On behalf of the US team, I feel safe in saying that there was no
belief/expectation that the game would end in a "draw" (however you might -
reasonably - define that). We believe the game might have gone on until
turn 52, but we would have had more active nations, and as such, been
declared the victors. There are 3 ways to win in this game, to our
understanding:
1) Entirely eliminate the other side;
2) Toss the One Ring into Mt. Doom; or
3) Have more active nations on your side than your opponents at the end
of t52.
There is _one_ way to have a "draw" :
Reach turn 52 with each side having the same number of active nations.
We did not accept a "surrender" based on the idea that the outcome would in
any way be considered a "draw." We believed the surrender was recognition
that we were winning and would likely win (either via 1) or 3), or even 2),
and that your only hope was to win via 2). The reasoning behind your
offering a surrender being that you would give up your shot at 2) in
exchange for a slightly better outcome than 1) or 3). I think the current
system achieves this, and I believe your assumptions about a "draw" are
clearly erroneous (well, assumptions can't be clearly erroneous, but no
reasonable person would think "surrender" = "draw" - these are clear and
distinct terms, one of which clearly connotes mutual exclusivity from the
other).
This is certainly how we interpret the surrender by your team, which we
accepted.
The separate issue would be, is it fair to, after the surrender is offered
and accepted, impose a score based on this surrender, but the scoring system
is _subsequently_ defined? The only answer I can think of is that, since
there _was_ no "clear" scoring system at the time of the offer and
acceptance of the surrender, it is impossible for there to _be_ any kind of
system other than one created and determined to be in effect subsequent to
the surrender. On the basis of your current objection, you could reject
_any_ scoring system proposed. The point is that we have one "surrender" in
the books, and we have to find a scoring system that we all agree on that
incorporates this surrender and treats it the same way as surrenders will be
treated going forward. Yes, you have the right to "reject" the proposed
system (as do we all), but, again, the _point_ is to mutually agree on a
system to be used for all results, including the initial result. If you
don't think the currently-proposed system (i.e., the one put forward by
Clint) should be used, then suggest another one. But to ask for "special
compensation" because your surrender occured before we got around to firmly
setting the scoring system is not fair, IMHO ... why did we even play the
game otherwise? And I think it is fair to say that our team's view is that
this first game _was_ a part of the "round robin" tourney, which may or may
not evolve into a "challenge system" and thus should _not_ be essentially
discarded as a "trial run." We all knew we were participating in an
ongoing, multiple-game event. To throw out the result essentially on a
technicality, over which we had _no_ control and for which I can find no
reasonable justificaiton, would be patently unfair.
I believe I have fairly represented my team's view of the matter.
b (Ben Shushan)
···
on behalf of Team USA Colin Forbes wrote:
Hi everyone,
Many thanks to Clint for bringing all the various ideas for scoring
systems together and coming up with a single clear system.
> 3 pts for a Win
> 1 for a Draw - 52 turns or agreement
> 1/2 pt for a Surrender which is accepted by the other team
> 0 pts for a loss
The problem with this is that in game 30 the UK team offered
surrender on the basis that we were getting the same points as if the
game had been a draw. We feel confidant that the game could easily have
carried on to turn 52, but thought it was fair all round to recognise
that the US team was on top and save everyone the money involved in
playing the additional turns.
Talking this over with the team, it is clear that this is something of a
problem. The fairest solution would seem to be to recognise that the new
points system means that we are no longer playing on the same ball park
and that this means game 30 (as the only game to have finished so far)
cannot be part of the World Championships as it now stands.
I suspect that this could be contentious however, so I am proposing the
following three solutions - hopefully one of them will be acceptable to
both teams!
1: Declare that game 30 was the first "Middle Earth Transatlantic Cup"
won by the USA. This could become a regular annual fixture with a team
from the UK / Europe challenging the USA as current holders of the Cup.
2: Recognise that the UK team offered a surrender which was accepted by
the USA team in the belief that the game would have eventually become a
draw, and give both teams points accordingly (1 point each).
3: Same as option two, but sharing the points in another way. Namely
recognise that the UK team offered a surrender which was accepted by the
USA team in the belief that the game would have eventually become a
draw, and let the teams share the points accordingly (2 points each).
4: Declare the USA team as winners, but recognise the fact that the UK
team offered surrender in the belief that the game would have eventually
become a draw. The points would thus be USA 3 points and UK 1 point.
I will say now that certain members of the UK team have problems with
option 4, whilst I expect some of the US team will have problems with
option 1. I am sure however that we can discuss this in a gentlemanly
fashion and evntually reach a conclusion satisfactory to both sides.
Colin.
UK Team Captain.
Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm
