Shared Victory

[Daddy-O]

I guess and at what point would it be valid for 3 or 4 teams to say Team 5 can't win cuz we win.

I guess we are are stuck fighting it out.

Whay can't we all just get along?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38127000/jpg/_38127446_rodney_150ap.jpg

[bongo]

The downside of declaring a joint-victory is of course that you only get half a victory. (or third of a victory if you are 3 etc...)

Which is a point everyone seem to miss. Noone will go for a joint victory if they can win alone. Those who fear others will try to achieve a joint victory just have to make sure it doesn't happen.

It doesn't matter if you lose to an "until the end of the game alliance" or to "joint victors", you still lose.

[Krill]

What I think some people don't seem to get is that some people don't care if they win or lose, only how they play.

That is why there is always going to be the split between those who think joint victory is acceptable, as they are playing for a "win", and those who are playing for fun, and don't value the win, only the play that precedes, and forges, the win.

[Ljube]

I always play to win and hate joint victories. How do I fit in your scheme?

[Krill]

Why do you play to win though? Because that is the goal of the exercise?

[Kloreep]

How should we vote on this, anyway? Each team polls within their forum and gets a vote?

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Krill
Why do you play to win though? Because that is the goal of the exercise?

I'm not sure I understand.

I think the purpose of playing is to win. And there can be only one victor. If there are two players left and noone can win, then the game is a draw and consequently noone has lost. Not even those who were eliminated before.

[snoopy369]

I believe no vote is necessary, because there has been no actual support shown here for joint victories.

Furthermore, I'd consider allowing Joint Victories to be a change to the normal rules - normal PBEM rules state that you must play to win personally and not as a joint victory - and as such would require a significant level of interest from many if not all parties. Given that at least three team leaders have already weighed in as NO (out of six), that's not going to happen.

[PLATO]

Highlander Rules = "There can be only one."

PBEM should be Highlander Rules.

[Daddy-O]

I have to vote NO!

I can see where after two years of playing and checking the posts and negotiating a shared vistory is well disappointing.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by PLATO
Highlander Rules = "There can be only one."

PBEM should be Highlander Rules.

of course

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Beta
NO!




THIS is exactly the point. Even the PBEM guidelines insist that each player plays to win - as a an individual. Granted, that rule was put in to prevent players from bringing past grudges into new games - as in Rhoth declaring that his main purpose in every game from here on out is Beta's destruction ( ), but it was also intended to insist that each player play to win as an individual, unless the game was specifically set up as a team game.

I have not jumped into the debate yet in PTWDG, but I can tell you, I was very disappointed with the announcement. Look where this could lead to. Three teams declaring victory. Don't get me going. It still pi$$es me off.

My main purpose in every game is to find MrWIA...