GM Josh - Tenaria
Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus
- Donut
- Warlord
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
- Contact:
Argh... I will no longer deal with this. Korexus asked for a re-run. Dameon gave his opinion. I listened to both, contemplated, and made my decision. Regardless of the decision I made, I was gonna catch some crap for it. I feel that I made the right one.
I wouldn't say Korexus complained, it was a simple 2 line e-mail. I'm sorry to those that feel I made the wrong decision, but I hope that the game can go on without problems.
GM Josh
I wouldn't say Korexus complained, it was a simple 2 line e-mail. I'm sorry to those that feel I made the wrong decision, but I hope that the game can go on without problems.
GM Josh
The scars remind us that the past is real.
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Dameon
- Moderator
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse
Well, me, and Allister, and Ben (regarding how they would have handled the situation at any rate), if you read the thread and had access to the emails that were flying about. Anyway, Josh is right, it is over. The double standard has been applied, and Korexus has whined his way into victory on a costly battle. I will file the "get two shots at major battles" strategy away for future use, and make sure I stay out of Josh's games in the future.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."
- trewqh
- Moderator
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Bialystok, Poland clan: The Vulkings
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Same goes for me.
Actually i think that there should be an uniform manner in which such a case will be handled.
I think a WSC vote would be in place here.
Actually i think that there should be an uniform manner in which such a case will be handled.
I think a WSC vote would be in place here.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- gm_al
- Creator
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Vienna, Austria
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:00 am
I think that would be a terrible idea. That would make all GMs follow the same procedures, which some players would be unhappy about. As it stands now, you can join a GMs games if you agree with his procedures, and otherwise dont.Saladin wrote:Actually i think that there should be an uniform manner in which such a case will be handled.
I think a WSC vote would be in place here.
What I would like to see though is GMs being very clear about this type of thing in their house rules page. Perhaps the WSC could come up with a list of situations which MUST be included in the house rules of any GM site, along with how the GM will react.
- Validon
- Veteran
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
- Contact:
How many active GM's do we have? Arguments like this will turn away the ones we have. A GM's ruling should be final, if you think there is a real issue take it to the GMC. If not, then leave it alone instead of irratating and maybe even alienating the GM. Josh is a good GM and I, for one, would like to see him remain a GM. So let's get on with the game!!!!!
- Saladin
- Moderator
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Why would players be unhappy about all GM's following the same rules so that players can join any game because they'll know the rules will be the same, instead of not joining games from certain GM's because they have ridiculous rules.Gone wrote:I think that would be a terrible idea. That would make all GMs follow the same procedures, which some players would be unhappy aboutSaladin wrote:Actually i think that there should be an uniform manner in which such a case will be handled.
I think a WSC vote would be in place here.
Well that's the minimum of what should happen.What I would like to see though is GMs being very clear about this type of thing in their house rules page. Perhaps the WSC could come up with a list of situations which MUST be included in the house rules of any GM site, along with how the GM will react.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."
- Egbert
- Commander
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
- Contact:
This thread was rather annoying to read, with all the name-calling and accusations (mostly by Dameon). This could have been handled a lot more "professionally," IMHO. In the law, there is a basic contract principle called the "mailbox acceptance rule." If an offer is sent to you by mail, and the offer says that is only good until a certain deadline, and then you send in your acceptance of the offer by mail before the deadline, but it doesn't reach the person who made the offer until after the deadline, the offer is still deemed to be accepted. The offer is considered accepted at the time the acceptance was put in the mailbox, and is no longer within the control of the accepting person.
So, for what it's worth, I think that a GM should always be required to rerun the turn if he leaves out any orders which can be proven to have been sent before the deadline.
So, for what it's worth, I think that a GM should always be required to rerun the turn if he leaves out any orders which can be proven to have been sent before the deadline.
If a GM is required to rerun the turn, then Dameon's argument above goes out the window. It would not be up to the player to ask for a rerun --- it would just happen anyway as soon as the GM realizes the mistake. I thus also agree that this should be a rule passed by the WSC. Why should GMs handle this situation differently? I don't see any better way to handle this, other than to create more arguments and annoying threads like this one again.Dameon wrote:What if somebody sent in revised orders ten minutes before the deadline and then demanded a rerun if they didn't get used? Is that a different case than this one? Where do you draw the line??? Josh, you are just opening yourself up for a lot more work in the future here, but if that's what you want....
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."
- Dameon
- Moderator
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse
First of all, Al, yeah I am the WSC chair, but I must again repeat that does not mean I am the only one who can bring a matter to a vote. If you feel it is important, there is nothing stopping you. Case in point; I felt TKs HiScore separation idea was a good one, but didn't feel it was pressing, so I let somebody else bring it up. I have no problem counting votes and maintaining the WSC page as votes are taken, but I am not going to be like GH and be the one to bring up every single vote.
Second, why on earth would we want the WSC to force this? I think it is certainly something that should be addressed in the house rules, but there are arguments either way. What if a player sends in orders, and manages to get 2/5 successful spy attempts on an opponent, but then during the rerun, gets the other 3? Why should that be allowed? Why should a GM, who is a volunteer, be forced to rerun a turn when he did not do anything wrong in running it the first time? Why, as TK asks, would we want to drive GMs away?
I am not saying Josh is not a good GM, simply that I disagree with the way he handled this case. I am not saying Josh shouldn't GM; I never implied or said that. I simply said I didn't like his style and wouldn't play in any more of his games. That's my perogative as a player. Equally, any player who wishes to play in my games has to read my house rules first. All the players in my group 35 know it isn't rated, and yet I got ten, even though forced ratings was yet another topic brought up here on these boards.
Bottom line, we shouldn't force GMs to do anything, as long as they are clear in their house rules about how they run their games. If a player doesn't like their style, he doesn't have to sign up. Josh's house rules were not clear on this matter, but to be honest, I wouldn't say mine are 100% clear either. I (like Korexus) have learned from this incident that I need to update them some, just like I learned from the GCAs on turn 1 incident in my game. My house rules are constantly evolving and changing, as they should for any good GM, it is the player's responsibility to read them. Now, if there needed to be a vote in the WSC about specifically what items a GM should include in their house rules, I might be able to go for that, although it'd be a rather long list.
Second, why on earth would we want the WSC to force this? I think it is certainly something that should be addressed in the house rules, but there are arguments either way. What if a player sends in orders, and manages to get 2/5 successful spy attempts on an opponent, but then during the rerun, gets the other 3? Why should that be allowed? Why should a GM, who is a volunteer, be forced to rerun a turn when he did not do anything wrong in running it the first time? Why, as TK asks, would we want to drive GMs away?
I am not saying Josh is not a good GM, simply that I disagree with the way he handled this case. I am not saying Josh shouldn't GM; I never implied or said that. I simply said I didn't like his style and wouldn't play in any more of his games. That's my perogative as a player. Equally, any player who wishes to play in my games has to read my house rules first. All the players in my group 35 know it isn't rated, and yet I got ten, even though forced ratings was yet another topic brought up here on these boards.
Bottom line, we shouldn't force GMs to do anything, as long as they are clear in their house rules about how they run their games. If a player doesn't like their style, he doesn't have to sign up. Josh's house rules were not clear on this matter, but to be honest, I wouldn't say mine are 100% clear either. I (like Korexus) have learned from this incident that I need to update them some, just like I learned from the GCAs on turn 1 incident in my game. My house rules are constantly evolving and changing, as they should for any good GM, it is the player's responsibility to read them. Now, if there needed to be a vote in the WSC about specifically what items a GM should include in their house rules, I might be able to go for that, although it'd be a rather long list.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
- Donut
- Warlord
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Brew Town, WI; USA - BoV
- Contact:
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
Here is what it looked like:Donut wrote:I wish I coulda seen Allisters face though
GM Josh
Then I read further and it changed to:
The I read even further to the extension part and it changed to:
Seems to be a habit for these extensions.
Let me guess, Korexus is still figuring out his plan of scamming more prov's from others and needed more time.
Ah, but the future is near for the lad, and I will take him out with a BANG!
Now, who's wants their ASS-WOOPED?
Oh sorry, I already have that answer from a week ago.
Stay tuned for the next big thing.
Allister
Oh no!!! I'm out of those important papers.......
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
Sorry, Allister. Nothing to do with me. I already sent my orders. Just like the rerun on turn 5 wasn't at my request. I guess I don't whine as much as you think I do.
I take it from the tone of your post that you're still planning on breaking our NAP?
korexus.
I take it from the tone of your post that you're still planning on breaking our NAP?
korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
I knew that would get your attention.
Are you calling me a NAP breaker?
You say that in Ryans Austria I "supposedly" did, I disagree.
Please refresh my memory, and when was this game anyway? 2001?
Geesh!
As for your other comment about the upcoming turn, well you'll just have to see if I run into you since I go last.
I hope for your sake that I don't 'cause that would mean BIG trouble for you and your meesily troops.
AF
Are you calling me a NAP breaker?
You say that in Ryans Austria I "supposedly" did, I disagree.
Please refresh my memory, and when was this game anyway? 2001?
Geesh!
As for your other comment about the upcoming turn, well you'll just have to see if I run into you since I go last.
I hope for your sake that I don't 'cause that would mean BIG trouble for you and your meesily troops.
AF
Oh no!!! I'm out of those important papers.......
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
Well, if you want the details...
Ryan's 7. Game began: October 7th 2003.
You broke a NAP on turn 8: November 10th 2003.
I emailed you on the 11th asking what you were doing.
Your response: "In that case, this is my official 2-turn notice to you then."
In short, yes I do call you a NAP breaker and as Ryan's game counted towards this season's score I wouldn't say it was irrelevant, but you lost that game anyway so it's not as though you actually got anything from your underhand tactics...
I never brought this up on the boards before, remember you asked me to...
In that game I was weak from fighting Saladin and couldn't stop you. This time round that's not the case. Just keep in mind, you agreed that I could have all the provinces from the island on which Dameon started. Him being a big cry baby and quitting when things didn't go his way doesn't change that in the slightest...
korexus.
PS, since we are able to send notification from next turn anyway, why don't you just do that and stop making yourself look bad
Ryan's 7. Game began: October 7th 2003.
You broke a NAP on turn 8: November 10th 2003.
I emailed you on the 11th asking what you were doing.
Your response: "In that case, this is my official 2-turn notice to you then."
In short, yes I do call you a NAP breaker and as Ryan's game counted towards this season's score I wouldn't say it was irrelevant, but you lost that game anyway so it's not as though you actually got anything from your underhand tactics...
I never brought this up on the boards before, remember you asked me to...
In that game I was weak from fighting Saladin and couldn't stop you. This time round that's not the case. Just keep in mind, you agreed that I could have all the provinces from the island on which Dameon started. Him being a big cry baby and quitting when things didn't go his way doesn't change that in the slightest...
korexus.
PS, since we are able to send notification from next turn anyway, why don't you just do that and stop making yourself look bad
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
We'll see who's looking bad soon enough. I'll just keep pestering you about it since you like to do the same to me.korexus wrote: since we are able to send notification from next turn anyway, why don't you just do that and stop making yourself look bad
As for the notification, it's coming. Not today, maybe tomorrow so hurry up and send in new orders to Josh so you won't have to delay the game more than it already has been.
Oh, and as for Ryan's game. I am still confused. I don't recall doing anything that broke our NAP. As I recall you were pretty much toast anyways and no longer would have been able to do anything to anyone so why not just fess up to the facts.
Oh no!!! I'm out of those important papers.......
- korexus
- Moderator
- Posts: 2829
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Reading
- Contact:
I've only ever replied to stuff you've sent me. Hardly pestering...AF wrote:We'll see who's looking bad soon enough. I'll just keep pestering you about it since you like to do the same to me.
Official word from on high is that trewqh asked for the extension. I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not trewqh.AF wrote:As for the notification, it's coming. Not today, maybe tomorrow so hurry up and send in new orders to Josh so you won't have to delay the game more than it already has been.
It's quite simple. You took some provinces which had belonged to me, but at that point belonged to Saladin. I emailed you saying that I had planned to take them back and that I really didn't want you to move any further to the north (which was still neutral and our NAP had promised to me) you said "oh well" and took said neutrals. Yes I was weak and yes, after you'd taken the rest of the pop that you'd agreed I could have, I had no chance of winning the game. Why does that make it ok? It doesn't but I didn't have enough resources to stake my claim straight after fighting Sal. You're now planning to use the same tactic here to take neutrals which you have no claim on, but this time it won't work...AF wrote:Oh, and as for Ryan's game. I am still confused. I don't recall doing anything that broke our NAP. As I recall you were pretty much toast anyways and no longer would have been able to do anything to anyone so why not just fess up to the facts.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability
- Allister Fiend
- Commander
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Where you see smoke.....:-) The First Family
Now I remember the game you are talking about.
The real story folks is this:
Yes, Korexus said he was going to take out Saladin and at that point he would nestle in next to me to sleep and recover.
But...........
Saladin obviously was winning the battle against Korexus and the inevitable was pretty obvious.
Saladin e-mailed me and told me to take his remaining provinces because he was about to "suicide" himself into Korexus with the hope to make it but at that point both of them were "screwed" and no matter what happened, neither was at all worth continuing.
Korexus I believe won the fight, barely, and what was left in Saladins stuff was no POP at all so there was no way he would have been able to take the remaining nuetrals without creating more armies, and as we all know, you need POP to make armies.
So I took all of Sal's remaining provinces.
Korexus e-mailed me complaining about it.
I told him, and I believe these are quote words from me, " You couldn't get the job done on Sal, so I took care of it"
I never attacked you until after our agreement expired, I just took what was gonna be mine anyway.
At that point I ended my NAP with Korexus, and now I am accused of "breaking a NAP"
Tisk...tisk...
I didn't win like you said so why do you insist on dwelling on it further?
Just face the facts Korexus, you were done anyway and just like Josh's game, you were/are being a little exagerant/greedy on everything.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I just hope your ready for what is coming your way.
And it isn't gonna be a fun time, just bloody, plain bloody.....
Ok, I'm done on this so make your post Korexus, 'cause you always must have the last word.
Have a nice day!
The real story folks is this:
Yes, Korexus said he was going to take out Saladin and at that point he would nestle in next to me to sleep and recover.
But...........
Saladin obviously was winning the battle against Korexus and the inevitable was pretty obvious.
Saladin e-mailed me and told me to take his remaining provinces because he was about to "suicide" himself into Korexus with the hope to make it but at that point both of them were "screwed" and no matter what happened, neither was at all worth continuing.
Korexus I believe won the fight, barely, and what was left in Saladins stuff was no POP at all so there was no way he would have been able to take the remaining nuetrals without creating more armies, and as we all know, you need POP to make armies.
So I took all of Sal's remaining provinces.
Korexus e-mailed me complaining about it.
I told him, and I believe these are quote words from me, " You couldn't get the job done on Sal, so I took care of it"
I never attacked you until after our agreement expired, I just took what was gonna be mine anyway.
At that point I ended my NAP with Korexus, and now I am accused of "breaking a NAP"
Tisk...tisk...
I didn't win like you said so why do you insist on dwelling on it further?
Just face the facts Korexus, you were done anyway and just like Josh's game, you were/are being a little exagerant/greedy on everything.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I just hope your ready for what is coming your way.
And it isn't gonna be a fun time, just bloody, plain bloody.....
Ok, I'm done on this so make your post Korexus, 'cause you always must have the last word.
Have a nice day!
Oh no!!! I'm out of those important papers.......