2

This post has been edited by MoS. on Thu - Nov 28 2013 - 22:17:57

my goal in that game was to hope that joe and mac were going to bottom up before me, and since i had a marginally larger stack of cash (read: clearly CASH FLOW), i'd be able to buy up some properties once they bankrupted

anyway, we had a disagreement at a fundamental level of our game play, i.e. we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, you however decided to take it to the next level and want to be a dick about it; if you want to hold onto some feelings that i am the ultimate douche bag, then by all means, continue to do so, but i'll do my best to try and prove otherwise

i am very sorry that we all couldn't have had a better game play experience, but for you to say that i ruined your game (that you won), please, reflect upon yourself and realize how miserable you made mine as well

happy thanksgiving,
cheers,
nick

rematch let me brace you

what are you guys even going on about

moral of the story
john wanted nick to make a trade that greatly benefited john and kinda benefited nick. john didnt like nicks approach to the game (aka was mad he couldnt get boardwalk), and was continually telling nick he was dumb.
nick has never been one to just clearly respond to being badgered so things escalated.
in the end nick caved, john got boardwalk, no one landed on mine or macs properties, we both landed on boardwalk though.

still the top dog

im still stuck on how trading him park place (when he has boardwalk) for 2 red properties(when i have the third) is kinda beneficial

the only way that was justified was "nobody ever lands on boardwalk and parkplace"

am i really the only one who heard "im clearly accepting trades because i cant possibly win anyway, im happy to just go bankrupt"

the "cant win" part is whats disputed. nick thought mac and i would go broke from overextending, you thought action needed to be taken immediately.

and yet my net worth is better than you're

goddamn im the best

no, those words actually came out of nicks mouth
it was his opinion to surrender

who cares, really

what i mean is, nick said something irrational. he knew it, but you just really wanted his property so it became something more than it should have been. in the end you win bro, fuck boardwalk.

and you won, so maybe nick was right

monopololy tactics

so made

if he took park place 15 turns earlier when we should have traded, he would have owned that

i won because i had nothing to buy for many turns while i was getting cash from rr's, then he decided to give me boardwalk instead of me giving him parkplace

til joe doesnt understand this argument either

i dont want to put any additional effort to win, because i think i have a bad chance to win right now, and would rather clearly put forth any effort and lose, so i can deflect the disappointment of a loss on the fact that i never really tried in the first place, so it was okay and clearly my fault

/nick

in every online game

how the exact same situation would unfold if we were playing risk

mac has all of north america and south america
i have all of europe
nick has all of africa
joe has all of asia and australia

turns are going by without any action, mac and joe are getting more armies per turns than me and nick
i ask nick to help attack into asia so it stops joes continent bonus
nick responds "joe has too many guys there, i wouldnt be able to beat him, im just gonna stay in africa until i lose, this game was bullshit at the start, i got screwed out of picking the right territories"
i cant win asia by myself, nick isnt participating is directly hurting my chances to win, and for no reason other than he doesnt want to try to win and come up short, he would rather clearly try so he can use that as justification for losing


does no one else understand this

i read nothing in this toilet, im an instigator

This made it to page 2?

i dont play monopoly unless there is a board i can flip when i lose*


*i dont actually ever lose

i don't know if i am just better at understanding cash flow than some people or what, but it was pretty evident after a handful of turns what was happening



"should have traded" -- according to YOU

there is no sort of contractual, legal, binding agreement, whatsoever, that i have to trade you to help you beat me



now you're just making up things to suit your own biased dislike of me

i've never lost at risk, this has been documented over the years here



basically, my fault though, i should have just muted and clearly responded to the poop, lesson learned, i obviously just have to treat randomtask's poops like i do with evan's

[edit]starting now

This post has been edited by MoS. on Fri - Nov 29 2013 - 23:59:51

I should've stopped reading this 40 messages ago, it's like a t.v. drama that ran 2 seasons longer than it should've.

i accidentally turned on a soap opera on wednesday
there was a wedding, and a crying chick on the ledge of a bell tower
the bell rang, she fell into the bay, and screamed "REALLY!"
it was horrible

4.5 million for baltic avenue, horseshit

the first monopoly of the game is worth way more than we are selling it for

ton8 i win, and it was clearly close

both games were absolute landslides for the winners

losers awarded 0 tokens, possibly should have been banned from pogo

let me brace you

still dont know what this means

tits or gtfo

dem feelz brah, dem feelz