New meaning to the term "Sore Loser".

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nightblade

Nightblade

When battling others, there are many quirks and annoying things other people do.

Some have gone as far as to call my team "utterly boring" because it had a snorlax on it. Some take 20 minutes to get on Wifi, some even disconnect on you; which is pretty trivial in the end since the wifi record is an invisible one.

Here's where things get interesting though: I agree to fight this guy; but neglect to notice he has an item clause in place.

So; we're fighting, and Im essentially beating him... VERY badly.

He brings out a gliscor, I bring out swampert, I go to waterfall him (at this point he has a porygonZ and gliscor left. I had light screen up), actually I switched in swampert, he aerial aces for infantile damage, I go to counter, no matter what he does; loses. But he complains about "You agreed to item clause."

Infact, here's the chat log.




[18:16] <Nightblade> Found someone?
[18:16] <OptimusPrimeape> not yet
[18:16] <OptimusPrimeape> no ubers sleep/item/evasion clauses
[18:16] <Nightblade> agreed
[18:16] <Nightblade> Night 0945 9103 0872
[18:17] <OptimusPrimeape> legends allowed, i dont have any, but if you do that's fine, just no ubers
[18:17] <Nightblade> I read the rules, we're in agreement
[18:17] <OptimusPrimeape> we are, i'll be on in a sec
[18:18] <Nightblade> I need your code.
[18:19] <OptimusPrimeape> oh, duh, 2234 3612 5968
[18:20] <Nightblade> let me know when you're ready
[18:21] <OptimusPrimeape> i'm on
[18:21] <OptimusPrimeape> and ready
[18:21] <OptimusPrimeape> i'll host
[18:32] <OptimusPrimeape> item clause
[18:32] <OptimusPrimeape> both zapdos and swampert have lefies
[18:32] <Nightblade> Ok, let me see if I udnerstand.
[18:32] <Nightblade> You think that actually has an impact in this particular fight?
[18:32] <OptimusPrimeape> doesn't matter, we agreed to it
[18:32] <Nightblade> I neglected to read that part, however it makes no difference in this current scenario
[18:32] <OptimusPrimeape> it doesn't matter, you read and said you agreed



Though I probably should have apologized, I was a bit annoyed about how he was making a big stink about something that made no difference in the end. Instead of disconnecting himself, or just running away; he is now leaving his DS on, not making a move, and I'm doing the same.

Of course, any normal person would shrug this off as a win, turn it off; and leave it at that. But part of me (most) of me is childish and doesnt want to give this guy the satisfaction.

Has anything like this been done to anyone before?
 
well 'sore losers' have nothing to fall back on if you give them nothing to fall back on. what could he have said if you just took lefties off one poke
 
Aeroblacktyl said:
well 'sore losers' have nothing to fall back on if you give them nothing to fall back on. what could he have said if you just took lefties off one poke
Click to expand...

There's plenty of things he could have done in that scenario. Disconnecting being the most common choice naturally; not that I really care about something like that.

He could have accused me of hacking.

Oh wait, maybe he could have called my team lame.

On another note, what exactly is the item clause supposed to prevent; if I might ask?
 
probably variety and no nothing like this has ever happened to me since i agree with the persons rules and actually read the rules the person tells me.
 
Same here. I'm contemplating why people disconnect in the first place, don't battle me if you plan to disconnect if you lose. I had someone flame me because my Quick Claw activated (lolz, was still somewhat noob) knocking out his Ninjask before he can Baton Pass.
​
 
WuddleBlock said:
Same here. I'm contemplating why people disconnect in the first place, don't battle me if you plan to disconnect if you lose. I had someone flame me because my Quick Claw activated (lolz, was still somewhat noob) knocking out his Ninjask before he can Baton Pass.
​
Click to expand...

A lot of people consider quick claw a banned item since it relies on luck, and can change the outcome of a fight dramatically.
 
I hate people like that. The same people that see Celebi on my team and quit the battle only when they start losing.

But honestly, just exit the battle. Does it really matter to you to give this person 'satisfaction'? You're just as childish as him/her otherwise.
 
On another note, what exactly is the item clause supposed to prevent; if I might ask?
Click to expand...

Item clause is there just to have something else for people to think about when they are creating their teams, and also to force people to be a bit more creative, since it's probably possible to make a winning team with all leftovers, but I guess some people find that that would get boring.
 
Nightblade said:
A lot of people consider quick claw a banned item since it relies on luck, and can change the outcome of a fight dramatically.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, but nothing of that sort was mentioned, and he had the same thing as well. But anyways I don't see what's wrong with taking a loss, you get flamed by a whole community for being an arse on some occasions, and that's a shame. Especially when people put on that "badass" personality saying "That was nothing, I can beat you up and such" ._.
 
Nightblade said:
There's plenty of things he could have done in that scenario. Disconnecting being the most common choice naturally; not that I really care about something like that.

He could have accused me of hacking.

Oh wait, maybe he could have called my team lame.

On another note, what exactly is the item clause supposed to prevent; if I might ask?
Click to expand...

It's not supposed to really prevent anything as much as it is to promote diversity in one's item selection and their team in general.

That being said, you did agree to those rules. And you can't really say that he never mentioned Item Clause until he was losing because:

[18:16] <OptimusPrimeape> no ubers sleep/item/evasion clauses
[18:16] <Nightblade> agreed
[18:16] <Nightblade> Night 0945 9103 0872
[18:17] <OptimusPrimeape> legends allowed, i dont have any, but if you do that's fine, just no ubers
[18:17] <Nightblade> I read the rules, we're in agreement
[18:17] <OptimusPrimeape> we are, i'll be on in a sec
Click to expand...
Considering these words transpired pre-battle, due to the talk of "I'm getting on/I'll host" immediately following, this statement:

he also neglected to mention it until he was about to lose horribly.
Click to expand...
...holds no weight.

That being said, it isn't to say that your opponent is being mature about this. Then again, neither are you. You said you had read the rules, so you can't claim negligence. If you didn't read the rules or he didn't make himself clear, don't say "I understand" just for the hell of it. If you did, then why the hell did you not adhere to them? If you did read it, but the fact that Zapdos and Swampert both had Lefties was an accident, just apologize. Nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, and it makes you come out looking much more mature in the end.

You'd actually be surprised how much of a difference Lefties makes in a battle though (unless you were just bringing out Swampert for the first time), which is why it's considered such a good item. 3-Hit KOs could turn into 2-Hit KOs pretty easily. Depending on the circumstances, which I'm not claiming to know cause I don't know the entirety of your battle, having Leftovers on both Pokemon could've made a great deal of difference.

EDIT: Yikes, I'm really late, aren't I?
 
Though I probably should have apologized, I was a bit annoyed about how he was making a big stink about something that made no difference in the end. Instead of disconnecting himself, or just running away; he is now leaving his DS on, not making a move, and I'm doing the same.

Of course, any normal person would shrug this off as a win, turn it off; and leave it at that. But part of me (most) of me is childish and doesnt want to give this guy the satisfaction.

Has anything like this been done to anyone before?
Click to expand...

Any normal mature person IMO would surrender the fight and give him the win, because you broke the rules. The irony about this topic is that you're making a big stink of it and in fact, you are the loser in this situation. You broke item clause and thus are disqualified.

Just like Athletes who trip over the line in the 100 meter dash (if that ever happens)... it may not change the outcome of the race but they instantly lose in that case. If you can't play by the rules, don't agree to the rules.
 
I bet this was on serebii. I battle there sometimes, and though I do come across some good battlers, alot of them are just plain ol' ugh. They accuse me of hacks and i have to explain time after time that Ice shard hits first, or Choice Scarf 1.5x speed, etc. So, this does happen regularly, and I symphazie, but I just deal with it, because I did still win and children will be children (even if they're not). It was an accident on your part, i would say sorry just to get the hell out of there because i dont like wasting time fighting an immature person over the net( unless im rly po'd) but imo he shouldnt of made such a big deal over that
 
Thunderhorse said:
It's not supposed to really prevent anything as much as it is to promote diversity in one's item selection and their team in general.
Click to expand...

Usually clauses are in place to prevent people from taking advantage of poor game mechanics, sleep clause, evasion clause, etc. Kind of out of place; but whatever.

That being said, you did agree to those rules. And you can't really say that he never mentioned Item Clause until he was losing because:

Considering these words transpired pre-battle, due to the talk of "I'm getting on/I'll host" immediately following, this statement:
Click to expand...

I thought I made that painfully clear already. Why you see it fit to reiterate things I myself made known numerous times is beyond me.

...holds no weight.

That being said, it isn't to say that your opponent is being mature about this. Then again, neither are you. You said you had read the rules, so you can't claim negligence. If you didn't read the rules or he didn't make himself clear, don't say "I understand" just for the hell of it. If you did, then why the hell did you not adhere to them? IF it was a mistake, just apologize. Nothing wrong with admitting a mistake.
Click to expand...

It was simply an honest mistake, as item clause is so rarely encountered. I skimmed through his rules and didn't notice it in that cluster of slashes he put there. Apologizing probably wouldn't have made a difference, but I probably still should have did it.

The whole thing that gets me is why he

1: Waited until the last minute to point this out.

2: Tries to mantain some pathetic sense of pride by complaining about something that made no difference in the end.


Oh, and the disconnect happened a long time ago.
 
I don't think I've ever seen such a display of stupidity in one topic outside of Firebot. Sure, you probably would have won whatever Zapdos was holding, but you broke the rules, and whether or not it had any outcome on the fight, nevertheless you broke the rules. It doesn't take a genius to see whose fault that was. Also, if you're coming to Smogon expecting sympathy, you're not going to get it. Smogon's an intelligent community, and anyone with a quarter of a brain can see who's in the wrong here.
 
maybe he didnt realize until then, that you broke the clause. i also believe this thread is pointless. you will probably never admit you were wrong, your opponant is being a baby but so are you so get over it, its a game.
 
1: Waited until the last minute to point this out.
Click to expand...

He told you already. You agreed.

2: Tries to mantain some pathetic sense of pride by complaining about something that made no difference in the end.
Click to expand...

Lets have a little quote from your first post...

Of course, any normal person would shrug this off as a win, turn it off; and leave it at that. But part of me (most) of me is childish and doesnt want to give this guy the satisfaction.
Click to expand...

You admit to being childish. You admit to breaking the item clause. What more to this story is needed?
 
Callum said:
I don't think I've ever seen such a display of stupidity in one topic outside of Firebot. Sure, you probably would have won whatever Zapdos was holding, but you broke the rules, and whether or not it had any outcome on the fight, nevertheless you broke the rules. It doesn't take a genius to see whose fault that was. Also, if you're coming to Smogon expecting sympathy, you're not going to get it. Smogon's an intelligent community, and anyone with a quarter of a brain can see who's in the wrong here.
Click to expand...

I didnt come here expecting sympathy. I didn't even expect this to well recieved. It was my initial intention to start some kind of debate as to why this clause is in place in the first place; though I probably should have made that clearer.

believe me, sympathy is the last thing I'd expect from this place.
 
Nightblade said:
Usually clauses are in place to prevent people from taking advantage of poor game mechanics, sleep clause, evasion clause, etc. Kind of out of place; but whatever.
Click to expand...

It is in a way, but that's just how it is =/.

It was simply an honest mistake, as item clause is so rarely encountered. I skimmed through his rules and didn't notice it in that cluster of slashes he put there. Apologizing probably wouldn't have made a difference, but I probably still should have did it.
Click to expand...
There you go =). As you said, it probably wouldn't have made a difference, but it's still proper edicate (fuck, probably screwed up the spelling on this) to apologize for a misunderstanding. Just a simple "Hey man, sorry bout that. I didn't catch it when you had mentioned item clause before. My bad" and a simple bowing out. It probably wouldn't have made a bit of difference as you say, but you come off looking more mature than what had actually happened. At least I understand alot better where you're coming from now though, but apologizing would have been the better/more correct approach.

The whole thing that gets me is why he...

2: Tries to maintain some pathetic sense of pride by complaining about something that made no difference in the end.
Click to expand...
It could have. As I edited it in my first post earlier, depending on when/if you brought out Swampert prior to that, it could have made some sort of difference. And again, I'm not claiming to know how the battle transpired.
 
Nightblade said:
I didnt come here expecting sympathy. I didn't even expect this to well recieved. It was my initial intention to start some kind of debate as to why this clause is in place in the first place; though I probably should have made that clearer.

believe me, sympathy is the last thing I'd expect from this place.
Click to expand...
if you wanted a debate about that you should have said so in your first post. instead you end it with "has anything like this ever happen to you before?" meaning you most likely think your right
 
It's a game.

Edit: Also, I can be a sore loser sometimes, but only when I believe I lost unfairly. I just like to point out luck (hit with a crit, missed with a 80%+ accuracy attack, etc...).

If I lose fairly, I always congratulate their team. Also, if they have a unique idea, I always give them props.

AND for the record, I point out my luck and such too.
 
Sometimes, it's really hard not to be a sore loser. I mean, losing to critical hits, hits missing, paralysis, random freezing on vital switches. Ugh, I can't help but be bitchy sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top