A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards. - Page 9

archaeolept · #1 September 19th, 2009, 08:56 PM

luckily, my nations seem to be blessed that way, and adhere to the 7th protocol of Endservedness

"and follow thee to the smaller as to the larger, as to the most low and the most high, and adhere to the MinMax, guideline of the faithful"

Omnirizon · #2 September 20th, 2009, 02:08 AM

what a riveting *yawn* dialogue that was. I think we have a potential broadway hit on our hands here.

Trumanator · #3 September 20th, 2009, 01:44 PM

Actually, I like thread drama

And micah isn't so much rude as intolerant of BS

Ballbarian · #4 September 20th, 2009, 02:29 PM

Hey, I have no problem with drama. Here is a link to the Soap Central boards.

Now what was the topic?
Oh yeah, "A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards."

chrispedersen · #5 September 20th, 2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballbarian

Here is a link to the Soap Central boards.

LOL.. Spend a lot of time there Ball?

Sombre · #6 September 20th, 2009, 03:52 PM

He's a moderator there too. He often kingmakes soap stars.

Strider · #7 September 20th, 2009, 03:53 PM

Lay off the personal remarks to each other.
It's not only against forum rules, but it is taking away from those posters who are trying to have a legitimate discussion on a topic.

WraithLord · #8 September 20th, 2009, 04:43 PM

Amen to that Strider!

DonC, you said "What? So by disagreeing with you I proved your point. That makes any further use of my time debating you pointless."

Please don't be rash in your judgment and try and consider my point thoroughly. I have repeated the same point a few times but I think you still have missed it

Please allow me to try again.

We are trying to come up with a good formula re. king making. First we need to agree to a common terminology. I think we have achieved that. Then we need to agree on semantics, what does king making mean. Most of the items in KM (pardon my fingers for tiring of typing the whole term) are agreed. For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer. I think they should be treated the same and have elaborated why, you disagree with me and have also elaborated why.
My point was that this disagreement is fundamental and is caused b/c of different opinions. So it can't be resolved but we do want to move forward. This is why I suggest that when prohibiting KM acts in house rules that all be prohibited VPs as well as gems as well as item transfer. This will ensure that the rules are clear and agreed on all and most important no one could feel cheated of victory b/c a KM move has done him.

I'll put together what I consider to be a constructive advice for game admins:
Either accept all KM acts as part of diplomacy games and make it clear in the house rules
or prohibit it altogether (all KM acts so no one complains)
or don't play diplo games.

I welcome any comments on that advise.

alansmithee · #9 September 21st, 2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WraithLord

For some reason gem/item/income transfer is not treated the same as VP transfer.

The reason they're not treated the same is because they're entirely different. If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over. If I give all my gems (and all my future gems), it is still possible (but extremely unlikely) that I will win. And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else). Even if I gave someone 100000000 gems, that act wouldn't directly cause the end of the game. I mean, if someone went to cast Nexus the turn that guy spent all those gems it could actually swing the game for someone else.

That is the fundamental difference-giving VP's leads directly to player loss/victory without other actions. And I really can't see how anyone could in good faith argue otherwise. I understand that this thread is in response to things that happened in a game you won, but I don't think coming up with...dubious arguments saying how X is the same as Y really helps prove your case. Your win was legit, there was nothing prohibited in the game about what happened (from what I can tell).

thejeff · #10 September 21st, 2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over.

And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else).

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?