Quote:
geoschmo said:The question is whether his mistake is somehow worse then your mistake. If not, then the solution to the problem shouldn't punish him exclusivly, as rolling back the turn and destructing all his minefields would do.
|
Well, in my opinoin, as you stated, he agreed to a set of parameters for the game. They were written in an easy-to-read format.
So, let's go over (possible) mistakes made by me and my opponent:
ME: I didn't remind my opponent of the settings we agreed to (because I didn't want to give away clues to what I had been researching in the game).
OPPONENT: Agreed to NO mines and then used them because he saw them as available after researching Construction.
I think it's clear who made the bigger mistake. I don't think there is any oness on me to remind my opponent of the rules we agreed to. On the other hand, I beleive there is clearly an oness on an opponent to adhere to settings agreed upon (even if the opportunity to get on a bicycle and peddle away appears).
If we can agree upon that, then who should be "punished" the most? Me? I don't think so.
But, perhaps we can debate this all day long and get nowhere
.
What I certainly don't want to see is mines staying in the game! I've patterned my whole structure without worrying about them. Leaving mines in would punish me for making the lessor of the mistakes. The only issue to debate, in my opinion, is what to do about my ships and my plan to advance. One possible solution is for him to fire on (and destroy) two of his ships in that system that give me reason to hesitate my advance (since it's 5 ships to 5 ships considering I lost 2 to mines). Had I been with 7 (or possibly 8) ships, I could advance without worry. Before you discuss the possibilities, I can tell you he has made heavy use of missile ships and I needed the PDs of more than 5 ships in order to advance safely (trained or not).