"Stats per date in this tourney (w-l-d):
Germany: 20-4-2 (ommiting the 2 games in which there was an NMR)
Italy: 4-20-2"


Interesting. I represent half of the "aberations" to date. I have one loss as Germany and one win as Italy. In my ongoing games, I am also about to win as Italy in one, and am currently losing as Germany in another.

In any case, the point is it is clear that GvI isn't balanced. So I think we should switch maps...

PE you wrote again some tons of text and there is still missing your soooo big facts about GvI beeing so imbalanced.... Just because after 150 games germany has clearly more wins that means nothing.... It can be idiotic play of italy player as it could be just luck... last time I was at the casino RED came 34 times in a row.... so what? does that mean RED is better than BLACK? in your theory yes lol....

I will not pm you any vote fasces:
We stated this at start of the tournament and as we play each side once it's perfectly fair....
I would accept a tiebreaker match (match 5 7 9) on lepanto for the sake of fairness, but I won't accept any other change to the rules in an ongoing tournament!
not even with a supermajority.

1) It's unfair change the rules while a tourney is in progress (agree Devonian), but, if it happens, at least it must be at the end of Phase 1. "New Phase new rules" could be ok. Basically I hope to end up qualifications with the same Rules I started them. Changing the Rules with the Phase in progress without unanymous consent it's an abuse.

2) An imbalanced map in the next Phases could be unfair only because they have an odd number of games. So why don't we change the Rule only for the last game (5-7-9) of the set? The more little the change is, the less unfair it is.

3) I'm going to PM Fasces right now.

"Just because after 150 games germany has clearly more wins that means nothing.... It can be idiotic play of italy player as it could be just luck... last time I was at the casino RED came 34 times in a row.... so what? does that mean RED is better than BLACK? in your theory yes lol...."

Your inanity knows no bounds. A casino luck game is obviously just luck. Diplomacy is not a casino luck game. Stop making fucking stupid comparisons, please. I only have so many brain cells to waste on them.

"PE you wrote again some tons of text and there is still missing your soooo big facts about GvI beeing so imbalanced"

That's because I was asking if anyone still upheld that it wasn't balanced. You're the only one still desperately clinging to the illusion that a game where one country of two wins 65% of the time is balanced, so I'll just quote fasces and leave it at that because this is all a halfwit somewhat rational person needs to see:

"Stats per date in this tourney (w-l-d):
Germany: 20-4-2 (ommiting the 2 games in which there was an NMR)
Italy: 4-20-2"

We are talking about an EIGHTY-THREE win percent for Germany of all games soloed, SEVENTY-SEVEN win percent overall. That is RIDICULOUSLY imbalanced and cannot be attributed to mere luck.

"We stated this at start of the tournament and as we play each side once it's perfectly fair...."

No, it isn't. You have no right to force me to play an imbalanced map. We've gone over this already in the misrepresentation argument, but I'm sure you didn't understand that or just ignored it like you ignore every other decent point contrary to your beliefs, so I'll restate it here in the hopes you don't do it again: We all agreed to GvI ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS A BALANCED DEFAULT MAP. It is NOT A BALANCED MAP, and BECAUSE WE DID NOT AGREE TO PLAY AN IMBALANCED DEFAULT MAP, we NEED TO CHANGE GvI BECAUSE WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT IS HORRIBLY IMBALANCED.

"but I won't accept any other change to the rules in an ongoing tournament!
not even with a supermajority."

As if your one voice means shit. Your record isn't even carrying any weight for you because mine is better and I'm on the opposite side, so now we look to your actual arguments for not doing it and it boils down to:

"BAAAAAAWWWW I'M GOOD AT GvI DON'T CHANGEEEE IT PWEEEEEASE IT'S NOT IMBALANCED DON'T LOOK AT THE FACTS JUST LISTEN TO MEEEE BAAAAAAWWWW I DUN WAAAAAANNAAAAAA"

And it's extremely unimpressive.

Now, for someone who actually makes good points, Guaroz:

"1) It's unfair change the rules while a tourney is in progress (agree Devonian), but, if it happens, at least it must be at the end of Phase 1. "New Phase new rules" could be ok. Basically I hope to end up qualifications with the same Rules I started them. Changing the Rules with the Phase in progress without unanymous consent it's an abuse."

Here's the thing, though: The rules already WERE changed. We all agreed to play a balanced default map. We picked GvI because we thought it was the most balanced. When it turned out that GvI is NOT balanced, that rule for a balanced default map changed. This is correcting an abuse that already occurred, not creating a new abuse.

That said, it could still be argued that we agreed to play GvI as well as agreeing to play a balanced default, so an abuse is done either way. In that case a compromise is best to minimize the abuses created, and so I'd be alright with delaying the change.

"2) An imbalanced map in the next Phases could be unfair only because they have an odd number of games. So why don't we change the Rule only for the last game (5-7-9) of the set? The more little the change is, the less unfair it is."

Again, the unfair part (from my and others' point of view) is that some of us never would have agreed to the tournament if we knew we would be forced to play an imbalanced map in the case of disagreement over the map of choice. Merely making the odd game be a balanced map, while correcting the unfairness to an extent, would not correct it in its entirety. Hence, the proposal for a new balanced default (FvA, Duo, Lepanto).

you still lack any prove of that big imbalancing... and no I dont see 150 games as a proving set....

From experience Duo quickly changes depending on the openings of the other player, there is opportunities for a variety of strategies and defenses. Lepanto on the otherhand is a bit too screwy for my eyes, and FvA whilst more balanced than GvI isn't quite as truly balanced as Duo is.

And when we started this tourney I clearly stated I will only join if the default is GvI and it was agreed on that...

Germany winning 115 times against Italy's 67 seems imbalanced to me.

We will see how the voting goes. When the votes come out, and you don't like it, you are free to leave.

says the one that came in late...
just leave yourself if you dont like it... dont come in an ongoing tourney and want to change rules! freaks..

you all knew from the beginning GvI is standard as both sides play both even its completely fair even if germany would have won 99% of the games...
so stop complaining and play or leave yourself

"you still lack any prove of that big imbalancing... and no I dont see 150 games as a proving set...."

You wouldn't see 150 million games as a proving set. I frankly don't care anymore because I've already called you out on your blatant ulterior motive and you didn't even try to deny it. Your irrelevant obfuscations are only matched by those of a house of Congress, except they actually have the political power to get away with it.

"And when we started this tourney I clearly stated I will only join if the default is GvI and it was agreed on that..."

No, it was agreed that we would used a balanced default. That default happened to be GvI, which happened to be what you wanted. You should probably get off that high horse of yours, because I promise you we didn't all bend to your will and put GvI there because you wanted it. We put it there on the false pretense that GvI was balanced. We did not put it there so you could be an obstructionist douchebag and force people to play your favorite variant.

Put this way: What if the default change does occur? You keep saying "I will not stand for this change even if there's a supermajority!" and such high-and-mighty talk, as if whether or not you personally like the change would somehow affect the change occurring. What exactly could you possibly do that would even be remotely relevant to the tournament if it did change, that you repeatedly yelling how you're not going to like this should even be considered?

I've already demonstrated that I'm here to change the default to something balanced. If we could keep a public running tally of the votes then I would vote for whichever of Duo or FvA had the most backing to ensure that a balanced default is chosen, regardless of my personal preference. Since we can't, I will be casting my vote for FvA, because I think that even though Duo is more balanced that more people are going to vote for FvA and I don't want to split the vote. My motivations are clear, and not ulterior or personal. Yours, on the other hand, are as transparent as they are flatly disappointing.

loooool you sound like a big son of papa getting all he wants put up there and trying to compensate not achieving whatever by trying to talk so high classy!
please continue I'll get some popcorn and read along! :)

as the title says: http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=2374

I... have to admit, I don't understand what you just said in the post before the link.

As for the link... I presume that's an invitation, no?

as the title says just join and play...
and if you don't understand just let it be... bit hard to translate... lol

Very well. I'm not sure what the point of this is, but I'm up.

and now some point:
FvA no because changing from a not perfectly balanced map to another makes no sense
Duo no because I think those special rules concerning the neutrals are not implemented here? and it has not normal diplo rules (conversion and this special neutral stuff)
Lepanto no because has not normal diplo rules (and is really luckdependent on what strategy you chose: with or without frigates...)

That I came in late does not preclude me from arguing for changes.
If the vote turns out to support GvI, I will support it fully although I do not like it. Unlike you.

fasces: is it first-past-the-post or alternative vote? :o

im not just againast what you guys are saying I would even join a new tourney with whatever map you want as standard, but I do not like to change rules in a started tourney!

"FvA no because changing from a not perfectly balanced map to another makes no sense"

Sure it does. It's not symmetrical, but that doesn't mean it's not balanced. FvA is balanced. GvI is not. Both of these have been established.

"Duo no because I think those special rules concerning the neutrals are not implemented here? and it has not normal diplo rules (conversion and this special neutral stuff)"

The lack of implementation of some special rules is a good thing if not having normal Diplomacy rules is a bad thing. Pick your critique... as for the others, occupied neutrals isn't a big deal, conversion is significant, yes. Duo's not my first pick either, but balance is the key issue. No statement was made regarding playing a default map with special rules, only with regard to balance, which is why balance gets prioritized here.

"Lepanto no because has not normal diplo rules"

See above; not my first pick, but balance > strict original rules.

"(and is really luckdependent on what strategy you chose: with or without frigates...)"

...how is something which is entirely up to the users involved luck-dependent? ;>_>

Sure it does. It's not symmetrical, but that doesn't mean it's not balanced. FvA is balanced. GvI is not. Both of these have been established. <--- its not established! ;) and FvA is not perfectly balanced either that was my point so it makes 0 sense to change something as you said bad to something also bad but not so much bad.... :p

The lack of implementation of some special rules is a good thing if not having normal Diplomacy rules is a bad thing.<-- but if I play a variant the full variant should be in right? ;)

...how is something which is entirely up to the users involved luck-dependent? ;>_> <--- if you destroy both frigates and I keep em, I win...

PE:
1) "This is correcting an abuse that already occurred, not creating a new abuse."

I think it's wrong because when we first changed this Rule the Tourney had not started yet. Once the Tourney starts, the Rules are set. Whatever they are. And changing them it's an abuse. A (even bad) Rule is fair enough if it's the same for all players all Tourney long.
I'm sure of this, because BEFORE butterhead and I started the FIRST game, having no agreement on the map to be used, we skipped on default I-G. The Rule was already set BEFORE the Tourney started, so no abuse then. The abuse is NOW, since somebody wants to change a Rule AFTER the Tourney has started.


2) "some of us never would have agreed to the tournament if we knew we would be forced to play an imbalanced map" (BTW, why did you join then? Or else: why didn't you complain BEFORE the Tourney started? Now it's too late.)

Guys, the point is not the unbalancing of maps. It's to change a Rule while the tourney is in progress. This would be the most unfair thing. What if the 2 guys I beated 4-0 come back and say "Hey, I want those games to be restarted with the new rules!" Wouldn't it be right from their point of view? Yes. Would it be fair? No. Because they and I played by the SAME RULES. And we need to keep on playing by the same Rules.


_________________
I always loved American Constitution and I think it's the best.
What, as European, I don't understand is different weight of single votes at the Elections.
See penultimate column:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
So if you live in Wyoming your vote for Presidential Election count as 4 Californians. It looks like Americans have not the same rights, depending on where they live. It looks unfair & unbalanced.
But Americans are ok with it, I assume, until this Rule is the same for every Presidential Candidate.
Will they ever change their Constitution? If ever, I'M SURE THEY WON'T DO IT WHILE THERE'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN PROGRESS.

ROX:"im not just againast what you guys are saying I would even join a new tourney with whatever map you want as standard, but I do not like to change rules in a started tourney! "

I second this.

I love you guaroz!!!! :D

btw on perfectly balanced maps there will be just 1 single way to "perfectly" play it to get the best possible outcome (game theory...) so then all good players will do that and draw along...
in GvI and also FvA other strategies are possible because of the fact that it is slightly uneven...

" its not established! ;) and FvA is not perfectly balanced either that was my point so it makes 0 sense to change something as you said bad to something also bad but not so much bad.... :p"

First... yes, it is. This point is extremely tired. Both statements are established.

Secondly, FvA *is* balanced. Not symmetrically, but both France and Austria have equal chance of winning.

"but if I play a variant the full variant should be in right? ;)"

...why would that be relevant here? I don't follow the logic of the objection.

"if you destroy both frigates and I keep em, I win..."

Yes, but the decision to destroy both frigates is mine. There's no external 'luck' factor involved here.

"I think it's wrong because when we first changed this Rule the Tourney had not started yet. Once the Tourney starts, the Rules are set. Whatever they are. And changing them it's an abuse. A (even bad) Rule is fair enough if it's the same for all players all Tourney long.
I'm sure of this, because BEFORE butterhead and I started the FIRST game, having no agreement on the map to be used, we skipped on default I-G. The Rule was already set BEFORE the Tourney started, so no abuse then. The abuse is NOW, since somebody wants to change a Rule AFTER the Tourney has started."

I understand that this would be considered an abuse of sorts. Likewise, it is an abuse for all of us to agree that we should have a balanced default map, and then turn around and use an imbalanced default map. That is changing a rule just as much as this would be. Hence my agreement to your proposed compromise (enacting the change for the elimination rounds), which flows nicely into...

"Guys, the point is not the unbalancing of maps. It's to change a Rule while the tourney is in progress. This would be the most unfair thing. What if the 2 guys I beated 4-0 come back and say "Hey, I want those games to be restarted with the new rules!" Wouldn't it be right from their point of view? Yes. Would it be fair? No. Because they and I played by the SAME RULES. And we need to keep on playing by the same Rules."

If the change is enacted for the elimination rounds, they have no basis for complaint because the situation is adequately remedied. Realize that I'm not asking for a retroactive voiding of all GvI games here. As I said before, I don't want to restart the tournament. I don't think anyone here does, either. I'm simply proposing that we amend the abuse in a manner which does not destabilize the tournament or undermine its integrity but in a manner which can also be enacted as quickly as possible. Hence, not immediately, mid-prelims, but before elimination rounds.

"(BTW, why did you join then? Or else: why didn't you complain BEFORE the Tourney started? Now it's too late.)"

I've gone over this multiple times. We all agreed to play a balanced default map and selected GvI because we thought it was balanced. We did *NOT* fundamentally agree to GvI as an end to itself; we agreed to GvI to *satisfy the balanced default map requirement.* At the time, we THOUGHT GvI was balanced. As it turns out, we were WRONG. Hence the attempt to right that incorrect assumption.

"<electoral college>"

Actually, challenges to votes have occurred during an election; one notable instance was in the 2000 election when Florida had issues getting votes counted properly. And furthermore while I'd imagine this issue in particular would indeed not be challenged during vote-counting in an election, the people would be justified in doing so were they to choose to challenge it.