Ancient Empires #2

[Peaster]

ISeeAll - I prefer Assyria as my main civ. I could also play another civ as a sub, hoping a 7th player will arrive eventually, and I'd play them independently of Assyria as much as possible. But if the purpose is to save time, my other civ should be adjacent to Assyria (Babylon or Egypt).

Some people might be able to play in 3hrs at times, but I doubt we could impose a rule for that speed. The EVO players consider 24 hrs to be a "FAST PBEM", and the Poly players have used 72hrs (or no limit at all).

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy
As I suspect you know, the 'van cap rule under discussion in this thread was ALWAYS intended and discussed as a REPLACEMENT for ALL other trading restrictions, including rehoming. I think every post I made about trade alluded to that if you had bothered to read any of them.

"ALWAYS intended" by who ?

You consistently spoke for "all-or-nothing" trade rules, but I don't recall that you persuaded anyone. You certainly had no consensus on it, and I explicitly disagreed with you, for one.

So, I ran the voting in a normal manner - one item at a time. It was clear from an early vote that we'd ban van rehoming. It was NOT clear whether people wanted other bans. It seems unlikely to me that the other players supported your all-or-nothing platform.

When I reminded you that you'd forgotten to include van caps, (AFTER THE GAME BEGAN), I, AGAIN, mentioned it in the as a replacement for the surprisingly present rehoming ban.

How could you be surprised, when I pointed out the 4-2 vote against rehoming so many times?

For some reason, you had no problem adding that rule (AFTER THE GAME BEGAN).

I explained that the rule was posted here on 9/25 before the game started on 9/26. Are you really saying that I can't edit the rules page for mistakes after 9/26 ?

For some reason, you now claimed you couldn't possibly fix the rules, SINCE THE GAME HAD ALREADY BEGUN.

I am not quite as inflexible as that, but I do feel that the rules should be settled before we start, especially ones that could favor one civ over another such as this van rule. While I don't completely like this rule, it is not a clear mistake, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone but you. If I felt there was a consensus to change it, I would have done so (and I am willing to do so even now). But the consensus was CLEARLY "Stop the rules talks. Start the game".

I thought we were having a fairly civil disagreement until your "disingenuous" comment, followed by your completely sarcastic post including "bureaucratic" and "passive-aggressive", and continuing implications that I had sinister motives for letting the other side win the caps vote. When did you first feel attacked ?

To me, you seemed to do a flip-flop on caps. But maybe you didn't understand (or didn't accept?) the voting procedures, so perhaps it really wasn't a flip-flop to you. Even if it were, that's hardly a "personal attack" IMO.

[Addled Platypus]

its real close to being official

I expect to be on the road for business Nov1, lasting for 2 weeks and no internet connection

anyone know a good sub ?

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
"ALWAYS intended" by who ?

Gee, uh...hmm By the people proposing and discussing them, maybe? Have you actually ever read ANY of them.

Originally posted by Peaster
You consistently spoke for "all-or-nothing" trade rules...

Further demonstrating you read few to none of my posts.

Originally posted by Peaster
I explicitly disagreed with you, for one.

uh...couldn't have, ace.

Originally posted by Peaster
It was clear from an early vote that we'd ban van rehoming.

Nonsense, ideas were still being tossed about and proposals were still being developed that were changing everything, including what was being voted upon.

Originally posted by Peaster
It seems unlikely to me that the other players supported your all-or-nothing platform.

Wow, I'm really curious about this platform, now...tell me more.

Originally posted by Peaster
How could you be surprised, when I pointed out the 4-2 vote against rehoming so many times?

So many times, huh? LOL You did repost periodic rules updates, if that's what you're referring to. Some of which were or would've been superseded by new proposals.

Originally posted by Peaster
Are you really saying that I can't edit the rules page for mistakes after 9/26 ?

No, I believe it was some guy named Peaster saying that.

Originally posted by Peaster
I do feel that the rules should be settled before we start...

Good idea, maybe next time, right...

Originally posted by Peaster
While I don't completely like this rule, it is not a clear mistake...

Let's see, you're talking about the rule as proposed or the rule you implemented? Which one wasn't a mistake.

Originally posted by Peaster
I thought we were having a fairly civil disagreement until you...

Hey, we actually agree on something...It's amazing how people can be offensive without even realizing it, isn't it? No you started it. No, you. No, you. No you....

[Peaster]

You have sunk to mindless sarcasm - not worth my time.

[Addled Platypus]

I have written off this game

[SlowThinker]

Ancient Empires #1 PBEM seeks a Persian leader (details in Players Needed Thread).

[Straybow]

The Seeds of Greatness: Game #2 was the actual game thread. Just so ya know.