To start, Clint et al (Tara brought up "screaming
DS"...) I'm not "complaining". I'm insisting things
get done properly. Reactionary and arbitrary are not
proper. So Clint, I'm simply pushing you to be as
complete as possible. You can't do anything to
"please" me, because I'm already quite content,
thanks.
First off, it's not a One Banker Nation that 1) we're
talking about and 2) you want to change the code to
prevent.
Harad working by himself can have over 300,000 gold
before turn 10 easily enough to be a "One Banker
Nation" who greatly impacts the market. So both find
a new name for this allegiance gold transfer ploy AND
ensure any "code" changes impact the gold transfers,
NOT the behaviour of the market due to a Single
treasury having lots of gold.
Brad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My point is simple Lars. Clint says that the rule is
"do not send gold to increase the reserves of one
nation to pump up the market". Then he says it's okay
for one nation to do it alone. Harad or anyone else,
Grudge/Gunboat/Independent, it's all the same.
But Harad is One Nation, and as a Banker, is a One
Nation Banker. Because words actually mean something,
I'm simply pointing out the incongruencies in the
naming of the issue and the actual issue.
I'm also pointing out that changing the code to remove
this effect sounds a lot like changing the code to
remove the effect of 1 nation with a lot of reserves
impacting the market. But One Nation is allowed to be
a banker. What isn't allowed is transferring gold to
do so.
Since I'm not "screaming" for/against anything and
really don't care, I consider myself somewhat
objective here. And if I'm finicky and nitpicking
it's because I appreciate that cloudy and incoherent
rulings are more likely to evolve into things well
beyond their original intent. I'm pushing for clarity
and consistency by saying "Not good enough". So the
choice is to reply "Screw you, we'll do as we please"
or actually consider what I'm saying and determine
whether I have a point and it *can* be better and more
clear.
Brad
···
--- Lars Bagge Nielsen <lbni@cowi.dk> wrote:
And in grudge games, harad is to be excluded as a
nation? Can't seem to
get your point.
Brad,
What gives? Does this have to turn into the US penal
code that spells it out sixteen ways to sundays as to
what could possibly be done by the players and what
are the consequences for each possible infraction?
> And in grudge games, harad is to be excluded as a
> nation? Can't seem to
> get your point.
My point is simple Lars. Clint says that the rule
is
"do not send gold to increase the reserves of one
nation to pump up the market". Then he says it's
okay
for one nation to do it alone. Harad or anyone
else,
Grudge/Gunboat/Independent, it's all the same.
But Harad is One Nation, and as a Banker, is a One
Nation Banker. Because words actually mean
something,
I'm simply pointing out the incongruencies in the
naming of the issue and the actual issue.
I'm also pointing out that changing the code to
remove
this effect sounds a lot like changing the code to
remove the effect of 1 nation with a lot of reserves
impacting the market. But One Nation is allowed to
be
a banker. What isn't allowed is transferring gold
to
do so.
Since I'm not "screaming" for/against anything and
really don't care, I consider myself somewhat
objective here. And if I'm finicky and nitpicking
it's because I appreciate that cloudy and incoherent
rulings are more likely to evolve into things well
beyond their original intent. I'm pushing for
clarity
and consistency by saying "Not good enough". So the
choice is to reply "Screw you, we'll do as we
please"
or actually consider what I'm saying and determine
whether I have a point and it *can* be better and
more
clear.
Brad
My ICQ number is: 39507873
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
No John, I just want to ensure Clint does his best to
broaden everyone's understanding of the issue, what's
"legal" and what's not, and the consequences. I don't
see why everyone has a problem with clarity (and I see
so many other posts that prove a lot of people don't
understand the issue or ruling at all...) and am a
little put off that my high expectations for the game
and it's management are taken so personally.
Brad,
What gives? Does this have to turn into the US
penal
code that spells it out sixteen ways to sundays as
to
what could possibly be done by the players and what
are the consequences for each possible infraction?
