MP Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins! [Archive] - Page 3

archaeolept

September 13th, 2009, 01:41 PM

That was one of the most pathetic excuses for a win that I've ever seen. Aristander, in collusion with Wraithlord, just throws the game to him. Never in many years of playing dominions have I seen the like, and I would love someone to link to a game where this happened and was accepted practice. Both of the final two vps were thrown to him, instead of defended; wraithlord certainly was fully complicit in this, taking R'lyeh's very capital without resistance.

I haven't seen such a rigged win since playing Norfleet.

This was not a win in anything other than a technical sense. Wraithlord and Aristander show themselves as players without honour, whatever that counts for.

It also demonstrates nothing as to skill playing in the game; it is the most egregious hack of a win I have ever encountered, and I am sorry that such an epic game, so wonderfully hosted by pashadawg, should end in this manner.

I will take this as an admission that WL could not win by above board means, and so had to resort to such subterfuge. :)

archaeolept

September 13th, 2009, 02:25 PM

Actually, I didn't see the final battle - partially I'm surmising from the previous actions. Pasha was earlier willing to release the turn files, so hopefully any questions on this will be easily cleared up. The 6th VP was certainly colluded on, and I very much doubt that anything changed two turns later for the 7th - rlyeh's huge teleport army was still located somewhere else, and there had clearly been no attempt to get it home to defend his cap, and final vp, against WL.

Aethyr

September 13th, 2009, 02:35 PM

Well, I for one will congratulate WL on a game well played.

Pasha, this was another beautiful map & the w/ports version makes it about as perfect as can be. Thanks for another great game.

WraithLord

September 13th, 2009, 03:11 PM

Thank you Aethyr and Pasha for the congrats :)

Pasha, many many thanks for hosting this game so well.

Arch. this is just a game so please don't get so upset. Your messages are offensive and aggressive and I think it would not hurt one bit if you tone yourself down some. R'lyeh was your enemy in this game so you shouldn't blame him for any VPs he lost to me. I was your enemy as well and we were at open war so all VPs in the game were fair game. If I managed to take a given VP it was b/c you failed to stop me. You and I were the superpowers in this game so blaming the lesser kingdoms for your loss seems outstretched, now blaming your enemy for your loss seems completely unreasonable. I wouldn't have minded one bit had you won the game, I enjoy playing the game and don't mind losing to a good opponent. That said, I do what I can to win, sometimes it works, most of the times it doesn't:) - No big deal as playing this game with the great friends on this forum is the true reward.

archaeolept

September 13th, 2009, 03:30 PM

i'm not especially upset, just somewhat appalled. It does not bother me that you find my implications offensive, as they are correct. I've never seen such blatant collusion to just give away a game ever in all my years of playing Dominions. If such activities are considered fine, are there any, other than outright hacking, that aren't?

I wouldn't have minded if you had won - I've lost often enough. But such a win is not an honest one. Please show me other games on this forum where there has been such a collusion. As far as I know, and rather surprisingly, such bare-faced throwing of a long-standing game is unprecedented.

I see you do not deny the content of my claims.

"If I managed to take a given VP it was b/c you failed to stop me."

not quite, though an entertaining dodge. You managed to take these two vps as you were given them, knowingly, by your ally, who refused to defend them specifically so that you could win. "by any means necessary", I guess. Those are not the actions that friends take in a "friendly" game.

Again, I ask, when else has the like occurred? To have great and epic games settled by such collusion - is this not destructive of the very bases upon which this community, and the games it sets up, are played?

WraithLord

September 13th, 2009, 03:51 PM

I will not be dragged into a flame war with you.
You are entitled to your opinions.
Going forward I choose to ignore your offensive posts.

archaeolept

September 13th, 2009, 03:55 PM

This is not a flame. I've asked specific questions about the game and about claims you have made. You just do not wish for them to be answered. Do you deny you were in explicit league w/ Aristander for him to throw the game to you? Has this every happened in a game here on the forums? Was it considered acceptable then? Is there any limit to in-game actions proper to a game of Dominions in this community?

Why would these questions be considered offensive?

WraithLord

September 14th, 2009, 03:44 AM

(I know it's better that I completely ignore you but I'll make this last response.)
Yes this is flame. You are using abusive language towards me and another good player and you are making ridiculous accusations.

I had the game firmly in my grip ever since I crushed your armies in open battle and gave you staggering losses. Ever since, you haven’t contested any VP I took. I had all the VPs in the game under my surveillance and had just made a simple observation that R’lyhes were the least defended and that his main army was tied up protecting another of his VPs from you. I had warned Aristander that I consider his VPs fair game and then concentrated on taking them. I did all that while you were feebly trying and failing to acquire those last VPs you needed. In addition you chose to squander your time and resources on raiding and casting (futile) assassination spells at me. All this while I secured 8 VPs so firmly that nothing you could have thrown at me would have made a difference – and that’s a fact otherwise I wouldn’t have won this game. Last turn I had a huge army at Caelum gates and assassinated lots of his mages + his SoS mage. Add that to my huge GWing army and many teleporting SCs and it’s clear that I’d have take the eight next turn as well. I had werewolves and Tart SCs coming out of my ears and they were backed by lot’s of teleporting crystal mages.

You are just proving yourself as a bad loser and a whiner. That in itself doesn’t bother me nor your abusive language towards me. I’m upset that you are bad mouthing Aristander. He was at war against you and managed to heroically defend his VP from you to the last turn.

That’s it. You’ll get no more responses from me. Feel free to go on with your whining if that’s your thing.

vfb

September 14th, 2009, 05:47 AM

Hello:

Jotunheim has won the game. Congratulations, Wraithlord!

Thanks to all for playing.

By the way, any critiques about the map would be appreciated, in case I make another big map. What was good. What as kooky or annoying. No obligation to comment, of course. :D

Pasha

Hi Pasha, I'm playing on Asia Twist, in Beyond, not here. I really like the style of your maps, but the only point I didn't like about this one is it's a little big for the end game, just for my personal taste. Good points IMO are the diverse terrain, nice atmosphere from the map artwork, and good use of mountains and water for choke points. The archipelago also sets up a good dominion battle with whoever is in the water and whoever is on the islands. Oh, and I was very happy to capture the island where I live IRL! :)

Anyway, I'd love to see you do a wrap-around 8-to-10 player map in the AsiaTwist/Alexander style.

mscfish

September 14th, 2009, 11:32 AM

Congratulations to wraithlord for the winning.
Also thanks pasha for your hard work on this game.
It's very happy for me to join this game.

:)

WraithLord

September 14th, 2009, 12:06 PM

Thank you mscfish. You have done very well in this game. So good in-fact that none of the super powers wanted to mess with you.

Frankly speaking, I was watching (not to say, coveting) your VP as well. Each turn I'd do a summary of all VPs not owned by me and sort them according to the defending forces. Your VP was consistently the third from the last right after R'lyehs VPs :)
The only reason I didn't attack you (and mind you we never had a formal NAP so I could do that) is for fear that your pretender and mages can all GW in a pinch, besides I preferred to attack a target that Van would not expect, that and knowing that R'lyehs army is tied up protecting his last VP decided the matter :D

I watched your moves this game. I think you handled MA Ermor well. In-fact seeing your battles gave me this craving to play Ermor in my next game so thank you for that as well :)

archaeolept

September 14th, 2009, 01:50 PM

christ, such manifest dissimulation to top it all off wraithlord.

for the record, what Wraithlord claims as Aristander's "heroic defense" of his VP, or "knowing that R'lyehs army is tied up protecting his last VP" - as was known to all in the area, I had one shambler sieging that VP. Rlyeh had a huge teleporting army who could easily have defended his cap or his other VP. But, according to WL, it was somehow necessary for him to use his whole army to ward off my solitary shambler.

This end-game was rigged, and a set-up, and I have never seen the like in all my years of playing Dominions. Now, some may feel that intentionally throwing a game in this situation is fine. Others may not.

The turn files are available from Pasha for anyone who would like to see what actually went down.

When I was first concerned that this is what was happening, I expressed my unease to Pasha. He assured me that Wraithlord was a gentleman. I can't give his motivations for saying that in response to my worries; perhaps they were completely unrelated.

WraithLord

September 14th, 2009, 02:19 PM

Ok. I'll try to put on an AAR. Hopefully I won't get to tied up and be able to complete it. I'll do this in small steps. So w/o further ado:
The chronicles of Burn the ultimate god of AsiaTwist map (well ultimate just below Pasha's heavy feat that is :) )

Turns 1-10:
1. Burn, Imprisoned Earth Mother E9N9 Dom-8 great scales.
Why I chose her?- I personally prefer either SC or rainbow mages but wanted to try this new (to me ) fashion
that everyone seemed so excited about - heavy bless.
Prophetize Gere the Jotun herse. He'll stay alive through most of the game and will have a place in HoF.
recruit woodsman and my fav Jotum mage: the Vaetti hag.

2. Take starting army and woodsman and move towards first indie province.
recruitment is same as first turn.

3. 0 losses. Take another indie province.

4. same. Ashdod leads the expansion race.

5. Gere enters HoF with light. reflexes.

6. 2nd army (woodsman led by a jarl) joins expansion.

7. Upgrade to two new indie provinces per turn. 3rd army out the gates.
Ashdod and Van lead the expansion race.

8. Meet both TC and Ctis. A fatefull meeting. With TC I'll keep the peace until the end game and have great relations.
Ctis with it's offensive Miasma domain I conceive as a problem and start working on a plan to eliminate it.

9. Expand - 3 indie provinces per turn.
Ashdod leads the race.

10. Meet Pythium, Bandar and Pan. With the former two I sign NAPs.
With Pan I also sign NAP but somehow it doesn't feel that secure.
I have a bad feeling re. Pan and later Caelum disposition towards me all game long.
At one point later on my fears came true as both attacked me :(

archaeolept

September 14th, 2009, 02:43 PM

Anyways, I would like to express that overall this has been a great game. I had many epic struggles against pythium, bandar, eriu, TC and rlyeh. The map is beautiful, and a nice twist on traditional Dominions maps. The only quibble I might have with it is the large number of scrub island provinces; I would probably consolidate a few of them myself.

I'll just lay the facts out here as to what happened in these final turns, so that the precise situation can be known by everyone. The turns are available from Pasha for anyone who doubts my account.

I was sieging one of rlyeh's VP's, with a middling little raiding army (as the castle had been undefended). I knew I had little chance, as rlyeh could easily get forces there, so I did not assault with my tart that was also sieging. Rlyeh (who was being subbed by rdonj) responded w/ a breathtaking 25 or so full starspawn, a large bunch of illithids, an astral hero, and a ton of chaff. It was an imposing force, and the major event in rdonj's last sub turn. According to him " this last turn is actually mostly wraithlord." Which was fair enough - a sub looking to a common enemy for advice. The point being that this potent force was explicitly known to WL, as likely he had a good hand in designing it.

That same turn my probing assault was repulsed, WL teleported in a few sieging SCs to another of Rlyeh's VPs. Had he been taking advantage of a substitute player, or was he already assured by Aristander that there would be no defense? This was a good anti-SC force; tarts equipped w/ gatecleavers. I didn't counter them, as I could get no response from Aristander, and I had just lost a fair force fighting WL to protect Caelum's cap, and expected that rlyeh could handle them. WL took this w/ no opposition at all - yet who assaults what one should expect to be a horrendous amount of astral power fronted at the gates w/ a ton of non-routing chaff, w/ tarts equipped w/ gatecleavers, unless, of course, you are assured you will not be defended against?

Now, I had huge turns to do, which were difficult as I had a sinking feeling in my stomach that the game was now being thrown; correctly as it turned out. It was in this context that Pasha reassured me that wraithlord was "a gentleman". The context surely implied that a "gentleman" wouldn't be involved in such activities, but I'll let Pasha speak for himself, if he wishes. Nevertheless, I got in my turns.

Repeat then for Rlyeh's cap. Rlyeh kept his full force away from WL, and did nothing to defend when he could have easily, as WL was assaulting w/ one earth mother w/ a gatecleaver, and one tartarian. It is clear there was collusion to throw the game between Wraithlord and Aristander. That Rlyeh needed his full army to defend against one shambler is an amazing claim.

Now, throwing a game is a borderline activity, and it is up to the community to decide whether it feels such playstyle is warranted, or to be encouraged. Personally, I haven't seen anything so low since fighting Norfleet's hacked armies. That's where I learned to play; I refused to give in to that, and likewise I will not stand silent in this case.

Now, dear readers, if there are any ;) , you may go back and peruse Wraithlord's recent posts and see how his spin jibes with the situation as presented.

Wraithlord would like to make the claim that he would have won anyways, but this is not the case. I had lost some major forces defending caelum, but so had he. It is clear that one does not stoop to having a game thrown to you if you feel assured you could win by normal means.

WraithLord

September 14th, 2009, 03:57 PM

Turns 11-15:
11. Reached evoc. 2 for Arcane probing.
Steady expansion rate of 3 provinces per turn gets me near to top of the provinces/income charts.

12. cont. expansion

13. Now expanding at rate of 4 provinces per turn
For the first time leading province/income charts.

14. Expanding some more.

15. Trade with Oceania gives me lot's of nature gems that I really need.
Ashdod and me have very high profile. Both are candidates for a sound dog piling :D

archaeolept

September 14th, 2009, 06:08 PM

12. cont. expansion
I guess this is Wraithlord's version of "nah nah nah I can't hear you" :D

rdonj

September 14th, 2009, 07:56 PM

I need to learn how to control my mouth when subbing, as it is clear my comments have added directly to this fiasco, heh. I can't say as to whether the game was "thrown" or not, that is for aristander and wraithlord to say.

However, on the subject of whether it is acceptable to "throw" a game, I would like to comment. Personally, I have done this, in my second game. It was a noob game and early on, I allied myself with one of my neighbors. I decided I didn't care about winning, so long as the person who guaranteed my not winning was unable to claim victory. So, later in the game, when that player went AI and it was just me, my ally and another player standing, we called the game in favor of my ally, and I had no problem with giving him the win. I could have given my ally a pretty good fight, and maybe, just maybe beaten him. But I never had any intention of fighting him. Of course, it was never my intention to win that game. Just not to lose. But I felt no shame in allowing the win to go to my ally rather than my enemy.

If there is a nation which I really don't want to see winning the game, vs a nation who I'm allied with, and I have no chance to win the game myself... I will probably choose to back the one I dislike the least. Even if I'm not the one who wins, it gives me the satisfaction of my "side" winning. This sort of thing happens all the time. Giving someone your VPs to let them win is not really much different in my opinion.

DonCorazon

September 14th, 2009, 08:15 PM

Thanks for hosting Pasha with your typical impeccable style and grace. I am honored to participate in your games.

Congrats Wraithlord, however you may have won. "All is fair in love and war". If someone did just hand you a VP, well, I personally would never do that since I think both from an RPG and a good sportsman perspective it makes no sense, but suppose there is nothing explicitly against it in the rules and some people do seem to like the idea of being vassals. The Don, however,always chooses to die on his feet, rather than live on his knees... :fire: and would hope others to do the same.

But you are quite a charmer I must say, perhaps a little thick with the flattery for my tastes :) but you seem to be quite effective with others. I called you out as being the one who'd win this game long ago (see thread somewhere a while back), but my own diplomatic energy was drained after Ashdod - I was too fatigued with PMs / coordination to take the lead again in another "alliance", and nobody heeded my warnings. Even still I tried to attack you in the spirit of trying to do what I could, but could see it was going to weaken the defense of my own VPs (even still I refused a formal NAP to hopefully keep you off guard). Thus ended the last offensive of the Pangean war machine.

Even while it was an epic game, I found this game helped crystallize a number of issues I have with certain game settings. Gem generator fatigue for one - I finally got sick of clams and bloodstones and just stopped making them.

Diplomacy for another - and in particular how it often means success can be most readily achieved by turtling/preying on the weak and waiting for others to fight the tough wars. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, and in fact it is known by many that the best way to win wars is never to fight a fair one. And I certainly did my best to make the war against Ashdod lopsided by bringing in anyone I could (but note everyone who fought the big A ultimately lost).

And this leaves something lacking to me in MP games. The most interesting fights are the balanced ones. Yet those are exactly the ones that help everyone else but the nations fighting. i am not sure what the answer is but it bothers me both as a player that relies on the strategy many times, and has been hurt when straying from it a few times. I think the answer is smaller maps / fewer players and/or RAND style games. Either that, or I just need to reserve more time for these diplomatically intense games and remind myself to let others fight the tough wars. I think I prefer the former though.

Another thing that kind of irritates me about Dominions is the undue influence certain indies can have on the game, but i suppose it makes each game interesting. It sure sucks when you don't find anything decent though. Jot's teleporting iron adepts mitigated my own horde of maenads from hostile action, since he could teleport in front of my armies, getting first cast defense advantage and splat my hordes with an RoS. That sucked. :)

I like the map, though i wish it had a little less movement limiting terrain.

Anyway, that's enough ramblings from a sleep-deprived new dad for now. Good game all, look forward to playing again some time.

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 04:34 AM

@rdonj, I have seen what you describe happen many times over. Sometimes it was not one nation but 2-3 that did their best to crown someone. I was many times on the losing side of this and while it was frustrating at the moment. I just took this in good spirit and started thinking what the winner did better than me that I can improve - the answer was almost always the same: diplomacy. In past game I have experienced (and ultimately lost the game to) deceits, hidden trades, transfer of whole gem/item/gold inventory, forge whoring and what not.
Do I personally support this?- Well it is annoying I'll admit, from the noble perspective of everything must be a fair fight. However, I learned that in dominions, like in love, like in war, like in life its not all black and white and romanticized. In diplomacy game you'd always have to deal with this stuff as well. So for now I'm getting more fun out of RAND games but that doesn't say that diplo game are not fun - they just require different mind set to play and enjoy well.

@DonC, Thank you for the congrats. Coming from you - my "incorruptible" arch-enemy this means a lot!
And yes, I meant that bit above. I have considered you my most bitter opponent throughout the game. Had it not been to the fear of you and Caelum jumping me I'd have dealt with Van a lot earlier (with help from friends of course, one doesn't go to wars or parties alone ;) ).
Re. flattery. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Where I grew up ppl are very emphatic and sympathetic and are generous with compliments. I'm sorry if you find this in bad taste. I truly believe my compliments and I am not using flattery. I hate flattery. I'll try to moderate my compliments when talking to N. Americans as clearly there's a cultural gap here.

I hear what you're saying re. staying out of the tough fights. Let me tell you that I was once in the exact spot where you stand now. Then I lost a few games due to *not* taking action in time (most notable first RAND where I could have made a big difference but b/c I didn't take action ended up losing to Micah).

Gem gens I came to dislike. I want to try a few games w/o them and see if like the settings w/o them.

Indies and luck in the game are things that love in dominions. Sometimes you are benefiting from those sometimes not but they do serve to make each game unique and interesting.

---------------------------------------------------------
Now to most important stuff:
Congrats to new DON dad to a newborn :angel
Peace and happiness to the family and may you find some time in the future to cont. playing DOM with us
---------------------------------------------------------

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 04:40 AM

One more thing. I think AARs are nice and have so far been very lacking in this dpt. (won quite a few games but never did an AAR).
I already got one request to do this AAR. I'd like to know whether this is something that ppl are interested in?- I want to know b/c it takes a lot of work to produce...

@Pasha, could you be so generous as to send to me some (or better, all) of the turn files?- Besides being interesting, I could use that stuff for my AAR.

DonCorazon

September 15th, 2009, 05:34 AM

Wraith - no need to change your style. I suspected it might be a cultural thing, but not knowing you, was not sure. I appreciate openness and empathy, but admittedly am suspicious of compliments when they come in the context of a negotiation with a stranger. :) Please don't let the cynicism of a North American big city dweller dampen your enthusiasm...

As for indies / luck - well you know from some of my comments of the unusual streak I have been on in a few games. Call me a fairweather fan - when things get better, maybe I'll be less bitter. :)

I'm always interested in AARs. I started a super detailed one for the latest RAND game - complete with screenshots and turn write-ups aimed at beginners. This turned out to be too ambitious and I dropped it probably around turn 15. I would love to start a RAND like game, with like-minded players, where everyone kept an AAR. Wouldn't need to be as detailed as the one I intended, since I think those are prone to being abandoned, as happened in Chronicles, but would be cool to hear perspectives of all the players in a game, to better understand the reasons behind everyone's actions after the game was over.

Finally, thanks for the blessing. Who knows, given the fact I no longer sleep, I may actually have more time for Dominions :p

djo

September 15th, 2009, 06:06 AM

AARs can be great to read, but they are hard to write well. Not everyone can articulate their strategies clearly. I also play SP Civilization IV, and over on the civfanatics.com forums, there are some wonderful SP AARs that greatly improved my game. The ALCS games were especially useful, where the author played the game as they posted, soliciting advice from the readers as they went, posting screenshots and saves along the way. I have wondered if such a thing would work here, but I haven't got the ambition to try it myself.

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 08:08 AM

This kind of detailed AAR is way beyond my meager authoring abilities or my free time allocation.

I did however saved all my turns so can gladly give them to someone ambitious enough to write a decent AAR.

Otherwise I'll just cont. with my telegraphic, poor style AAR :(

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 08:51 AM

...
I appreciate openness and empathy, but admittedly am suspicious of compliments when they come in the context of a negotiation with a stranger.
...

Hah, considering we are all playing this game here in a friendly atmosphere. I'd say we ain't that strangers to each other ;)

...
Finally, thanks for the blessing. Who knows, given the fact I no longer sleep, I may actually have more time for Dominions :p
So no chance you'd take the AAR project of this game from my hands ;)
BTW, you are absolutely right, my daughters first year I slept little and actually had *more* time to play dominions - albeit in strange state of consciousness :D

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 12:31 PM

Turns 16-20:
16. Everybody has 2-3 castles only I am left stuck with 1. Those blessed giants cost a fortune!
Recruiting Gygja for D/N/S/B access

17. Ok. The two forts I was so busy constructing are at last complete, now I have 3 castles. Burn in her celestial prison smiles in content.
The war between Pythium and Van erupts.

18. Oceania is close to extinction at R'lyehs hands. He sends to me a wave breaker that I'll use until the game ends. This wave breaker has literally hundreds of notches, one for each vanquished foe of the true faith ;)
Reach Thaum 2. for site searching.

19. Ulm goes AI with Ashdod being the driver.
Pythium asks for my help against Van but I prefer to concentrate on Ctis. Perhaps this was a mistake on my part as Van will cont. to grow and expand and eat lesser nations and ultimately become a superpower.
Recruit first Joton Skratti. These will prove to be an unstoppable force throughout the game. Properly equipped they even eat Tartarians. An amazing commander with a wide range of abilities that Baalz has described well in one of his guides.

20. Several wars are raging. Most notable is a band of nations against Ashdod led by Pan.
Me and TC finish working out the details for attacking Ctis. The attack is imminent.

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 03:28 PM

Turns 21-25:
21. Start war against Ctis with a probe attack. Gere is leading that army.

Expand far enough to contact Arco. Send him PMs and in game msgs w/o response. That's unusual considering his small stature.

22. Trade for dwarven hammers with TC.
TC hits Ctis from NW, I from SE.
Pythium sends a huge army at Van. A mistake IMHO, since Van is a raiding nation, you can't kill him with one clean strike only get your self dead.
Ashdod is under heavy pressude and losing ground.
Ermor and Atlantis start what would be a very long war.

23. Arco attacks me w/o warning and I lose 1200g and an army securing a castle const. site.
Needless to say Arco officially joins my hit list.
Van is raiding Pythium.

24. Van attacks Bandar as well.
I secure a NAP with Van.
I am now sieging Ctis capital. Nor my first Skratti SC is dispatching the PD like so much chaff, equipped with the same old wavebreaker
I finish 2 more castles and climb to first place in that score graph.

25. Ctis has lost its prophet and what remains of its military force to Nor. It is fading.
Pan and R'lyeh lead the VP race with 2 each.

WraithLord

September 15th, 2009, 03:31 PM

More pics.

namad

September 15th, 2009, 09:33 PM

Personally, if two players wanted to team up to finish the game via victory points, I wouldn't mind at all. I see from the thread that some players did go AI... My gaming experience is ruined when players go AI. I wish there wasn't even a button for going AI. The worst thing you can do when playing a game would be to refuse to play after agreeing to play. As long as I have someone to play with I would not mind if people weren't taking the game seriously.

Maybe if no one ever went AI ever, then maybe I'd be willing to get upset about much less heinous acts. I guess that's just me. I guess no one agrees with me.

PashaDawg

September 15th, 2009, 09:50 PM

If anybody wants any turn files, please let me know. I have backups of all turns and a master password.

rdonj

September 15th, 2009, 11:19 PM

I'd still like to see meglobob's.

WraithLord

September 16th, 2009, 01:35 AM

If anybody wants any turn files, please let me know. I have backups of all turns and a master password.
Yes please :)

WraithLord

September 16th, 2009, 02:51 AM

Turns 26-30:
26. Jump-starting blood eco. with B. Vaetti hags. Did I mention already how I love these little buggers?
Site search radar sweeps for D/S/N sites.
NAP with Bandar.
Uneasy NAP with Caelum.

27. Take first VP - Ctis capital. Gain lots of diseased giants :)
Bandar asks for my help against Van. I can't do that since I have Arco on my hit list

28. Hit const. 4.

29. Prioritize research, site searching and B hunting.
Eriu takes Ulm's VP

30. Trade for E. boots with TC. Mobilizing armies & sneaking SCs (Skratti werewolves again) towards Arco.
Find & recruit witches for access to E.

WraithLord

September 16th, 2009, 02:52 AM

More pics

archaeolept

September 16th, 2009, 11:44 AM

.

However, on the subject of whether it is acceptable to "throw" a game, I would like to comment. Personally, I have done this, in my second game. It was a noob game and early on, I allied myself with one of my neighbors. I decided I didn't care about winning, so long as the person who guaranteed my not winning was unable to claim victory. So, later in the game, when that player went AI and it was just me, my ally and another player standing, we called the game in favor of my ally, and I had no problem with giving him the win. [...]

If there is a nation which I really don't want to see winning the game, vs a nation who I'm allied with, and I have no chance to win the game myself... I will probably choose to back the one I dislike the least. Even if I'm not the one who wins, it gives me the satisfaction of my "side" winning. This sort of thing happens all the time. Giving someone your VPs to let them win is not really much different in my opinion.That's an interesting account rdonj, but it does not seem to me to be quite the same. It is one thing to concede, or to have enough players speak out in favour of a certain outcome in order to determine the win; but it is something else entirely to actively throw your vp's to someone in a contested race. At the very least, it would seem to be bad sportsmanship.

In every game, players end up backing some other players - they send them gems, they co-operate in wars, they give advice and information. But I've never seen someone actively work to throw his winning VP's to his ally.

I've asked many times for another example of what happened here having happened in another serious game of dominions, hopefully on these forums, and I have yet to receive any response on the matter.

archaeolept

September 16th, 2009, 11:51 AM

Congrats Wraithlord, however you may have won. "All is fair in love and war". If someone did just hand you a VP, well, I personally would never do that since I think both from an RPG and a good sportsman perspective it makes no sense, but suppose there is nothing explicitly against it in the rules This does, I think, get to part of the heart of the issue. Certainly colluding to have the game thrown was not explicitly against the rules, but has it really come to this? Do all possible bad behaviours need to be explicitly forbidden in a game's OP? Rather, I would say there is a whole host of behaviours that are implicitly rejected; hacking, looking at someone's unpassworded turn, not entering a game with the intention of trying to win or at least play well. Certainly Wraithlord won; it is the manner of winning that is under dispute.

As a sort of Kantian, I might look at these implicit rules and conventions as to good play as those things which are the conditions for the possibility of good games of Dominions. I would argue that what happened here is destructive of the possibility of good games. Diplomacy is a fact of life, and the results are rarely fair, but I would maintain there is a significant difference between actively supporting an ally, and eventually helping him to victory, and doing an end-run against the actual fighting, you know, the actual playing of the game, in order to guarantee a "cheap" and easy victory.

DonCorazon

September 16th, 2009, 01:44 PM

I have given aid in the form of gems and items to underdogs. I even gave gems to an enemy that I tried to conquer. In that case, we slugged it out honorably and when the neighboring vultures of war sensed my weakness and lay siege to my walls and my fall was imminent, I sent my gems to my original enemy to help make up for the losses he incurred as a result of the attack I had originally instigated. I have never given aid to a player I thought was in the lead. I guess I like to see balance.

I think now a key factor in games I join or create in the future, are that all players commit to do their best to keep their nations alive. This stops short of saying you do everything you can to win, since it can quickly become clear you have no chance to win and to spend tons of time micromanaging a nation on its way down the toilet may be too much to ask for a recreational game.

But I think from an RPG perspective, if you imagine yourself the leader of a nation, you would do all you could to at least survive if the alternative was oblivion. That doesn't take much time - at the least, don't stale, recruit troops, and man your walls. As I implied above, I gave up trying to win in this game - stopped forging clams/stones when it became apparent I had no chance. But I fully intended to keep my VPs secure at all costs, even if it meant calling off a war to pull back my troops for defense. I monitored research, summoned troops, etc. I did not want Van or Jot to take a VP from me and neither of them even tried.

Maybe it is tough to interpret, but if players abided by the credo to Fight to Survive, it should eliminate those players abandoning games (another big flaw in Dom MP) or these unusual types of contested situations that leave a bitter taste in an otherwise great game.

In the end its just a game, but we all invest a lot of time in making our moves, so I can empathize with both parties. You guys are both key figures in the community - it would be nice to smooth this out and move on. :)

Aristander

September 16th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Yes Don and as you remember I was the original enemy of which you speak.

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 01:29 AM

Indeed, I recall my lust for your Crystal Citadel led to my downfall...

WraithLord

September 17th, 2009, 03:19 AM

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 04:14 AM

If anybody wants any turn files, please let me know. I have backups of all turns and a master password.

Pasha, I'd like to take a look at them - thanks.

Calahan

September 17th, 2009, 04:49 AM

@DonC, I like you new avatar :)
I haven't yet forgiven DonC for cruelly abandoning Butters the way he did :(

archaeolept

September 17th, 2009, 09:04 AM

@DonC, I like you new avatar :)

Now while I can surely sympathize with Archae's feelings I think the following facts need to be taken into considerations:
A. My military prowess far outclassed his. I have taken a look at his last turns and he had nothing even remotely close to what I had. I won't go into boring details. Anyone who wants to verify that is more than welcome as I can send both his and my turns.

This is not the case according to independent analysis by other vets. Also, quite irrelevant, though telling that you want to assert this. It is amusing to see you assert this counterfactual now.

B. I had, as of last turn, an 8th VP breached (one more than victory condition required) with nothing that Van or Caelum could throw at me that could prevent its falling to me. You had already broken the walls twice and not taken it. I certainly could have stopped you. Also, you got two of your VP's from Aristander, not one.

C. Van has been keeping quiet about the huge stockpiles of gems he received. I got nothing even remotely close from my allies. He got, and this is just from the little I glimpsed in the few random turns I got, a staggering amount of 1366 gems!!! Enough to cast GoH and another global I don't recall it's name. Of course he also get items in addition. Now, as he likes to phrase it, is this not "throwing" the game?- What did I do so wrong to be hated so much(in the game) that the other nations would give all they have in order for Van to win???
my allies were sending me gems in order to help prevent your win, yes. That is common practice, as opposed to throwing your vps, which I have never seen in a vet game of Dominions. Ever. It is clearly not throwing the game as I had not won, and it would have been a hard fight. If Pangaia had vacated his two vps, and cast crumble on his castles while I teleported in w/ a couple units in a concerted action, then you could say that he was trying to throw the game.

The gems functioned to balance out my heavy losses in protecting caelum's vps and support the war.

I ask w/a honesty, how is that so different from what Arist. did?- He couldn't help by sending huge stockpiles of gems so he chose to burn ground and make a sacrifice for his (in-game) friend to win against, what I only now realize, what was an alliance of powerful gem rich nations.

Even with all those gems my all game long advantage was too big for Archae. to close the gap. He lost the game to a superior nation. No I did not. What is the point of making these counterfactual assertions? If you had wished you could have demonstrated your power through the normal means of doing so. You clearly were adverse to taking that route, the one of actual conflict and resolution.

I won the game after months of hard work and dedication and although I can relate to Archae's frustration I think he needs to just accept the fact that he lost and move over. I went through all the motions and tedious, meticulous and hard work that a player must go in order to get far in a dominions game - and I won at the end. It's extremely negative to go around disputing that after you lost. I can accept the fact that collaborating in having a game thrown is acceptable to you.

Now, I understand that after Balbarian's official warning, you are likely trying to get me banned through incitement. So be it. I will respond clearly to any innaccurate claims made by you, while endeavouring to remain within the official forum guidelines.

WraithLord

September 17th, 2009, 09:20 AM

Your claims are untrue, they are subject to your perspective but I'm oh so tired of this. You just go on and on and on. I admit defeat in the posting arena. I can't compete with your pace. I won the game fair against all that you and your allies could throw at me. Yes, it's really a fair competition when you're getting 1.5K gems of help and what not.

Now, this is not the first time I extend my hand to you in good will and ask you the accept your loss like a man and get over it. I'm not alone in this as quite a number of players have expressed similar sentiments upon witnessing all the fuss you are making.
This is however the last time you reject my invitation to get over it. I'm done talking to you. I don't want to play with you anymore. ever. I don't want to ever talk to you as well. Have a nice life and please keep out of mine.
I also ask you one last time to stop throwing slander at me wherever you can. This is not befitting of civil conduct and certainly not an accepted practice on these friendly forums.

archaeolept

September 17th, 2009, 09:32 AM

Slander is a very serious accusation; it depends upon the facts being asserted being untrue, and on the accuser knowing them to be untrue. Could you specifically state what statements by me you consider slander? As, I cannot recall making any untrue assertions. This is the second time you have accused me of slander, also without any specifics. Which claims of mine specifically are you asserting to be slanderous?

In fact, asserting slander when you are aware that the accusations are basically correct is itself slander.

As to the opinions of a few forum denizens who have little knowledge of the situation, I don't see how that's especially relevant.

And as to the gems, I remain somewhat perplexed - on the one hand, you assert that you had such military preponderance that the outcome was moot anyways; on the other, you assert that my having received gems to support my fight against you was ... what? the game being thrown? Sending gems and items is pretty common practice, and certainly not one you refused either.

I said I was willing to try for a rematch in that new game of yours. It was you that rejected the offer.

like a man
Lol

___________________________
If Pangaia had vacated his two vps, and cast crumble on his own castles while I teleported in w/ a couple units in a concerted action, then you could say that he was trying to throw the game

zlefin

September 17th, 2009, 09:57 AM

wriathlord, from what i have seen and heard, i have serious reservations about the manner of your win. To my feeling, the issue of proximateness is relevant, helping someone in general is one thing. Literally giving the win condition (from your own supply rather than helping them take it from enemies) is another.
However i haven't heard your case in as much detail and length as I would like.

I propose this solution to this dispute: you both agree on a selection of 3 veteran players to be a tribunal and decide this matter. Agreeing to binding arbitration would allow this to be settled, as sedttling between yourselves is obviously not working.
Zlefin :)

Squirrelloid

September 17th, 2009, 10:00 AM

You know, i'd refrained from commenting on the forums because I wasn't involved in the game, but based on discussion on IRC...

1500 gems? Seriously? Certain examples about Kingmaking in Settlers of Catan (which were derided as unfair) pale in comparison to the size of the Kingmaking attempt that represents. Trading 100 wheat for 1 sheep seems *reasonable* in that context.

It is not a difference of kind to pass VPs than it is to pass resources without fair compensation. Archae, your allies were trying to give you the game just as much as WL's were trying to give him the game. To pretend otherwise is a farce, and makes laughable your entire claim. If you needed 1500 gems in aid to just come even (or some reasonable fascimile thereof) then on your own merits the game was already lost.

Any attempt to prevent one person from winning the game is necessarily an attempt to cause another person to win the game, because ultimately *only one person can win*. If your allies had been successful in their attempt to play kingmaker and caused you to win, they would have 'thrown' the game just as much as Aristander did. I use 'thrown' instead of thrown because you can only throw a game you can win. Clearly the other nations had already determined who the two powers that had any hope of winning were, and made a choice of which nation they favored for victor.

That Aristander's aid to WL was a better kingmaking play strikes me as superior strategy because it was more direct. Whereas your allies sent you material that would hopefully turn into VP, Aristander handed VP over directly. In both cases its an attempt to give one player more VP, one of them is just far more effective.

Either giving away anything in the game is unfair, or anything can be given freely. Since trading is allowed, and its hard to know what a fair market price for any particular good is, the boundary between 'giving' and 'trading' is rather nebulous. At which point, the only rational stance is that giving things away is fair game. So i won't fault your allies for giving you 1.5k gems, but i won't fault Aristander for giving away VP either.

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 10:01 AM

@Cal: Butters just wasn't intimidating enough... :)

@anyone talking about gem gifts: Personally, I rarely gift anyone anything in a game. But when I do, it has never been to the player I thought would win the game. As I said above, any donations I make are to, in the words of Led Zeppelin, "bring the balance back"

These gifts are not designed to ensure one player's victory - just the opposite. Strategically the goal is to make sure the #1 and #2 players wipe themselves out, leaving #3 the sole contender. Here, admittedly there was little chance for a revival of Pan to its former greatness, but nevertheless, I made it clear who I thought would win this game on these boards (Jot), and made a couple donations to Van try to even the scales, hoping to see an epic clash between two great players on even footing.

Please do not compare gifting, which can serve a strategic purpose, with surrendering VPs, which accomplishes nothing but a nation's oblivion and I would argue is below staling in terms of the impact it has on messing up a game. At least staling keeps the troops in the fort.

Again, while not impacted by the actions in this game, I only want to play with people who will Fight to Survive. Perhaps its necessary to make that explicit, or if you feel otherwise, let people know up front that it is acceptable to essentially win what amounts to an allied victory.

Anyway, its too bad things ended this way.

WraithLord

September 17th, 2009, 10:06 AM

zlefin, I have presented my side many times. Can you even suspect how tired I am of this ongoing tirade? The bottom lime is that I won the game. I have broken no house rules or any other rules for that matter. I took all the VPs I needed for victory and didn't threaten/bribe/presaude anyone to do anything. I had the strongest army in the block. I won. period.

I absolutely object to your tribunal suggestion and am deeply offended by it. You're basically implying that I should be treated like a criminal. This is preposterous.

ok. If this onslaught on me from the making of Arcahe doesn't come to an end one way or another I shall be saying my ultimate goodbyes to these forums.
I have a life and no game or community, however fun it may be is worth going through all that abuse.

WraithLord

September 17th, 2009, 10:08 AM

Thank you Squirrelloid. I appreciate your candor and frankly am refreshed for hearing something different after all that spam aimed at me these last few days.

Squirrelloid

September 17th, 2009, 10:09 AM

@Don re:gem gifts

The problem is that either (1) you are not the #3 nation (certainly not all of those gifting gems to Archae could be), or (2) you are hurting your chances of winning by gifting to the 2nd player (because that's material you're going to need if they 'wipe themselves out'). One might also wonder if two leading nations that late in the game are even capable of wiping one another out such that a nation can come from behind and win - playing for a totally unreasonable expectation isn't very rational. The game is really stacked against come-from-behind wins during late game, because the effect of superior income (in gold and gems) is cumulative, often over a large number of turns. I'm not going to say they don't happen, but I'd be surprised.

(Obviously there are probably games in which there were 3 or 4 competing nations even late in the game, but they certainly aren't going to be gifting to their rivals because they'll take themselves out of competition).

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 10:17 AM

Squirrelloid- the only major gift I gave Archae came after Wraith essentially declared himself the winner here, after he misinterpreted one of Archae's posts. I don't feel like looking through the threads, but a few pages back Wraith, in my mind, essentially put his cards on the table.

As I said, my gift was to create balance. I like both Wraith and Archae and didn't care who won. I thought Wraith had more resources and wanted to create an even fight. And in general gifting gems can be strategic. And I have RL reasons as to why I had to limit my push for victory in this game but gifting gems to help ensure a prolonged painful mutually destructive war is a good use of them. If the #2 player can put them to work and damage the #1 player better than I can, and it frees up my own mages to do research and forge, why is that not strategically superior to hording my gems, while the #1 player cleans up the game?

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 10:19 AM

PS I don't want to add fuel to the fire. I'd be very sad to see Wraith vanish from these boards.

Executor

September 17th, 2009, 10:25 AM

I think you both need to calm down. I've been following your posts and frankly I'm getting tired of it myself.

Bottom line, as much I dislike the way in which WL won myself, and think of it as unworthy of a HoFer, there is unfortunately nothing that prevents someone from winning a game in such a way.
Maybe WL would have won in the long run anyway, maybe he wouldn't have, but the victory conditions have been achieved and that is that, the end.

Arch, you feel you've been cheated from a win, what can I way, it happens, it happened to others, it happened to me too, and more than once but you move on.

I see no point in you two arguing any more, nothing good can come of it, and nothing good can come from people fueling it up either.

Squirrelloid

September 17th, 2009, 10:34 AM

@Don:
Look, ultimately Archae's claim stems from the fact that he feels the win was 'unfair'. However, isn't it also 'unfair' that he received massive aid from other powers which WL was not privy to? If games are supposed to be 'fair' (that is, your chance of winning is determined solely by your actions during the game), then no collusion between players should be allowed at all. What did Archae do to *earn* those 1500 gems? Nothing.

Clearly a diplomatic game is all about managing unfairness, not about the game being fair. Diplomacy itself is inherently unfair. Fighting 2 on 1 is unfair. Its also strategically good sense. Strategy is all about never fighting fair.

I'm not arguing you shouldn't be able to dispose of your gems as you like, I'm arguing that a standard which prevents disposal of your VP in a manner you decide also prohibits disposal of any resources in ways that don't involve you benefiting directly thereby (eg, only permits trade or direct expenditure).

Edit: Anyway, this is my last post on the topic. You're not going to sway me that passing free gems is any different in kind than passing VPs. I'm not saying those are unacceptable, I'm saying that they ultimately have the same ends. (You could pass a VP to make the game more even too - say so the two leaders were tied for VP). I think any agreement between two players that's allowed by the game engine is permissible, and that WL's win is a win by diplomacy and a superior strategy.

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 10:41 AM

Ok squirreloid, I am not going to sway you. Bye bye

archaeolept

September 17th, 2009, 10:47 AM

Exec: I wouldn't say I was cheated from a win, but it was a huge and fascinating end-game situation, the result of hundreds of hours of play. Is this the way you would want similar games to end in the future? I would say "cheap" not "cheat", if pressed.

Of course I didn't take this silently... that is not my way ;)

Then I have been accused of lies and slander as part of some obfuscatory tactics. I don't believe anything I have said about the facts of the situation is wrong, though it is quite understandable that some people might not like my manner of presentation.

There is not, however, I think a really good manner to have presented our disagreement.

Anyways, I'm under official warning as to how to talk about this, so I find it difficult to put my opinions more precisely. I think a thread on the issue in general could be interesting and productive, though it would probably have to try and be careful talking about any of the specifics of this case.

I've lost enough games - sometimes things get heated, but I've never felt the other wins were illegitimate in some way. Other than my many games losing to Norfleet, that is. ;)

archaeolept

September 17th, 2009, 10:58 AM

as to the ~1300 gems - the numbers may seem huge to those unfamiliar w/ Dominions end-games, but that was probably equivalent to 3 turns income (after gem-gens and wish). My losses defending caelum would have been equivalent to most of that, I would guess.

edit: let me take this occasion to pimp the new CBM which has basically done away w/ all gem generators. praise be to allah!

zlefin

September 17th, 2009, 11:15 AM

squirrel -> you are wrong, there is a difference. a gift of gems to the second place player, could improve your chances at victory, by making two big powers fight it out while you build up on the sidelines and the big powers exhaust themselves.
Giving someone the final vps to win the game clearly does not increase your chances at victory, since iet directly gives the win to someone else.

Wraith -> the whole point of this is you may have broken implicit rules. There are implicit rules which all agree are valid, like against hacking. Whether what you did broke an implicit rule is in dispute.
Tribunal aren't just for criminals silly, there's these things called civil courts, for resolving disputes. Binding arbitration by a panel of vets, or some other community decision as to what the implicit rules are, is the best way to settle this. Stop using anger, feigned or otherwise, to dodge issues and try to prevent a settlement.

everyone -> clearly, kingmaking in various forms occurs in the game. Clearly, people have different opinions as to which kinds of kingmaking are acceptable, and which are not. Some community discussion as to which kinds of kingmaking are acceptable and which are not would he helpful. If necessary, I will start a thread to assess things better.

DonCorazon

September 17th, 2009, 11:35 AM

IF I were the arbitrator of this situation here is what I would say:

Wraithlord won the game. There was no sinister cabal at the start of the game to give the win to a single player. Wraith managed to score the ultimate diplomatic victory either directly or indirectly over the course of the game - a player was persuaded to give their VPs up. It seems there are enough differing opinions on this that nobody in this game thought they were doing anything wrong.

I don't believe that giving your VP to another player in a VP game should be allowed in the future. Given the differing opinions and resulting confusion, it is something that needs to be explicitly stated as to whether it is allowed or not. I would strongly suggest prohibiting it in the future (I will do so in any games I start). To take the argument ad absurdem, imagine playing a year long game, being in first place, and then suddenly in a single turn you lose because a group of players have opted to give their VPs to a single contender. This would not appeal to most players. However, if you like the idea of an "allied victory" then this should be clearly stated. While I failed to convince Squirelloid, I think most people can see the distinction between gifts, which can serve strategic purposes and help balance the game, and suicide.

Because there was no prohibition in this game and it is clear through the healthy discussion over the issue there are differing opinions, I would bless WraithLord's victory - he got the win message and broke no explicit rules. I think Archaeo has raised totally valid concerns that should guide future games. I completely understand his frustration - he invested long hours over many months and was a hair's breadth from winning. Why bother to spend all that time if, for whatever reason, a player decides to surrender his VPs to your enemy? I see Arch as a victim of a precedent - I have never seen someone give a VP away, so its never come up before. But when you consider there are players from all over the world, with different mindsets, it is understandable that there would be varying views on this topic. I'd ask Archaeo to let it go (then I'd duck :) )

Then I'd say, life is short and relationships are more important than a game. Both Arch and Wraith are valued members of a cool, small community - lets have a beer and get on with things.

Calahan

September 17th, 2009, 11:47 AM

@ Archea.

Please will you stop this personal crusade against WraithLord. I see no fair way of either solving or settling this dispute, as it all comes down to a matter of interpretation, and every individual persons own opinion on what constitutes 'helping' or 'assisting' another nation. If there was nothing explicitly stated in the rules of this game preventing *any* specific actions by a player, such as 'gifting' or 'not defending' VP's, then I see this one individual case as being closed. It has only taken a small sample of forum members views to deduce that there are some widely differing opinions out there on the 'within the bounds of helping' issue.

But while this case is closed, the wider issue itself in general is not closed.

I for one would like to contribute to the discussion on the issue in general regarding "what is and is not within the limits of helping another nation during a game". But I do not want to do so here, or in any of the other innocent threads the issues from this game has spilled over to. As that would achieve nothing other than prolonging the argument over one specific instance that needs to be put to rest. With the general issue of 'helping another nation' moved to a separate discussion, where all the focus and debate should be shifted, to enable a wider and more thoroughly explored discussion. You have already mentioned you will do this Archea, which is definitely a good idea (and IMO, a better use of your efforts than your current course of action)

I have been sent a bulk of turn files by Pasha from this game, and while I have not yet had time to thoroughly examine them, I must admit that at first glance there are a few things that appear to have happened that I know I would personally not ever consider doing myself, or would like to see by any player in a game I played in. They do leave a bad taste in my mouth. But this is just my opinion. Some may share it, while others may have totally opposite or even surprising views about the exact same thing.

But until there is some sort of players charter, or games start having more detailed rules, and/or lists of do's and don'ts, then the events of this game could be repeated. I don't think anyone is to blame here. There were no rules broken, no files hacked, no meta-gaming deals done. It is just players interpreting things differently to others.

So Archae, please can you ensure that the next post you make on this issue is one that helps the Dominions community. Put your personal opinion of WraithLord to bed, and use your time and energy to start-up a new thread on the main discussion board regarding what is and is not acceptable in the name of helping/assisting another nation. The final few turns of Asia Twist, and the events that occurred in it, demonstrate that there are some vast difference of opinions on this issue, so discussing them in a wider, overall context would be a good thing.

And who knows what the outcome of that discussion will be. If it helps prevent any unwanted clashes like this in the future, then that would be a great thing. If it helps ensure all games are fought on a fairer basis, then that would be a great thing. If it helps keep the community healthy, and avoid it losing even one of its long serving, influential, and important members, then that would be a truly great thing :)

So Archea, please do a great thing and get a separate discussion going on this issue. Where we can all talk, bash out, and argue as much as we like on the issue of helping another nation. Hopefully in an objective way, but above all else, in a totally non-personal way.

I may well ultimately side with you on this issue, I may not, as indeed is the case for many members. But only a serious amount of harm is being done by your current course of action of sounding out individuals who you claim to have broken, what are ultimately, all un-written rules. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. But if these rules exist only in theory, or practice, or some other mythical form, then they don't exist to be broken. Maybe a separate discussion will result in these un-written rules becoming written. But that discussion first needs to happen. So Archea, please start that discussion..........