Re: [eia] Games are supposed to be fun

["Everett E. Proctor" <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If tempers have flared to the point where someone is not having fun, I
would be in favor of having a cool down period before we continue.

-Everett
(I'm still having fun.  Austrians aren't, but I am.)


>     Touche, JJ.  I'll give some thought to whether I'm still having fun with this game and get back to you.
> 
> kdh
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: J.J. Young 
>   To: eia@xxxxxxxxx 
>   Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:09 AM
>   Subject: [eia] Games are supposed to be fun
> 
> 
>   Kyle and Mike, 
>       If the current rules dispute is now to become heated and personal, I am no longer interested in recieving emails about it.  Please make use of private channels rather than the eia list, or find some other way to leave me out.  I for one will simply vote on my preference.  My suggestion to anyone else who wants to put this behind us is to do the same.
> 
>   BTW, I am assuming here that my interpretations of the 2 alternate plans were correct, since they were left uncommented upon.
> 
>   Although Kyle's plan has the simplicity of looking at the map and knowing whether or not there is a siege, I do have a slight preference for Mike's plan, which I think more closely conforms to the rules as written, but with the following caveats:
> 
>   1.)  A defender in a city should be able to build a sea supply depot there whether the attacker outside is laying siege or not.
> 
>   2.)  All or none of the attacking corps that end up surrounding a city must lay siege to that city.

-- 
Everett E. Proctor <spiritmast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia