After the opening duel, the opponent found that he was in a weak position, so he just left the game =_=, can't they finish the game~"~?
For those uninformed, Monfils started dancing around while waiting to receive at a critical stage in Isner's service game early in the second set. The umpire warned him, Monfils continued to do this for four or five consecutive points. Isner understandably looked pissed and as a result gave away break points, Monfils' first BPs in the match. After the game, the umpire gave him a code violation.
This gamesmanship isn't unusual for Monfils. I can remember back a few years, he would turn on really loud grunts on and off (like from screaming to silence) at critical points in matches. He also has a habit of bending over double, acting completely gassed after a point, then miraculously running at top speed across the court the very next point.
I mean, I like Monfils, he's great entertainment. But surely I'm not the only one who's noticed this behaviour through his career? It should be called out more.
I want to get the general feeling of a player changing their character in the middle of a campaign.
Just read a good post about the gamesmanship skill in regards to attackers. Im not sure what it does for defenders, can someone please explain and is it worth it to get for defenders?
Dodgers did the same thing to the Giants in game 4, I think it was.
Note to Dodgers: Walker Buehler needs more than 3 days rest.
Deepa,
Thanks for the call today. You asked on the call whether Netlist is willing to agree to Google’s motion to amend to the
extent Google seeks to add intervening rights as a defense.
Before Netlist can agree, the parties need to resolve the issue of Google’s “8-rank” and “16-rank” DIMMs. We believe
they have been accused. You believe they have not been accused. Google filed an intervening rights motion that did not
include these products. It appears that Google is now attempting to avoid this defect by amending its complaint to add
an intervening rights defense beyond what it is its motion for summary judgment. We need to understand Google’s
position on this. Separately, if Google will not provide intervening rights discovery on these products we will need to file
a letter brief with the magistrate. We have discussed this on a live meet and confer already, and so we will prepare a
letter brief.
Thanks,
Andrew
https://ir.stockpr.com/cytodyn/sec-filings-email/content/0001193125-21-298902/d164303ddefa14a.htm
The Court determined that the nomination notice was deficient in at least two key respects: • CCTV and Supporters: “The Board rejected the Nomination Notice, in part, because it failed to disclose the existence of CCTV, which was founded by Rosenbaum and collected donations to support the proxy fight… Plaintiffs were obliged to identify their supporters. This was vitally important information; the Board was not nitpicking when it flagged the omission as material and ultimately disqualifying. … Yet Plaintiffs elected to say nothing of supporters, preferring instead to withhold the information….” • IncellDx: “The Board legitimately suspected that Patterson and others were keen on revisiting the failed attempt to combine IncellDx and CytoDyn. … For Plaintiffs not to appreciate the presence of that elephant in the room reflects either reckless indifference or deliberate gamesmanship… [E]vidence clearly reveals that such a transaction was at least being contemplated by the IncellDx insiders and Rosenbaum. [An] email chain reveals that Patterson continues to believe that a merger would be in the best interests of both companies; he writes: “it HAS to happen solely because of our IP. We haven’t made a big deal about it because we view the 13D as an opportunity to bring this together in a 1+1=3 scenario.” In yet another email, Patterson declares, “The takeover is starting!,” and then explains, “Yes this is the beginning of getting the deal I sent to you consummated!!”
I have a Historical Fiction/Novelized History ms. that I have completed three developmental edits (approx. 110K). I was hoping to have some fresh sets of eyes to ensure the story is captivating, the narrative moves without dragging, fictional characters are developed and supportive of the story lines, and has the correct level of detail not to kill the pace without being confusing due to missing info. The story focuses on the growth of the Secret Service as it expands into international espionage and the historical detail that occurred at the same time (1901), including the development of the Holland class of submarines, international expansion into submarine development, the McKinley assassination, Roosevelt’s rise to power, international tensions with Kaiser Wilhelm, and the racial bias and tensions of the time impacting James Benjamin Parker (actual person), an African American who was instrumental in the capture of McKinley’s assassin, although not recognized for it at the time. I've provided a google docs link to the prologue and the first two chapters for your review to see if it is something you would like to beta read.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jR5D-j8ZQhkKxMMabt1PrqBPHY7TuUHD2k1fgPb3JsE/edit?usp=sharing
Missed the game last night so I've only been watching the clips. As a Nats fan, I naturally thought that mid-inning check was just poor sportsmanship. It's so blatantly clear that Joe was just abusing the rules to mess with Max's game. Girardi even said in the presser that he had never suspected Max of cheating. So his logic is 1) the dude has never cheated before, 2) on the day when everyone knows umps are checking, and 3) after having already checked twice in 3 innings, he suspects Max is up to no good and decides to check mid-inning? That's just plain stupid.
Jumped onto r/baseball, while the general consensus is the same, I was absolutely shocked by people saying it's ok because it's gamesmanship. Saw repeatedly the comparison with "icing the kicker." I just don't get it; it's not the same thing. People are saying Girardi operated within his rights given the rules, but that seems to me just an excuse. Where's the line here between gamesmanship and poor sportsmanship?
I want to find a fiction or nonfiction book about political games. The back and forth, the strategizing, the manipulation.
I'd prefer American or English political, since I already understand those political systems, but any where, or time, with good stories would work.
Thanks
Just playing a game of Country Battle and saw a very effective, if not underhand move!
First round it immediately looked like the UK, but being the 1st round I looked around a bit. When the initial buffer finished the UK popped up in the incorrect column. I looked around a bit more then guessed Ireland, correct!
Then I looked at the incorrect guesses and there was the orange/white/green tricolour!? Someone had deliberately guessed Cote d'Ivoire to make it look like Ireland was wrong. Of the remaining 6 players only two got it right with two players getting their 50/50 wrong. I felt sympathy for these fellow GeoGuessrs.
It's one thing to learn bollards, power poles & Google Cars, but this is next level gamesmanship. Any other examples anyone experienced?
