Sounds like most people are ready for Krill to step down, but if that's what Spullla want, they'll have to prove it's feasible by building a consensus among the players...
I have to run.
|
RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!
|
|
I believe that the counter argument is that the purpose of the rule is quite clear: To not allows a pair of civs working together in the same time zone to gain advantage in conflict tactically by intermixing their turns. Also keep in mind that in saying that he's also saying that yes he did break the rule even with the way it's worded.
Yazilliclick Wrote:I believe that the counter argument is that the purpose of the rule is quite clear: To not allows a pair of civs working together in the same time zone to gain advantage in conflict tactically by intermixing their turns. Also keep in mind that in saying that he's also saying that yes he did break the rule even with the way it's worded. True, but if the city gifting was not a problem (which is how Spullla interpret the original text) their infraction of the rule is really minor (again only if city gifting is legal). I think this really sums up how difficult it is to write rules, especially slightly complex ones, as it is hard to make sure everyone reads the intention of a rule in a similar way.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
- Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, 1869-1948.
How strong of a case does this clarification (post 497 in this thread) make against City gifting? This is written back in January in response to a rule question. I think Serdoa used it in his explanation, but I am not sure how strong a case this argument will make it...
http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showp...tcount=497 Kristian95 Wrote:True, but if the city gifting was not a problem (which is how Spullla interpret the original text) their infraction of the rule is really minor (again only if city gifting is legal).
Mwin
I'd call it weak. It doesn't specifically mention city gifting, and since it's buried in the thread (as opposed to part of the main rule post) it's not terribly reasonable to expect everyone to be intimately familiar with it.
It was indeed used in Serdoa's post, and at the time it worried me that it was the strongest argument available. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Spullla that the harshness of the ruling was grossly out of line.
I'm starting to see Sullla's argument a lot better as well... When that rule was made, it was my distinct impression that we made that rule specifically to avoid one scenario:
-Team A uses siege on C, Team B uses siege on C, Team A attacks Krill's rationale was that if this was allowed, it favored those who could coordinate and be online at the same time - furthering the advantage that those with tons of free time already have. I remember shadyforce in particular disagreed with this rule, and Krill went back and forth with him on it for awhile. Regardless, the idea was to prevent those who can't be on all the time from being at a disadvantage... I really don't think what Yaz said a few posts ago was totally true. If what I'm saying is accurate, yes a rule was broken, but the ruling is much too harsh.
It is more than time advantage. The ultimate goal of all these rules is to simulate sequential warfare using simultaneous pitboss. In sequential turns players play one by one, attacking with all of their siege and units before ending turn and passing on to next player. This rule is trying to implement this scenario. It would not have any effect when you are fighting on two different fronts, like Korean war with Nakor and Rome.
The rule failed to achieve itâs goal here⦠scooter Wrote:Krill's rationale was that if this was allowed, it favored those who could coordinate and be online at the same time - furthering the advantage that those with tons of free time already have. I remember shadyforce in particular disagreed with this rule, and Krill went back and forth with him on it for awhile.
Mwin
|
