad about playing strategically.

My opinion is that anyone who has an issue with someone taking tiles he or she needs probably should no play Azul. Or Splendor. Or Aquatica. Or any game in which players are competing for the same scarce resources.

[Meeplelowda]

There is a word we use to call people that try to force their opponents to not make legal moves in a normal game. We call them cheaters. That is what many of these anti-blockers are, underhanded cheaters that should be shunned from the Azul community for their attempts to hurt people. To call them players would be an exaggeration, because they aren't really playing Azul, they're just trying to bully other people. I don't mind those that choose not to block, they can do what they want with their own moves after all, but I have no respect for those that try to force their opponents not to block in any of their games.

Exactly. You have found a right word - this is bulling. Their aim is not to play but to hurt. And many times İ saw how they cheat even if it is not good for them - and loose the game.

You entirely missed the point of the post you're responding to. The cheater in this scenario is the person trying to bully someone out of making a legal move, such as taking tiles that would score their opponent a lot of points. And just because they sometimes lose after doing this does not in any way make your point more valid.

Maybe people who came from a background where other people (parental figures, maybe) just let them win feel entitled to score points they believe belong to them just because they want those points and had a plan to get them. Points do not belong to you until you score them. Period.