Real league game situation - dispute going to league admin

[boldfresh]

@Ziggurat:

@Boldfresh:

@Boldfresh:

@miamiumike:

I think Zigg is tuned in to what I was saying. To me, scrambling is just one part of resolving combat MOVES (before dice are rolled). Same could be said for Japan using the Kamikaze attacks - and for that matter if there was SBR involved, if I want to send interceptors.

If the attacker wants to make ANY changes to combat, I think that is fine as long as no dice have been rolled (unless, as I stated, for some reason the player is hard-core).

Once a change is requested and made, as the defender, I have the right to then reconsider ALL of my decisions on scrambling and/ or kamikaze and / or launching interceptors. The rule you are quoting is more akin to rolling dice and then deciding to change some other attack.

MM

you could say that a scramble choice is like a die roll - BUT it is a die roll that NO one has seen the results of unless at least one aircraft is scrambled.

what i am trying to say, Zigg, is that if i knew you had rolled your first attack dice of the turn but neither of us knew what the dice were yet, would it be reasonable for me to say that i would not allow you to change your combat moves?

If the result were truly unknown, yes it would be imminently reasonable. However, as soon as the defender tells you their decision you DO have the results for that dice roll. The decision is the roll itself as the outcome is unknown to the attacker. Anyways, just kinda arguing in circles at this point. I’ll butt out now, hope this comes to an equitable resolution :).

i agree there is some a way to see this issue from both sides Zigg, i’m just saying that the RULEBOOK comes down on only one side and it is up to the players to manage the rest.

[seth4god]

quit prattling and get to our game  :-P

[seth4god]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.810

Krieg’s ruled in your question.

[Ziggurat]

@seththenewb:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28562.810

Krieg’s ruled in your question.

Damn! Wish I’d taken Bold up on his bet :P.

[boldfresh]

his ruling is unclear.  i will still give you action on that bet Zigg.

[boldfresh]

BUT, we can provisionally discuss the fact that even if that ruling stands, who of us would ever think that it was reasonable as related to this SPECIFIC instance, to hold the player that is taking overwhelming force into the zone in both cases to the original move.  Especially after initially allowing it.

And if the rule is confirmed by Krieg, i would first ask krieg to provide his thoughts on the specific situation.  if he still confirms that he believes the rules intended to give Me the right to do what he is trying to do, then the ball is back in Jenn’s lap.  At that point a big decision needs to be made, who really has the higher authority, the letter of the rule as written, or the Moderator’s interpretation of the intent of the rule.

Good stuff.

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

BUT, we can provisionally discuss the fact that even if that ruling stands, who of us would ever think that it was reasonable as related to this SPECIFIC instance, to hold the player that is taking overwhelming force into the zone in both cases to the original move.  Especially after initially allowing it.

And if the rule is confirmed by Krieg, i would first ask krieg to provide his thoughts on the specific situation.  if he still confirms that he believes the rules intended to give Me the right to do what he is trying to do, then the ball is back in Jenn’s lap.  At that point a big decision needs to be made, who really has the higher authority, the letter of the rule as written, or the Moderator’s interpretation of the intent of the rule.

Good stuff.

actually, i have to revise that because the letter of the rule as written is that only a scramble locks in the move, not a scramble choice.  so it even gets murkier.

[boldfresh]

Let’s just hope Me comes to his senses and we can continue the game - the good thing is that something good will come out of all of this regardless - further clarification of the rulebook, which is always a good thing.

[boldfresh]

@seththenewb:

quit prattling and get to our game  :-P

this isn’t prattling seth!  :-)

remember what happened with you and hobo?  this is 100 times worse!  this aggression cannot stand!  (another lebowski reference for those of you unfortunate enough not to be familiar with the movie).

[boldfresh]

i’ll give you a move now if it will make you happy.  but you aren’t going to like it  :wink: :-P

[boldfresh]

i bet you are trying to get me to move now cuz you think i’m “on tilt” huh - a man after my own heart you are seth.  :lol:

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

@seththenewb:

quit prattling and get to our game  :-P

this isn’t prattling seth!   :-)

remember what happened with you and hobo?  this is 100 times worse!  this aggression cannot stand!  (another lebowski reference for those of you unfortunate enough not to be familiar with the movie).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyLdtG7KZvw

[boldfresh]

one more CLASSIC!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4

[Ziggurat]

@Boldfresh:

@Boldfresh:

BUT, we can provisionally discuss the fact that even if that ruling stands, who of us would ever think that it was reasonable as related to this SPECIFIC instance, to hold the player that is taking overwhelming force into the zone in both cases to the original move.  Especially after initially allowing it.

And if the rule is confirmed by Krieg, i would first ask krieg to provide his thoughts on the specific situation.  if he still confirms that he believes the rules intended to give Me the right to do what he is trying to do, then the ball is back in Jenn’s lap.  At that point a big decision needs to be made, who really has the higher authority, the letter of the rule as written, or the Moderator’s interpretation of the intent of the rule.

Good stuff.

actually, i have to revise that because the letter of the rule as written is that only a scramble locks in the move, not a scramble choice.  so it even gets murkier.

Sigh… I can’t help myself… must debate… Bold, the part you’re missing is that any choice made by the defender is a scramble. If the answer is no, the defender STILL scrambled. They just scrambled using 0 planes. You keep trying to enforce your view that only a positive response forces a lock-in, whereas I’m trying to convince you that a negative response IS a positive response. It’s just a positive response of 0 and holds the same weight and recourse had the number been 1, 2, or 3. It’s the same as if I have no apples in my hand. I do actually have apples in my hand, however the quantity I have is 0.

[boldfresh]

@Ziggurat:

@Boldfresh:

@Boldfresh:

BUT, we can provisionally discuss the fact that even if that ruling stands, who of us would ever think that it was reasonable as related to this SPECIFIC instance, to hold the player that is taking overwhelming force into the zone in both cases to the original move.  Especially after initially allowing it.

And if the rule is confirmed by Krieg, i would first ask krieg to provide his thoughts on the specific situation.  if he still confirms that he believes the rules intended to give Me the right to do what he is trying to do, then the ball is back in Jenn’s lap.  At that point a big decision needs to be made, who really has the higher authority, the letter of the rule as written, or the Moderator’s interpretation of the intent of the rule.

Good stuff.

actually, i have to revise that because the letter of the rule as written is that only a scramble locks in the move, not a scramble choice.  so it even gets murkier.

Sigh… I can’t help myself… must debate… Bold, the part you’re missing is that any choice made by the defender is a scramble. If the answer is no, the defender STILL scrambled. They just scrambled using 0 planes. You keep trying to enforce your view that only a positive response forces a lock-in, whereas I’m trying to convince you that a negative response IS a positive response. It’s just a positive response of 0 and holds the same weight and recourse had the number been 1, 2, or 3. It’s the same as if I have no apples in my hand. I do actually have apples in my hand, however the quantity I have is 0.

i am not debating you on that issue Zigg.  I have agreed that you have a point - in fact, i believe there are strong points to be made on both sides.  I am just saying that the rule as written is unclear at best.

but even moreso what I am saying, is that IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, do you think there is a good practical reason for Me1945’s protest?  in other words, do you think it is possible i was trying to take advantage of Me in any way?  Would that not be the only VALID REASON to try to enforce no changes?

[boldfresh]

@Ziggurat:

@Boldfresh:

@Boldfresh:

BUT, we can provisionally discuss the fact that even if that ruling stands, who of us would ever think that it was reasonable as related to this SPECIFIC instance, to hold the player that is taking overwhelming force into the zone in both cases to the original move.  Especially after initially allowing it.

And if the rule is confirmed by Krieg, i would first ask krieg to provide his thoughts on the specific situation.  if he still confirms that he believes the rules intended to give Me the right to do what he is trying to do, then the ball is back in Jenn’s lap.  At that point a big decision needs to be made, who really has the higher authority, the letter of the rule as written, or the Moderator’s interpretation of the intent of the rule.

Good stuff.

actually, i have to revise that because the letter of the rule as written is that only a scramble locks in the move, not a scramble choice.  so it even gets murkier.

Sigh… I can’t help myself… must debate… Bold, the part you’re missing is that any choice made by the defender is a scramble. If the answer is no, the defender STILL scrambled. They just scrambled using 0 planes. You keep trying to enforce your view that only a positive response forces a lock-in, whereas I’m trying to convince you that a negative response IS a positive response. It’s just a positive response of 0 and holds the same weight and recourse had the number been 1, 2, or 3. It’s the same as if I have no apples in my hand. I do actually have apples in my hand, however the quantity I have is 0.

the “scrambled using 0 planes” is an even more clever interpretation of the language.  :-P

[boldfresh]

Zigg lets get real.  If I am sending 30 planes at 112 and the max that could defend is 2 scrambled ftrs… and I ask to redo the move and send on 18 planes the second time, do you really think the rules should support a lock in of all combat moves due to the scramble decision?

[boldfresh]

And the other thong you are not accounting for Zigg is that Me took this from being a friendly game to as unfriendly as possible in 0.1 seconds.

[boldfresh]

That supports my reasoning for asking for the scramble decision in the first place - you just never know what kind of nincompoop thing Me1945 is going to pull next.  But let’s be honest, this it’s ridiculous to try to enforce no changes in this case.  Stop being so politically correct as admit it.

[seth4god]

The point I don’t get is that you insist on debating when Jenn has made her ruling for the league game (establishing a precedence for this particular instance) AND Krieg has made his own ruling to cover the general principle of scrambling decisions. You made a point earlier to Me saying that the community wasn’t really with him on that and maybe he should revisit his decision. But now the community is against YOU. So maybe you aren’t in the right here?