I see. I understand wanting to be equitable and permitting each group to decide for themselves. But as I said before, at this point it would be unfair to allow individual groups to determine victory conditions. That would be acceptable if none of the games had started yet, but seeing as most of them are coming to an end, allowing users to choose victory conditions would produce hopelessly skewed results. It is inane to expect all 79 centers to be captured by one team; this cesspool of a variant is so easy to create stalemate lines on it isn't even funny. This isn't to say that it can't be done; it is possible given enough determination and time. But we shouldn't have to endure that.

"That isn't to say that it can't be done" referred to capturing all 79 centers.

Why exactly is it unfair for the groups to decide victory conditions? it would be unfair if this happened by majority vote, but not if it is group consensus.

because it's a tournament. and presumably one team from each group proceeds to the next round. Now if each group is playing under a different set of rules, then who is to say that the next round won't be skewed to favour one groups 'agreed' upon rules over another?

its a tournament where the ground rules for proceeding into the next round were not clarified sufficiently.
and whether the other players say "hey, you win this match" or "here, have our centers so we can get it over with" doesnt make much difference.

i see the final round as a completely new thing. new map, and if it has to be, new rules. and maybe someone will put enough thought into it, before starting those games.

I don't know about Group A, but there definitely isn't any consensus in Group C. Even if there were, I still maintain what I said; tournaments need to be consistent. If we are to do this democratically, would it not be more fair and consistent to have a vote on this thread? It's one thing for the rules not to have been clarified, but it's an entirely different matter for three groups to create three different sets of rules. That's ridiculous.

well, we should clarify such things soon then... VERY SOON. We already had a case of moronic behavior, because those things are not clear.

If a group doesn't have consensus, you play till only one team is left. A draw becomes a real draw even if it is one team at 78 and one at 1. Our group had consensus on the on game and the other was a true draw.

So it isn't a matter of majority vote? Complete consensus is required?

Sorry YCHTT: are you saying that the interpretation that winning requires one team to hold 100% os SCs is correct (otherwise, even a 78-1 situation should be treated as a draw)? I thought you were saying the opposite (i.e. that holding ~42 SCs was enough for a solo).. and this might remove most of the reasons for the discussion.
Windir, I agree that having different rules in the different groups is ugly.. but the point is that if one group believed that one "wrong" set of rules applied, and behaved accordingly, imposing the "right" set of rules is unfair.
However, if everyone agrees on what YCHTT just said, this discussion in moot :)

sorry: IS moot

I'm saying it was unclear and that it should be a concensus to treat the draw as a solo, not majority rules. If a full consensus has been reached by all parties involved as was clearly the case in Game 2 of Group B, then the game is shortcut ted and counted as a solo. In game 3, however, no such consensus has been reach and so we play on.

Alright, final question: do two teams from each group proceed to the next part of the tournament, or is there only one? It is to Kaner and I's understanding that there can be only one victor from each group, but someone in group C thinks otherwise.

Only 1 was the original design. That still stands.

Maybe tournaments should be hosted by players who know what they are doing?

Maybe players should be more appreciative of the effort put forth. I TDed the leagues on webDip for a season, but this was a concept intended for everyone to have fun. Please feel free to never join a concept game or tournament of mine again.

I thought about staying nice and polite to your smart ass attitude, but just changed my mind. Fuck you, ruffhaus. Nobody likes a whiny fucking little bitch. Your comments and better than fucking Christ attitude make people want to say "fuck it" and never put forth the effort again . So next time I have an idea to try, you *won't* be allowed to participate. I'd rather not get the idea going then have your whiny fucking bitch ass involved in it.

Well, maybe you will do us all a favor and never put forth the effort again. I wouldn't waste my time in something you engineered for this very reason. It is amusing that you had the nerve to criticize the guys from Web Dip that game asking for players to their tournament, mocking it, and then put on this shit show. The Web Dip Tournament was a fiasco for what it's worth, but you'r mess is no better. Maybe you should try learning a thing or two about the game and writing rules before you take on such an undertaking. But your Diplomacy aptitude is just like your alleged Marine career, isn't it?

And another joins the killfile.

*plonk*

killfile?

sounds like something arya stark would have. a list of people's names to remove from the face of this earth.
- Cersei Lannister
- Tywin Lannister
- The mountain
- RUFF the Sweetling
...
...

It's old school, kaner. Back in the days of nntp servers and newsgroups, you could create a killfile with users you knew were trolls or idiots and the newsreaders would ignore those posts from people in those files.

To avoid the same misunderstanding that happened over on that other site with the modtards...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file

And for the other site's modtards who happen to also be here...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_of_employment

Yes, I'm still pissed off that, after donating a significant chunk of change, a knee jerk reaction by people who get their English language skills from action and spy films got me banned.

Oh, and that is why I don't donate here. When capricious and illiterate morons can kick one of a site, one has no motivation to invest in the site's futurem

Group B is finished.

Group B
gameID=21042 - Drawn, Germany/Italy (draw leader) [CubanJedi/Mapu], 30 SCs
gameID=21043 - Agreed upon solo, SovietUnion/Italy (win) [Sendric/Battalion], 40 SCs
gameID=21044 - Agreed upon solo, SovietUnion/Germany (win) [Sendric/Battalion], 47 SCs.

Even if we took all as draws, Sendric/Battalion won this group and move to the next round.

I doff my hat to you two. Well done.

It would only be fair to say that Sendric was the mastermind behind it. Even if others thought there may be flaws with the tournament, I've learnt a lot doing it! Thanks, YCHTT.

Don't kid yourself, Battalion. That was a team effort.