Forest lake game result

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:23 am

You're right.

And that game shows why quitters should get no points. The 5 quits rule was introduced to lower the points in games which were made easier since there was less competition. But in the case of this game both Lardmaster and Donut started missing turns once it was obvious they can do nothing to win. Val and I called for a vote to end the game on turn 11, a vote which was ignored by the players who kept missing turns until only me and Val were left on the battlefield. The outcome is that Val and I were deprived of 75 points each while sacrificing 5 and 12.5 points. Of course looking from the perspective of the old system we would be deprived of VPs while the quitters sacrifice nothing.

I remember we had a poll about such situations:
http://www.kaomaris.com/phpNuke/modules ... =0&thold=0

It would be nice if I got the points I believe I deserve, but I know we don't have a GM Committee right now so there's noone who can offer a final verdict on that game (or maybe the GM of the game can?)

Looking at the game Lardmaster had two empty provinces when he stopped sending in orders, so it would have been extremely easy for you or Validon to rip him. Same goes for Donut on the last turn before he went quit. He only had three measily provinces which either you or Validon could have easily ripped, but again you didn't. So these two players went m-3 because you let them.

Now officially, it's not allowed to split the game when there have been five quits, so you and Validon will have to continue till one player gets a solo win. Though personally since Validon is currently not around and can't continue the game, i wouldn't argue against the two player split as it is now.

BTW the GM committee is still here...though i believe i'm the only member around.

So it might be wise to fill it up to strength again.

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:08 am

You're missing the point.

Do you agree that the 5 quits rule was introduced to give less VPs for games that were much easier to win because of less competition? If 'no' then explain why do you think it was introduced.

If you agree that was the reason then there's the next question: Did Lardie's and Donut's quitting made the game any easier for me and Validon?

You said yourself (without seeing the TRs) that it was extremely easy for us to take them out. The fact is we didn't get enough time to take them out since they quit.

Would you repeat the argument if they quit the game without waiting 3 turns, that is if they asked the GM to mark them as quit right when they saw they don't stand a chance?

BTW the GM committee is still here...though i believe i'm the only member around.

Wasn't the GM Committee elected every year? If so then you stopped being a member about two years ago; hence 'we don't have a GM Committee right now'.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:21 am

trewqh wrote:You're missing the point.

Do you agree that the 5 quits rule was introduced to give less VPs for games that were much easier to win because of less competition? If 'no' then explain why do you think it was introduced.

If you agree that was the reason then there's the next question: Did Lardie's and Donut's quitting made the game any easier for me and Validon?

You said yourself (without seeing the TRs) that it was extremely easy for us to take them out. The fact is we didn't get enough time to take them out since they quit.

Personally i think the whole 5 quits rules is bogus and should be taken out. However as long as it is around it should be inforced. And the rule is simple 5 quits is half te points and no shared victories.

trewqh wrote:Would you repeat the argument if they quit the game without waiting 3 turns, that is if they asked the GM to mark them as quit right when they saw they don't stand a chance?

It was agreed a long time ago that you can't have yourself listed as quit straight away. It would take the regular three turns to go quit.

trewqh wrote:
BTW the GM committee is still here...though i believe i'm the only member around.
Wasn't the GM Committee elected every year? If so then you stopped being a member about two years ago; hence 'we don't have a GM Committee right now'.

Well then it would be useful to elect new members to the GMC.

Anyway Trewqh, you still haven't given the right answer to why you should get the full points...and yes there is a right answer.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:13 pm

And it only took, what, ten games before someone is not happy with the new points system, and the 5 quit rule cutting the points in half.

Trewq, if you don't want to fight it out for the 1/2 victory points, you can always quit and let Validon have them.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:41 pm

Trewqh is unhappy with the 5 quit rule (and so am i btw), but that has always been around so nothing's changed there Cal, you troublemaker you.

Post by **trewqh** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:06 pm

Calidus wrote:And it only took, what, ten games before someone is not happy with the new points system, and the 5 quit rule cutting the points in half.

5 quits rule is not new, you know that, and I have nothing against it. Don't rely on Sal's interpretation of my words.

As for the new rating system, it was criticised even before we started trying it out. The old system was criticised as well so I'm not sure what your point is.

Calidus wrote:Trewq, if you don't want to fight it out for the 1/2 victory points, you can always quit and let Validon have them.

It seems I can't just quit. Sal is right that WSC's vote 18 does not allow that. I wonder what happens if both of the two remaining players go m-3 on the same turn. Or we could wait an unspecified amount of time for Val to return so that we can fight it out

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:38 pm

Well i don't think you'll find the right answer to get yourself full points here, so let me give it to you.

Now normally you would just be screwed as the rule is simple 5 quits means half the points and no shared win possible.

But in this case you could argue that because the system didn't keep track of the quits properly (showing only 2 quits before Donut and Lardmaster went m-3 so not showing the fifth quit) the players could not be expected to know that there were in fact five quits.

Now if that was presented in the GMC, than for me would be a good argument to have full points for this game.

So taking this in to account, i would be in support of having this game counted as a full game with only four quits.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:02 pm

Peace Trewq, I am totally opposed to the new point system and could give a......err......care less about it. So you are preaching to the choir here.

As for the other issue, I am glad to see that you knew I was just pulling your chain, and didn't take offense. As a member/former member of the GMC, I do agree with Saladin's proposed suggestion for the awarding of victory points for this game. In the event that the system was not fully opperational prior to this game being in effect, and did not list the players as there being 5 total quits, I would vote to allow the game to be split, and finished.

Under what circumstances did Validon have to take a hiatus? Did he just drop off the face of the earth, or did he give personal reasons before he had to depart? If he just up and left, I believe that you could ask for the game to be reinstated, and finished with Validon going M-3. The only problem would be that the game's points would be halved.

Or, find out who the last members of the GMC were, get them all together in one place, a kick their respective butts......oops, I mean, ask them to come to a consensus and determine if the game has sufficiently come to an end, and vote for the ending of a shared win. (You'd get my vote, based on Sal's wording)

~Cal

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:16 pm

I will say this once and only once. I am NOT changing the scores around now. I am happy with the system i have got and this would now ruin it.

I am sure most of you wouldnt of even said anything if you hadent wonn. If you had quitted then you would of being pleased to still get points. if someone has important things to attend to they may have to sacrafice points and a game. They however do not complain.

The score system is under trial for this year, if it do's not work we can try to have quits getting no points then. This is what i did for the first game finished and it felt like i had my head bitten of,because apperently she should o got points.

If this soounds mean or arrogent to any of you i am sorry and i hope no one takes offense

dragonette

Post by **Lardmaster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:34 pm

Problem with this game (I believe) is that there was no talk of a points system when I stopped sending in orders in. As I had no orders I could possibly make, what was the point? Had the points system been agreed on then I would have sent in blank orders regardless (although it does seem stoopid) in order to pick up my measily few points.

Therefore you can't say I deserve more points because of the quits because the quits wouldn't necessarily have quit.

(Not ignoring you D, I know you aren't changing the scores anyway just wanted to put my point across)

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:54 am

Calidus wrote:Under what circumstances did Validon have to take a hiatus? Did he just drop off the face of the earth, or did he give personal reasons before he had to depart?

We thought the game was over. I think he forgot about voting and just went his way after playing a game till the end. As it usually happens we'll hear from him once he decides he feels like playing another game.

Dragonette, I'm not trying to change the rules in the middle of things. We say what we don't like about those rules, but I don't think anyone in this thread wants to mess things up. But the problem is not with the rules but how to interpret them in the case of Forest Lake. You saw 5 quits so you halved the points, but there's the other part of the 5-quit rule that you probably didn't know about (And I'm not blaming you or anything, noone thought about telling you about it so far, our fault) The other part of the rule says that if there are 5 quits there can only be one winner, no shared win is allowed. That means, unfortunately, that the points you awarded for the game are not correct.

There are two solutions:
No.1 (which I would prefer) double the points you awarded, Sal and Cal gave their reasons, my reason was that the quits in this game did not affect the intention of the 5-quits rule.
No.2 don't award points for this game at all as it's technically not finished yet.

Dragonette · Post by **Dragonette** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:31 am

well chunks of writing must be disappering before i got to read thrm. Look at the other page i set up for scores. That was totally wrong and everyone started arguing. It says nothing about 5 quits means that their has to be a single winner. Furthermore i see that everyone is complaining that all these quited people are getting points, well i tried not to let them have points but everyone said they should get points and now they shouldnt.

i think it depends on where you finish in a game and whether you quit. so childish,even i dont do that and im 12[nearly 13].

sorry for any offensetaken you may of just read it wrong, this is annoying me and i am trying to keep a sivile tounge but if people are upset by thispost i am sorry.

dragonette

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:44 am

Hi Dragonette, the rule about the 5 quits meaning that there can only be one winner is an old rule which was decided on years and years ago. That's probably why you hadn't heard about it recently.