> I caught your attention then Mike. You forget, that
> consumer choice is not
> an argument, but a fact of life.
As are policies that protect one person from the
selfish and destructive behavior of another.
Well no. If a company or club has any set of rules, for whatever reason,
they are only a fact of life for those who elect to buy the service or join
the club. Rules are condition which must first be accepted by those to
whom they will apply.
My right to choose not to buy a product because it has become unattractive,
comes first. And quite openly, and honestly I state the conditions upon
which I am prepared to buy.
If you and I go to a used car saleroom, you might pay the asking price. I
might negotiate with the dealer for an extra tank of petrol, and 6 months
road tax. I haven't fiddled you, I just won myself a better deal. You had
the same option.
> Nope. I'm not a citizen of this government. I only
> become a citizen if I
> buy in.
If you weren't choosing to interact in our commons we
wouldn't be having this convversation would we?
I talk to Americans, Malaysians, Danes, Germans, Canadians and Australians
here. That does not subject me to their laws. I talk to 4th age and
gunboat players here, that does not mean I subscribe to the rules of the
games they choose to play.
Talking with you here does not mean I accept any rules or regulations
except those governing this list. IF I pay money to play a game with you,
I accept certain rules, but I have every right to negotiate details of the
arrangement first with you and the GM.
> All the evidence contributed to the thread so far,
> suggests that the
> majority of players are quite happy with startup
> times as they are
Perhaps a majority of players had the same idea as
myself: that players were required to submit more than
one choice and that everyone got a fair shake when
things were set up.
> Nobody's littering.
I disagree. You are having a negative impact on my
ability to get certain nations or to start up quickly.
You're missing the point, and it is, as was my original comment, an
observation not an argument. As was Clint's reply to the suggestion that
all startups should be randomised: "A lot of players would hate that."
1) If I had to chose 3 nations, I would not be playing my 5th position at all.
2) This may be true of some other "one nation" potential customers.
3) Those people choosing not to play at all, will have a greater negative
impact on your start ups.
It's the free market. _You_ are willing to play any one of three
nations. Others are not. If you drive them away, you probably lose rather
than gain. You _may_ not care, because your strongly held principle of
conformity may be satisfied by such an event to the extent that you feel it
compensates you. But I expect MEPBM games would care about the drop in
revenue.
> If you apply a rule that says
> people can't enter the
> park unless they agree to promenade only by the
> routes decreed by the park
> keeper, some of them will no longer attend.
And if you allow the park to become strewn with liter,
or loud noise, or other harmful items, some of the
people will ALSO no longer attend.
Yes, you are correct, free choice. If you can't accept that some players
only want to play certain positions, and that upsets you so much, that you
choose not to play, then that's your privilege. I don't try to tell you
that you must play under my conditions.
You seem to have forgotten that the rest of us are
paying for this game too. Why shouldn't we all get
equal chances at the premium positions for the same
money?
You do! But you're buying, you're bidding in an auction. It's in Clint's
interest for games to start fast. It may be in your interest for games to
start fast, but it is also in your interest to play what you call the
premium positions. So between you, and Clint there is some overlap of
interest, and some conflict. He wants your money. You have to decide the
balance of your two interests. Play soon, and play any nation he gives
you, or wait until he feels that he can give you the one you want.
So, under current established practice, you have the same right as me, to
choose to play, choose to wait, or choose not to play at all. As in the
car sale room, you have the right to negotiate for a better deal, or to
settle. Clint has the right of course to refuse to budge, but if he
exercises it too much, chances are he'll sell less cars.
Why should some players get to select their
positions and others not?
All players can select their positions, provided they are prepared to give
way to players who obligingly accept several.
Unless there is a ptice
deferential, why should anyone get preferential
treatment?
I'm not sure that waiting at the back of the queue is necessarily
preferential treatment, but if it were, the reasons are that (or should be
that):
1) They are prepared to wait longer
2) They have a right not to play. Clint has to sell them a game, if he
can't offer them a game they want, it's probable that everyone loses long
term, and all startups are slowed down.
Just because you say something loudly and often
doesn't make it right. Are you a lawyer?
Oh dear. I've tried very hard to be polite to you, so I think I'll just
try to let the above comment go.
Have you considered playing pre-arranged team games? Anybody who's played
more than a couple of open games, unless he's been very unco-operative,
should have enough contacts to start up a team, and you can always
advertise on the list. I've played more pre-arranged team games now I
think than open games, and I don't think there's ever been a problem with
people getting to play the nations they'd like. I suppose with a newly
constructed team, you might have to negotiate before you agree to play, but
it would give you more options - maybe agree to a few games (whether
simultaneous or sequential) then you can take turns to be Noldo.
Actually, I find the main reason that pre-arranging your team so often
leads to a much more satisfying game than making poor Clint do it, is that
you know who's NOT going to be playing Noldo or Cloud Lord. Playing the
Woodies or QAv, is nowhere near as bad when you know that your most
powerful nation is not in the hands of an individual who's going to
bankrupt it on turn 6. It also means that if you agree to an inexperienced
player in those positions, he's someone who's already indicated that he
approves of team play and mutual support.
I'd strongly advocate putting in the effort to make up a team, to anyone
who wants to get more out of the game.
mefacesmo.gif
Laurence G.Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
At 14:03 02/12/2003, mike bateman wrote:
