|
Should disavantagous opening be punished? |
Yes |
|
54% |
[ 6 ] |
No |
|
45% |
[ 5 ] |
|
Total Votes : 11 |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:14 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
theunknownamus Guest
|
Post subject: Loophole |
|
|
I should have added a "Maybe" option to this poll.
To summarize, it is not ALWAYS a disadvantage or advantage to open and/or not bid up a property. But I agree that it should be bid up to a reasonable amont. “Reasonable” here being an average amount that would equal what the profit and fixed expenses of upgraded said property. Also, based on the other players’ cash, it should be bid to a point where the one who would benefit from it would pay enough to get a profit but not so much it would kill NOR so much profit it would push them beyond reach.
Now saying that the loss and pain of other players can be seen as help or “advantage” to the abuser is a horrid and parasitic way to play. But I suppose these people will say “It’s the way of the game”. Now by “loss” I mean purposely hurting or killing yourself in order to make others die first. This double edged sword type of playing is deplorable, but I digress.
What I am suggesting is that points start being reduced for bad or CLEARLY disadvantagous biddings after review, instead of letting ANY auction be legal. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:15 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
HHHfan Moon
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 338
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Well Josh, the rules could not be any more clear, the definitions of the words couldn't be more clear, and the intentions of the powers that be are clear as well. They have zero either respect for, or understanding of, the rules as written, therefore, the rules are subject to selective enforcement, as usual.
If you auction off your partners green, and let it go for 750 or 800, that's cool, but, if you sell your last green for 700 or 800 to get an upgrade, then you cheat, although, there is absolutely no difference, hence the rule!
There is no maybe, rule be is plain as day, but the powers that be can't, or wont comprehend that paragraph, only post it and tell you that those are the rules! I don't know, maybe if everyone learned to read, this would not be an issue, but everyone cant have a basic Jr. high reading level, so there will always be a problem, i guess! I'd say, new moderator qualifications, you must be able to read at least this well to be a moderator.
I kid, but I don't know what to tell you, maybe, next month when classes are out for summer, I can help you teach people reading comprehension a little more, but I don't know, there may be no way to help, people want to play illiterate, what can you do? |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:16 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
trace567 Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
HHHfan wrote: | thank you fort, that was all anybody ever had to do was say that the feature to keep track of bidding was never made. NOW it all makes sense. so, not withstanding that nobody happened to mention that to me earlier, i issue my deepest apology for my ignorance.
im not saying i dont think the feature should be put in, it certainly should, a big oversite by the creator indeed, but accidents happen, especially in something this complex. but, atm, there is obviously nothing that can be done about it.
NOW you dont look bad, everyone includeing myself, can understand the dilemma now. |
http://galacticmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4262&highlight=
After the above thread I spoke with HHHfan in pm's also about the issue.
I therefore can only conclude that the posts by HHHfan on this thread are aimed soley at trying to cause arguements.
The thread creator equally was around I believe at the time this was last raised.
You guys are just impossible!!!! |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:59 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
HHHfan Moon
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 338
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, but, people are getting screwed by this rule once again. We had spring or Easter break last week, which lightened my work load, giving me a few extra minutes to make a case yet again on behalf of all of the people who devote hours on end to this game. I of all people know about the hours on end of devotion, or addiction.
I saw the poll, the rule was once again in question. The rule, as written, says what it says, people are tired of getting screwed by these teams breaking the rules, and I don't blame them.
Ok, here's one, how about repeated reports of disadvantageous opening, and letting it go for too low, just like stalling, will result in punishment? That's fair and it enforces the rules, at least it enforces them better than they are enforced now! If you can't do this, then there is something wrong!
It would be nice to know, when I have some hours again and want to play, that I could play multiplayer, and the rules are enforced, so it is not a giant waste of time! |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:57 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
Fort Planet
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 1603
|
Post subject: |
|
|
lol trace how u got it? dont tell me admin power !! |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:04 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
trace567 Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
nope I remembered from before, so just did a forum search for hhhfans posts, was on page one of the search |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:53 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
HHHfan Moon
Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 338
|
Post subject: |
|
|
CYN wrote: | Last i am going to say on this because as i said it is a waste of time.
If you are doing well in a game of multiple players but others have properties and low money it MAY be advantageous (not disadvantageous) to you if you open someones third property that can build as to lesson the other players money when they land on him therefore having to mortgage their builds IF they even have any if not it will put them out sooner probably increasing your position To be so closed minded to say it is ALWAYS disadvantageous to open someones third property isnt looking at all the variables. Nothing is guaranteed in any case but to be closed minded and saying you should NEVER open someones third that it is ALWAYS disadvantageous is a gross misstatement.
THE END | Ok, wow, I just read this carefully, I thought something was off last night.
CYN here is saying, that if you are winning, and your opponents are low funds and have property upgraded, that it is somehow to the winning persons advantage to take someone who is otherwise not a threat, and make them a threat by handing them a cheap property! Freakin wow man!
Ok, by this token, why would a cheap trade be illegal? Hey, I can give this other person, who isn't a threat, some property and make them a threat, make a little cash on the side too? ITS THE SAME THING!! That's why, no doubt, there is a rule against it!
I'll say it again, because anyone with common sense would agree, TREAT IT LIKE STALLING, IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO ENFORCE IT! |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:35 pm |
|
Author |
Message |
theunknownamus Guest
|
Post subject: |
|
|
HHHfan wrote: |
I'll say it again, because anyone with common sense would agree, TREAT IT LIKE STALLING, IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO ENFORCE IT! |
I agree with this. I don't want to create an argument, I wish to solve an argument. Hopefully some enforcement will lead to a solution. |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|