Looking for Honorable Games?

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:21 pm

AngryAnderson · Post by **AngryAnderson** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:59 pm

I think you forgot to mention how you join.

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:08 pm

Don't get mad....lol

Actually, our forum is open for everyone to come back to as often as you like as our guest. Once you check that out there are instructions about becoming a Pledge Member for people that are interested.

AngryAnderson · Post by **AngryAnderson** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:31 pm

I never get mad, I just get even!

Muah ha ha haaaaaaaa

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:22 pm

Hey Scarus, when is it you said there could be a debate on policy change? You said something of the sort a while back, if I remember correctly, but I rarely do these days... or at least as I think I don't...

And I hope you know what rule I'd like to change by now...

(Hint-It's the no alliances allowed one)

AngryAnderson · Post by **AngryAnderson** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:26 pm

WOW - what a post - all comes across as kind of ... erm Irish!

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:41 pm

You're right Qeee,

I do remember that. When we first started going strong in C Club, I think you expressed an interest, but were hesitant because of the "no alliance" rule. I think I told you that rule came mainly from our old days in RiskII where there is a real stigma placed on alliances because of the realtime time committment invested in every game.

I think that what my feeling was then was that with the influx of C Club people that the attitude in xiGAMES might be subject to change. I don't know. I think that some of the old timers, like myself, would be very resistant to this, but that's the beauty of xiGAMES. It is a true democracy with an election every six months. Our President-Elect, wacicha takes over the reins of the Presidency from YP_Legend on July 5, 2006. Who's to say what direction the future will take.

If you would like to discuss this further with our members, you are always welcome to come to our forum, at:
http://xigames.net/forum as our guest.

What a memory you have....lol

Patroclus · Post by **Patroclus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:44 pm

queeeeeeone: I think the "no alliance" feature is one of the core principles of xi. I know it is the major reason that I applied for membership.

Everyone there just seems to like the game and the play....kinda like if you had the board game in your living room. All the play is honorable and above board....In a 6 person singles game, there is one person, that by skill, luck and maybe being overlooked by other players, wins the game.

No teaming up....And if you lose, which I do often, you lose feeling good, and if you win, you never feel guilty. It's a good thing.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:53 pm

As for whether alliances are good or bad, I'm not going to get into it, or this'll just go horribly off topic (If you want to see my reasons/my rebuttal of your reasons see countless other threads).

So how is policy changed, purely at the presidents discretion, or is there some sort of referendum procedure?

...because if it's the former, looks like I'll be waiting another 6 months at least.

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:38 pm

I really don't know.....

Greatwhite has always been our parlimentarian.....lol

Basically, though you probably would have to get the President's ear, then he would have to call some kind of election or something....

If that doesn't work, you could always run for the Presidency yourself in January.....lol

Patroclus · Post by **Patroclus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:13 pm

Scarus: Don't you have to be a member to Run for President?

If the Alliance thing gets passed as being proper in xi, then I am out. Not that that is a big deal for the community, but it would not fit into the morality of play that I would like to continue to a be part of.

For all the jokes and ribbing that I make and take, this is a serious issue for me. It's the reason I wanted to be a member.....

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:41 pm

who made the site

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:57 pm

I happen to know the the way the new elect feels about alliances

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:04 pm

an how do u join

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:28 pm

you need to read the annoucement section to see if you want to are not read the code of conduct see if it is something you want to do then, for 30 days follow the guidelines as a pledge and during that 30 days you need to eliminate whoever is your sponsor. you may pick any full member as your sponsor. but first see if the guidelines are something you like.

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:43 pm

eliminate sponser?

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:47 pm

read the annoucement sectoin it will explain it better than thes quick little messages

Scarus · Post by **Scarus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:56 pm

Maybe I did go to far with this. I was merely demonstrating that with a democracy, anything is possible. I also mentioned that anyone would have a very hard time getting the old guard, (including myself), to swallow any policy change regarding alliances.

I guess, in light of Pat's post, that it should also be mentioned that I don't think too many of the newer players would be interested in this either, as the major selling point that got most of them interested in xi in the first place was our no alliance policy.

As for running for the Presidency, wacicha didn't even know that xi existed six months ago, so I guess anything is possible, but yes, you're right, you would definitely have to be a member to run.

Finally, in regards to eliminating, or the terminology I perfer, (killing), your sponsor. Every xi applicant must find a current member to sponsor his application. This ensures that at least one honorable person will vouch for a new applicant's honor. Then, in order to ensure that we don't have some kind of dual heirarchy, of members, and their sponsors, each new Pledge must within 30 days, Kill the member who sponsored them. Thereby ensuring that we all remain committed to killing each other....lol

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:05 am

it wont go to the forum

areyouincahoots · Post by **areyouincahoots** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:18 am

Scarus wrote:I guess, in light of Pat's post, that it should also be mentioned that I don't think too many of the newer players would be interested in this either, as the major selling point that got most of them interested in xi in the first place was our no alliance policy.

That may be a large seeling point for some, but I'll be honest in saying that the people of xi are what interested me at first...You will find no better group of people on this site than you will find at xi! Guaranteed!

Scarus wrote:Finally, in regards to eliminating, or the terminology I perfer, (killing), your sponsor. Every xi applicant must find a current member to sponsor his application. This ensures that at least one honorable person will vouch for a new applicant's honor. Then, in order to ensure that we don't have some kind of dual heirarchy, of members, and their sponsors, each new Pledge must within 30 days, Kill the member who sponsored them. Thereby ensuring that we all remain committed to killing each other....lol

This makes it sound like a daunting task to find and then eliminate ones sponser...don't be frightened by this...it is more than easy to find a sponser (as Scarus, who usually informs new pledges of this part of the process, will usually offer himself up as sacrifice)...the difficult part is killing them (unless, like me, you are fortunate enough to have Zepy12 as your sponser

)

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:27 am

hmmmmmmm interesting it does sound very daunting seeing as im not supremely good as u can see by my rank and points 850 or so

hawkeye · Post by **hawkeye** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:28 am

damn down to 712

Patroclus · Post by **Patroclus** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:25 am

hawkeye: It's not about points at xi, it's about honest play for a good time against other players out for a good time.

Sure, everyone likes to win, but at xi you will find those that will help you with your game play, congratulate you with your win, and proceed to try and take you out in the next game.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:45 am

I guess the no alliance people rule this group for a long time yet, I'll have to look elsewhere for honourable play I guess.

evster · Post by **evster** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:20 am

A lot of talk about "no alliances" being bad, both in xi and other threads. It seems to me to be reasonable.

Would it be considered honorable to:

Be going after the board leader, and not attacking the weaker players, so that they can also go after the board leader. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right?

Ev

Looking for Honorable Games?

Looking for Honorable Games?

Angry....

Jogging my memory...

I don't know

Alliances

Re: Alliances

alliance vs going after the board leader