The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[ZargonX]

I finally came up with the shared victory metaphor I was looking for!

So let's say you are in a poker tournament, and have made it to the final table. Perhaps there are two players at the table who are going easy on each other, but not in a plainly obvious way; they don't bet into each other, and they never go head-to-head against each other. Maybe the other players don't notice because they are focused on their own game. However, suddenly there are only 3 people left at the table, and the odd-man out is beset by two players who are essentially working together to take the 3rd guy's chips. When all is said and done, they drive him out of the game, then suddenly announce that they aren't going to play anymore, but instead will split the tournament prize between themselves.

If you were one of the other players at the table, wouldn't this raise your ire a bit?

My point is not that I want ND and GoW to fight it out or anything, but I just want those who claim that the shared victory wouldn't have changed anything to really understand the opposing point of view. That, and I enjoy making metaphors that involve poker.

[Master Zen]

Sadly I do not play poker and have no clue about how the game is played (I definitely should learn though), but I definitely undertand the metaphor.

I would definitely call it cheesy, and perhaps I would raise a word or two but for one simple reason: it involves money, i.e. a tangiable prize, unlike this demo game which we're supposed to be playing for fun

Hence, if this was a friendly game of poker which didn't really involve much stakes I would probably just laugh and mock the winners. If I was betting my mortgage in that case I'd be fuming. Likewise if this game involved a sort of cash prize or something I'd be pissed, and I probably would have not have considered a joint victory in the first place.

I think many of us have forgotten what was the raison d'etre of this demogame: to serve as practice for the ISDG which was to start no more than two months afterwards. That it aquired a dimension of its own was merely circumstantial. And given that there's a PTWDG II and a C3CDG here and on MZO, victory doesn't really prove much. All GoW and ND can claim is that we were the best in this particular game, not that we're the best period.

Moreso considering the experimental nature of this game, we can claim nothing more than just being lucky (or wise) enough to commit the least mistakes. It'll be a whole new ballgame if this game gets a successor since teams will know what to do and what not to do.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
You knew knew because no other teams found such a strategy viable. Who could GS have allied with as an equal partner to win the game together? How about Lego? I've repeatedly stated that I myself would not have considered such a thing if I had been in GS or Lego.

I haven't said GS would have shared victory with anyone. Quite the opposite. GS, which at the time was basically NYE and I sitting around shooting the breeze on the subject of "shared victory", sent GoW an offer while facing almost certain elimination, and even then we specified we'd never offer shared victory.

GS may have made a pact at other times to share victory under different circumstances, I don't know. I would have left the team (or not rejoined) if GS did.

As for leaving the C3C IDG, your loss not ours.

I didn't say it was anyone's loss. If I had stayed, it would have potentially been my loss, and so I left.

As it stands though, when I read comments like this I can't but think that you consider those who play differently than you unworthy of being your teammates.

Depends on how "different" different is. Would you play with a known cheater knowing that they would likely end up doing something that would be cheating for your team? (And to be sure it's understood: I am not likening what you did to cheating, just offering up an argument that I figured would let you see that you too have limits to what you would want to involve yourself with.)

I wouldn't want to be on a team which claimed shared victory. If you think that makes me elitist, fine. But I just want to be clear that that is what I have said, not that I would leave a team simply because some would play "differently".

I joined the C3C IDG in large part because of how this game had gone after the Bobian war, specifically how the public forum had progressed. Which is the main factor in why I rejoined this game as well. Your "The Glory of News" is a big part of that, and also how Lego handled what happened to them. I was even thinking of joining the C3CDG Ankh-Morpork team because you were on it.

The game's lying, backstabbing, even public needling of opponents (though the misdirecting of those I do take issue with ) I can deal with and even appreciate.

Not made up victory conditions though. I don't accept them as actual victory conditions except for in the circumstance I've already stated... where one is reproduced or agreed on based on what the teams think would have happened in the game if it had (could) be played out to an actual victory condition.

I can tell you this: had Trip not allowed us to share the victory, we would have made an alliance to defeat the others and then fight among ourselves in a way which was specifically described. Perhaps it would have been a bit difficult to agree on how to wage war, so it would have ended in a space race. I have no clue. But I'm willing to bet that until the turn GS was knocked out, things would not have changed.

So you see that it wouldn't necessarily have been exactly the same. Which was exactly my argument. I'm glad we agree on that.

And which parties agree? All of them? Nope. Did CDG or Firaxis, or the Grenouilles have a voice on how to end the ISDG? No, because they lost. The ISDG ended in an agreement between those teams still playing, namely Poly, CFC, CGN (what was left of them), GCA and GWT. Likewise this game ended in an agreement by the those which are still alive. ND does not dispute it. GoW much less. If Vox were to dispute it then we'd probably be taking them out right now.

GoW, ND, and Vox. As I've said before, when you 3 decide on how to end the game, it's over. How that ending is viewed is up to the viewer to decide for themselves.

I respect your opinion, I just happen to disagree with it and honestly find it deplorable. Why? Because I would have congratuled Lego if they had won even with the aid of a vassal and an entire continent. I would have congratulated GS if they had won despite being formed by the bulk of the strat forum community. I would have contratuled GS/Vox if for some strange twist of history you two would have allied and played for a joint victory yourselves.

Would you congratulate GS if we were claiming victory now though? I doubt it. You definitely shouldn't, because we didn't achieve victory. GoW and ND haven't achieved victory yet, and can't both do it in my eyes. I simply don't find "shared victory" to be a victory. I view the team that triggers victory in-game to be the victor. How I would congratulate that victor remains to be seen, and your comments directed to those congratulations are meaningless because you are trying to reference something (potentially happening) in the future.

If you find it deplorable that I don't view shared victory as an actual victory condition, so be it. But don't try to paint me as someone who wouldn't acknowlege the victor of this game. I've specifically said I would.

Likewise I don't think you quite understand how downright disappointing it is to have your victory tarnished by people who simply disagree with the way it was achieved and have these people openly state that they will not recognize it or that they won't congratulate anyone, that it was invalid in their eyes etc. etc. Because I'm sure you would not like it if people started blasting GS if you had won because you were the strat gurus and that your victory was not fair. I doubt Vondrack or Zargon would like it if Lego was trashed because they were the most favored nation by the map generator and on top of it had a vassal state to aid them.

GS sent you it's feelings about shared victory, in private, the turn (after, technically) the announcement was made. We asked you if this was really how you wanted the PTWDG to go down, with a "shared victory" that many wouldn't acknowlege as actual victory. We knew it wouldn't just be us with that point of view (or just you with yours). You chose to knowingly pursue a course of action that would lead to a response we let you know would occur. Deal with it.

There still is a chance that GoW, ND, (or even Vox) will trigger an actual victory condition set before the game started, and I for one will view that team as the victor, as plainly stated several times. I'm not trying to deny anyone victory, just let my view of what constitutes a victory be known.

Any made up victory conditions that a team decides to try to claim deserve to be pointed out as simply that, made up. If GS were to claim victory, I'd be arguing against that too.

But seriously, put yourself in our shoes and see how this gang of underdogs is now being maligned for not winning the way everyone else wanted to win. Try to think of what your reaction would be if people soured your own victory and I assure you, from what I've seen the last couple of days, there'd be plenty of evidence to sour anyone's victory if they wanted to.

If they were offering evidence, and it wasn't valid reasoning, I would refute it. (I'd enjoy doing so.) If they offered convincing arguments, I'd probably feel embarrassed. If it came down to a matter of opinion, I'd respect other's right to their opinions, but my own would be what mattered to me.

To wit, it would be just like it is now, in my shoes. Where you are trying to pass off things I haven't even said as things I have said, and make derogatory comments based off of those conjurations on your part. I find this enjoyable.

Perhaps our mistake was not being taken seriously by the community. I for one have never claimed anything other than being either a goofball or an arse, depending on the situation. I do prefer to joke about things or argue my ass off instead of acting like a serious professional crack Civ-player they way most GSers like to be seen (and some non-GSers also). I guess people with that attitude and those like me and the other GoWers don't mix. Perhaps that's why having such a team win (err... half-win) was subconciously abhorrent.

I don't think you have much insight into what most GSers like to be seen as. I don't either. I can only speak for myself. I take some issues very seriously (rules of play, and also communication), even though I can joke about them as well.

To me, made up victory conditions are a threat to competitive gaming in general. Yes, I'll take that seriously in games I am involved with.

You've stated that you won't view anyone other than the team which wins the in-game victory condition as the legitimate winner. Which is it then, because this is a blatant contradiction.

It's not a contradiction at all. The "winner" has very little meaning to me. How a team won or lost is meaningful. But triggering the victory condition does signify who the winner is. That's simply the definition of victory and victor. I can view the victor as any number of things and still accept that they are the victor.

I don't have to quote anything you said, I just have to show what you did to prove that your team did many of the things that fall under the same perspective you are now maligning GoW and ND for. And I've already explained precisely what.

Obviously you can't quote me where I was applying double standards. You want to make unsupported assertions and ignore reality.

I am saying that "shared victory" is not victory. Is that a double standard? No, because I have consistantly said "shared victory" is not victory, and have not made any allowances for it to be victory for anyone.

Instead you ignore the actual meaning of the term "double standards" and try to attribute a bunch of things I haven't said to me to fit your mangled idea of what constitues double standards.

If you want to make the point that you feel some things GS did are cheesey, go ahead. You have a right to feel they are cheesey (or not). Whether you find them cheesey or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's a double standard that I find the claim of "shared victory" cheesey.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by bongo
Which leaves one final option: The Giant Backstab. That would be *very* civ but that is a path we don't want to follow.
(it has been discussed in NDs forum of course, and I am sure GoW has as well)

The words "backstab", "revenge", "let's kill" and "poo-poo face" are probably the most commonly used in the GoW forum.

And as the GoW leader I share that sentiment entirely. If my team wanted to backstab ND, they could have easily deposed me by a simple-majority vote and the next emperor could have done what he wanted. I would have also likely quit the team becuase I would have found such a thing so vile and despicable that I could not bear myself to be assosiated with a team that did such a thing (especially after signing a treaty) to a team which had been so good with us throught the game.

Fortunately the lone voice of dissent seemed to be UnO

-MZ

[Krill]

Aeson if you want to join the Ankh Morpork team, I'll get you authorized in the next five minutes.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Krill
Aeson if you want to join the Ankh Morpork team, I'll get you authorized in the next five minutes.

He really meant he wanted to join the Euphorica team of course. He just said A-M to throw everyone off.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I would have also likely quit the team becuase I would have found such a thing so vile and despicable that I could not bear myself to be assosiated with a team that did such a thing (especially after signing a treaty) to a team which had been so good with us throught the game.

Originally posted by Master Zen
As it stands though, when I read comments like this I can't but think that you consider those who play differently than you unworthy of being your teammates.

Sad.

[Krill]

He really meant he wanted to join the Euphorica team of course. He just said A-M to throw everyone off.

Heh, we're the ones who lost almost half of our pop at one point. We need the help.

[Master Zen]

I would not think them unworthy of being my teammates Aeson. I would have been proud to have been a GoWer for all the time I was in there. It's just that being the guy who signed such a thing, played for most of the time while our teams believed a shared victory was in play and then having the team demand we backstab our ally, it would really look very very bad if I remained there. I'd feel partly guilty.

Call it a way of trying to wash my hands from such a thing. Because afterwards we'd have sh*t flying in our face from ND and perhaps everyone else and I simply would not have wanted it directed at me since I never believed in backstabbing at that level. My attitude would be a simple "I respect whatever my teammates did, I just simply do not want to be assossiated with that move since I stood in-game for everything such a thing broke".

A bit different IMO than, for example, refusing to play with a team because there are backstabbers in their ranks or people who like to play alternatively because I consider myself too honorable for such a thing.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Krill

He really meant he wanted to join the Euphorica team of course. He just said A-M to throw everyone off.

Heh, we're the ones who lost almost half of our pop at one point. We need the help.

I was supposed to join you guys and nobody ever authorized me

[Krill]

Ormuzd says that you have been authorized. Could you check, MZ?

[Master Zen]

Nope, still awaiting authorization

[Krill]

Ormuzd is looking for the link. If you could tell him how to find it, it would help a lot...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Call it a way of trying to wash my hands from such a thing. Because afterwards we'd have sh*t flying in our face from ND and perhaps everyone else and I simply would not have wanted it directed at me since I never believed in backstabbing at that level.

Call it a way of trying to wash my hands from such a thing. Because afterwards we'd have sh*t flying in our face from [insert team] and perhaps everyone else and I simply would not have wanted it directed at me since I never believed in [shared victory] at that level

Ignore reality all you want MZ. I stated the reason I left, shared victory being acceptable to many who were on the team. It wasn't backstabbing or other alternative styles of play. I knew those were represented on the team when I joined it.

[Krill]

UH, Aeson, Apolyton is putting a rule up before the UN asking for shared alliance victories to mae illegal..