Axiis Wrote:To quote The Office: this is the smallest amount of power I've ever seen go to someone's head
What's the alternative?
Never enforce any rules? Enforce rules only when there is some sort of consensus for enforcing them? Then why have rules, why not just vote on everything every turn?
Giving Krill all this power and then letting some people decide that they're immune to it is the worst possible scenario. It's MUCH worse than just allowing double moves or whatever. We end up in a situation where some people can break the rules because the other side won't make a fuss, but if the situation is reversed than the game admin is quickly brought to the table.
I think you guy know my positions: I don't like game admins, and I wish RBP2 had kept the rule set it opened with, rather than changing it twice. But IIRC the remaining players unanimously voted Krill into power. I think what India did in their war should be legal, but it isn't, so why turn a blind eye? If people have turned against the rule then vote to remove it, but why are we defending someone unilaterally saying "the rule doesn't apply to us."
Can my RBP3 team decide a rule doesn't apply to us? Is this some new freebie to be used up like pauses?
Finally - sports analogy "If you watch sports at all, you know that sometimes the refs have to put away the whistles." Yeah - I find the team who got away with something loves that view. So who's going to decide when the whistles get put away? Should we never blow them? Ok, blow them once per game? Twice? It's an unsolvable problem isn't it? So instead players play and coaches coach with this sword hanging over their heads - will they or will they not get away with things? Now suddenly we're not playing sports, we're playing "Game Theory Hour with Bob and his officiating crew."
I'm actually shocked that after the last month (blown perfect game in baseball, blown World Cup goal for England) the "there is a time for ref calls to end" argument is still being uttered. The game isn't made better because players are able to get away with playing unfairly - the right calls deserve to be played all of the time. The only argument is that it takes to long to have good calls, so in that case 1) get better officials, 2) improve technology, or 3) change the rules. But I have zero patience for the "wink wink nod nod, lets overlook things because we like the outcome even if it's unfair" way of dealing with things.