Not going to play till end of time...just long enough for SG and company to bite the dust. And we wont need any megacorping help doing it either.

So now your saying again that we are megacorping? I am confused! oh so you are playing for a Stalemate, and wern't you ragging on SG for playing for a Satelemate earler? hmmm come on Parrot make up your mind.

The thing about "good sportsmanship" is that the meaning is different from one person to another. Same with ethics. For instance I believe that capital punishment is generally unethical, whereas some people believe in an "eye for an eye."

So while it's always fun to claim a moral high ground, it's really meaningless. Your morals will differ from most others', and yours' are no more right than mine (cough *racism is bad*).

Didn't the game in question have a "no asset sharing" megacorping rule? So that info sharing was legit? If so, what ya'll whining about?

I guess when I set this rule on my board, I was simply thinking that MegaCorping was only a way to circumnavigate the corp limits.  But D makes a good point that makes me think.  I don't have an issue with aliances, or getting another corp to help protect you when under fire if they are willing, so now I have to think long and hard about that megacorping rule.  Thanks for the headache D
Now, I've been around TW myself for some time, although had a long perioud of inactivity, where I didn't really follow players/games and such.  What did I miss?  What's this unwritten rule about blowing ports?  I know there are things considered crossing the line, but I missed this one.  I'm kinda with D,. If the game allows, it's fair game,.. but there are a few exceptions that I know of.  What comes to mind is Alien Planet Farming.  This is considered a glitch in the game, and so not allowed by most.  Ability to blow a port, is not a glitch, and so I guess I consider that fair play. 

And just because someone else didn't do it or doesnt do it..Doesnt make it wrong..

corp "A" finds corp B..doesnt have resourse to take them out....blows port and leaves.
Corp "C" then reads logs and finds and attacks corp "A" is this fair play?
Of course it is.
Corp "A" thinks it may even the resource count allowing them to attack corp "C" or Corp "C" fails in its attempt and Corp "A" goes back to finish knowing that corp "C" is weakened and that Corp "B" maybe within their abilty to take out because of the failed attack by "C". This is all warfare on an even playing field.
 
Corp "B" gets on Icq and gets members of Corp "C" to come to their aid.
is this fair play?
Of course not. Make the corp limit unlimited and go from their.

So are you saying now that we got on itcq and got a member of anouther corp? You keep dancing around, did SG's corp Megacorp? and if so HOW? thats all I want to know.

Are you guys really *****ing about that gay Butt chess game? OMG, you people need to learn to read ****ing edits before you enter a game and there would be less *****ing.
Notice the most recent pirates episode: people showed up, misjudged the edit, and got stomped by the people who read the edit correctly.
Chess edit: Lots of people playing who either can't read edits, or get a hard on when they think of turtling for months until everyone agrees to a stalemate that was predicted a month before the game even fricking started.

Also, as a side note Sam, who are these morally superior players? As SG stated, pretty much all the "leaders" did anything they could to win, atleast once in their career.
There is not a single "saint" of twars who is half decent at playing.

In summary:
Yawn and a half

Well saying saying different people have different ethics or sense of fair game play and using the death penalty as an example Im not sure is relevant. Comparing apples to oranges. But the difference between those who find killing people a crime but in the same token believe in the death penatly, a word comes to mind: hypocrite. Therefore making themselves too morally corrupt to make comment anyways...laff

I have come to a conclusion reveiwing the responses to this thread. Ethics cannot be taught to those who have not examined the meaning and value of ethics to themself. Also, using ethics as a measure can be misunderstood as right to judge others. Of which this was not intended. And I guess that is why will have the "arbratary rules" and the continued violations of them.

And on the so-called various "definitions" on what constitutes good sportsmanship....well you have obviously never played a team sport. Otherwise you would realize how foolish that statement was. The first and most fundamental cornerstone of organized sports are the lessons GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP and FAIR play.

Again you must ask yourself...Is this something I would teach my kid?

Then of course there will be those who say hell yes! What can do about those people? Anwser that question and you will prob solve all the words problems.

To call a discussion on any topic as whinning....hum not sure how to respond to that, except that once you become older and real life experiences you discover that just become someone has differnt point of view than your own is NOT always whinning.

I never said anyone was morally superior....please reread the post.

And I never said anyone was perfect either. But I see no fault in striving for excellence and swimming above the pond scum!

Laff, I've played quite a few team sports. Using hands in soccer is considered unethical if you're the not the goalie, meanwhile in baseball it's all the rage. The only "ethics" that pervade both is when the other team stomps your face... you don't whine and cry about cheating or ethics, you go over and shake their hand and say "Good game."

Self-righteousness is not an ethic. A constant need to assume a moral highground is a moral weakness, IMO. It suggests a weakness of exactly that, ie: methinks thou dost protest too much. One man's values need not be another's, and there is no such thing as a unified "good" sense of ethics. Ethics are completely subjective, across time and culture. Every game has it's own sense of sportsmanship and "fair play." And every player has their own sense of what is fair within those bounds. That's why there are rules, to keep play according to the defined spirit of the game.

IMO, fairness is a weakness. Life isn't fair, in any way shape or form. Some things may cross the line of gamesmanship, those that don't are fair enough.

So anyway, who exactly are all these paragons of TW virtue you were talking about earlier?

I was just pointing out the definition of mega-corping. We beat this to death a short while ago when a trader used another corp to moth for them. And if it is not against the rules where the game is then it becomes a viable tactic. Maybe not a savory tactic but a viable one none the less.

What matters are the server rules. Go to Vulcan's and Mega Corping is against the rules, go to Outpost and it is not against the rules.

As you said though, there can only be one winner.

As far as this example goes, its a moot point. If a corp gets found then they gotta move or die, regardless of who finds them or what the finder does with the info.

Cerne

Very Well stated....I had to Quote this so i could reference it in the future.

Well lets see the "paragons of TW virtue" your term not mine. I know no knowledge of anyone's virtue.

The players I have corp'd with or against that I thought were honorable are as follows:

Jhereg
Overkill
Tweety
xide
Jerry
Diddy
Animal


Those are just a few off the top you might have known or heard of. And there are others not so well known. But to my knowledge they never resorted to what I call lame Butt tactics continually to win. They used hard work a lot of experimentation and a little luck!

And at no point have I stated that blowing of ports is broken rule. Or the saying of someones home sector over fed. BUT, in my "opinion" its lame. So is spamming people....LAME.

If I win I want it to be because I worked harder or made better decisions than the other teams. Not because I resorted to letting others do my dirty work or out right cheating to win. I realize that is not important to some, but to me it is.

Dude it was dealt with at the time. Peeps involved admitted it and sent regrets. Ceo of second corp knows all about it and dealt with his corpie as he saw fit. No real harm was done. This has been all out in the open from 5 minutes after it happened so. Either you didnt know it was going on or were not told it was. You will have to take that up with your CEO. Pretending it did not go on after open confessions to it is moot.