The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Never. Not in a demogame which was specifically created to demonstrate which was the best civ site in the world.

I apologize for assuming you would then.

If 2 of the other teams in the C3C IDG tried to share victory, as the only way they felt they could beat Apolyton (or whoever), would you accept that as a victory?

(For now assume there is no explicit ruling against it.)

[Master Zen]

and victory has nothing to do whatsoever with how the game was played?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson


I apologize for assuming you would then.

If 2 of the other teams in the C3C IDG tried to share victory, as the only way they felt they could beat Apolyton (or whoever), would you accept that as a victory?

(For now assume there is no explicit ruling against it.)

With no explicit ruling, I would call it cheesy, but I would ultimately accept it. I would also mention that it would be rather odd that in a game explicity made to prove which was the best civ site in the world two sites would choose to win together and thus not prove anything.

I some other way I'd feel also a bit honored. That two teams had to gang up to beat us. Which would prove to me that one team alone couldn't have done it and hence, in my eyes, we were in practice, just as good as they were.

You know, me of all people, would like to prove that I'm better than GWT because of what happened in the ISDG because I was left with the impression that we could have done so much more in that game if we had been given a better start and a better continent. But I also felt that the place to prove that would be in another ISDG, be it C3C or Civ4. This PTWDG would have proved nothing in my eyes and hence my willingness to share our victories.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
and victory has nothing to do whatsoever with how the game was played?

Both GoW and ND would be equally content in having the other trigger the victory condition. Given that, I think the optimal solution for the sake of egality will be to vote for... Vox. That way I can snicker whenever you say that Vox won the PTWDG

You see what I was saying. Whether Vox triggers Diplomatic victory or not, it doesn't really change how the teams played. Technically, Vox would be the victor, but you'd snicker at that. So would you snicker at GoW or ND (or NGoWD) being the victor too?

[Master Zen]

No, I'd snicker if in the future I were to read a post of yours making reference to this game and saying "Vox won".

But you are avoiding to answer my point. You don't find it a bit odd that one team gets lauded for the way they played (which by saying the way they played automatically includes the way they won) and the other gets slammed for the victory the played for?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
But you are avoiding to answer my point. You don't find it a bit odd that one team gets lauded for the way they played (which by saying the way they played automatically includes the way they won) and the other gets slammed for the victory the played for?

No.

You have raised issues of "poor-loserism" and "borderline-cheating" to argue against people's opinions on shared victory, using broad generalizations to address your derogatory comments. Do you really expect everyone you've potentially targetted with those comments to respond as if you didn't? Still, I have yet to see even one poster say ND's "shared victory" is any different than GoW's "shared victory". (If anyone has, they are obviously wrong to have done so.)

ND has remained civil. They haven't accused any other teams of being poor sports, or exploiting the game. They have simply stated their views on shared victory, and allowing other's the right to their own. That is why no one is arguing so vehemently with them. There is nothing to argue about.

If you want to be treated the same way, behave the same way. (Though it might be a while before what you've already accomplished will settle.)

[vondrack]

It's a rather new experience to have Aeson speak for me... ...but, indeed, you can take his comments on what concerned my congratulations post as if they were my own.

See, MZ...

I congratulate GoW on a game well played.

...feeling better now? Not? Why?

'cause you do not believe I mean it? I do. There is a number of GoW players, yourself included, which I very much respect for their various skills. Just like with other teams. GoW did extremely well when it came to plotting and scheming (and fighting), when it came to always siding with (or being) the stronger warring party. That's not an achievement to be belittled. How much I value it over achievements of other teams is a different matter.

I just happen to have this weird habit of congratulating only people who are not throwing "borderline-insulting" stuff my way.

Call me a jerk...

P.S.: And no, it was not me speaking about how I couldn't congratulate you (though it was me saying I wouldn't argue about the merits of a shared victory and though I'd agree I could not congratulate you on your victory). So I consider your comment retracted, thus needing no further response.

[Master Zen]

Vondrack, my sincere apologies if I put words in your mouth that were never said. Please understand that in a discussion of this magnitude its a bit hard to keep track of who said what precisely. Nevertheless that is no excuse for maligning you for saying something you didn't say so even if my comment is automatically retracted I still feel the need to apologize for such a thing.

[Beta]

Originally posted by vondrack
GoW did extremely well when it came to plotting and scheming (and fighting), ....

Vox has a different view based on a much earlier conflict.

(just so you know- I am saying this very much tongue in cheek.)

[vondrack]

[DeepO]

Beta, you're still my god when it comes to plotting and scheming

DeepO

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen
As to whether "two teams knew it was possible, and everyone else played on under another set of assumptions." honestly I think that's a weak argument.

Every team had to play under the assumption that X and Y teams could possibly be allied against them. It changes nothing that the two last standing teams simply decide to not fight and share the victory.

I still have not heard a shred of conclusive evidence that this game would have been any difference from a shared victory or a "ally until we destroy everyone else and then duke it out among ourselves" which apparently would have been a valid strategy as far as most arguments here are concerned.

How about, GoW would have been wiped out, and not Lego?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


I never said a single word against GS until the NAP. And I still stand by my stance that you broke it in spirit. You knew our plans, you purposely blocked our path, you were warned continuing to do so would be seen as an act of aggression in violation of the NAP, you continued to do it, and you sent a written declaration of war to our ally, who you KNEW we were allied with in the war. If that is not breaking it, I don't know what is.

I came out in support of you when everyone was *****ing about you being elitist. I didn't care about you being the Strat forum gurus. I didn't care that you would deny members, or at the least encourage them joining other teams. I said so publicly. I came out in support of you during and after Vox. I made it a POINT never to say anything bad, and to say when I agreed with you.

Yes, there were friendly things mentioned. Go back and look. They may have been drowned out.

How about the 'you get whatever cities you can get, however you get them' chat?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Our invasion sucked. Happy now?

-MZ

It would have sucked even more with 5 or 6 nukes raining down on it, and another 2 or 3 blowing holes in your coastal defences.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Master Zen


We're not maligning you for using the tactic, please read my posts carefully before responding. I'm maligning you for having voted it in favor.

When did we get a vote on shared victory?