[Squirrelloid]

@Don:
Look, ultimately Archae's claim stems from the fact that he feels the win was 'unfair'. However, isn't it also 'unfair' that he received massive aid from other powers which WL was not privy to? If games are supposed to be 'fair' (that is, your chance of winning is determined solely by your actions during the game), then no collusion between players should be allowed at all. What did Archae do to *earn* those 1500 gems? Nothing.

Clearly a diplomatic game is all about managing unfairness, not about the game being fair. Diplomacy itself is inherently unfair. Fighting 2 on 1 is unfair. Its also strategically good sense. Strategy is all about never fighting fair.

I'm not arguing you shouldn't be able to dispose of your gems as you like, I'm arguing that a standard which prevents disposal of your VP in a manner you decide also prohibits disposal of any resources in ways that don't involve you benefiting directly thereby (eg, only permits trade or direct expenditure).

Edit: Anyway, this is my last post on the topic. You're not going to sway me that passing free gems is any different in kind than passing VPs. I'm not saying those are unacceptable, I'm saying that they ultimately have the same ends. (You could pass a VP to make the game more even too - say so the two leaders were tied for VP). I think any agreement between two players that's allowed by the game engine is permissible, and that WL's win is a win by diplomacy and a superior strategy.