My complaint is that the GA was sold/given to win the game. Lots of players, probably including me, made illegal diplo offers during the game at one time or another. But most players didn't give someone else a push across the finish line. I believe that is what Fintourist is referring to as "ruining" the outcome of the game.
Krill, just because something is legal, or not expressly forbidden, doesn't always mean it's cool to do it. You've certainly been around long enough to know that. You've been the administrator for these games before, you know the trouble that comes from exhaustive rule sets and how people can try to find loopholes in extensive rule sets to gain advantage. As an alternative the community went the other way after PB7 and tried playing using minimal rule sets with the understanding that more explicit rules wouldn't be needed if everyone played fairly. Looks like we're going the other direction these days, back to legality and trying to find the line so as to not cross it, rather than trying not to walk so close to it in the first place. That comment isn't directed specifically at you, it's more of an observation I'll make in general, though your post spurred the thought. Maybe Fintourist and I are the vocal minority here, but I suspect that many players would prefer to play with fewer rules being necessary to govern a game. But the players themselves have to not seek to exploit the rules, or the intent of the rules, for that system to work. Finding it OK to do things in games because they aren't explicitly forbidden when they are, at best, grey areas and debatable actions, that would represent a shift from what I would assume is the norm among most of our players.
Krill, just because something is legal, or not expressly forbidden, doesn't always mean it's cool to do it. You've certainly been around long enough to know that. You've been the administrator for these games before, you know the trouble that comes from exhaustive rule sets and how people can try to find loopholes in extensive rule sets to gain advantage. As an alternative the community went the other way after PB7 and tried playing using minimal rule sets with the understanding that more explicit rules wouldn't be needed if everyone played fairly. Looks like we're going the other direction these days, back to legality and trying to find the line so as to not cross it, rather than trying not to walk so close to it in the first place. That comment isn't directed specifically at you, it's more of an observation I'll make in general, though your post spurred the thought. Maybe Fintourist and I are the vocal minority here, but I suspect that many players would prefer to play with fewer rules being necessary to govern a game. But the players themselves have to not seek to exploit the rules, or the intent of the rules, for that system to work. Finding it OK to do things in games because they aren't explicitly forbidden when they are, at best, grey areas and debatable actions, that would represent a shift from what I would assume is the norm among most of our players.
Played: Pitboss 18 - Kublai Khan of Germany Somalia | Pitboss 11 - De Gaulle of Byzantium | Pitboss 8 - Churchill of Portugal | PB7 - Mao of Native America | PBEM29 Greens - Mao of Babylon