ATTN: All players for "P&N on PBW, take 2"

[Rich04]

Mardik is unable to reply. Having to relocate across the country. He was hoping to have till the end of October before he would have to leave any games he was in. However events transpired that forced an early departure. He didn't even get a chance to post goodbye in any forums. I doubt any of us will hear from him before next year when he will have access to his computer again.

I have read the game forum. So here is my takke.

In that Surrender was never disabled I would say allow his wishes. Duke Fleed pretty much recounted what I knew of things before my departure from the game.

Hell I would have turned my empire over to Darklight if I hadn't been so pissed off by events and hit the withdraw button.

Sometimes a smaller empire will latch on to a larger one that they would never be able to beat. Agreements may be made between the players that if one (player) leaves his empire will surrender to the larger entity. This is far preferable than just being crushed outright. If the cards are played right the smaller empire might even share a joint win with the larger.

Now I am not advocating surrender to some third party just because one is losing to another empire.

In this case it was just a different form of conquest. One accomplished diplomatically.

From what I understand Darklight and Ydath were allies for most of the game. Ydath was not losing a war with anyone. Both were sharing resources and tech with each other. Finally a merger happened.

To say that the only way an empire can surrender is when it is beaten to death by a larger opponent and then only to that empire is childish and narrow minded. Furthermore it isn't even without precedence. Many a time a larger empire can simply demand surrender of an empire while not at war in single player. If you are powerful enough it just surrenders. I guess some would say that must be a 'bug' and needs to be fixed.

No one should enforce thier way as the 'one true way' to play SE4. Unexpected events are what make the game exciting.

[Captain Kwok]

I agree for the most part with Rich04. Since they have been allies from the beginning and are sharing all resources and technology already - it's not going to make a difference to the game. Had this game not been roleplay...then I might be upset.

Plus, there's always:

You have become a threat to the other sentient races

[Fyron]

To say that the only way an empire can surrender is when it is beaten to death by a larger opponent and then only to that empire is childish and narrow minded. Furthermore it isn't even without precedence. Many a time a larger empire can simply demand surrender of an empire while not at war in single player. If you are powerful enough it just surrenders. I guess some would say that must be a 'bug' and needs to be fixed.

No one should enforce thier way as the 'one true way' to play SE4.

I resent those remarks. I am in no way "childish" or "narrow minded," and name-calling does not help your arguement at all. Please refrain from such actions in the future.

Surrender was only not disabled because the game host forgot to tick that checkmark when starting the game. So, their actions are actually illegal within the rules of the game in question.

Aside from that, surrender is not a well-implemented feature. I would not want an empire that is being defeated to surrender to anyone because of this. It is too all-encompassing. Just because the emperor says "we surrender" does not mean that everything and everyone immediately joins the enemy without a fight or any resistance at all.

A "merger" is a gross violation of the intent of the surrender option, and should never be allowed unless the house rules of the game specifically allow for it.

What the AIs do in single-player games has absolutely no bearing upon what human players do. That is not a valid arguement.

[dumbluck]

Great. ANOTHER player I've upset. Rich04, I apologize for whatever it was that upset you so to leave the game. At this rate, I'm not gonna bother ever starting another game; there won't be anyone left not angry enough to boycott it!

As to the surrender issue: I never claimed to be a dictator. Even with Mardik's vote (which I assume would be in favor of the surrender), the vote was still against the surrender. (And I didn't vote. ) Not to mention the fact that it should have been disabled (again, by player vote), it's just that the damned inept game host forgot to mark that checkbox when he started the game....

edit: I know I said I would take action tonite, but it's late and I'm tired. And I did have one thing to discuss with Mardik first (he actually replied, finally; despite his computer problems).

So, Mardik, if you read this before I send you an email tomarrow, do you still want to play in this game? I don't know your computer situation, but you obviously have access to email. The only reason I was going to kick you was because I thought that you had left the game on your own, and I needed to make room for your replacement player. If you're still in the game, then there's no need for the replacement player....

[ November 02, 2002, 12:04: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

[Captain Kwok]

Hey Dumbluck, don't be so hard on yourself - the game problems are not your fault at all. I think they can be directed towards a certain individual responsible for about 80% of the mishaps.

The hosting is fine.

[ November 02, 2002, 12:23: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

[Rich04]

"I resent those remarks. I am in no way "childish" or "narrow minded," and name-calling does not help your arguement at all. Please refrain from such actions in the future."-Imperator Fyron

You know I mentioned no names in my post. There are definately two camps when it comes to surrender.

It is however interesting that you admitted to being 'childish' and 'narrow minded'. At least that is a good sign. In time you will mature.

It is still amazing that you continue saying 'your way of playing SE4' is the only correct way. Who made you God? Get over it.

[Fyron]

Again, you only serve to weaken your arguement. The only way that you would know about what is going on in the game is if someone were to tell you what is going on. Since I am the only one actively arguing against the "merger", those petty insults would have to have been directed at me. The only person acting immature here is you. I have not said anything at all immature.

"My way" of playing SE4- as you so fallaciously put it- is how probably 95% of the people that I have played the game view surrender. In fact, it is how surrender was designed. I direct you to Aaron Hall's words on surrender from the Online SE4 manual:

Surrender
When all is lost, and your empire cannot possibly go on, you can always surrender. You surrender to another empire by sending them a Surrender message. Once this message is sent, your entire empire will become controlled by that other player. Once you do this, your game will be over.

Nowhere in there does it say that surrender is to be used as a "merger" of two allied empires. It says that the option is to be used when your empire is nearly dead, and it implies that it is to be done to the empire that is doing the destroying. So, if surrender is to be used in such a contradictory manner, it must be set up in the house rules of the game to be done so. Otherwise, the default rule is that surrender cannot be used for a "merger."

I plan to ignore any further insulting remarks made in this thread. I ask that a moderator lock this thread if any more are made (or, at the least, remove the offending Posts). Thanks.