20-06-2005 08:51									#1
	UN Amendment #1: Game Victory Conditions Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Option 1 (as proposed by Apolyton): In the event of a long term stalemate, and teams decide to not pursue an in-game victory condition, then the surviving teams can conduct an out of game UN vote to choose a winner. If no team can achieve more than 50% of the vote, then the surviving team with the highest score shall be deemed the winner. Under no circumstances will more than one team be declared winner. Option 2: Do not add this amendment to the current ruleset. Vote now!

	20-06-2005 08:56									#2
	Remove this text

Uhh, "yes" assuming that means option 1.

	20-06-2005 08:58									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What would be a long term stalemate?

	20-06-2005 09:00									#4
	Support Apolyton

quote: and teams decide to not pursue an in-game victory condition

Considering that clause, the long term stalemate bit would be pretty much irrelevant, as I'd say any situation where the teams throw up their hands and stop pursuing victory would be deemed a stalemate. Whereas any situation that might be deemed a stalemate, but in which teams are still pursuing victory, wouldn't qualify for this anyway due to the pursuit of victory.

	20-06-2005 09:13									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Kloreep is correct. Any team that wanted to keep the game going could do so. If, and only if, all surviving teams want to declare it a stalemate would such a measure come into effect.

	20-06-2005 13:53									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I guess "proposed by Apolyton" means automatic "yes"

	20-06-2005 14:09									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I voted yes.

	20-06-2005 17:24									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by ormuzd I guess "proposed by Apolyton" means automatic "yes"

Maybe not....someone here voted no.

But, they have every right to if that's the way they feel.

	21-06-2005 02:00									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Yes

	21-06-2005 06:55									#10
	Support Apolyton

Yes

	21-06-2005 08:18									#11
	Suffering from ads?

Who in their right minds would want to share victory?

	23-06-2005 04:34									#12
	Support Apolyton

Sure.

	25-06-2005 06:48									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I voted yes, but don't like the wording.

Consider the following example: Apolyton suggests to the other 2 surviving teams that the game is a long term stalemate. The other two teams don't trust each other and would normally never ally, but under these circumstances they decide to beat the hell out of Apolyton for suggesting a stalemate. Reason: Apolyton is top on the score chart. The other two teams ally and destroy Apolyon for proposing a stalemate.

Or the opposite situation. Apolyton is hated by 3 teams, but is very strong, at war with one of them and can win all wars if fighting the other teams one by one. The other teams decide to suggest stalemate. Apolyton refuses this offer. The other teams say: "Ah, so you want to actively pursue victory? Well, we'll make sure you agree to a stalemate." They ally against Apolyton, destroy it and in the end claim stalemate.


These and many other similar situations can happen because of the unclear formulation of the rule. This rule should be a simple: “There can be only one winner.”

	25-06-2005 07:12									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Maybe it's an unreasonable belief, but I trust the other teams enough not to play around with the ruleset and tricky wording.
Yes.

	25-06-2005 07:30									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It's the team's job (the FAM especially) to make sure other teams don't want to gang up on us.

Not that it would be easy, but it is our job none the less.

	25-06-2005 09:36									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ljube Or the opposite situation. Apolyton is hated by 3 teams, but is very strong, at war with one of them and can win all wars if fighting the other teams one by one. The other teams decide to suggest stalemate. Apolyton refuses this offer. The other teams say: "Ah, so you want to actively pursue victory? Well, we'll make sure you agree to a stalemate." They ally against Apolyton, destroy it and in the end claim stalemate.

If they're in to the game enough to go after Apolyton (and succeed) then I don't see why they proposed the stalemate in the first place. Nor why Apolyton's refusal would have exacerbated the situation beyond how things would have gone without the rule.

It only takes effect when no team wants to pursue victory any longer. If things get that apathetic, teams won't be scheming against each other.

	25-06-2005 12:57									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The problem is in the text of the rule. You are effectively introducing another victory condition, one that is most easily obtainable, but one that puts the top dog in a difficult situation. If you had stated something like this: "If after N (a set number of) turns no team has achieved a victory by any of the in-game victory conditions, then an out of game UN vote will take place to choose the winner. If no team can achieve more than 50% of the vote, then the surviving team with the highest score shall be deemed the winner. Under no circumstances will more than one team be declared winner."

This formulation does not allow many exploits that can arise from "In the event of a long term stalemate, and teams decide to not pursue an in-game victory condition", which is unclear and imprecise.


What exactly is a long term stalemate and what constitutes a decision of the teams to not pursue an in-game victory condition? Why wouldn't some of the teams decide to not pursue in-game victory conditions from the start and work together to clear the world of all other teams and then call for an out of game UN vote? Clearly it is far easier to achieve one of the out of game victory conditions that it is to achieve any of the in-game victory conditions.

	25-06-2005 13:49									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'd rather trust the other teams with an out of game UN vote than have the winner of the game determined by Score, which in many ways rewards a team for bad play.

	25-06-2005 14:01									#19
	Tired of ads?

I agree with Ljube. Making sure something does not happen can only be achieved one way: Do not allow even a remote possibility that it does.

	25-06-2005 23:28									#20
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ljube What exactly is a long term stalemate

Again, this phrase is really pretty meaningless and shouldn't have been included anyway, as "teams decide to not pursue an in-game victory condition" is still needed.

quote: Originally posted by Ljube Why wouldn't some of the teams decide to not pursue in-game victory conditions from the start and work together to clear the world of all other teams and then call for an out of game UN vote?

Because there is no shared victory? Why would teams ally to bring about this condition when it will mean only one of them will win? I don't see it happening. I can see an alliance to kill everyone else and duke it out at the end, but that's possible regardless of this rule. Indeed, one would be insane not to seek out such a partner if shared victories were allowed.