Well, I guess we’re at a catch-22 of sorts. People love to use the word “should” to judge the morality of others in an extremely offhanded kind of way. But then, I don’t think the company “Should” change the way they run the game on a willy-nilly schedule without communicating it to the players - the point of the thread, by the way - Right and Wrong in regards to the player continuing is not the issue - Right and Wrong regarding the Company Changing The Way The Game Is Played is the issue. Don’t get sidetracked by the “bug hunt” issue - I’m not defending the choice as Right - I’m defending his right to that choice - big difference.
The ruling in the absence of a specific rule is the problem. So make the rule, make it clear (e.g. 3-1 in nations = game over) and communicate it via all points (turn emails, mepbmlist, forum, website).
I wouldn’t usually be favorable to retroactively changing the rules in currently running games, but since this kind of decision is already getting made there should be some transparency in the decision-making process.
many false statements in this series of posts:
One Ring Victory - several game formats prohibit this victory and it is certainly possible for game conditions to be set up at game-in that disallow this victory
End Conditions - several formats allow for voting or ratios as game ending conditions.
Just agree on the end-conditions up front. If there are no end conditions published, don’t play in that game instance. Sign up for a game instance where there are end conditions published that are to your liking.
I speak from experience in having learned this the hard way.
As we are dealing with hearsay in this particular post, then i think the argument is not admissable in court. If the person who allegedly didn’t agree to quit were to post and document his refusal to quit in a game that had no published game ending conditions, then this series would have interesting game management issues.
All that said, if a team of nations who can communicate (non GB game) can’t beat one nation (no matter how good he is), then they should look in the mirror for the real problem.
i’ve always been in agrreement more minds should make for better play no matter how gifted the one player is… Even new or average players think of things the most talented of single players could overlook… Why I ahve always believed a Grudge team with twelve players against a grudge team of 6 players playing 2 nations each should win most games…
But as for the post origins… I think it’s ridiculous for players to also have to pay what another 10 turns for a game already won to prove to a single holdout it’s over… even if it’s CL…
Gm 7 i could have made a case for staying in game it was lost but my position could have survived and maybe thrived but the team was about to take a serious beating losing nation after nation over successive turns… But why make my team or even the opposition pay to ram thier might down my throat… Instead give them their Kudos and move on… We should have some honor in losing gracefully… I am certainly one of the worst at losing gracefully… But to Blame the Gm’s sound sounds worse to me than accepting defeat when the majority of the team thinks it’s over!
Dave, this was an open game with no prior agreements beforehand. HOW did you interpret this as “hearsay”…? The entire point of the thread, as the Title would most directly imply, is that we’ve come across an “interesting game management issue”…!!!
Edit - ah, I see, I’m doing the talking, he’s neither talking nor posting his actual email reply from MEGames. Got it, hearsay. Okay. This isn’t court. I have no reason to doubt the victim, we’re on good terms. If he’s lying to me, I’d love MEGames to reply and say “Brad, you’ve been made a fool of.” But then, MEGames doesn’t care enough to check the forum anymore, so I guess it’s just the flamers spamming the spammers, and vice versa… Further evidence the state of the game is pounding along better than ever… 
That’s all from me, I’ve been shooed by both a technicality (weak one and I’ll happily keep my line in the sand drawn here…) and apathy…apathy the kicker. All the best then…
Terry - people “should” hold doors open for the person entering the store behind them. It’s polite, honourable, and just decent old common courtesy. But if you do NOT hold the door open for the elderly lady behind you, “SHOULD” you go to Jail…? NO. Everyone please get over moralizing and judgmentalistic “Those people should this and should that because that’s how I feel and everyone should agree with me…” That’s not the point.
The case that’s illustrating this point isn’t the most popular, I’ll agree with that. I am not a bug myself. But the POINT is that the GM arbitrarily broke the standard, accepted, and precedented rules of play. Next time, it might be about something YOU feel strongly about, so forget the Tree and look at the Forest please.
Brad
My point was that I find it hard to condemn ME Games based on he-said, she-said. If the person affronted posted and documented their beef, then I’d find it hard not to condemn ME Games. I just don’t think that we know all of the facts, and they are important to understand what really happened here.
Bug hunts happen and will continue to happen if people play in games with no pre-set end conditions. I’d guess it’s not unusual in those type games. One mind set put forward by people herein is that it’s ok to not quit as the person hasn’t been beaten and might just tire out the other players resulting in a sort of victory seen as justifiable by these posters.
Others say the person should admit defeat and quit.
Frankly, I think it’s all about the rules. If the rules allow the player to play on, and his enemies can’t muster the palantirs and character assets to take him down , then well, he hasn’t been beaten and the rules are the rules and so be it. they signed up under those rules. there are no surprises here.
It’s why I’d rather play in a game where the end-conditions are defined to mandate an earlier exit than a bug hunt. I don’t enjoy being on either side of the “bug hunt” scenario.
Dave