Turn 69 (continued)
Played Caledorn's turn. New turn up.
Played Caledorn's turn. New turn up.
|
PYFT: Request a turn to be played by the lurkers
|
|
As a hypothetical question for LP, if you were subbing for one player who happened to be at war with someone else, and then the someone else is about to miss his turn would you sub for him and fight against yourself? And in the event, would you ignore the opportunity to double move against yourself? I don't know if the universe would explode or anything as to my knowledge neither scientists nor philosophers have ever considered this point, but I can't say for certain that it would not. If the universe did explode you could, of course, lay the blame upon those who missed their turns and therefore put you into position to destroy the universe, except that there wouldn't be time for blame in the event since we'd all be dead. I guess double moving could have more grave consequences than previously supposed.
 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
June 15th, 2014, 21:07
(This post was last modified: June 15th, 2014, 21:08 by Lord Parkin.)
 (June 15th, 2014, 20:56)spacetyrantxenu Wrote: As a hypothetical question for LP, if you were subbing for one player who happened to be at war with someone else, and then the someone else is about to miss his turn would you sub for him and fight against yourself? And in the event, would you ignore the opportunity to double move against yourself? I don't know if the universe would explode or anything as to my knowledge neither scientists nor philosophers have ever considered this point, but I can't say for certain that it would not. If the universe did explode you could, of course, lay the blame upon those who missed their turns and therefore put you into position to destroy the universe, except that there wouldn't be time for blame in the event since we'd all be dead. I guess double moving could have more grave consequences than previously supposed.  But seriously, I don't think I can play two sides of the same war, it's too much of a conflict of interest. I'm fine to sub for one side in wartime, but if the player(s) they're at war with need a sub, they'll have to find someone else. (The player I sub for will be the one who asked me first.) Hopefully that situation shouldn't present itself too often though, since at least one party in the war should have a vested interest in playing their turns. Most folks don't declare war and then decide to take a couple of weeks vacation. (At least I hope not.)  If absolutely forced to play both sides, no military moves would be made against the other player, and if possible I'd arrange an immediate Cease Fire or Peace Treaty.
Well, that would logically pose the least chance of blinking us all out of existence, so that seems wise.
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 |
