Slargos Long Anticipated Returned Game Of Spite

[DSYoungEsq]

In fairness to Daniel, there are two reasons he might wish clear rules:

1. To avoid people bitching at him about aggressive tactics (for which he really shouldn't be condemned)

2. To avoid others taking advantage of his and our good intentions.


I don't mind aggressive behaviour; I expect it from my fellow players. Anyone who takes advantage of my good intentions doesn't play with me again. So I feel fine; I hope Daniel does, too.

 

[Swuul]

Man, this is interesting Will we see a first quit before the game actually starts, or do we have to wait for a session or two? There should be more of these "No-quit games", they sure seem to be spiced!



Ooops. Forgot. Now I will be told by half a dozen people to shut up because I don't have a clue of anything inthis game anyway...

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Daniel, in this you have reached the basis of the difference of opinion that you have with almost the whole of the MP community.

....

Most of us don't need specific rule sets to limit our behaviour.

...

But I much prefer to have people I play with who understand that there are things you don't do because they are "cheating" even without an explicit rule to that effect, things you don't do because they are likely to piss off most of the people you play with, things you won't do in a given game because they will upset the players of that game, and things you don't/won't do because they violate your own personal ethic code and/or sense of enjoyment.

....

DSY,

There is little consensus on many things, as you should know. The picture you paint is simply not true.

Just to take a few examples

- some players accept pirate abuse
- some players allow themselves a short pause to retreat under certain circumstances
- some players allow themselves to look in the save file on other nations between sessions
- some players allow themselves to freely take advantage of the lag phenomenon
- some players allow themselves to make phony wars for all kind of reasons (such as increasing stab of the DOWed nation, or to circumvent a no-map-trade-between-players-rule)
- some players players allow themselves to explore enemy territory after peace has been made
- some players may release a vassal during war to block an enemy offensive
- some players believe(d) switching to CRC during war and then back again is OK
- this list is probably endless

and there are other who do not agree on these points and the most important lesson for you to learn from is that there is not e.g. two easy to define groups: those who do it and those who don't. No, the truth is that there are very few who have an identical view on all these cases. And thus you need to tell them what is allowed in this precise game and what is not.

------------

The problem is not that some players "can play without strict rules" and some (you would take me as an example) cannot, the problem is that people do not know what is expected from them and this leads to unnecessary and bad arguments. People are allowed to silently invent their own rules and then they get angry/disappointed when someone else breaks such a rule. Thus they themselves may break a whole campaign. Just now Chill2 show signs of a possible break down because of this although all details are not yet known. New Order IV definitely did break down because of it. There are sure to be more examples. I don't remember why Slargos and Fredrik's previous game went down the drain but I would not be surprised if it was because of not well enough defined rules.

-----------

You live in a dream world DSY.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

When playing football with your friends, I sincerely hope you don't kick their legs when the referee is not looking, Daniel.

No I do not. Because it is forbidden. You appear utterly incapable of understanding me.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Ooops. Forgot. Now I will be told by half a dozen people to shut up because I don't have a clue of anything inthis game anyway...

I just love these little comments by people not involved. And I do mean it. Just keep em' coming Jarkko

 

[unmerged(6147)]

In fairness to Daniel, there are two reasons he might wish clear rules:

1. To avoid people bitching at him about aggressive tactics (for which he really shouldn't be condemned)

2. To avoid others taking advantage of his and our good intentions.


I don't mind aggressive behaviour; I expect it from my fellow players. Anyone who takes advantage of my good intentions doesn't play with me again. So I feel fine; I hope Daniel does, too.

I expect the two of us to be a tandem. I have always believed that very good relations with SPA is a must for POR in EU MP.

In general I tend to be nice to those who are nice to me and vice versa DSY.

An exception may be Damocles, even if he is nice to me I will be wary. Timeo Danaes et dona ferentes.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

No I do not. Because it is forbidden. You appear utterly uncapable of understanding me.

Ah, here we get to the nub. It is NOT forbidden. Groups of friends don't play by the Laws of Soccer promulgated by FIFA, any more than pick-up basketball plays by the rules of the NBA. It isn't done because it isn't in the spirit of the game, and because if you start doing it, everyone will do it and no one will have fun.

Indeed, to carry the analogy further (perhaps to the stretching point), the Laws of Soccer preclude a large portion of the activity that goes on in a real top flight professional soccer game. Were the Laws to be enforced rigorously, the game would be far different than it is. What happens is that a concensus is reached among the participants as to what is acceptable, and it is this concensus that is enforced (participants include the officials, and the time frame is not one game, but whole seasons).

So even rules do not in and of themselves stop people from taking advantage of a situation.

I have yet to participate in a game organized through this forum where pirate spamming would be acceptable. It is a perfect example of what we are discussing. We don't do it because it would make the game unfun. We don't do it by common consent. We don't refuse to do it because it is precluded by rule 3.1.5(a).

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Timeo Danaes et dona ferentes.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

And yes, that would be wise in the case of Damocles

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I have yet to participate in a game organized through this forum where pirate spamming would be acceptable.

However, you did participate in the exploded game where Drake used pirate spamming once.

He did so, because 'it was only once'.

I would say that using pirate spamming is bad and everyone knows it, but there we had a player who clicked on the place pirate button once, and said it was not 'spamming'.

I myself had someone getting mad at me because I broke a truce to redow when his WE was still high and mine low.

There are too many occasions that players can't agree to what's acceptable behaviour in a game, leading to quits and people becoming frustrated.

We don't have the luxury to not play with people we don't like either.

I agree with Daniel that an extensive rulelist would be the best. Any community playing at a competitive level needs that. It's the only way to make sure everyone plays with the same standards.

However, it's not realistic to expect this by a lack of gamemasters creating these rules, thus I play as I think is acceptable for anybody and I try to shut up when I see in various games people using methods, I don't find acceptable.

Like Damocles requesting DoWs to improve his stab in dire streets 2, something I hope he won't do in our game.

 

[Swuul]

We don't have the luxury to not play with people we don't like either.

Ummm... Well, *I* do have that "luxury" for sure. Nobody forces me to play with people I don't like.

Incidently FAL, by whome and how are you forced to play with people you don't like? Slargos with a shotgun doesn't sound as a reliable reason, as I am pretty sure the air-port officials might have issues with a big and scary looking man (like Slargos is) entering an airplane with a shotgun...

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Ah, here we get to the nub. It is NOT forbidden.

Of course it is forbidden. What kind of friends do you have? Some rules are obvious to us all. Yes to us all. As for example an edit of the save file by the GM to give himelf 1000d would be. You do not need a specified rule for this. :wacko:

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Ummm... Well, *I* do have that "luxury" for sure. Nobody forces me to play with people I don't like.

Incidently FAL, by whome and how are you forced to play with people you don't like? Slargos with a shotgun doesn't sound as a reliable reason, as I am pretty sure the air-port officials might have issues with a big and scary looking man (like Slargos is) entering an airplane with a shotgun...

Literally, You and I do have a choice of course.

However, I till today haven't participated in a game with at least one player behaving in a way I don't like.

Sure, I could quit those game and refuse to play with him again, but eventually I would find myself without games, since the eu2 community is too small. Hence me referring to it as a 'luxury'.

Sure, there are players I dislike so much I won't bother joining a campaign they play in, but that's the other extreme.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Of course it is forbidden. What kind of friends do you have? Some rules are obvious to us all. Yes to us all. As for example an edit of the save file by the GM to give himelf 1000d would be. You do not need a specified rule for this. :wacko:

Daniel, I think you miss the point of my statement, and indeed, in missing it, we see the fundamental difference in our approach.

There is no "inherent" rule in football that prevents someone from kicking an opponent. If you look at the history of such games, they used to include all sorts of mayhem. A game of calcio in Italy, for example, was a barely disciplined exercise in "last man left standing." In England, the precursor to football involved the people of two towns doing everything in their power to prevent the other side from getting the ball into their town square. Mayhem was certainly included. And in later, more civilized atmosphere, it was the difference of opinion between the masters at Rugby and the masters at other public schools that led to the split between football at which you could pick-up the ball and run (and be grabbed and thrown down) from football at which you could not touch the ball with your hands.

If you play football with friends, and you don't kick each other, you do it out of mutual consent, not because someone printed up a "rule" about it.

Similarly, if we don't spam pirates, we do it because of common consent, not because Slargos put in the "rules" a statement: "spamming pirates is forbidden." Are you saying that if Slargos said, "there is no rule about it, we'll just kick you out if you do it", you would do it? I think not.

 

[unmerged(38752)]

You do not need a specified rule for this. :wacko:

Oh... my... fucking... god...

Did hell just freeze?

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Oh... my... fucking... god...

Did hell just freeze?

hehehe, Daniel is often misunderstood. He doesn't want everything in a rule, just the controversial things.



Mmmm, actually, I shouldn't put words in his mouth. My bad....

 

[unmerged(38752)]

hehehe, Daniel is often misunderstood. He doesn't want everything in a rule, just the controversial things.



Mmmm, actually, I shouldn't put words in his mouth. My bad....

We should make a rule against people putting words in other people's mouths.

 

[Damocles]

Bah. When it comes to EUII, I believe in bare knuckle fisticuffs and going for the throat. And if my own ally won't have the sheer common decency to conspire at a mock war to bring my citizens together after a quirk of the game engine screws me out of stab during a civil war? Well, hell, I'll be invading him next in a real war!

*shakes fist in defiance at Daniel's laws of anti-Damoclean discrimation*

Yes. I have been known to use Pirates.

I have been known to create vassals as obstacles towards an invader.

Yea, I have even browbeaten my own allies into declaring war on me.

I have explored the entire fucking Siberian corridor while my Russian neighbour didn't realize I had some cav left in his country.

And I admit...I have even often switched back and forth between CRC when it was conveniant

Lo and behold, I accept in disgrace that I have even made use of lag merchants in the past. Furthermore, I have further shamefully utilized lag colonists and by God...even lag missionaries.

It is neither a secret that I use ruse and subterfuge to further my own agenda at the expense of my fellow players. It is true I have lied to many of you in the past.

Am I arrogant and boastful? Perhaps a little. Yet not without cause!

Would I betray my own dear mother for a CB province on my border? Faster then you could say Happy Mother's Day!

You must wonder if there is no end to my depravity?​

Yet is my blood not red? As crimson as any of yours? For there is much that I would not do. And even though this list of vices seems great, I ask, do I not have virtues as well?

I would not run my country into the ground in a war I knew I was losing. Or even a war I might end if it were not justified by sound economic reasons for the long term benefit.

I would not abandon my fellow players, no matter how destroyed my country was.

I would never give up and I would always pull through when the going got rough. Even after suffering great hardship, invasions and civil war.

I do not gain inflation indiscriminately, nor do I use unwise fiscal policies. Always, I have the long term health of my country at the forefront of my mind.

Nor do I make arbitrary diplomatic decisions, based on my personal amusement or boredom.

I do not pause in wars where I am surprised and need time to regroup my forces.

I have a keen grasp of the geopolitical realities of the map, and my own responsibility to it.

And if you betray me? I will not hold it as a grudge or whine and quit (like some!). I will simply sink the knife in your back twice as deep when you do not expect it.

And finally, I am as honest and trustworthy a neighbor as any of you could ever hope to fight side by side with. And disarmingly modest to boot. *


So fie on Daniel's rules!

Let us rise or fall by our wit and the strength of our swordarm, never on a technicality or ruling!

(cue stirring music)








*See earlier list of vices

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Damo, you duly forgot your force manu burning

I would never give up and I would always pull through when the going got rough. Even after suffering great hardship, invasions and civil war.

And what about a double civil war, followed by invasions then?

Jokes and giggles aside, which of the above sins would you repeat in a game?
And why?

 

[Damocles]

Damo, you duly forgot your force manu burning



And what about a double civil war, followed by invasions then?

Jokes and giggles aside, which of the above sins would you repeat in a game?
And why?

Well.

I'm not rightly sure that I'd seek to commit any of them without just cause. I've been convinced that using Pirates to delay invasions is terrible gamemanship.

But Slargos better watch out that no Austrian cavalryman finds himself past the Volga .

Half of those vices aren't even possible anymore.

 

[Slargos]

Damocles is the original sinner.

A meta-gamer extraordinaire.

It's why I would NEVER include him in an RP game again.

Now, on to the relevant:

I am dismayed to having to do this, but there you go.
Life has contrived to throw me a few surprises lately, and as a result I won't be able to make it to this sunday's session given a start this weekend. Nor will I be able to make it to the next session.
As for the first october session, I honestly can't tell right now wether I'll be able to play.

I will consistently quit in order to spare you guys the sub torment and the evil dictatorial GM torment. o

I was really looking forward to playing Russia and giving FAL what for, but it looks like that won't happen.