The Whore of Babylon Speaks - GoW Official Statement

[Rhothaerill]

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.

We're invading the team Trip is a part of....so hence our team is going to have more fun.

[Aeson]

That would be a good rule. I left before the discussion even began. (Until GS was eliminated I wanted no part in the discussion, because I was turn player and would have responsibility for what GS as a team was doing. I also was the official public representative for the team, and don't want my opinions to be misconstrued as official team views.)

[Krill]

If you capture a slave, remember to rename it "Triprentice"

[Master Zen]

I doubt that in the decide-who-is-the-best-Civ3-team-period tournament which is round 2 of the C3C any team could conceivably want a shared victory.

[Krill]

Plenty of people thought that nobody would want a shared victory in this demogame either.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vondrack
And this, bongo, is something I respect 1000%.

Congratulations on a game well played!

So I take it ND deserves to be congratulated but GoW didn't deserve it...

[Aeson]

NO team would ever start playing a demogame with the intention of sharing a victory. Everyone starts by wanting to win by themselves and most of the trajectory of the game involves trying to find a way of achieving such a thing.

Is to:

I doubt that in the decide-who-is-the-best-Civ3-team-period tournament which is round 2 of the C3C any team could conceivably want a shared victory.

As:

Thus, we contemplated a joint victory because franky, we thought it was impossible for either GoW or ND to win by ourselves, so at least claiming "half" the victory was better than losing.

Is to:

?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So I take it ND deserves to be congratulated but GoW didn't deserve it...

You've really lost it if you think that was a valid response to an act of good sportsmanship.

Vondrack was addressing a member of ND, and congratulated the team for how they played. He didn't congratulate anyone else in the same breath, only who he was talking to. What an atrocity!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson


You've really lost it if you think that was a valid response to an act of good sportsmanship.

Vondrack was addressing a member of ND, and congratulated the team for how they played. He didn't congratulate anyone else in the same breath, only who he was talking to. What an atrocity!

I made that post since I recall vondrack mentioning in another post that though he will not dispute the merits of a joint victory he could not "congratulate" us because he didn't believe in it.

Of course given the plethora of comments like that made by many people it might not have been vondrack in which case I retract my post.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson


Is to:



As:



Is to:

?

You really seem to get off at arguing the most minute and irrelevant tidbits. What have I been saying all along? That this game proved nothing in the grand scheme of things. Round 2 of the C3C ISDG proves A LOT. It proves who's the best site in the world in the last demogame for Civ3. If this had been the ISDG you bet I would have wanted to prove my team was better than the Germans and would have backstabbed them if necessary to win.

This game didn't. It was a game for fun between members of a same site which just a few months later decided to start another demogame thus proving that a win in one game mattered even less in the grand scheme of things. It was also started as practice for a game which did matter, the ISDG.

What are you going to argue next Aeson, that I forgot to put a comma where one was needed?

[Aeson]

You really seem to get off at arguing the most minute and irrelevant tidbits.

You bring them up. If you make a false accusation or statement concerning me, I'm probably going to refute. I do enjoy breaking things down to minute details and analysing them on that level. So what? It doesn't make your false statements any more correct to point that out.

You may find false accusations and misdirected insults irrelevent, but I don't. If you don't want to get involved in minute discussions about all the details of your statements, don't make the points for me to argue, or make them valid points, or simply ignore me. Your call.

What are you going to argue next Aeson, that I forgot to put a comma where one was needed?

At least the arguments I make are dealing with things you have actually said.

Have I ever argued against you based on spelling or punctuation? No. Yet you make the insinuation that I would participate in such a conversation. Over and over again you've done this sort of thing, making assumptions about what I might do, instead of relying on what I've actually said.

I made that post since I recall vondrack mentioning in another post that though he will not dispute the merits of a joint victory he could not "congratulate" us because he didn't believe in it.

Vondrack didn't congratulate ND on their victory. He congratulated them on a game well-played.

[Aeson]

If this had been the ISDG you bet I would have wanted to prove my team was better than the Germans and would have backstabbed them if necessary to win.

Would you have considered a shared victory pact with another team if you felt that was the only way Apolyton could win?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson
You bring them up. If you make a false accusation or statement concerning me, I'm probably going to refute. I do enjoy breaking things down to minute details and analysing them on that level. So what? It doesn't make your false statements any more correct to point that out.

Of course you seldom manage to prove that they're false.

Vondrack didn't congratulate ND on their victory. He congratulated them on a game well-played.

And you don't find it rather, how shall I put it, "double-standardish" that replies to GoWers end up sounding like "shared victory, bleh " and replies to ND are "congrats, well played! "

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aeson


Would you have considered a shared victory pact with another team if you felt that was the only way Apolyton could win?

Never. Not in a demogame which was specifically created to demonstrate which was the best civ site in the world.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Master Zen

And you don't find it rather, how shall I put it, "double-standardish" that replies to GoWers end up sounding like "shared victory, bleh " and replies to ND are "congrats, well played! "

Posts dealing with shared victory require arguments dealing with shared victory. Posts dealing with how a team played require arguments dealing with how they played.

They are seperate issues. So far I haven't seen anyone say ND's "shared victory" is any different than GoW's "shared victory". You have no point, only paranoia.