Hello Gavin - I would prefer this discussion to be taken place in private as
you have mentioned that up until now you are happy with the way things were
run etc. This appears to be made in public for public declaration so here
goes.
After much discussion on the DS team, we have decided to offer to end this
game as a draw, for the following reasons:
1. The DS team has changed hands too often to be able to maintain an
effective strategy and cohesion. Three of our players no longer have the
personal resources to continue playing and will drop this turn.
Same happened in the game for us. Lots of players dropped leaving us in the
lurch, players ready to drop for personal reasons etc. Managed to come
through it with only the NM and Silvans dead though. Incidentially, Game 26
saw the DS change hands TOTALLY twice!
2. There are two GMs on the Free team, which means that anything up to
four
Free nations are being run at no charge to those players. Thus there is
absolutely no chance of them giving up as a regular player might.
We have no reason to - anyone would play the dwarf position I have got (it's
awesome)and due to inexperience I blew up the Silvans early in the game.
All of us GMs in thegame have a lot less experience than the average player
(well at least when we started). LOTS of players play two positions in our
2950 games - they're the only way to deal with the massive drop out rate
that I can see. How many players playing two positions on your side?
3. The Free were ready to quit back in April but changed their minds after
the PBM Con, during which Clint learned something to their advantage.
(There
are only two possibilities here: either he heard a player discussing the
Fire King's demise in a loud voice, or he overheard my conversation with
the
GM. Neither is good. The GMs should be neutral and you should be able to
discuss an active game in front of them.)
No idea what this is about - should you not have brought it up then rather
than many months later? I recall drawing an inference from chatting to a
player about the game - but drew no hard conclusions - as a player and I was
discussing this as a player - not sure what game that was - I recall either
you or Richard Dev going red at the mention of one thing though . I had
warned players that I was chatting as a player as well - maybe it would be
best not to discuss the games that I am in with my "enemies"? [I had hoped
that this was more fun as I like "taunting the opposition" and I know some
players like this interaction between the teams - as there is very little of
it going around. In game 39 I played the position based on the Arabian
nights, quoting bits of stories from the book to both sides - fun for me,
and I know some liked it. But it appears that some players don't like this
so I will seriously have to consider my options here and be less "verbal".]
(Also having
NO interation with the FK for the entirety of the game - been fighting the
Rhuns - CL assault on my capital and a little bit of Dragon Lord action - I
was at a loss as to what was happening in Mordor at all as our team is not
the most communicative that i have seen.... 
) Basically we think the
BS is dead, IK should be dead but appears not to be, RHun are dead, WK
nothing heard from but no information to the contrary either. Mordor is
nearly over-run the Northern part falling and the Eastern bits fallen. The
Rhun changed to DS when I thought they were going to our side - possibly
because their friend was on the DS team - etc. Basically bad things
happen - but nothing to do with me (or Sam - who is a Legends GM btw). I
recall you had a simlar groan about game 22. Watching from the sidelines
Rob et al seemed perfectly fair. You should see what atrocious luck some
GMs have had in games as well - one is ongoing so I cannot comment onit -
but is has basically lost the game for the his side.
Other discussions I had on the Flagship day were similiar with the FPs in
game 39 (which I
turned AGAINST as a Neutral, game 16 - there being no-one to talk to much
about game 46 other than fellow team-mates I chatted to them). In game 16
when similar comments were made I felt it best to drop the position and
consider how to have guidelines. Haven't come up with anything concrete
yet. Advice welcome.
Mostly we are way too busy on the Flagship day to chat to players about the
games we are playing in or draw inferences. Also we don't really care about
things that players might let drop to us - I for one think that I am more
than capable of ignoring any bits and pieces. Game 16 the DS virtually told
me who was active and who was not - desptie me asking them not to. I did
not pass that information onto others and ignored it for my own use.
If you wish a conclusion instead, we propose that *all* nations send *all*
characters to Minas Tirith and we settle this by personal challenge until
no-one is left standing. That means, the only orders permitted are IssPers
and ScoChar. (This is my preference; even if we lose! Plus, it'll look
good
in Flagship...)
There is no team leader. Why potentially lose when you guys have effectively
lost to us already? I was not joking when I asked for your surrender on
many occasions - the Dwarves can out-recruit the entire DS team it appears
on its own! 2000 HC a turn are easily replacable - the Harad region is
lost - only Mordor remains - the hardest part is actually getting the
information about where you guys are held out. 3822 falls this or next
turn, then central Mordor. You're confusing GM with player here - as a GM
yes I like to see nice write ups, as a player I would just like the game to
finish as it is relatively boring. Yawn, 4000 HC, yawn here's another 1000,
hit the market limit - got 50k food to spare. Yawn three turns to hit the DS
as I am so far away. Yawn there's another CL bounce at my capital.
With tax rate at 40, loyalties racing up, I am working on the how many MTs
can I get by the end of the game? (Ems too low to actually attack you).
We are submitting orders this turn and await your response.
Upto the others really on this.
So, Clint, you almost get your wish.
As far as I am aware we are way in the ascendancy and would expect you to
concede to the FPs as at present there is only the rush to be top dog on the
FPs side.
My personal thoughts are that the team that gets a GM is at a DISADVANTAGE
due to the way Neutrals treat you, and the way that the head-hunting
associated with the game penalises the position the GM runs. Maybe you
would like to play on the same side as the GM as see what happens then. I
have already had one email from your team saying that they have no problems
with the way we played. Do you?
Gavin
(on behalf of the DS with their agreement)
Clint (player) (no agreement).
