There's Something Rotten in Kaomaris....

Post by **ThinKing** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:42 pm

(I wonder how many of you remember that thread title).

Check out GM Taker's group 9, which used to be Nick's group 34. Nesty and Massi control 8 cities, but the House Rules clearly state that only a SINGLE player can claim an 8 city win.

However, Nick's original rules were that an alliance could share a win that way.

We have been playing Taker's rules since the takeover, and Strider was listed as quit after missing 3 non-consecutive turns, which he would not have been under Nick's rules. Nobody complained at the time.

Now that VPs are involved, though, the vultures have come out. Nesty and Massi are trying to claim a win under the old rules. Nesty has 1% EFF, and the only reason that I didnt stop him getting so many cities was because the House Rules are very clear.

The decision went to the GMC, but the GMC happens to contain two of the least respectable members of the community - Nick and Wilfred. It is no surprise that the decision went against me when it is those two making it.

The players got no input and I'm not even sure that they know the whole facts.

I cant believe I have been cheated out of a certain victory by players who call themselves honourable.

This is a sad day for WOK.

I will play the Champs game, but then I will probably leave Kaomaris for good. What is the point for me in spending many weeks on a game only to be cheated out of a well-deserved* win?

* "Well-deserved" is a true reflection. Ask GM Taker about how I defeated an alliance of 4 people against me (and no novices either - Strider, Allister, Nesty, Massi). Shame I cant defeat the administrative alliance that has just decided to cheat me.

You are an embarassment to the community.

TK

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:57 pm

Wait, all we had to do to get rid of TK all this time was deny him some VPs? Well, dangnabbit, it is a crying shame that this sort of thing didn't happen earlier!!!

For your information, Craig, the first person to respond to Taker's inquiry to us was Goat Herder. As far as I know, he doesn't hate you, although considering the way you have of getting on people's bad sides, it wouldn't surprise me. Anyway, he gave his opinion (that Nesty and Massie should get the VPs), and then yes, Wilfred and I did concur.

That I hate you is completely irrelevent here. The facts of the situation are pretty clear. Taker made a mistake in not appraising you that he intended to change the rules when he took over. He admits that, nobody is perfect, so deal with it. The simple fact is, everybody who signed up for the game signed up under MY house rules. Those rules should not be changed without the GM telling them.

What if, for instance, Nesty and Massie (or ANYBODY, for that matter) objected to the new rules? GMs cannot just change rules in the middle of a game without the consent of their players, not even the house rules. To his credit, Taker tried his best to satisfy everybody here, and he talked to the GMC about potential solutions. We told him that we as the GMC felt that Nesty and Massie should share the win, but that the decision was ultimately his. The fact that Strider went quit after M-3 non-consecutively is regrettable, but as neither he nor anybody else complained at the time, is simply a fact at this point. Had Strider said something, yes, he would have had a case, but he didn't and it is far too late to discuss now.

The fact is, Craig, that this isn't a pretty situation to begin with. I think that you are being EXTREMELY ungrateful to Taker, in that he picked up a game that I had to drop suddenly. I am not sure exactly who you are calling "an embarrasment to the community" or "rotten" (cute, very cute), but I hope it's not Nesty, Massie, or Taker. (If it's the GMC, well, I've been called worse by you before, boo-hoo) Nesty and Massie are just trying to claim VPs using the rules that existed when they signed up, something I am 100% positive that you (or any other player) would do in the same situation. That's called self-interest, and there is nothing wrong with it. And Taker has done his best to make good on an unpleasant situation. For you to jump all over him and call him names just because you didn't get your way- for shame!

Post by **gm_al** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:07 pm

How the hell came this thread name up again....??? Bad memories, baaaaad ones....

Hand me the popcorn, it was about time that old Nick vs TK flamer came up again. Last time I checked they were hugging and kissing, that now feels way more like I remember it to be.

Strider · Post by **Strider** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:44 pm

Honestly, I thought I was done after I missed 3 turns, even though it wasn't consecutively. I don't feel cheated at all if that wasn't supposed to be the case. I was my own worst enemy in that game and didn't deserve any piece of the VP pie anyway.

That was a really good game. I'm sorry to hear that the ending is being disputed (Is the BCS involved?

). You guys at the end all played great games (especially TK). I've never seen so many high level armies running around.

Post by **ThinKing** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 3:53 pm

Nick,

As usual, you are twisting my words so that they are easier to argue against. YOU are an embarassment to the community. YOU. To abuse a position of power just to fuel an ongoing feud really is disgusting - and in a community which hopes to grow and become more professional?? No chance - not with you there (cue: Al). The same goes for Wilfred. Whoever picked you two for the GMC needs to get their heads checked. I cant think of two more corrupt people in all of Kaomaris.

I understand your position though. With a solo win in Wheel Of Time, I'd be above you in Kaohalla.

I think Taker did a great job. I have never said anything otherwise, and I emailed him saying it was not his fault. It was just Nesty and Massi using a loophole - you might expect more of such experienced, respected player, but no. They dont deserve to win this game. They know it. The GM knows it. I know it. You might even know it, if you've seen the turn reports.

Well, if what you say is true, and the decision really is up to Taker, then I urge him to continue the game under his rules. Perhaps Massi and Nesty will beat me fairly, and then they will deserve to win. But if 4 of them cant beat me (after I already RIP'd Trewqh and Bjorn), then you just have to laugh at their ineptitude.

We cannot throw a player out of the game under one set of rules, and then allow a win under a different set of rules. The House Rules were quite clearly linked from the new page. It is totally unfair to tell me after the turn has run that we are going to move the goalposts, and oops, I've already lost. How on Earth am I supposed to win any game if that is going to be the way things work?

I am so annoyed - you have no idea. I have spent weeks and weeks of my time battling an alliance of 4 supposedly good players only to come out on top of all of them. Now the GMC steps in to rob me of my win. And I truly believe that Nick and Wilfred were the driving force there. I dont think anyone would doubt it.

If you cant win, cheat, eh Nick?

TK

Your essay question for today;
The 8-city rule should only apply to solo wins, if at all. Discuss.

Post by **gm_al** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:53 pm

Mmmhhhh..... when do we vote on the new GMC members ?

Just lmk, Ill stock more of that bloody popcorn then.

Ill need to modify my sig a bit I see....

Lord Fredo · Post by **Lord Fredo** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:02 pm

Once again I must ask myself what good the 8-city rule really does?
It would seem that this could be an easy enough issue to settle.
Just fight it out, eh?

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:36 pm

As much as I hate to really say this, I personally think that TK deserves the VP's for this one, or at least his half of them.

As I recall, TK and Nesty had 8 cities together when I was still playing so really they should be the ones getting the VP's here, since it is already been a huge mess.

I have to hand it to TK, he did fight off 4 players all at the same time even though the one major opponent quit just as it was to go down.

Now I normally would vote against TK in these situations but this time I am on his side, sort of....

As I recall, I got screwed out of some VP's too courtesy of the Council but I had to take it like a man and move on.

Whatever decision is made is fine but I think TK should get 1.5 VP's for sure.

Allister

Post by **Egbert** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:14 pm

If I may interject some logic in this otherwise entertaining flamer:

1. I don't think that the GMC would have to look at the turn reports, or who has the highest score, if the GMC determines that the "2-player 8-city rule" should be allowed to apply in this game.

2. If any member of the GMC believes that he cannot decide this game impartially, then he should recuse himself. Moreover, since this was originally a GM Nick game, and we are discussing GM Nick's rules, I think that GM Nick is too involved in this game for him to take part in any decision by the GMC (IMHO).

3. If GM Nick's rules (the "old rules" of the game) have already been violated because the game was following GM Taker's rules (the "new rules" of the game), then I don't think the GMC should just mechanically apply the old rules and say the game is over. I think the GMC needs to examine the situation and the turn reports closely, and do whatever else they believe is necessary, in order to come up with a fair result. From what I've heard so far, it appears that the equitable thing to do would be to allow the game to continue under the new rules (but I am only basing that opinion on the limited info that's been provided here).

4. There should be some type of appeal system in place regarding GMC decisions. In the U.S., if a lower court decides against you, you can first ask the lower court to reconsider its decision based upon something that was perhaps overlooked. Next, you can appeal to a higher court. In this case, the WSC would be the logical place to appeal.

Post by **Dameon** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:37 pm

Egbert, it's hardly fair to ask me to step aside on this decision. Yes, I hate TK, but that doesn't mean I am not impartial in decision regarding situations he is in. Look at it this way; in all the games I have GMd I am sure TK has won his share of VPs. So TK is no doubt in the positive side of the VP column in part because of me. Should Wilfred also excuse himself because he hates TK? Perhaps, in fact, anytime a game comes to the GMC that has a clanmate of one of the members on it we should disallow their vote as well? Where does it stop? It's really quite sad that you are falling victim to TKs hatemongering here; I fully expect him to complain about myself AND Wilfred, but when you do the same, well....Scholars stick together, I guess. I can't believe you are so biased about this decision, really.

I gave my opinion on this case on it's merits, and I for one have to say if TK cannot believe that I am willing to give him a fair shake he is welcome never to sign up for one of my games again. And even IF Wilfred AND I both excused ourself, then the sole remaining GMC member, GH, still voted against TK. In fact, he was the first to do so, as I mentioned.

And Allister, as we both were in the World War game you no doubt realize I lost some potential VPs there. I don't blame the GMC though, it's hardly their/our fault Paul went MIA. Also, this is entirely Taker's decision, as I said. He merely asked the GMC for advice. Players can appeal a VP-giving decision; TK has here I am sure, but the GMC finds his claim is not strong enough to merit our stepping in. The GMC was created specifically to deal with these issues so the WSC didn't have to. If y'all feel an "appeals" route is necessary- well, I would think we might as well abolish the GMC, because for the majority of decisions we make I am sure there will be a discontent player who would love to appeal.

BTW Taker told the GMC that some information had exchanged hands between players that would otherwise not have if they believed the game were to continue. I am not sure on the specifics of this, but the impression he gave was that it would be unfair and impractical for the game to continue. He decided it would be best to award VPs and asked our advice on the matter. All of us on the GMC CAN see both sides in this case have merit; we simply think that Nesty and Massie had the better argument. Those of you that really CANNOT see both sides have merit and hate the three of us who voted on this matter then, well, GMC elections are every June 1, the same as WSC ones.

Post by **Egbert** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:30 pm

Dameon/Nick, I think you misunderstood my point. I am saying that there should be a general rule that a person on the GMC should not participate in any decision which "involves" the GMC member. I agree that it is unclear as to whether this decision "involves" you --- this has nothing to do with how you feel about TK, only that it involves a game that was originally GM'd by you and governed by your rules. It is a tough call.

That general rule is different than my other point, which is that if a member of the GMC feels that he cannot act impartially, then he should recuse himself. That is within each member's discretion, and I have no doubt that each of you would be honest about it. I did not suggest that you should be disqualified because you may not be able to decide this impartially (actually, I think you could decide it impartially). I just think that since this decision "involves" you, then the general rule suggested above kicks in, and you shouldn't participate because of that. For example, if you were one of the players in the game, I think you would agree that you would have to disqualify yourself.

I have also tried to lay out my opinion impartially. Unfortunately, since the decision involves one of my clanmates, it will seem that I am just trying to side with him. I am just trying to come up with a fair solution. Amusingly, you are in the same dilemma --- since your decision goes against TK, it simply looks like you are doing it for spite --- but I believe you gave your opinion to come up with a result that you thought was fair.

You may be right about the appeal problem --- I could certainly see every decision getting appealed. What about expanding the number of members on the GMC? Perhaps that would give the appearance of a more fair hearing in the future.

This point about players gaining certain info once they thought the game was over is indeed a problem. It is the first I have heard it. I guess GM Taker has a big decision to make.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:30 pm

Well it's sad that i get dragged in to this as well and i'd rather wait for Goat Herder to make a statement as it seems that my name is tainted by TK as well, but i'd like to sum up the decision here for you.

1. The game was started under the eight cities rules (as per the house rules of Nick). When Taker took over he did not inform the players that the rules had been changed. He did link to his own house rules, but did not contact the players that he had changed any rules. So as far as all players were concerned the same rules were still in effect that were in effect at the start of the game.

Now a GM can't simply change rules during a game. Any rule change has to be communicated to the players and ALL players have to agree with the change as these are the rules that the players agreed to when signing up. Just like a GM can't change game engine in the middle of the game if that effects that actual game play without consulting the players, the same goes for the rules of course.

So as the GM hadn't informed the players of a rule change and therefor the players haven't had the opportunity to agree or disagree with the rule change, the rule change never happened.

The fact that Taker linked the new web site to his own house rules is irrelevant as the rules have never officially been changed for this game.

Now Strider was listed as QUIT after missing three turns. The original rules stated that a player must miss three consecutive turns, but Strider was listed as quit after three non consecutive missed turns. This was clearly a mistake by the GM as this rule change also had not been communicated to the players. If Strider had objected he would have had a perfect case and he would/should have been re-admitted to the game. Strider did not object as he was at peace with himself going QUIT in this game, so the game continued.

So the bottom line is...rule were in place. A rule change never was discussed with the players and was therefore never approved and put in to place. So therefore the original rules are still in place and under that rules the first (two) player(s) to gain control over eight cities win the game.

As Nick said this decision was taken UNANIMOUSLY by the GMC and i still stand fully behind this decision as it's the only logical decision.

A discussion about who 'deserves' to win a game is pointless, because that is never the case. As Egbert says there's no need to look at any turn reports as strength is not important. The only decision that had to be made was wether the original rules were in place or Takers own house rules and like i said before that decision was made unanimously.

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:17 am

Hmm, ayone who joins in will get savaged..........so I can't resist.

An impartial view:

Apart from all the pent-up acrimony, a key phrase is in Thin King's opener: "...the only reason that I didn't stop him getting so many cities was because the House Rules are very clear".

And presumably Nestalawe and Masselita were equally confident that they could cleverly snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by spotting the victory condition better - on the rules THEY were playing by. Each played to a different understanding of rules and victory conditions, neither side at fault on that. (I think that the 2 GM's got off lightly for a poor handover - that should antagonise a couple more!)

This presumes that all are being honest on the rules they THOUGHT applied at the time, rather than post-rationalising.

You can't have victory when each side has a different understanding of what they're trying to do to get victory.

Hey, is it possible to rewind the game 2 or 3 turns, dice for which set of rules apply, share the same rules this time, and play it out? Just a thought. Should manage to antagonise both sides equally.

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:29 am

Saladin wrote:place and under that rules the first (two) player(s) to gain control over eight cities win the game.

So if that's the rule then TK and Nesty each get 1.5 VP's each.

About 4 or 5 turns prior they controlled 8 cities together for at least two full rounds. I know this since it printed on the turn reports.

Now if it needed to be voted on by the players then that's another story but if not then I am correct in what I state.

Allister

Post by **Dameon** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:45 am

Eg I know that you are not biased in this situation, I merely made that statement because I wanted you to understand how easy an appirition of bias would be. I trust you, and thankfully I see you trust me.

Heck, if this situation had occurred to ME instead of TK, I would honestly accept that any judgement the GMC made would be impartial, even with TK participating in it, especially a unanimous decision. I may not have -liked- it, but I wouldn't be running around accusing anybody of unjust bias, not when you can clearly argue either side of the matter.

And yes, Nesty and TK could have claimed victory if they controlled eight cities together- IF they wanted to. The alliance has to be a willing one, two players who don't want to share VPs certianly are not forced to. A vote would not have been necessary at the time, simply a statement of intent. In any case, that option was not taken. Clearly, Massie and Nesty certainly have chosen it. Game, Set, Match.

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:48 pm

Allister Fiend wrote:
Saladin wrote:place and under that rules the first (two) player(s) to gain control over eight cities win the game.

So if that's the rule then TK and Nesty each get 1.5 VP's each.

About 4 or 5 turns prior they controlled 8 cities together for at least two full rounds. I know this since it printed on the turn reports.

Now if it needed to be voted on by the players then that's another story but if not then I am correct in what I state.

Allister

If what Allister says is correct, then how does the GMC "ignore" this result? If the "old rule" applies, then this game was over when the first 2 players got 8 cities. No vote is required.

Post by **korexus** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:12 pm

No it wouldn't be over. TK and Nesty were still fighting so I very much doubt they emailed Taker to split the game. Remember, the turn report lists "possible" winner(s) under 8 city rule. Not people who have definitely won.

Anyway Eg, stop trying to diffuse the situation, it was just getting interesting!

korexus.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:21 pm

If what Allister says is correct, then how does the GMC "ignore" this result? If the "old rule" applies, then this game was over when the first 2 players got 8 cities. No vote is required.

You're right no vote is required. It's also the first time i've heard that two players had eight cities before...but Taker did they claim a victory? Because you of course do have to claim the victory. It's not just two random players having 8 cities.

Yarosund · Post by **Yarosund** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:42 pm

I would be in favor of ditching the 8 city rule in future games
This only seems to be the cause of potential disputes
It also gets very confusing for players having games with 8 city rules, and others without
What is wrong with slugging it out in a game until there is a clear winner?

I would not like to see TK leave thegame. WOK needs players of his quality.

I also do NOT believe that Nick would have allowed his personal feelings to rob TK of victory. But, I can understand how TK would feel frustrated at this decision.

Post by **Dameon** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:55 pm

The 8 cities rule is simply an option, nothing else. If GMs don't like it they certainly don't have to use it. I think it is a good option, because it allow for more strategy in a game. I really haven't seen a lot of confusion or complaints about it; and even this time it is not the rule itself that is causing the problem as it was a miscommunication between myself, Taker, and the players in that particular group.