Re: [eia] losing players

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx:
> > My enjoyment from the game came from thinking of it as a long term endeavor
> .
> > Since Joel and Mike have pointed out many reasons why a short term strategy
> > is often optimal, I am very much less interested in playing.  So much so
> > that I don't think it's worth my while any more.
> 
> I think this is a misunderstanding.  I thought that Joel and later Mike were 
> trying to say that in the _present_case_, Britain had a big lead and could 
> control others' chances to reverse the fortunes of the game by controlling se
> a 
> access.  As a result, the best thing would be to declare GB the winner and mo
> ve 
> on to another campaign.  I did _not_ take their arguments to apply to campaig
> ns 
> in general, and in fact my impression is that they think players who follow a
>  
> short-term strategy should and probably will lose.
> 
> I am convinced enough by the arguments about the present game that I think we
>  
> should start over, but I feel this is a very, very exceptional case, and that
>  
> in almost all instances one player being in the lead is not sufficient cause 
> for ending a campaign.  Does anyone disagree with this ?  If so, I would like
>  
> to know.   
> 
> -JJY

This sums up what I think. 

So now I've driven Kyle away, which makes me feel awful. It's ironic that I 
was going to vote for continuing.

-- 
J.


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