Kyle H on 29 Mar 2003 03:01:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[eia] you're absolutely right

    I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was upset.  (Actually, I
tried really hard to adopt what I thought was a measured, reasonable tone.
So it's kind of disappointing to hear that I sounded upset despite all my
best efforts.  Apparently I'm no good at this whole email thing.  :-)

    Danny, I agree with you that the spirit of the group has been dictated
by the need to maintain as quick a pace as possible.  (And it is in that
spirit that I have suggested that the coalition members consider sending in
reinforcement orders whenever they are ready.)  I agree with you that going
back to fix mistakes would take time, and that that is a very good reason to
resist doing so.  All I was saying is that I prefer a different style.  I
was not trying to say that there are not good reasons for the style we have

    I see now that I should have ommitted the word "gentlemanly" in my
previous email.  I sincerely apologize if that word gave people the
impression that I was trying to imply that you are *not* all gentlemen!
That's not what I was trying to communicate at all!  What I was trying to
say with that word is that we have adopted a bit of a cut-throat style (at
least in my view) that says people can't go back to fix things.  As we can
see in this case and in other similar cases, that style sometimes leads to
hard feelings and powerful disagreements.  And so for that reason alone, I
wish were able to operate under a different set of rules.  But I do
understand *why* we are doing what we're doing.  As you say, Danny, if we
were to try to run the game in the way that I prefer, we would be taking
even longer to get things done than we are right now.  And I see that that's
not a good option.

    Again, I offer sincere apologies if my last email gave anyone the
impression that I thought he was not a gentleman.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Mount" <mount.23@xxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: [eia] NOT On to the Reinforcement Phase!

> Kyle,
> I agree with you on almost everything that you have said.  Yet I don't
> understand how you are upset about wanting to go back and change "obvious
> mistakes" if you want the game to be sped up.  If we take the time to let
> people go back and undo their mistakes, which might not be major ordeals,
> then wouldn't we be slowing the game down?  I think that we all are
> gentlemen playing this game, because if we were not we would have probably
> quit a long time ago, but there needs to be a reasonableness to which we
> say, "we just need to move on".  Again, I think you have made some
> points which we need to take a hard look at, especially everyone taking
> their turn at getting screwed.
> -DEM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:eia-admin@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kyle
> H
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:20 PM
> To: eia@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [eia] NOT On to the Reinforcement Phase!
> > No, we haven't.   We have been letting people go back and change the
> > political phase orders depending on what happened.
> >
>     The only evidence you use to support this claim is that we go back
> the escrow has been revealed to take care of the Minor Country Control
> But we all acknowledged long ago that the Minor Country Control Step would
> have to be an exception to the rule of simultaneity, because you can't be
> expected to decide whether to sponsor attacked minor countries until you
> know which minor countries have been attacked!  And you won't know that
> until after the political phase escrow has been revealed.  Again, allow me
> to emphasize that we acknowledged this as an exception to the rule a long
> time ago (back when we started using the Political Phase Escrow).
> that the Minor Country Control Step as an instance of how we always go
> to "change" political orders is mistaken at best.
>     As Mike pointed out, you guys had a *long* time to get yourselves
> organized.  I'm sorry that things didn't work out the way you would have
> liked, but c'est la guerre, right?  (Sorry if that's not how it's
written -
> I guess you can tell that I didn't take French.)  Ask yourself this:  is
> really that crucial?  I'm sure you would have liked to have launched a
> attack with the Prussians this turn, but is it really so terrible to
> separately or wait until next month to launch your joint offensive?
>     Keep in mind that we've all felt screwed from time to time about not
> being allowed to go back and fix obvious mistakes.  Just recently I was
> allowed to go back and fix my naval orders even though that change would
> have had any effect on what had happened since.  Mike felt screwed over
> he was forced to accept die rolls that he thought were bogus.  I'm sure
> felt screwed over when he was not able to roll for the siege of Minsk last
> month.  (And think about Mike's discovery of the rule about St.
> Talk about feeling screwed over!!!  Yikes, that was a whopper!)
>     So I think all of us can sympathize with you on this one, but
> unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that - like it or not - there
> a screw-up.  Now, I *wish* we were playing in the sort of gentlemanly game
> where a spirit of generosity prevailed and players allowed each other to
> back and fix obvious mistakes.  But unfortunately that's not what this
> seems to prefer.  Just different gaming styles, I guess.  <shrug>  Anyway,
> until that attitude changes, Mike and I would be suckers to allow you guys
> to go back and change things when we don't get that same opportunity.
> > And I, for one, will only send out step b. of the the political phase in
> > the escrow from now on with everything else being "pending".
>     In that case, you would be unilaterally changing the purpose of the
> political phase escrow.  I don't think that's the way to go.  If we *as a
> group* agree to use the escrow only for the Declarations of War segment of
> the Political Phase henceforth, then that's fine, but that's not a
> that should be imposed on the rest of the group by one person.
> > Also, I would strongly recommend people not send out reinforcement or
> > other orders out of turn.
> >
>     Could you please explain your reasoning for this recommendation?  How
> does it make a difference in what order the "Coalition members" take their
> turns during the reinforcement phase (when Russia and France both come at
> the end)?  Some of us have been taking long enough to send in orders as it
> is.  Unless there's a good reason for delay, I hope players will do what
> they can to speed things up.
> kdh
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx

eia mailing list