Real league game situation - dispute going to league admin

[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?

[boldfresh]

who in the community is against my belief that he should allow the redo that he originally allowed?

i’m trying to do a service to the community so that such a thing as this could be avoided in the future as it is EXTREMELY distasteful.  i believe the rule is unclear and now i’m trying to understand from krieg exactly what IS meant by the rules - have you seen what he is saying about the word “complete” and it’s meaning?