 |
Is this acceptable? (3 Days)
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
17 |
51.52% |
| No |
   |
16 |
48.48% |
| Total: |
33 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I voted yes.
But I don't understand why we can't just teleport the units without them attacking first, as that IIRC is the major rub. Of course, that would probably be better for GWT, as now instead all will fall back to aginct, waterloo and dig in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Replaying turns is dumb. I do not want to set a precedent for this.
I voted 'no' because I'm confident we can find an alternative solution. The teams that are threatening to quit are bluffing, IMO.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Which would be what?
|
1. Call GWT's bluff on quitting.
2. Allow the teleport but not the attacks.
3. Disallow the teleport, but instate a 3-turn ceasefire between GWT and CGN.
I think #2 is perfectly reasonable. In fact, CGN and certain members of this team are being wholly unreasonable in arguing that "attack-and-teleport" is in the same league as just "teleport". Remember, we're the ones trying to ban teleporting, so arguing that something even more exploit-ish is okay comes off as hypocritical (I'm not even sure what our stance is anymore: it seems like we're very happy to use teleporting because it saves CGN's bacon, despite our distate for teleporting in general).
Who cares if GCA might have done the attack-and-teleport on us? It's not like that move alone caused us that much harm. Conceding this very minor bit of unfairness is worth it to ban an exploit we all dislike, not to mention keep the game going.
So, I think we should be working with CGN to convince them that attacking before they teleport is out of the question. Given that we're the one that proposed and helped them execute this plan, I see no reason for them not to listen to us.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I guess you're on CGN's side then.
By allowing a move that we're planning to ban, I think GWT is giving a little. By not allowing attack-and-teleport, CGN's gives a little. Why is that not enough?
If all the other teams got together and told us that Palace-jumping should not be allowed, would we threaten to quit? Would we expect to get our way because "it's been our strategy all along"? Would we not be willing to compromise even a little? And would it not be our fault for not asking about this exploit at the UN before incorporating it into our strategy? Just because we voted within our team that Palace-jumps are ok (with or without mongoose's presence) does not mean the rest of the world will agree. I would rather reveal our "super secret strategy" and potentially compromise it's impact than have to deal with teams that threaten to quit.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dejon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OPD
On what basis do you say that?
Why is there no such thing as an acceptable reasons to break that rule?
Is it not enough that the parties concerned think it's the best thing to do?
Trying to make a point over this would be cutting off your nose to spite your face? |
Easy enough - because it sets a dangerous precedent. Even with consensus in this game, it could affect other DGs..."Well, we allowed replaying in the ISDG due to a rule-change mid-game..."
I believe you should make the rules at the start of a game and stick to them, failing that you have an administrator or council make mid-game decisions and follow them from that point on.
That's just the way I feel about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
We've already replayed turns in this game. See: the fort all controversy
also we've had to replay turns in the PTWDG due to bugs and assorted problems.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2004 22:10
|