[tbontob]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
I don't think forcing a player to switch is fair!! ...

Correct. And that's why I locked game 2 when I did. However you will be pleased to know it's no longer a question of anyone needing to switch games cause Game 1 has 11 players now. Game one is going to have 11, 12, or 13 players. Whatever the final number game 2 can keep it's 12 and things will be as even as is possible.
I don't care which game has more as long as neither has more than one more than the other.

Geoschmo

---

EDIT: Seems I didn't post my comments which are as follows:

Yes, the issue is fairness.

When the game first started we were given to understand that we have a choice of games, so long as the games came out relatively equal.

IIRC, Geoschmo stated prior to the start of game 1, that if there was a disproportionality in players, he may have to transfer players from one game to another if no one volunteered.

So it was stated, very clearly and it was all above board. There was no talk of a lockout.

This was also understood in succeeding games.

That being the case, in game 1, if the situation was 20-18 or 18-20 or worse, the administrator would be right in transfering a player from one game to another if no one volunteered.

Basically, the difference now is the numbers, 13-13, 13-11 or 11-13 or whatever and that a cap can be placed on each game at 13 because we "know" we have 26 players. If two players out of a roster of 26 do not register, the thirteenth player of the 13 player game is well aware that he is the odd man out.

Now, the thirteenth player may argue that he didn't know he would be transfered over. If he didn't know, it certainly is not the administrators fault who was very open about his intention that the final cut should be equal games as possible.

[ February 21, 2003, 01:19: Message edited by: tbontob ]