MP ettiquette: Or things that tic you off. - Page 12

Ming · June 13, 2003, 11:29

I'm surpirsed you guys haven't written out your rules.

Just think of all the posts you can get discussing them

rah · June 13, 2003, 11:56

I think they get more posts argueing after the fact.

Ming · June 13, 2003, 13:07

Either way... it's a good thing

DrSpike · June 13, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
I think they get more posts argueing after the fact.

I don't think codifying the rules will stop arguing after the fact............they may as well get 2 sets of +1's.

Makeo · June 13, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
we can't codify the Aussie rules because that would be like Bosnia.

rules are over rated. you can't tell me what to do.

Makeo · June 13, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
I'm surpirsed you guys haven't written out your rules.

Just think of all the posts you can get discussing them

Yep and they are going to be called Makeo Rules

Hydey · June 13, 2003, 20:14

I don't think so

deity · June 13, 2003, 20:34

Yeah, time to write 'em down

It's better than playing:

"Horse makes them up as he goes along rules"

or

"Horse consensus as long as he gets his own way rules"

deity · June 13, 2003, 20:36

I basically would support Rah Rules and just make one compromise to Horse so that unit bribe was disallowed.

How about it Aussies?

Hydey · June 13, 2003, 20:39

whats wrong with the "Horse makes them up as he goes along rules"

They have worked so far.

deity · June 13, 2003, 20:57

LMAO @ Hydey!

...personal relationships shatterred...

finbar has nervous breakdown...

annual civ dinner in jeopardy...

Makeo turns fascist...

Horse is out-trolled...

OK, maybe there are a few benefits

Alexander's Horse · June 13, 2003, 22:25

For the sake of the group I'm trying my best not to hop into you deity, I really am. I suppose that gives you something to play on. Its a shame the chances of a good evening of play suffer as a result.

And Ming's suggestion was a classic Ming troll.

deity · June 14, 2003, 01:22

Ming's suggestion was good though

For the sake of the group I think we should clarify the rules so that the chances of a good evening of play do not suffer as a result.

You've even resigned from a game. Why should we play well into a game only to see that occur?

And BTW, don't hold back on "hopping into me". It's a drama going on in your own head Horse. Hydey and others are having a ball so just relax a bit sunshine

Alexander's Horse · June 14, 2003, 01:42

I don't see much evidence of people "having a ball".

finbar isn't playing and I don't feel like being involved with any games involving you. They always end badly.

But I'm glad you are happy - I imagine it takes your mind off other things.

deity · June 14, 2003, 01:57

What? Hydey is in full time party mode!

And Makeo is cheekier than ever!

And if you want me to be happier in real life just be democratic and accept the majority ruling...

Cyber-Spyder · June 14, 2003, 02:06

Rules are good, saves all you overgrown kids whinging so much. Rah rules are a good base, I can't see any obvious flaws with them but some discussion/voting will undoubtably ensue and they will be tailored to our harsh southern climate.

I actually support unit bribe - it's a vital part of the diplomat's strength, often the only thing that can save him from death. And it's a valid and important part of strategy, also maximises the benefits of democracy.

Ming · June 14, 2003, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And Ming's suggestion was a classic Ming troll.

While I have been know to troll on occasion

My suggestion wasn't meant as a troll.

We use written rules for two key reasons... The first being that it makes it faster to get a game started, because there is no need to discuss the rules we are playing by...

But more importantly, they are used to limit rules discussions that can occur DURING the game that can lead to a game ending and hurt feelings.

When the rules are spelled out, it makes such problems less likely.

Alexander's Horse · June 14, 2003, 20:17

We are having a nasty internal fight and then you suggest we codify the rules? That is not pouring petrol on the fire? Of course not.

Ming · June 14, 2003, 20:20

No... not at all. It would stop such things from happening in future games. NOTHING can be done about the situation you find yourself in now

Alexander's Horse · June 14, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
No... not at all.

War4ever · June 15, 2003, 12:16

personally i think they enjoy a bit of a brew-haha

but your rules in stone should help prevent "issues"

i can't remember anyone in rah rules except eyes getting upset over gameplay

Ming · June 15, 2003, 14:32

Usually... people violate rah rules only after drinking considerably... like building GW in a three person game

Alexander's Horse · June 15, 2003, 20:10

The problem for us is different combos of players like different rules and the core group is not united on one set of rules. I'm not attracted to part of the group imposing a set of rules on everyone, even if it were possible to come up with one set, which I doubt. I don't think the pain would be worth the gain.

I also have a problem with handing out a rule book which can be thrown at people or quoted ad nauseum or debated indefinitely. I don't like rule bound games and I think most players find rules disputes a huge turn off. If there is a spirit of cooperation in the game then most issues can be settled amicably. Perhaps that has been what has been lacking in some recent games. We didn't have any issues like this for years because we had a dispute settlement mechanism that worked and people sorted out issues in a friendly way. There is a group of us, the majority I suspect, who just play for fun with our friends. Others may see the game differently and believe rules are more important.

I host most of the games and have been the only continuous player week by week over the last 3 years, so I probably know better than anyone what people's preferences are. I knew for example that makeo would be bribing the t*ts off the ai in that last game. So I said something to help other players. The bribe ai thing was not mentioned at the start because we didn't have ai civs at the start of the game. Not a big issue. I never expected that game to get as far as it did.

So I intend to continue to host games as I have, for fun, and if others want to do it differently they are perfectly entitled to set up their own games under whatever regime of rules they want. And good luck to them.

deity · June 16, 2003, 08:07

A few inaccuracies there Horsie.

Later...

But if you know all our preferences so well how do you account for a vote 4:2 against you?

And why did you get so upset over things?

Sounds like you need to take your own advice and have some fun

Hydey · June 16, 2003, 08:12

Yes lets just play for fun like we use to

rah · June 16, 2003, 08:18

Yep, it's definately more fun when people don't argue about the rules. And if you need to mod for a different group, it's easy to say "blah rules" except for "exception". And it only takes new people no more than 5 minute. Which is considerably less than the arguements over rules used to take.

RAH
But if the goal is to argue

Hydey · June 16, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
But if the goal is to argue

I fear that may be the problem

deity · June 16, 2003, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Hydey

I fear that may be the problem

LOL!

And who stirred the pot!

Hydey · June 16, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by deity

And who stirred the pot!

I'm not the only one.

Alexander's Horse · June 16, 2003, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by deity

But if you know all our preferences so well how do you account for a vote 4:2 against you?

There wasn't a 4:2 vote. There wasn't even 6 players in that session. There wasn't even a vote. I joined the consensus.

A few inaccuracies there deity

Quote:

And why did you get so upset over things?

Upset about what? I resigned from the game once it was clear ai bribing was to be retrospectively outlawed when the ai had already been bribed to buggery by makeo. That's not upsetting, that's funny

You should have listened to old horsie