27-06-2005 08:07									#1
	Shared Victory? Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Our proposed amendment banning shared victories and putting in the out-of-game UN vote, etc. looks like it will be voted down. It's currently 3-1 against (APO being the only one to vote yes, CBR and PAL still not voting.)

If this amendment fails, I suggest two things:

Immediately propose a simple amendment verson 2 that simply states: "Under no circumstances will more than one team be declared the winner of the game." Just in case this amendment is being voted down because of the winner-deciding process, with the UN vote and the score tiebreaker. The rules state that 2/3 are needed to pass a rule. So long as 4 teams agree shared victory should be out regardless of what happens if the game dies, we could still pass an anti-shared victory amendment.

If that fails too and we are playing in a shared victory environment, our strategy will need to change drastically. We will need get a shared victory alliance to survive the game. Possibly even a 3-civ alliance depending on how the chips fall.

	27-06-2005 08:15									#2
	Got spare money?

This is very sad that a shared victory could become the staus quo for all future DG's.

	27-06-2005 08:28									#3
	Suffering from ads?

Why would it make it staus quo?

But it's a sad thing any DG has to go shared victories IMO.

	27-06-2005 10:36									#4
	Put an end to popups!

It would make it status quo if no rule was ever instituted to prevent such a thing in this game or in DG's to come. I would think that if left alone there would no doubt be at least two teams who would take this route if only to deny a win for another team.

	27-06-2005 12:44									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A "status quo" means a situation that doesn't change.

I do hope that not all DG's are declared Shared Victories even before they have started.

I think you mean something like "precedent". Wikipedia: "Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making..."

	27-06-2005 21:13									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Precedent or rules - one way or the other to shared victory and even allowing the concept in a MP demo game. If it is allowed, why even bother starting the game, IMHO.

	28-06-2005 10:26									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

GoW and ND sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
you're all jealous
'cus we won
nah-nah-na-na-nah-na-na


*sigh*

I still don't understand why people think two teams would conceivably start a DG with a shared victory in their mind morseo in a game which will decide THE best Civ3 site in the world...

...but I agree, the stakes are too high, ban it.

	28-06-2005 11:43									#8
	Support Apolyton

MZ, maybe it's just a bad taste in their mouths, from such a thing, that keeps people from wanting it to happen....


But you did win it fair and square, so.....

E_T

Last edited by E_T on 28-06-2005 at 13:22

	28-06-2005 11:46									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen GoW and ND sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Oh, how it would be SOOOO.... nice if it was me snd not ND that you were kissing....

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen *sigh*

E_T

	28-06-2005 13:13									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by E_T Oh, how it would be SOOOO.... nice if it was me snd not ND that you were kissing....

Keep dreaming

	28-06-2005 13:20									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MZ, yo DO know that I'm just making fun.... For one thing, your just too young for me. Although, that too can be nice, it's still not prefered... I just don't like teaching young neofites into the ways of "manhood"....


Although, it's good to see you sweat, when we are alone in chat, esp after WB has left to leave us alone...

E_T

	28-06-2005 13:23									#12
	Re: Shared Victory? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kloreep Immediately propose a simple amendment verson 2 that simply states: "Under no circumstances will more than one team be declared the winner of the game." Just in case this amendment is being voted down because of the winner-deciding process, with the UN vote and the score tiebreaker. The rules state that 2/3 are needed to pass a rule. So long as 4 teams agree shared victory should be out regardless of what happens if the game dies, we could still pass an anti-shared victory amendment.

Hopefully at least the simple version gets passed.

quote: Originally posted by Kloreep If that fails too and we are playing in a shared victory environment, our strategy will need to change drastically. We will need get a shared victory alliance to survive the game. Possibly even a 3-civ alliance depending on how the chips fall.

Why not get 5 plus APO, and be done with the game before it starts?

Any kind of shared victory would only make sense along with forced alliances, so that everyone plays who he is up against. As those are not in this game, there should be no shared victory possible, period.

	28-06-2005 19:49									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I warned about many problems that the more complicated version of the rule could cause. Obviously most of other teams thought likewise. Please do present the simplified version at once. We don't want no stinking shared victories.

	28-06-2005 20:54									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If the purpose of this game is to decide the single best civ site, how could we have a shared victory?

Present the simple version of the ammendment now.

	30-06-2005 02:00									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

PAL voted it down decisively. 4-2 against.

Let's get the shorter version rolling.

	30-06-2005 05:57									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen I still don't understand why people think two teams would conceivably start a DG with a shared victory in their mind ...

Um - maybe because it has now been done in a major demo game, thus lending it legitimacy. Hence my opposition to that result.

	30-06-2005 06:00									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes to the shorter version. Anything to get the idea of shared victory off the table.

	30-06-2005 06:29									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Will do.

	30-06-2005 16:43									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If with Shared Victory: can it be under the conditio9n; that a team can be allied as max with 1 ?

Mean a 2 team Shared Victory.

sirleif

	30-06-2005 21:55									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I suppose a proposal like that can be made but I would rather see a max alliance victory of 1 team.

	30-06-2005 21:56									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Beta Um - maybe because it has now been done in a major demo game, thus lending it legitimacy. Hence my opposition to that result.

No, it has not been done because no teams started with a shared victory in mind and only decided to do so during the last 1/4 of the game.

	30-06-2005 22:25									#22
	Remove this text

Um, you weren't allied with ND since before your war against RP?

	01-07-2005 03:46									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

We were allied against Lux, not allied for the game vic.

	01-07-2005 03:57									#24
	Remove this text

Your allied victory sucks and the only redeeming quality in it was Glory of News.


There I said it even though I wanted to keep quiet about it.

	01-07-2005 04:08									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

There's a perfectly good thread over here if you all want to discuss shared victory past.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=132397

	01-07-2005 05:10									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yep .. no one has gone into a Demo game with the intent to have a shared victory.

This rule was to stop those teams thinking about a shared victory in the later stages of the game, when it becomes their only/best option. ala ND/GoW.

Now then

Last edited by Hot_Enamel on 01-07-2005 at 05:17

	09-07-2005 18:55									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So far, the vote on this is 3 votes for yes, oher 3 still haven't posted their votes.

CGN, PAL & Us are the ones voting yes, at this point in time.

E_T