Treeburst155 Posted June 3, 2001 Author Share Posted June 3, 2001 WineCape, Marcus is now in your slot for Tourney #2, hereafter referred to as "WineCape's Wine Tourney II". Thank you VERY much for sponsoring this second tourney! I'm practically speechless at this point. To all participants in WineCape's Wine Tourney II, You will be receiving your contact list within a few hours so you can begin arranging your games. The deadline for completion of your games will be September 4th, 2001. I will begin a separate thread for this tourney sometime today. All updates and stats for the tourney will be posted there. Right now I have a small dispute to deal with from Tourney #1. EDIT: I'm waiting to hear from WineCape's friend Marcus Bloess to be sure he wants in. If not I've got an alternate ready to go. Hang tight, Gentlemen. Treeburst155 out. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 3, 2001 Author Share Posted June 3, 2001 Do not negotiate games via ICQ or other chat programs. In the case of a dispute I don't think it is possible to send me a file of the conversation so I have proof of what rules were agreed to. This has already happened. Use email to negotiate games! Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StugIII Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 WineCape, I'm sure I speak for all the participants when I say "Thank you for your generosity." If there's a way we can increase the sales of your company let us know. P.S. In your honor I went and bought 2 bottles of South African wine today: Nederburg Paarl Cabernet Sauvignon 1997 KWV Pinotage 1999. These were all my local wine shop carried. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Do not negotiate games via ICQ or other chat programs. In the case of a dispute I don't think it is possible to send me a file of the conversation so I have proof of what rules were agreed to. This has already happened. Use email to negotiate games! Treeburst155 out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And please ensure that you and your opponent are talking about the same thing - eg if player 1 should happen to request that, oh, say "guns must have towin afv's provided" - make sure that you both undestand what an afv is (or any other technical term or abreviaton!)!! I found myself as half of this dispute. the other guy thought htat an "afv" was anything out of hte "vehicle list", and bought trucks, per the usual CAL rules. To me an AFV is at least an a/c or h/track (although it's argumable that htey aren't either...but in this context that's what I used), and that he wanted a change to hte usual rules. To which I agreed. Perusing the b/field after losing I found 3 trucks, and no h/tracks. Words were spoken. I do not believe my opponent deliberately set out to mislead or in any way cheat - IE I accept it as an honest error, but it doesn't help things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: And please ensure that you and your opponent are talking about the same thing - eg if player 1 should happen to request that, oh, say "guns must have towin afv's provided" - make sure that you both undestand what an afv is (or any other technical term or abreviaton!)!! I found myself as half of this dispute. the other guy thought htat an "afv" was anything out of hte "vehicle list", and bought trucks, per the usual CAL rules. To me an AFV is at least an a/c or h/track (although it's argumable that htey aren't either...but in this context that's what I used), and that he wanted a change to hte usual rules. To which I agreed. Perusing the b/field after losing I found 3 trucks, and no h/tracks. Words were spoken. I do not believe my opponent deliberately set out to mislead or in any way cheat - IE I accept it as an honest error, but it doesn't help things <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Somehow it just seemed appropriate to quote the CAL section regarding towed guns: "Guns Towed guns will be limited to no more then 3 per side up to 1000 points spent. 1 gun per 1000 points spent thereafter. (Example 2,000-point game up to 4 guns allowed per side, 5,000-point game up to 7 guns per side). This includes all guns from the “support” category of CMBO. The Attacking player and both players in Meeting Engagements will purchase halftracks or trucks capable of towing each gun purchased. (This makes the increased costs of guns something to consider and sometimes will add the missing Halftracks back into the force mix). Jeeps and Kulbewagon type vehicles will not count towards this total." So it would seem there was some misunderstanding as one player was trying to revise or edit the CAL rules and disqualify trucks as legit gun towing vehicles. Interesting proposition.... sorry it did not work out so well -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 Hmmm...Tom brings up something I didn't realize before. The negotiations that resulted in the misunderstanding revolved around CHANGING the CAL rules. There are many options in the CAL rules that need to be negotiated but CHANGING the CAL rules should not be allowed IMO. The game in question was invalid from the very beginning as CAL rules were being changed. From now on players should avoid CHANGING CAL rules in their negotiations. There are plenty of options WITHIN the rules to dicker with. Any disputes that arise because players have agreed to CHANGE the CAL rules will automatically result in the game having to be replayed. IOW, CHANGING the CAL rules is not allowed. Judge Treeburst155 out. [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 The contact list of all participants in "WineCape's Wine Tourney II" has been sent out. If you did not get the list post to this thread. You should begin negotiating and setting up games with each other as soon as possible. Wives, girlfriends, and real life must take a backseat. Priorities, Gentlemen, priorities! Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Been trying to keep up with the thread Tree. Where are we at with the tcp/ip version as far as players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 Hi Agua, We're not doing too well with the TCP/IP signups. I've got you and one other guy, Mike_D, that have expressed interest. I suspect that those who like to use the CAL rules generally like the leisurely pace of PBEM too(more time to think). Perhaps I should start a thread for a TCP/IP tournament. I've already got 3 threads going however. I'm not sure the community wants to wade through too many of my tourney threads. Of course, you could start a thread and see if you can drum up some TCPers. If you do I'll keep an eye on it. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts