first of all, a rumor is a rumor and can be false - spread by the emissary order or by the game engine (I think there is a certain percentage of false rumors around all the time)
but in general, if you get a message where characters of the other allegience are involved in actions against you and/or your allies, yes, that is a way to identify them
Originally posted by Mormegil
besides, I really don’t believe that any player thinks of “honouring” a fallen enemy by giving his character that name
That’s your opinion. It’s different from mine, but neither is right or wrong. Unless you get statistics to back either opinion, they are just opinions.
Originally posted by Mormegil
he wants him to be taken for that character and gain advantage of it, nothing else. think about the difference…
Absolutely, there is a difference, but you seem to only want to see one side of the arguement. There is also a downside to naming characters after dead people in GB… since you are now open season for friendly fire, and if your enemy uses spells, you could open yourself up to fire from friend and foe.
Sc0rp10
Originally posted by Mormegil
[BI think we can end this debate since it is obvious that the majority of posters has welcomed the idea of not using dead character names. so if we apply something like democratic ideas here, the minority should accept that decision. we could post a poll to be sure, but I think we would get similar results. [/b]
Not meaning to be picky, but can you name all those in favour… I must have missed all those yeah that’s a great idea posts.
And let’s not forget the other 400 (is that the right no? or is it more) odd silent majority that haven’t posted… I think they are against the idea.
Surely silence = no change please.
Isn’t it usually the vocal minority that looks for change?
Sc0rp10
actually my question regarding rumors was more gunboat specific…can you kill a character based on information you recieve through a rumor…steven caskey aka high plains drifter aka dumbass <well usually only my ex calls me that> aka any name I end up stuck with on here because I’m not smart enough to keep my son from changing cookie settings on me
well, if you need a book keeper:
starkhorn, nintelten, klub, nimdraug, fierein, whip, xax and mormegil voted for the agreement not to name characters after dead ones, while scorp and noldo 88 voted against. that is 8 to 2 and sounds like a majority to me, at least if we assume that this is a representative choice of ME players on this board. but go and start a poll, if you like…
…and if you are so enthusiastic about honouring dead enemies, why don’t you name camps after them? that will not cause any misunderstandings and honour them even more, since you got 3 more letters to use 
Yes we have a clear majority. I don’t get a lot of feedback for most decisions so have to work from what I have got. My intention is to not allow players to name characters after dead starting characters in the next GB game and see if it has an impact. Feedback (signed if you want me to listen to it) welcome.
Clint (GB)
Dang… oh but wait a minute… I am still free to name new characters after my favourite dead enemy in GB14!!!
Hmmmm… who to target first, so I can take his/her name.
Honour them by naming camps… now there’s an idea… I could name a camp ELRON_RIP or DIN_O_RIP… and I don’t have to wait to kill them, it could be pre-emptive naming.
Clear majority wins 
the vote.
For rule change 8
Against rule change 2
Abstains 500+
Close… but obviously my arguements didn’t sway enough swing voters… got to work on my influencing skills… dang.
Sc0rp10
GB14
I plan to name all my new characters after Sc0rp10 – you know, Sc0rp11, Sc0rp12, etc. That’ll really confuse 'em.
As a way to add a little RPG flavor to the game, I take the naming of characters very seriously. So for a Witch-king character to be named Glorfindel is ridiculous.
Ruth S. Noel’s book, The Languages of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, is an excellent source for generating new names.
cheers,
Nick
ME 225
ME 229
ME 020
Actually, NCody, I also take the naming of characters somewhat seriously. I say “somewhat” only because often I forget to do any research on a good character name and end up making up a name that seems to fit more or less.
But your point is well-taken – and thanks for the reference to the book. I’ll look it up.
Originally posted by Clint
The GB game was designed for those with minimal time for major diplomacy but wanted to play more Middle Earth.
Clint (GB)
Or for those who needs to play more than 10-turns.
Have Fun !
Gixxxer
Originally posted by Nimdraug
I plan to name all my new characters after Sc0rp10 – you know, Sc0rp11, Sc0rp12, etc.
Which actually leads to the next question. Should people playing GB select names for their characters and camps themselves AT ALL ?
Imagine that I know that Per Bovbjerg is playing in the same GB game as I and I come across a camp named “Lugter af tis owned by the Northmen” or sees a character named “Gert Gulvlâgger of the Woodmen” that instance I KNOW that Per plays that nation. Then again if a person wanted to cheat he could just write an email, but what about “cheating unconsious” ? I bet many of you always names a char with a special name or places a camp with a special name etc. A lot of info can be deducted from these names in figuring out who plays what nation. Not that I vote that it should be disallowed, I just want to point it out to people.
My oppinion on names. No giving start names to new characters if the rule that you are disallowed any action including doubling of starting characters on your pops (which I do not understand why is disallowed ?). I guess e.g. Noldo can name a new elrond (but probably not as capable) Elrond in case the first should die, but it is easier to disallow it all together.
To comments on other posts. I think blind one 118 has a very good point regarding copyright names. A DS char named Elrond might be safe from harm in the beginning from FP, but not from DS (Imaging how buttfucxed you would feel when you find out that Ji Indur assasinated your top agent named Elrond instead of the Noldo army commander with 10K troops next to your capital :D)
Sc0rp - For what it is worth - I really like your arguments 
eventhough I do not share your oppinion. I am glad I am not married to you (that was a compliment ;)). Anyway, I guess the ones that give their oppinion should shape things. All the ones that you mention who didn’t gave their oppinion here either didn’t read this or didn’t care I guess…
Originally posted by Nimdraug
I plan to name all my new characters after Sc0rp10 – you know, Sc0rp11, Sc0rp12, etc.
I’d be honoured to see lots of little Sc0rps running around middle earth… sort of makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
Originally posted by Jeppe Skytte Spicker
Which actually leads to the next question. Should people playing GB select names for their characters and camps themselves AT ALL ?
The trouble with not being able to name your own characters is that you then stop cunning command type plans from being able to happen… say you want to name a commander and transfer troops to him on the same turn, you’d need to be certain of the new name for this to work.
Originally posted by Jeppe Skytte Spicker
Imagine that I know that Per Bovbjerg is playing in the same GB game as I and I come across a camp named “Lugter af tis owned by the Northmen” or sees a character named “Gert Gulvlâgger of the Woodmen” that instance I KNOW that Per plays that nation. Then again if a person wanted to cheat he could just write an email, but what about “cheating unconsious” ? I bet many of you always names a char with a special name or places a camp with a special name etc. A lot of info can be deducted from these names in figuring out who plays what nation. Not that I vote that it should be disallowed, I just want to point it out to people.
Now you’re giving away secrets of how to work out who’s playing what nation… that’s assuming you have played with the other players before and understand their style of play enough to take advantage of it.
Originally posted by Jeppe Skytte Spicker
[b]Sc0rp - For what it is worth - I really like your arguments
- Jeppe GB 006 … or maybe not ?.. [/b]
Thanks… I think…
I’ve now thought of another cunning way to win the popular vote… all I need to do is log myself as a new user 10 to 20 times and I’ll win every vote hands down… hmmmm… Darrell, how can you stop this from happening??? (Sheesh, I hope Darrell can reply to not-real-name-posters
Cheers
Sc0rp10
Greetings Skeppe,
you’ve shot over the target !!
Good gaming !
Gixxxer
Originally posted by Sc0rp10
… all I need to do is log myself as a new user 10 to 20 times and I’ll win every vote hands down… hmmmm… Darrell, how can you stop this from happening???
All I can do is require a unique e-mail address per account. Other than that, if it isn’t obvious and nobody complains, then go for it.
Originally posted by Sc0rp10
Sheesh, I hope Darrell can reply to not-real-name-posters
In fact, since I only deal with the forum, and not with the actual game, I actually require your forum name. Which is convenient, since it’s included in every post you make
This thread is brought forward for Colin’s benefit. The thread was started over doubling allied characters but evolved into a discussion over naming characters, in Gunboat, after dead enemy characters. See page three of the discussion.
“Logrolling” is a common technique used in local American politics. You call a sudden meeting and have the “Amen Choir” standing by. A motion is proposed and the Amen Choir acclaims it and the motion passes. Behold the people have spoken
In this particular case (of no particular interest to me, since I don’t play Gunboat) the first mention of the word “vote” was at 9:39 PM on 30 January 2004. The GM then declares a new rule at 4:32 PM on 2 Feb. 2004. That is less than 48 hours. In effect, postal players had no input, persons visiting their Grandparents that weekend had no input and persons who did not check the forum on a daily basis and check all entries had no input.
Yes, I am fearful that source code changes MAY be logrolled.
AS per usual IF you want me to take into account your opinion then sign your name. Otherwise I won’t take it into account.
I get somewhat frustrated with players taking potshots - since this “poll” anyone who wanted to comment is more than welcome to and we’ll try it out - not “logrolling”- sorry Ed Mills please stop attacking us like this.
If you don’t participate your opinion isn’t counted and there’s no way that 700 players will comment on changes etc that aren’t pertinent to them or that they at best neutral about.
So without the perfect democracy I have to use what feedback I do get but out of common courtesy I require that you sign that with your name.
For those that don’t want to sign their names fine continue to post away but if you actually want to change policy (or impact on it) sign your name.
Clint (GM)
Hmm, I totally missed the post somehow.
I don’t see a need to include a rule about naming characters after dead ones. I don’t see a real advantage to it. You are likely to get killed by friendly fire as gain an advantage from it. In GB games, I name my characters after nothing, hoping to make them as non-descript as possible. Clint if you get the code and need new character or pop center names, I can create those rather quickly.
The Noel book is cool, had to buy a new copy recently from Books-A-Million (online) for around $15. Sad thing is that I know more elvish than Spanish now though I really only took Spanish because that is where the cheerleaders were 
If rules have been changed since the start of GB229 and GB20, are they posted anywhere? If not, including an updated GB rules text file would be nice or just list them on the FS somewhere.
Since this thread has been hijacked a long time ago, how about this suggestion. When a player is allowed to take a third position it should be announced in-game. Otherwise it makes one wonder about legitimacy when a duo of nation’s characters appears with a 3rd nation in your pop center. I play 3 nations in one of the games; it is a rather large advantage IMO. I think everyone in the game should be made aware of the fact. Also when I see gold transfers on consecutive turns between non-pairs it makes me wonder if one player was just astute enough to do this, if one person now playing 3 nations or have the rules been violated
I would also like to see the ability to +10 points to a character, though Clint informed me this would incur an additional cost over the doubled start-up fee (x2).
Steven McAbee
I don’t think a player taking 3 positions should be announced…I think it should flat out be against the rules…this definately gives an unfair advantage to a side that probably should have been suffering a disadvantage from losing either a player or a nation and a player…steve caskey