Real league game situation - dispute going to league admin

[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?

[boldfresh]

@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?

in addition, i do not believe that Me would have accepted Jenn’s ruling and that this would have gotten into the rulebook regardless so I’m trying to fast forward the situation to reach a true conclusion and resume the game.

[boldfresh]

@Boldfresh:

@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?

in addition, i do not believe that Me would have accepted Jenn’s ruling and that this would have gotten into the rulebook regardless so I’m trying to fast forward the situation to reach a true conclusion and resume the game.

if and when Me claims that Jenn is contradicting the letter of the rule, then what?

[seth4god]

Not that goober, you know that I argued on your side of the case.

But you arguing that a scramble decision (regardless of whether any air takes to the air or not) does not preclude you from going back and changing your combat moves afterwards is what’s at fault here. Once a scramble or intercept order has been given by the defender, the attacker is locked in to those combat moves. Knowing what your opponent would do could open up possibilities for gaming the system and freeing up units to go elsewhere. Now most people are reasonable and will allow changes for obvious things like forgetting to walkin to an empty terr or sometimes forgetting an attack.

But at that point it’s up to the person you’re playing to allow exceptions like that. And if he/she doesn’t allow those changes than you’re stuck with them. The only reason I sided on your side of this debate was because Me OK’d you making revisions and then tried to take that back after the fact. And I think a lot of others would not have sided with you either had he not said that you could make those changes.

[boldfresh]

ok fair enough.  well, jenn has ruled that the map i posted after the alllied turns stands.  let’s see how Me responds.

[Ziggurat]

@seththenewb:

Not that goober, you know that I argued on your side of the case.

But you arguing that a scramble decision (regardless of whether any air takes to the air or not) does not preclude you from going back and changing your combat moves afterwards is what’s at fault here. Once a scramble or intercept order has been given by the defender, the attacker is locked in to those combat moves. Knowing what your opponent would do could open up possibilities for gaming the system and freeing up units to go elsewhere. Now most people are reasonable and will allow changes for obvious things like forgetting to walkin to an empty terr or sometimes forgetting an attack.

But at that point it’s up to the person you’re playing to allow exceptions like that. And if he/she doesn’t allow those changes than you’re stuck with them. The only reason I sided on your side of this debate was because Me OK’d you making revisions and then tried to take that back after the fact. And I think a lot of others would not have sided with you either had he not said that you could make those changes.

Thank you Seth. That was much more clear than my dribbled attempts :P.

[boldfresh]

but to be clear, if Me had not said he would allow the redo of the move, you guys would all support him in taking a hard line and stating that because he gave an (in this case) entirely inconsequential scramble decision that he is justified in saying he will not allow any changes?

[Ziggurat]

@Boldfresh:

but to be clear, if Me had not said he would allow the redo of the move, you guys would all support him in taking a hard line and stating that because he gave an (in this case) entirely inconsequential scramble decision that he is justified in saying he will not allow any changes?

Bold, please understand that there is a world of difference between supporting someone’s decision and supporting someone’s right to make the decision. Do I agree with what he did: no. But, I support his right to be able to do so. It’s like the political loonies on cable TV. I don’t support 99% of what any of them say, but I wholeheartedly support their right to say it.

[boldfresh]

@Ziggurat:

@Boldfresh:

but to be clear, if Me had not said he would allow the redo of the move, you guys would all support him in taking a hard line and stating that because he gave an (in this case) entirely inconsequential scramble decision that he is justified in saying he will not allow any changes?

Bold, please understand that there is a world of difference between supporting someone’s decision and supporting someone’s right to make the decision. Do I agree with what he did: no. But, I support his right to be able to do so. It’s like the political loonies on cable TV. I don’t support 99% of what any of them say, but I wholeheartedly support their right to say it.

ok i get it.  thanks zigg.  i agree he has the right to say whatever he wants to as well.  i just vehemently disagree with what he is saying.  ironically, i believe he is trying to use the rules to game ME (meaning myself).  :-)  problem is, he also has contradicted himself in the process.