 |
|
Frank Johnson
|
 |
Houston, TX
Jan 1970 time: 23:12
|
|
I don't care. Put me on the cross, theres a good chance that none of you never dropped a game, or have sent me a despute in gameleague to try and settle, etc. With all the trash people are trying to dig up on me, you'd think I was running for president.
I have a despute, its basis is legitmate. My ally was subbed out for a vital turn of combat, and some how in his infinate wisdom ignored all treaties and instead attacked me. As soon as my ally returned the next turn to find me devistated, my governmwent gone, my wonders gone, bribed......he tried to really with me.......
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frank Johnson
|
 |
Houston, TX
Jan 1970 time: 23:12
|
|
Like I said before, I was only starting this game on the belief that Easthaven wanted to play in it as well. I also was going to move it to another night than Thursday, so it would in no way interfere with EC's scenario if he continued it. In a 60-40 situation I don't think its fair to completely ignore the needs of the minority, but that is exactly what happened. There were also compromises set forward, which were also shot down by the opposition. They were determined to have their ill gotten scenario and I had no other choice but to leave, since playing futher in such a scenario had no meaning.
I went into the session telling EC that I would not under any circumstances continue the session and only to discuss the changes that should be made. If EC some how thought that I was going to go along this tainted scenario by having my 3 opponenets vote on the fact they liked by empire better trashed and me being a slave to a box in a game which had no honor or meaning, he was greatly mistaken.
EC professed he knew exactly what Easthaven would do. He said he'd choose randomly. I'd really like to see where he said that. He told me that he was mad at EC for declaring war on him and he was just going to bowl him over. I wasn't interested in the majority, because the majority was only interested in that they benefited from the sub, not if the sub was proper in the situation.
EC should have opposed any sub, because subs MUST follow the prior agreements the last player made, just as EC has said many times before, espically in a game of this length and magintude. When the sub entered I thought I was getting a freebie, because the only option open to the sub was to follow the precident of the treaties set before him, at least for a reasonable period of time. I can't say with any certainty why EC allowed his rule "subs must follow the prior players treaties" in the situation above, but as soon as Easthaven came back........oh booooy.......was he ever heavy handed about making sure that was in place.
Basicly, I'm done compromising with those players. If they want to play that scenario fine. There's no honor left in it, its not a true representation of anything. To continue it, in the end means nothing.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KhanMan
|
|
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:12
|
|
After carefully reading the above posts, it appears that Frank started this game as a statement against the other players, and not as a genuine wish to play. That said, I do not wish to be a pawn in petting bickering and hair pulling, so I won't be playing in either this game, or the other one, or any diplomacy games, until all the players involved learn to play with more respect.
-KhanMan
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|