Actually Griffy, I like your point about both sides having a strategy in place that must be adapted. Good point.
Dave
I agree with Griffy. I believe the key word here is exploitation. No one has been accused of cheating in Clint’s decision the fact is that the ONB has been identified as a game breaking advantage to the DS teams using it. Whether you agree with Clint’s position that there are no effective countermeasures or not the decision has been made.
I don’t believe that there is an argument that justifies letting games continue without removing the effects of the ONB unless they are very new games and setting markets and gold balances back to realistic levels will restore balance in the games underway. I feel that if either side believes Clint’s ruling puts them at such a disadvantage that they should be able to let him know that they do not want to continue the game and the game should be terminated with no winner or loser. Teams that had been opposing each other could then restart a game on a level field. This would result in no team gaining a win because they have employed a strategy now banned in the game. It also would result in no team suffering a loss due to the same. Clint would you be willing to terminate games under those conditions if requested? It seems the most fair way to end the wailing of those who feel they would be wronged by your decision regardless of which side they are playing.
Brad J
Brad:how about this argument
G37 and G51 were both started i. after OBN was very very public knowledge and ii. with the intention of many on both sides of trying to find a counter to it.
Game 51, the market is still very high, the DS still send gold to the One banker nation, the fight goes on!
Are the DS now making sure they send as much as possible to the OBN so his reserves are now just less than the new 80k limit? mmmmmm very interesting!
Clint would you be willing to terminate games under those conditions if requested?
Upto you guys. If both sides were amenable to that I would consider it. Note I find that invariably games can’t re-start in that situation though. There’s usually too much bad blood and the slightest thing could kick it off again. I think I might have a fix soon though (see below).
As to was it fine before. It wasn’t fine, we were just unaware of it.
I’ve been testing all day and making good progress. Need to implement new test-code to test out and compare with presently running games (so that would be all the games run twice each time they process - not ideal but there you go).
Clint (GM)
Clint,
now now now…
how can you say “As to was it fine before. It wasn’t fine, we were just unaware of it.” without a smiley? 
a. You were aware of it, but didn’t believe it, for quite some time.
b. It was perfectly legal according to the rules
So what do you mean by it “wasn’t fine” ?
I think you mean that it created unfair advantage and that’s why you changed the rules and are now working to change the code. correct?
Dave
There was some code that wasn’t quite right
It was ok, doing no damage to game balance, until it was exploited
I get a lot of emails asking for me to look into stuff. One player complained that a code change had occurred as all his Emissary camp creation orders as failed. In that framework we were unaware of it. Sometimes players perceived (as do we all) that there’s something wrong when there isn’t (or we’re at the beginning of discussions to work out what is the situation so I have to have an opinion, then change it later if more facts come to light - ie I have to have a base point to start from). Now sometimes those fears are very appropriate and need to be checked (I did, both provisionally and in more detail after explaining the whys and the wherefores of how I came to that decision).
Now I was aware that some players felt there was a problem. That comes with the territory of running the game btw (there are always problems). As to my awareness that it was the problem that was claimed - that’s something different. Now it starts to get convoluted. 
You were probbaly right though a smiley would have been more appropriate but then I might have been advised that such a thing was not advisable…
In essence, and in all seriousness, I do feel that it is not fine. It was in the program (and is) but shouldn’t have been (from my understanding with Bill and my own understanding).
"…argument seems to be that it is fair because use of the legal orders in the game (ONB) in the first place wasn’t fair. I disagree. It was only ruled unfair this week. Previously it was fine. "
Ie it wasn’t fine that it was in there, it was only allowed because I was unaware that it was in the code. If I was aware that it not only was a perceived problem but an actual problem (the time scales are awkward to work with here) then action would have been taken. It was a legal order (fine) but with unexpected side effects (ie not fine). I’m not penalising players for trying something (ie I’m not removing the gold) but I’m not allowing players to gain any future benefit from it and otherwise letting the situation stand as it is. That does mean that some markets will stay high for a period of time though. Ie the OBN users have gained an advantage in that manner that will stay with them for the rest of the game.
From an ethical viewpoint if something like this does come up I would advise players do get in touch if things happen in a manner that is unexpected or unusual. Now I understand that there are many versions of ethics and how players play the game (some are cultural, some are more individual orientated in my experience) but if something weird does happen ask if it’s okay (like we’ve put in the GB rules etc) and we can help out and avoid situations like this in future. That way, I think everyone will have a more enjoyable gaming experience overall.
Does that help? Off roleplaying so chat to you all later.
Clint
As far as I know none of the DS in 51 are sending money to the Banker Nation. That’s against the rules now.
Brad LR-51
Its ok, until his gold exceeds 80k, I guess he has a lot more than 80k then!
Great!
Bummer if the OBN is fixed and not allowed in future games. I think it is the right fix, but I would still like to try and beat it (along with Dave, Bernd and Drew).
Changing in mid stream I think will cause a problem however.
tim
Clint, your explanation is clear. Thanks for the smiley.
As to ethics:
a. I informed you of the problem, supplying pointers to 2 games where it was used and where results could be observed, back in September (9/14 to be exact).
b. I see nothing wrong ethically with using legal orders in the game to gain advantage. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?
Thanks for all of your time spent on this issue. I know I’m vocal. It’s my nature. The good news is that I must care about this game else I wouldn’t spend all this energy… I’d say that’s true of all the folks who are chiming in. We love the game and want the best for it.
Dave
Gee, now I’m getting all mushy… :o
Roflmao!
Clint has decided it was “broken” and therefore he is going to “fix” it. Fine and well…for all games going forward. However, it is a rules change midgame, and that’s the problem. Clint does not agree with me on this, so that’s fine too. We all adapt and move on. At the very least, I am pleased that he addressed my point in his OBN ruling pronouncement, i.e., he calls it a bug and explains why he thinks so. I disagree, but that doesn’t really matter in the Grand Scheme of Things, now does it? <g>
Where you are wrong is where you say MEGames would not be providing good service by running parallel programs (or sets of code, or however you want to say). The converse is true: the service would be exemplary if they were to run games under both programs. Like some of us have said here, we relish the opportunity to play as FP against the so-called OBN tactic – mainly, because we have used it ourselves. Granted, if we would’ve never used it, and knowing that future games will outlaw it (either by house rules or reprogramming) the allure would be less. But at the very least, our sense of fair play is such that we want our current FP opponents to have the exact same tools at their disposal in any rematch. In another of your many posts, you have questioned Dave’s sense of fair play, and in that, sir, you have erred the most.
Drew
You gonna pay more for a turn if Clint says he needs another pc to process the old code?
Now you are being absurd Grif. Clint wouldn’t add the pc (or mac, or C64, whatever runs that old dinosaur of a program <g>) if that were the case, and no one would expect him to. I’ve previously said in this thread that I wouldn’t expect MEGames to run two sets of code; but if they were to do so, that would be spectacular customer service. Do you really disagree with my assessment of proper customer service, or so you just like throwing stones, like so many on this forum?
I suspect the program would run on the computer in my pen. How much extra could this cost…?
I’m not throwing stones, and think it would be great that games like your grudge match (and a rematch?) could continue as they are with the same OBN code.
I just think it would be a nightmare for Clint to run 2 sets of code. Its not just an extra pc, but someone to use it, the time and hassle transfering the turns onto it and off again, the space it takes up etc, maybe I am wrong?
I also think it would be bad for Clint to continue running all games with the OBN code, so whats left? Hand moderate games and fix the code?
If Clint can run 2 sets of code, only allowing the exploit standing in the long running games (if both teams agree) then this would be awesome customer service. I just wonder if its practical, afterall, its supposed to be a profit making company! Hey this is only my opinion, no one else is wrong, some just have different opinions to mine :rolleyes:
My PC is running about 15 different programs all at the same time right now. The PCs that sell for $1000 today have as much processing power and memory as the supercomputers that the company I worked for built in the 1980s… This is not an issue of compute power.
I bet Clint’s PC can run both the old version and the new version… no problem.
The issue is much more of an issue of logistics, turn processing procedures, and how to ensure that the wrong program isn’t used for the wrong game instance(s)…
It’s not an issue of cost of PCs.
Dave