contact
April 19, 2019, 10:35:33 PM

Author Topic: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert  (Read 3331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QuinnDexter

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2011, 06:00:52 PM »
Quote from: "andy nard1"

1) reduce time and hydro...utterly ignorant of the game...the hydro is fully spent when attacks is launched
2) There is no such obligation, is called courtesy

You and others players that play this game style thing that everybody is hating each other in this game, in fact is just a game where we try to destroy each other ships (no each other). You do not see fellow players around...but just enemies that you must hate just because are playing a game and most of the times outplay you.
I always thank who notifies me that he is online, it is a nice form of interacting among players.


much better put...

and that interaction often leads to good buddies, sometimes it may lead to GA's or GD's even the joining of alliances. This enhances the game for those individuals
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Athena

  • Member
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2011, 06:30:38 PM »
Wow, this is an interesting look into the thought process of some of y'all.  Gotta agree with Grumm though.
I will NOT play to accommodate my enemies.  
I will NOT be courteous to attackers if I don't feel like it.
I will often Fleetsave at the last minute, the last possible second. . .it is fun to see if I can leave them as close to zero as possible.
I may ninja, that is fun too.
While I am lovely to chat with, and flirt shamelessly, I will often not return messages (or phone calls) promptly, but rather, when it is convenient for myself to do so, if then.

Some of the people in this thread strike me as part of a fan club, of sorts.  So looks like Josh has got himself a bunch of groupies.

The exchange, the dialogue in the initial post . . . I suspect we are only getting pieces of the convsation, however, must say if a player spoke with me that way, with attitude like that, Josh Honey, I would be likely to nuke them too.  LOL

Profit is the name of the game, yes, absolutely, but sometimes satisfaction is too fun to resist. :D
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
............................................................................................. Kiki .............................................................

Offline Sid82

  • Member
  • Posts: 3256
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2011, 06:33:56 PM »
Don't think of it as giving the attacker a courtesy, think of it as saving yourself the losses to your defenses and the hassle of being hunted for a last second FRS. In the long run you save yourself a lot more by letting an attacker know you are on-line than you do by trying to make that attacker get 0 res from the attack.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"LHDR\"
Quote from: \"Sid82\"
-1 don\'t need a reason other than this is a stupid idea
Quote from: \"LHDR\"
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds."~Albert Einstein
doesn\'t work when idea IS stupid
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8493

Offline AKA Morat

  • Member
  • Posts: 150
  • No more Mr. Nice but argumentative guy.
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2011, 06:50:44 PM »
Wow. It always surprises me, though it really shouldn't by now.

Let's see.... In no particular order...

I don't have any defenses. I believe I mentioned that before, so it cost me nothing to let the attacks go through. Anyone probing and seeing no defences, no combat ships and a fully stocked missile silo on each planet should have a clue what's likely to be in his immediate future.

The assumed etiquette of notifying an attacker. That has been discussed repeatedly, and opinions go both ways. Some say they appreciate it, others say it annoys them. Personally I could give a flying monkeys what the attacker thinks. I'll notify or not as I see fit, depends on the Uni and the situation. In practice, I normally do notify as a courtesy, though it seems to me if the attacker is too lazy to watch for activity then it's not up to me to do his job for him. Incidentally, JC attacked a neighbor of mine yesterday, was notified by the defender that he was online, and he went through with the attack anyway. Makes any argument about notification a little specious. I'll come back to that in a moment.

Zov, I wonder if people in general who aren't motivated by personal gain annoy you? Or is it only in games? Or specifically THIS game?

Leebelee, I DID answer JCs messages. One was sent while I was offline, the second within a couple of minutes of my coming online. I liken that to not answering my phone, then the moment the caller sees me by the phone he calls again. He's already left a message, but can't wait for the reply. It's annoying and assumes that I have nothing else to do except reply, hence the tenor of my first response.

Actually, I'm not pissed, and I wasn't slagging JC off. The only parts of my post that weren't verbatim were what I was thinking in reply to his messages. And as for lack of respect, nard, I laugh in your general direction. Respect is earned, not given. There has been nothing in any of my conversations with JC that would earn him my respect, quite the opposite as I believe the OP amply demonstrates.

Lame. <sigh> That word keeps popping up. That and the 'I've been here longer than you so I know better, and you'll understand when you grow up' crap. Oh, and the 'I've never seen you post on the board before, so you must be a n00b' attitude. There's a very small but very vocal number of players (relative to the total active players) who consider themselves the elite of SFC. They've been playing a long time, sure, and they're often highly ranked, no doubt about it, but they have an attitude that sucks big, fat, green donkey dicks. Arrogant, overbearing, egotistic and downright rude. Not everyone highly ranked, obviously. Just the self-appointed 'this is how you should play' brigade. I think of them as the other end of the same spectrum of players who, when you blow their fleet up, send you a pile of verbal abuse, nuke your MAC and quit. Better at playing the game, obviously, and better at controlling their temper, but cut from the same cloth.

Here's an example from this thread...

Quote from: "andy nard1"
1) reduce time and hydro...utterly ignorant of the game...the hydro is fully spent when attacks is launched

We all know the H is spent when the attack is launched, everyone that has posted here. But you couldn't resist throwing in the 'utterly ignorant' could you? I read the post as referring to attacks that have not yet been launched, and wouldn't be launched if the attacker knew the defender was online, but were launched pointlessly as the defender WAS online but the attacker didn't notice activity. Seems obvious in retrospect, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity, if you've all been playing so long, you're so wise, and there's things that 'everyone' accepts as the best way to do something (say, the notification if attacked), how come there isn't an etiquette guide in the wiki? Could it be because you can't agree on it? Or you enjoy saying the same tired old crap over and over? It would even help you out by reducing those desperately annoying fruitless attacks.

Incidentally, I've been playing SFC for a year in various Unis, of which I spent 1 week total in diplo due to RL, I have pretty respectable ranks and I've been reading the boards for months. I haven't posted before because of exactly the attitude I mention above. I've no desire or patience for a slanging match or a 'mine is bigger than yours' competition. I interact with players, and have friends in many alliances. I'd already had interaction with JC in this Uni, which is how I ended up on his buddy list. Everything else in the OP follows from him wondering who I was.

I did forget to mention that JC de-buddied me after the first conversation.

And that IS the entire conversation, the only thing changed was the planet coordinates and nothing was omitted.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Bravicus

  • Member
  • Posts: 1293
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2011, 07:00:02 PM »
Odd little juxtaposition here, on the one hand you have Quinn (Joshua Calvert) who is playing the game seriously (I don't mean that he isn't having fun just that he is trying to win.  On the other hand you have The Unsightly Blemish who (by his own admission) is not playing the game seriously.  Obviously there is a little bit of culture clash.

Personally I don't think either one is really out of bounds with what they did (though the nuking is a little vindictive imo).

Now speaking about courtesy and the protocol of the game, I don't think it is the defender's duty to pm the attacker and tell him that he is on and will fleetsave.  In fact a great deal of those messages tend to be rather annoying, their tone basically saying "neener-neener-neener".  I have always felt that if the attacker wants to know whether the defender is on the attacker should pm him something along the lines of:  

"You on?  let me know and I will recall.  Of course I understand if you are trying to ninja me but good luck with that =).  Either way no hard feelings."

That tends to get responses for me.  Of course when they don't respond to that and are on then I like to d-bash them. :twisted:
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Everything I say is likely a couple of years out of date

Offline Athena

  • Member
  • Posts: 890
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2011, 07:03:06 PM »
Wow, if that is the entire conversation then, yes, Joshua does seem a bit of an ass.  Maybe the pressure of trying to be number one in the game has gotten to him.  Maybe someone should point out that ranking this dearly in a universe is not really representative of how things will be, as most of us are still just building mines and researching, the real hits . . . The real play, will be coming soon, has started a bit, but is not there yet.  

So I say, Josh Honey, relax, grab a beer, watch the football game.  It is a good one so far!!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
............................................................................................. Kiki .............................................................

Offline QuinnDexter

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2011, 07:14:15 PM »
Quote from: "The Base"
Incidentally, JC attacked a neighbor of mine yesterday, was notified by the defender that he was online, and he went through with the attack anyway. Makes any argument about notification a little specious. I'll come back to that in a moment.

this is true, however if you talk to your neighbor you will find that after the attack, i appologised due to the fact i had at a very poor time not been able to be at the computer, so didnt see the message till after the attack had hit..

Courtesy does go both ways.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline AKA Morat

  • Member
  • Posts: 150
  • No more Mr. Nice but argumentative guy.
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2011, 07:30:14 PM »
Well put Bravicus. That's pretty much exactly what I do when attacking and I'm not sure if the defender is online or not. If he replies, I'll recall.

I only started an account in Uni2 to see how the mine production compared to the other Unis (I had no intention of playing it, but....), got repeatedly attacked for Helios while I was online, and decided enough was enough. I've had several friends I've introduced to SFC who've been hounded out of the game the moment they came out of newbie protection. Sure, FRS and all that, but Proms and nukes against Apollos? 6 times a day per attacker? How can someone new to the game even get started when there are players doing that? So my goal in Uni2X became to return the favor by nuking flat inconsiderate attackers, which I'd done twice before this. Obviously this isn't a viable long-term strategy, but it isn't intended to be. It's supposed to delay the attackers development in exactly the same way their attacks affect their targets. Hopefully, that might make them reconsider their playing style. I didn't really expect that I'd become a preferred target of the #2 rank just for last-minute FRS. That makes whatever behavior modification I've attempted seem particularly pointless, especially as almost all y'all are backing JC.

Athena, that was my point in posting in the first place. Well, OK, it was an excuse to say a bunch of stuff that needed to be said. :P

Yes indeedy, the 'apologize after the attack' gambit. That way you win all around - you get to destroy some defences so that you don't have to send as much next time and you get to say 'I would have recalled, but...'. I have no idea whether you were genuinely unable to recall or not, but I've used that, and I've seen it used plenty of times. I don't suppose you got to be #2 by being away from your computer when an attack hits very often.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

andy nard1

  • Guest
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2011, 07:40:45 PM »
@ The Base
Quote
And as for lack of respect, nard, I laugh in your general direction. Respect is earned, not given. There has been nothing in any of my conversations with JC that would earn him my respect, quite the opposite as I believe the OP amply demonstrates.

For what I have seen, you are the one that has a long way to go to earn any respect

Quote
We all know the H is spent when the attack is launched, everyone that has posted here. But you couldn't resist throwing in the 'utterly ignorant' could you? I read the post as referring to attacks that have not yet been launched, and wouldn't be launched if the attacker knew the defender was online, but were launched pointlessly as the defender WAS online but the attacker didn't notice activity. Seems obvious in retrospect, doesn't it?


from where on that post you can infer that the attacker was online before the attack was launched? I am not going in the details of attacking an active player because I will give away strategies that you do not deserve to know.

Quote
Out of curiosity, if you've all been playing so long, you're so wise, and there's things that 'everyone' accepts as the best way to do something (say, the notification if attacked), how come there isn't an etiquette guide in the wiki? Could it be because you can't agree on it? Or you enjoy saying the same tired old crap over and over? It would even help you out by reducing those desperately annoying fruitless attacks.

I said before you are a sore soul and you just find satisfaction in irritating other players, I am playing the game with a different attitude and you will not drag me in a discussion where I will just make you happy if I get irritated.

Quote
I did forget to mention that JC de-buddied me after the first conversation.


Quote
Yes indeedy, the 'apologize after the attack' gambit. That way you win all around - you get to destroy some defences so that you don't have to send as much next time and you get to say 'I would have recalled, but...'. I have no idea whether you were genuinely unable to recall or not, but I've used that, and I've seen it used plenty of times. I don't suppose you got to be #2 by being away from your computer when an attack hits very often.

So your omission from the conversation, which was the first post on this thread, made just to attack JC has to be accepted as an "innocent" mistake, while JC apologize is not sincere?
You are showing who you are really are, just confirming that I said on my previous posts.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 07:44:54 PM by andy nard1 »

Offline QuinnDexter

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2011, 07:41:25 PM »
Quote from: "The Base"
Yes indeedy, the 'apologize after the attack' gambit. That way you win all around - you get to destroy some defences so that you don't have to send as much next time and you get to say 'I would have recalled, but...'. I have no idea whether you were genuinely unable to recall or not, but I've used that, and I've seen it used plenty of times. I don't suppose you got to be #2 by being away from your computer when an attack hits very often.


I just lost interest in this conversation, its obviouse you have a hate on, and even when presented with a plain varyfiable truth will find an argument to make it look like a lie...


Have fun, and may God go with you
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline AKA Morat

  • Member
  • Posts: 150
  • No more Mr. Nice but argumentative guy.
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2011, 08:05:23 PM »
Quote from: "andy nard1"
For what I have seen, you are the one that has a long way to go to earn any respect

I'm neither interested in, nor desirous of your respect.

Quote from: "andy nard1"
from where on that post you can infer that the attacker was online before the attack was launched? I am not going in the details of attacking an active player because I will give away strategies that you do not deserve to know.

May I assume you mean the defender? The attacker has to be online to launch the attack.
My point was that I took the inference I did as it seemed to me the most likely one, and grants the poster knowledge of how the game works. On the other hand, your inference assumes the ignorance of the poster, which is exactly why I chose it as an example. You even managed to add on another assumption about my lack of knowledge.


Quote from: "andy nard1"
I said before you are a sore soul and you just find satisfaction in irritating other players, I am playing the game with a different attitude and you will not drag me in a discussion where I will just make you happy if I get irritated.

And this is in reply to my asking why there isn't an etiquette guide, which would be in everyone's interest? Are we reading the same thread?

Quote from: "andy nard1"
Quote:
I did forget to mention that JC de-buddied me after the first conversation.


Quote:
Yes indeedy, the 'apologize after the attack' gambit. That way you win all around - you get to destroy some defences so that you don't have to send as much next time and you get to say 'I would have recalled, but...'. I have no idea whether you were genuinely unable to recall or not, but I've used that, and I've seen it used plenty of times. I don't suppose you got to be #2 by being away from your computer when an attack hits very often.


So your omission from the conversation, which was the first post on this thread, made just to attack JC has to be accepted as an "innocent" mistake, while JC apologize is not sincere?
You are showing who you are really are, just confirming that I said on my previous posts.

Quote from: "QuinnDexter"
I just lost interest in this conversation, its obviouse you have a hate on, and even when presented with a plain varyfiable truth will find an argument to make it look like a lie...

Where have I attacked JC? I posted a conversation between us, and added my thoughts to it. I admit to expecting a lot better of a high ranked player, and I confess that if he was ranked #1500 I wouldn't have given it a second thought or posted it here. That's the point. Also, I didn't say JC was not sincere. I cast doubt on his sincerity, sure, as regardless of what he says above there's no way I can verify that he was AFK when that attack hit. After all, what reason would he have for recalling an attack where he loses nothing? We're going 'round in circles.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Elvis Perlsly

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2011, 10:32:47 PM »
Remember when Aaron Moon ruled the universe?

ah... those were the days.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Extreme 2: Evil Spock Elvis (UFP officer) current rank: 139 dsp:54
Moons Given: 10
Moons Owned: 7
Rage quits: 1
Is better to live one day as a lion, than a hundred as a sheep.

Offline Aaria.moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 2463
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2011, 11:22:39 PM »
Quote from: "Elvis Perlsly"
Remember when Aaron Moon ruled the universe?

ah... those were the days.

What's that supposed to mean  :twisted:
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
HONEYBEE MALES: DURING COPULATION THEIR BODY EXPLODES APART LIKE GRENADE; GENITALIA HAS HOOKS AND SPINES AND IT WEDGES INTO FEMALE AND SEALS HER OPENING.

Offline Wargasm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2011, 05:07:54 AM »
Base, you can stop talking now.

Nuking people for attacking you when you're online is gay.  

Oh sure, I could do the same thing.  Yeah, lemme build silo 10's on all my planets (7) and just bunny hop 2 MAC's with 50 Gaias just for the purpose of evading fresh parses so I can nuke you because you're "too stupid to see that I'm online".

You talk of skill and respect, yet you look down upon people who attack a [purposefully] undefended planet for resources and nuke them, and even feel the need to bring it public.  One of the most pathetic public showings of immaturity I've yet to see.

What was your purpose of this post?  To accuse JC of cheating?  To publicly humiliate someone being "so big and bad" yet they're still "Reduced" to farming?  Crying because he attacked a buddy?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Sid82

  • Member
  • Posts: 3256
    • View Profile
Re: A Conversation With #2 Joshua Calvert
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2011, 06:23:46 AM »
you know, I had to laugh at this:

Quote
I know, big whoop-de-doo. But it's the PRINCIPLE that counts. Big bad #2 threatening lowly #227, who isn't even TRYING to defend himself, just because his attack didn't pan out and he lost some debris from his first attack.

You say that like there is a huge difference between a rank #2 and a rank #227...I might understand your thoughts on that if you were say ranked 20k and he was ranked 2 but yeah.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Quote from: \"LHDR\"
Quote from: \"Sid82\"
-1 don\'t need a reason other than this is a stupid idea
Quote from: \"LHDR\"
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds."~Albert Einstein
doesn\'t work when idea IS stupid
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8493