23-02-2005 08:37									#271
	Tired of ads?

That's it, I'm joining Eventis.

	23-02-2005 09:01									#273
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Hooray for our uberfaction! Victory!

	23-02-2005 10:13									#274
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

a bit unfulfilling....

however, that's not too take anything away from the winners. Congrats.

	23-02-2005 11:17									#275
	Tired of ads?

Wow, you're a good sport. We rig the game with a gigantic uberfaciton and you don't complain.

	23-02-2005 12:11									#276
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I smell a rule change coming up, and I also wonder if the Uberfaction will take to the galaxy without its leader.

Tass, I applaud you for your sticking to the spirit of your ideology.

	23-02-2005 12:45									#277
	Got spare money?

The Uberfaction doesn't strike in every game. You never know who's going to be in it, or where it will appear next.

	23-02-2005 14:36									#278
	Put an end to popups!

Co-op victories have been ruled out for NW, so you should play on.

And fixing at other sites (if it is to rear its ugly head again - last time it nearly ruined FG) needs to be addressed IMO.

	23-02-2005 15:18									#279
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Co-op victories are not in the spirit of NW. Furthermore, the rest of the players played the game with the idea only one can win. Rules of a game, particularly the rule determining the winner, cannot be changed after the game has already started, because it puts most of the players in an unequal situation. If the vanquished players had known that co-op victories were allowed, they would have played differently from the beginning. They would have formed strong alliances and possibly won.

No, you must play it out until only one of you remains.

	23-02-2005 15:27									#280
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Did the USSR design all the flags of its satellites?

If you're referring to Yugoslavia (that is SFRJ = Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), we were never Russian satellites. In spite of our socialist (some would say communist) government we were not very fond of Russians because of their imperialism. We resisted them resolutely and nearly got invaded like Hungary in the process. The crises lasted from 1948 to 1953 when the Russians had amassed tanks on our border and all what was needed was Stalin’s order. It never came though, since Stalin died that year.

	23-02-2005 16:24									#281
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Allied victory? You wusses, an allied victory is not a victory at all

	23-02-2005 17:08									#282
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I don't mind playing on if a few other people playing the game (dead or alive) agree with playing on.

Last edited by Skanky Burns on 23-02-2005 at 17:26

	23-02-2005 17:13									#283
	Remove this text

quote: And fixing at other sites (if it is to rear its ugly head again - last time it nearly ruined FG) needs to be addressed IMO.

You will have to prohibit co-operation altogether, then. Another forum is simply a much easier way to arrange an alliance as opposed to PMs, nothing more, nothing less.

	23-02-2005 17:26									#284
	Got spare money?

I agree. It doesn't matter how the cooperation is discussed/communicated. PMs, email, another forum doesn't really matter.

I was unaware of the rule, written or unwritten, against an "allied victory" - but common sense does dictate that a formal rule should be adopted to avoid any future misunderstandings.

	23-02-2005 17:50									#285
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia You will have to prohibit co-operation altogether, then. Another forum is simply a much easier way to arrange an alliance as opposed to PMs, nothing more, nothing less.

Of course not. PM co-operation at 'Poly (an option open to everyone) is fine. A clique of players fixing games on another site is not.

I appreciate it's a tough distinction to draw, since the players involved could PM each other (slightly more laboriously) on 'Poly, but I've seen what happens to the forum games under the clique system and its ugly. I know I will not participate if it continues, and I'm sure others will feel similarly when they see the consequences.

	23-02-2005 17:55									#286
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner I agree. It doesn't matter how the cooperation is discussed/communicated. PMs, email, another forum doesn't really matter.

Well you weren't playing FG before; I wonder if you will feel similarly later. It's a tough distinction as I said, but the way PM alliances work acts as a natural constraint that yields the 'right' (my value judgement I accept) amount of co-operation for the games to function well for all players. I have played in virtually all the games so I speak from experience. Last time the fixing (Tassadar's word) was occuring was the lowest point in FG.

	23-02-2005 17:59									#287
	Suffering from ads?

I think the use of the words "fix" or "rig" or "clique" is derailing the discussion. It's an alliance that strives to win the game. If you want to ban alliances, then we can ban alliances. If you want to put a size limit on an alliance, let's do that. If you want to deny alliances that last from one game to the other, go right ahead. But I'd prefer we keep the terms straight.

	23-02-2005 18:02									#288
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Cooperation breeds cooperation. In GO, a faction formed and did well that game. The next game, a second faction formed and tilted the balance of power well away from the original faction. The GO game after that, balance was achieved (as well as mutual destruction).

And we should really define what we are talking about here, as Kassi stated above.

	23-02-2005 18:04									#289
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I didn't introduce the word fix.

I do not want to ban alliances. I want to ban alliances open only to certain players in the clique. Yes I introduced that word and it fits IMO.

I agree it's not immediately obvious why it's different than PM alliances, but it is in practice, as I explained in the last post.

	23-02-2005 18:07									#290
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Banning people from organising off-site is stupid and also rather difficult to police.

	23-02-2005 18:08									#291
	Support Apolyton

quote: I didn't introduce the word fix.

I know, but that doesn't mean we should keep using it.

quote: I do not want to ban alliances. I want to ban alliances open only to certain players in the clique. Yes I introduced that word and it fits IMO. I agree it's not immediately obvious why it's different than PM alliances, but it is in practice, as I explained in the last post.

So basically you want an artificial barrier on the efficiency of communication in order to limit the size and the extent of co-operation of an alliance?

Because the "only open to some" definition doesn't quite fly, the same people could just set up a "PM alliance" and keep anyone else from joining it.

	23-02-2005 18:11									#292
	Inflate your Upload Space

Skanky: All FG cheating is difficult to police. It doesn't matter - the games work on trust and if people want to cheat they always can. The vast majority of the time they do not.

I've explained why off-site organisining in open forums that only some posters post in is IMO damaging to the game. I appreciate it's subjective, and you are free to disagree, but if you understood it my point is not a stupid one.

	23-02-2005 18:13									#293
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Kass: PM alliances are potentially open to all players. Off site alliances are not.

As I've said repeatedly, I know my argument is not an easy one to accept, but if you were around FG during the last fixing period you'd know what I am talking about.

	23-02-2005 18:16									#294
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: the games work on trust and if people want to cheat they always can.

Not really, unless the GM is helping them. With the current way the rules are established, that is.

quote: I've explained why off-site organisining in open forums that only some posters post in is IMO damaging to the game. I appreciate it's subjective, and you are free to disagree, but if you understood it my point is not a stupid one.

The players who are left out of the alliance can, certainly, establish their own to counter it? Two large alliances, "teams" fighting it out might be interesting, and will strip away the certainty of an alliance winning making them less attractive as options, promoting smaller alliances or the removal of alliances altogether.

quote: Kass: PM alliances are potentially open to all players. Off site alliances are not.

This is just mucking about with semantics, an off-site alliance can also be potentially open to all players. I think your "it's better sportsmanship" argument is better.

I don't recall the last fixing period. Could someone summarize it for me somehow, so that I can decide whether we're on the same path again?

	23-02-2005 18:16									#295
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia I know, but that doesn't mean we should keep using it.

The alliance (leader?) thinks of it this way. Who am I to argue.

Last time it was explicitly called fixing by the members, and the members tried to hide it, denying it until it became obvious. Hardly the behaviour of people that believe they are engaging in honourable alliances, not fixing the game.

	23-02-2005 18:19									#296
	Support Apolyton

quote: The alliance (leader?) thinks of it this way. Who am I to argue.

Our alliance did not have a leader, and those are Comrade Tassadar's words, not mine.

quote: Last time it was explicitly called fixing by the members, and the members tried to hide it, denying it until it became obvious. Hardly the behaviour of people that believe they are engaging in honourable alliances, not fixing the game.

Quite reasonable, would you reveal the presence of an alliance to other players until it's obvious? Again, if "fixing" is "establishing an alliance to win the game", then I guess it's "fixing".

	23-02-2005 18:24									#297
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia The players who are left out of the alliance can, certainly, establish their own to counter it? I don't recall the last fixing period. Could someone summarize it for me somehow, so that I can decide whether we're on the same path again?

Say alliance members make up a substantial proportion of the game. They can easily reach an equilibrium with no infighting until all non-alliance members are gone.

Last time Event's popularity waned just as the fixing was getting rampant. Even so games were damaged.

If it continues now I will choose to step back from FG for a while and will be interested to return in a few months and see what opinions there are then.

	23-02-2005 18:26									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Say alliance members make up a substantial proportion of the game. They can easily reach an equilibrium with no infighting until all non-alliance members are gone.

Yes, I do agree that the proportion problem is a serious one. That is why on Event we have, actually, attempted to downsize any possible co-operative efforts, partly because it also reduces the risk of backstabbing or the alliance otherwise falling apart. Altogether, I am in favour of more compact alliances than the five player one we now had in Nuclear War. Ideal would be, say, in GO four alliances of four players, it'd be balanced out yet allow for much skulduggery, backstabbing etc.

And I also think backstabbing is too difficult with a "forum alliance" - betraying a PM alliance is much easier somehow (as you yourself have probably noticed , memories of my first GO game here). Probably because the consequences aren't that big and you won't have a permanent reminder of it.

	23-02-2005 18:26									#299
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia Our alliance did not have a leader, and those are Comrade Tassadar's words, not mine.

For all his faults, he is just more honest.

	23-02-2005 18:28									#300
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Or just an abuser of the language, take your pick.