.
Now that is has been brought up I am curious to what players think about
players running positions under such pseudonym. Do you mind? Does it annoy
you greatly - what action should we take should we think that something like
that is happening? What proof would we need?
You could never prove it. If you tried, your admin costs would go up,
you could put another Jacuzzi in your Rolls, and that's the last thing
we need.
Personally I don't mind games where players play 2 nations. It usually
means less drops. As you know, I've just offered to take 2 positions in
game 32, but have of course asked you to check that the opposition
agree.
I'd like it if we could do away with pseudonyms and let players be
honest. Be aware that there are also cases of players who start off
under the wing but then loose interest. Younger brothers, fiancees (who
play games with you until you sign up then lose interest... interpret
this (yet another) misogynistic drift any way you like).
Many games see a player dropping, and another player on the team taking
over the second position. Most opposition players, it seems to me, now
accept this. I think you should make it a clear house rule, that where
a position is dropped, it shall be first offered to the other players of
that allegiance.
Basically, I think that nobody minds as long as they're consulted
beforehand. I see three main types:
1) 1 nation per player, no exceptions (impossible to police when one
nation drops, and someone volunteers his cat to take it over [Actually,
my cat Agamemnon would make a much better player than some of the chaps
I play with ;-)]
2) 1 nation per player to start with (much more realistic, and allows
for better games when the drop outs are taken over by players who know
the situation)
3) Multiple nation games (Hear Clint tap dancing and singing "We're in
the money...")
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/