 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001 time: 22:18
|
|
It's only a few more turns at most till the UN vote. Or a UN vote can be held here if all the remaining teams in the game are agreeable and don't want to play it out. This game was 2+ years of dedication from many people, why stop short of the finish line now?
-------------
Now that GS is no more, here's my personal opinion about shared victory:
A game is about setting victory conditions, rules of play, and factions before the game starts, then having those factions compete within those rules to achieve victory. While the rules weren't defined in many cases and that lead to some problems, the teams and victory conditions were defined. We set victory conditions for this game before it started, shared victory wasn't one of them. We set teams for this game before it started, NGoWD wasn't one of them. One team, one victory. That's what the game is.
Personally, I will only view the team that achieves that victory as the winner. GoW and ND can't both win in my estimation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Aeson
It's only a few more turns at most till the UN vote. Or a UN vote can be held here if all the remaining teams in the game are agreeable and don't want to play it out. This game was 2+ years of dedication from many people, why stop short of the finish line now?
-------------
|
I agree completely
quote:
Now that GS is no more, here's my personal opinion about shared victory:
A game is about setting victory conditions, rules of play, and factions before the game starts, then having those factions compete within those rules to achieve victory. While the rules weren't defined in many cases and that lead to some problems, the teams and victory conditions were defined. We set victory conditions for this game before it started, shared victory wasn't one of them. We set teams for this game before it started, NGoWD wasn't one of them. One team, one victory. That's what the game is.
Personally, I will only view the team that achieves that victory as the winner. GoW and ND can't both win in my estimation. |
Well, I respect your personal opinion but I frankly disagree. The rules were never changed, simply two teams decided to ally permanently. Nothing would have changed if ND and GoW simply had a normal alliance up to this point and then decided that we just didn't want to fight each other. Moreso I kinda note that some of you imply that this was ND and GoW's plan all along, which it wasn't, it was borne out of the necessesity of long-term cooperation against two teams we felt could eventually kick our ass individually. Thus, under our logic, a split victory was better than no victory.
Like I mentioned before, GS and Lego never thought of it this way because the historical context of the game never likely made you think that. Lego certainly thought they could win normally, and that thought must have also crossed GS's mind too. So please, don't blame us if the circumstances forced us to consider a decision which was not on your own minds.
Last and with all due respect, your personal decision on who won and who didn't is yours and yours alone. When one team wins the UN vote and you wish to consider that team the lone winner, so be it, I won't argue. What I can say is that no matter who wins technically, no member of GoW or ND will ever claim victory for their team alone, and the official position of both will be that we are both co-winners. Ultimately Trip has the final word on what is legal and what isn't and he's known about the shared victory since we signed it because we sent him a copy of the pact.
In conclusion, no-one will argue who your personal winner is, but in our view, we both won, and we won't change this because of what one person or one team thinks.
-MZ
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Aeson
You quoted my personal opinion. Address what I said if you are quoting it. Don't quote me and then respond to something else being said. Is that concept really that difficult to understand?
|
I quoted your personal opinion and said that I felt some of you people (you, other GSers and Legolanders) thought that GoW and ND had been allied since god knows when. Moreso I am quite at liberty to mention whatever I want, whenever I want even if the base quote I'm refering to is yours yet not everything I want to say is a response to you. 
quote:
I figured GoW and ND had an agreement in place to be the last two teams in the game, from before the first Bobian war, but wasn't sure. I never thought GoW or ND would have accepted a "shared victory" though. Your announcement suprised me in that regard. I certainly didn't imply you signed a shared victory pact at any point in time before you announced you had signed a shared victory pact.
|
Read carefully what I wrote: "I kinda note that some of you imply..." That is a personal perception that can be right or wrong. I felt you implied it, you say otherwise, so my perception was wrong.
quote:
That means it is my personal opinion. Which is exactly how I qualified my comment, as my personal opinion. By that, could I possible have meant that it was my personal opinion? Are you trying to imply that I don't realize my personal opinion is my personal opinion?
You're the one confusing "personal" with "group" here, not I. |
What on earth does that have to do with what we're discussing? I am answering your post with my own interpretations of things, not with affirmations on the way you or your team thinks. If you want to clear up my erroneous assumptions or implications please do so but nowhere have I stated that your opinion is that of someone else's.
-MZ
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|