Diplo V Fair Version, players needed - Page 2

Ming · October 2, 2000, 10:23

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Frank Johnson on 10-02-2000 09:50 AM</font>
(goes to check his files to see who has left every single pickup duel and little 3 player 2x 2x game he's ever played once a outcome was obvious.....)
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

While you are at it, check to see if the player conceeded or at least mentioned to you that the game was over and was dropping off, instead of pulling a zone disappearing act leaving all the rest of the players wondering what the heck happened.

When I'm lossing, I will at least wait until the end of the current session to admit defeat so that the people that are winning can enjoy their fun.

To just drop out of game with no comments just because something went "bad" and to leave all the other people hanging is indeed just rude. And, it is pretty much bad sportsmanship. If everybody left a game just because something bad happened, or things didn't go in their favor, no game would last more than hour.

But I understand now... If you aren't winning, you just don't want to play

Frank Johnson · October 2, 2000, 10:36

I don't care. Put me on the cross, theres a good chance that none of you never dropped a game, or have sent me a despute in gameleague to try and settle, etc. With all the trash people are trying to dig up on me, you'd think I was running for president.

I have a despute, its basis is legitmate. My ally was subbed out for a vital turn of combat, and some how in his infinate wisdom ignored all treaties and instead attacked me. As soon as my ally returned the next turn to find me devistated, my governmwent gone, my wonders gone, bribed......he tried to really with me.......

rah · October 2, 2000, 11:06

Once you've agreed to play the session. You take what comes. The time to argue or get consensus, was prior.

And your "I don't care" line just reinforces my opinion that your just a rude person who doesn't care about anybody else but yourself.

RAH

Frank Johnson · October 2, 2000, 13:12

Like I said before, I was only starting this game on the belief that Easthaven wanted to play in it as well. I also was going to move it to another night than Thursday, so it would in no way interfere with EC's scenario if he continued it. In a 60-40 situation I don't think its fair to completely ignore the needs of the minority, but that is exactly what happened. There were also compromises set forward, which were also shot down by the opposition. They were determined to have their ill gotten scenario and I had no other choice but to leave, since playing futher in such a scenario had no meaning.

I went into the session telling EC that I would not under any circumstances continue the session and only to discuss the changes that should be made. If EC some how thought that I was going to go along this tainted scenario by having my 3 opponenets vote on the fact they liked by empire better trashed and me being a slave to a box in a game which had no honor or meaning, he was greatly mistaken.

EC professed he knew exactly what Easthaven would do. He said he'd choose randomly. I'd really like to see where he said that. He told me that he was mad at EC for declaring war on him and he was just going to bowl him over. I wasn't interested in the majority, because the majority was only interested in that they benefited from the sub, not if the sub was proper in the situation.

EC should have opposed any sub, because subs MUST follow the prior agreements the last player made, just as EC has said many times before, espically in a game of this length and magintude. When the sub entered I thought I was getting a freebie, because the only option open to the sub was to follow the precident of the treaties set before him, at least for a reasonable period of time. I can't say with any certainty why EC allowed his rule "subs must follow the prior players treaties" in the situation above, but as soon as Easthaven came back........oh booooy.......was he ever heavy handed about making sure that was in place.

Basicly, I'm done compromising with those players. If they want to play that scenario fine. There's no honor left in it, its not a true representation of anything. To continue it, in the end means nothing.

Ming · October 2, 2000, 13:47

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Frank Johnson on 10-02-2000 01:12 PM</font>
Basicly, I'm done compromising with those players. If they want to play that scenario fine. There's no honor left in it, its not a true representation of anything. To continue it, in the end means nothing.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

And this from the guy who started a thread to continue the SAME game, but without the people that voted against him in his dispute. So I have to ask, what would your continuation have meant... the same nothing? HA HA HA HA!

This is just too much... HA HA HA HA!

Frank Johnson · October 2, 2000, 13:53

Ming, the game lost all meaning when the sub violated the game. I was going to use a save before the sub. The other players declined to accept this challenge.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Frank Johnson (edited October 02, 2000).]</font>

Ming · October 2, 2000, 14:16

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Frank Johnson on 10-02-2000 01:53 PM</font>
Ming, the game lost all meaning when the sub violated the game. I was going to use a save before the sub. The other players declined to accept this challenge.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Frank Johnson (edited October 02, 2000).]</font>
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

HA HA HA HA! It should read, "when it came to a vote, and I lost the vote, I quit"... not that the other players declined to accept this challenge. You should be working for one of the presidential campaigns as a spin doctor

OK, the game lost it's meaning to you when the sub took over and screwed you... fair enough... but that still doesn't answer what you hoped to get out of playing the game from an earlier point with different players.
In my opinion, that would have no meaning either

Frank Johnson · October 2, 2000, 14:23

Oh I'd prefer the real thing, but what can be done......

Ming · October 2, 2000, 14:34

That I can understand...

I remember quiting a game once when an ally in the game went for my throat on surprise. I was really pissed! It's not like it was late in the game, and it was time to break alliances

So I can understand the emotion.
(I think MWHC is still laughing about that one)

It's real easy to get "involved" in a game, especially one that you guys had spent so much time on. So, I can understand why you would want to continue it in some kind of fashion.

But this situation just screams for why rules must be agreed upon up front. When you are playing a long game that consists of many sessions, there must be a clear understanding what the role of subs are going to be.

It would really be nice if the AI played good enough and in a similar style so that human subs wouldn't be needed for a one day break. But since that isn't the case, subs are a fact of life. sigh....

C0ckney · October 2, 2000, 18:21

If there are any spaces left then I would love to get involved with something like this,

it would make a nice change from the zone where nobody wants to play and leaves half way through games

(I have only had 3 games on the zone but they all been equally disastrious)

If there are spaces then I do not mind which civ I play

Ming · October 3, 2000, 00:41

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Frank Johnson on 10-02-2000 10:36 AM</font>
I have a despute, its basis is legitmate.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Yeah, it may have been legitimate, but when it came down to a vote, you LOST! Granted it was a slim margin, but you lost the vote. If you weren't going to abide by the vote...

OK... I'll try to look at it from your perspective... In your eyes, you were screwed. And you took advantage of your option to not continue the game. Fine...
But then, to try to continue the game with other people playing the countries that out voted you... HA HA HA HA! What do you hope to gain by that... why not just start a new game with the sub rules clearly defined so that it doesn't happen again.

It's really tough not to laugh at this one

Berzerker · October 3, 2000, 00:42

Frank - <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Rah, I left those games yeah, i lost them and it was 2 am in my time zone, I really didn't think twice about it.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Pardon me, but I was in both those games - and I can remember you leaving one well before midnight. All 3 of us are in the same time zone and you left without a word. The fact you dont "think twice" about leaving games without any notice informs me you dont think even once. And you could have prevented that city in revolt from rebelling a second turn by creating more entertainers.

Rasputin · October 3, 2000, 02:32

S ofrom what I can gather the turn order had nothing to do with Franks city going into Disorder. It was already in Disorder and he didnt do anything about it. Or didnt do enough about it. I cant understand how he could let that happen. MCost players would immediatley rectify a Disorder in a city before moving any troops..

What happened Frnak ???

KhanMan · October 3, 2000, 04:10

After carefully reading the above posts, it appears that Frank started this game as a statement against the other players, and not as a genuine wish to play. That said, I do not wish to be a pawn in petting bickering and hair pulling, so I won't be playing in either this game, or the other one, or any diplomacy games, until all the players involved learn to play with more respect.

-KhanMan