PE-WI-Diplo [H. Hornblower]: The Alliance Disbands
Date:Mon, 12 May 2003 22:35:50 +0000

Whereas the LXG contains more then half the nations in the world and controls more then half the territories

and

Whereas the rules of combat and logistics make it obvious that such a combination cannot be defeated

and

Whereas continued conflict between the Alliance and the LXG will cause the death of many fine soldiers and sailors for no purpose

The Alliance has chosen to disband itself, to remove the reason for this conflict and prevent further senseless combat.

Each nation in the former Alliance has agreed to terminate its obligations to the Alliance and is free to pursue whatever foreign policy it chooses.

With the dissolution of the Alliance, the LXG is the only declared alliance. As things stand, this will lead to the end of the game in 5 turns.

AFENG
Khan Batu of the Golden Horde
Drixtar
H. Hornblower, Admiral of the Royal Navy
Huitzilopochtli, Aztec God of War
Ima Noob
painted dog
TwoCool, Supreme Dude of Coolsville
The Watchers

PE-WI-Diplo [-xXx-]: The Alliance surrender terms
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 14:10:17 +0000

The Alliance has disbanded and no longer wishes to fight against the LXG.  Some Alliance members however do not view this as a surrender and have tried to set their own terms with LXG members.  Those who surrender do not get to set the terms of surrender.

The LXG has conferred and through a majority vote we have come to a conclusion of what the surrender terms for The Alliance shall be.  Any regions gained by the LXG shall remain under LXG control.  Any regions taken by The Alliance that belonged to LXG members at the beginning of the conflict shall be returned at once.

These terms ensure that The Alliance does not return to power any time soon and that they are not simply buying time to regroup and counterstrike.  Any former TA member that does not comply with these terms will be considered an enemy of the LXG and will be attacked accordingly.  If any former TA members feel that they don't have many LXG borders and can defy these terms then they will soon find out how fast troops can be transferred to the LXG members that they border.

All former TA members should contact their LXG neighbors directly and set up any necessary region exchanges.  These region exchanges should begin by next turn.

That is all,
-xXx-

PE-WI-Diplo [TwoCool]: Web War II ?
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 15:37:02 +0000

World War II started because of onerous punitive terms after WWI.
I beleive Web War II is right around the corner.

PE-WI-Diplo [WI-Independents]: Taking Back Orders (this turn)
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 15:53:53 +0000

Quick Announcement from the Moderator:

Because of the mid-turn disbanding of The Alliance in this game, 
some players have request that their aleady-submitted move 
be deleted so that a new set of orders (more suited to the new
situation) can be substituted. Ordinarily I try not to mess with the
game files, but since this is a rather unique situation, and part 
of the game philosophy is that players should not have to time 
the submission of their moves too much, I have agreed to do this.
But in that case everyone deserves the opportunity to do the same.

Therefore, this one time only, if you would like to have an existing 
input deleted in Web of Intrigue, please let me know immediately 
(a direct email reply to this message would do fine).  I will need to 
know the name of the Leader involved and the type of the input
you wish to remove.  Do not wait to hear from me -- just go ahead
and submit new, replacement inputs at any time between now and
the update.

If you want to have your input removed but cannot do so on such
short notice, please email me and we will see what can be done.
(There is a good chance that the update may be delayed further.)

The Moderator
 


PE-WI-Diplo [Ima Noob (TA)]: Question
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 17:26:50 +0000

So if some nations don't accept the surrender terms and they hold out 5 more turns doesn't that mean LXG wins the game?  Is it legal to make an alliance that forces terms and then removes the tag from their name to avoid winning the game and yet expects the same terms to be enforced?  Things to ponder while the clock ticks down.

PE-WI-Diplo [-xXx-]: A History Lesson and Logic
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 17:43:44 +0000

I know this is out of the context of the Web of Intrigue world but since Bob hasn't said anything so far I will go ahead and reply.  The punitive terms placed on Germany after WWI were far from the main reason behind WWII starting.  I would suggest that TwoCool check up on his history before crying foul.  Here's a good site to check out if you want to know what happened leading up to WWII.  You probably only need to read down through the section titled "German Aggression in Europe" to get a good idea of what started the war.  It's only about a page and you'll probably learn a lot.
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/WWII.html

The Alliance apparently didn't think it could win the battle against the LXG so the members decided to disband to prevent further losses.  That is a surrender in every sense of the word.  Some of the former TA members have been so bold as to ask/demand for all of their lost regions back in exchange for any regions they took.  Obviously this is a much better deal for them and would make them once again bigger than the LXG in regions and production.  It's not very often you see the side that surrenders come out on top in terms of resources afterwards.  The surrender terms set by the LXG are logical and fair and I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot then the same terms would be offered.  The LXG does not want The Alliance to rise again at the same strength they were before by giving them back all that we fought to take.

The LXG is currently in deliberations as to whether we will disband or seek to win the game and end the world in 5 turns.  At any rate, 5 turns should be more than enough time for the LXG to reclaim any lost regions with the cooperation of former TA members.  If any TA nations decline the terms then they will have to face the forces of the LXG.  Even if the LXG does decide to disband we will still work together unofficially until all regions originally controlled by our members have been returned.
That is all,
-xXx-

PE-WI-Diplo [The Watchers]: Clarifications for LXG members
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 18:07:24 +0000

The Watchers would like to raise a few questions for the member states of the LXG:

(1) The Alliance did not "surrender".  It disbanded.  It no longer exists.  It cannot be negotiated with.  It makes no decisions.  Nations which used to be members of the former Alliance have no choice but to negotiate as individual nations.  Does the LXG really want to try to enforce a one-size-fits-all policy?  That will grant huge benefits to some LXG nations (at least 7 regions for some LXG nations) while actually penalizing others (who have lost many units but will gain little to no territory).  More importantly, such a policy will impose huge penalties on some nations which used to be in the Alliance, while others will hardly suffer at all.  Is this what a League of "Xtraordinary Gentlemen" is all about?

(2) The LXG will win the game and force a restart in 5 turns.  What is the point of enforcing surrender terms if the game will end soon?
The only way that the LXG's "surrender terms" have meaning is if the LXG itself disbands, in which case they have no meaning because there is no LXG. (!) The only way that outstanding territorial disputes can be meaningfully resolved is between individual nations on a case-by-case basis.  But that issue doesn't even come up until the LXG first 
decides and announces whether or not it will try to win the game.
When will we find out about that decision?

The Watchers


PE-WI-Diplo [The Watchers]: LXG Larger than TA
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 18:21:20 +0000

xXX is mistaken in claiming that the former Alliance was ever larger than the LXG.  Once the LXG's formation was complete, the LXG was much larger than the Alliance, in nations, regions, units and movement, even after discounting the Alliance's losses in the sneak-attack by the advance guard of the LXG.  The LXG's formation alone was sufficient to halt the Alliance; there was no need for a massive surprise invasion.  Therefore, the real effect of the LXG's "terms of surrender" is to enforce the outcome of their war of aggression while the LXG completes its 5-turn period.  They certainly have the right to try to do that, but what's the point?




PE-WI-Diplo [Picard]: Watchers
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 19:46:46 +0000

Watchers,

  I am dismayed at your lack of reasoning or understanding.  I have no idea where you come from, but where I come from your reasoning only works on a preschool playground.  You can't just say, "No fair, I dont want to play anymore because I am losing.  I'm taking my ball and going home." 

  As for the matter of TA members being held responsible.  Just because the alliance no longer exists doesn't mean that the member states are absolved of all responsibility for their actions in the alliance. 
Example: If Germany, and the other Axis powers of WWII had declared the Axis disbanded right before Berlin fell, would they have had a right to tell everyone they had to stop the war and leave (giving back all land taken)?  NO....  Germany as a nation was responsible for its individual actions as a member of the Axis, and was still responsible after the Axis was dissolved.

  On the matter of "sneak" attacks, ALL members of LXG were in no way obligated to inform TA members of our choose to attack.  By the declaration of Hornblower on behalf of TA ("Members of the alliance are bound by strong treaties to support other members. These treaties supersede all other treaties member nations may have with non-alliance members."), all treaties between TA and LXG members were dissolved upon formation of TA.  Also, attack was fully justified, as you had declared war on all other nations by stating "It's goal is to establish hegemony over the world."(Hornblower - message below), and ".. declare that I have joined The Alliance for the sole purpose of world domination." (TwoCool - Turn 80 update).

As for international relations, I see no reason why people can't go back to being friends again, as there is no need to be hateful over anything in the WI world.

-- Picard

_______________BEGIN_______________________________
To: pe-wi-diplo@yahoogroups.com
From: "Steven Bass" sbass@speakeasy.org | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:33:56 -0400
Subject: [pe-wi-diplo] The Alliance is born

A new age has begun. A like minded group of nations has joined together
to form The Alliance. It's goal is to establish hegemony over the
world. We are not violent and do not intend to attack any nation which
does not attack us.

Members of the alliance are bound by strong treaties to support other
members. These treaties supersede all other treaties member nations may
have with non-alliance members. An attack on one alliance nation will
be met with an immediate response by all members, regardless of what
existing treaties an attacker has with some alliance members.

AFENG
Khan Batu of the Golden Horde
Drixtar
H. Hornblower, Admiral of the Royal Navy
Huitzilopochtli, Aztec God of War
Ima Noob
painted dog
TwoCoolTA, Supreme Dude of Coolsville
The Watchers
____________________________________END_____________

PE-WI-Diplo [AFENG]: What does the G stand for?
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 20:06:34 +0000

I know that TA never once made any advancements on non-members till after they were assulted first.  Anyone can say what they want, but since Bob has given everyone a chance to redo their turn, there is no reason to further attack than sheer aggression.  I view Skeletor's reply below as a farce to justify further invasion of my MAJCOMs.  Obviously, this is not a Gentleman's agreement.  Carry on as you choose.  

Afeng


====================================================
AFENG,
We can discuss negotiations after this turn. My orders
are in place for the upcoming turn.  The TA dissolving
is very convenient, but the circumstances that caused
the formation of the TA have not changed.  Until
several of the former TA members are severly weakened
they will remain a threat to regroup and retaliate. 
Since the TA was formed in secret I assume the true
strategic reasons for the alliance disbanding will
remain one as well.

--SKELETOR--

--- afeng (afeng@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Skeletor,
> 
> As I assume you have already heard, the TA has
> dissolved.  There has 
> been some traffic already between the 2 groups as to
> how the world 
> would or would not continue.  You have a substantial
> number of your 
> men sitting ready to farther advance through my
> MAJCOMs.  Do you have 
> intentions of continuing with your assult, or are
> you going to re-
> negotiate a treaty?  Since you have the upper hand,
> it really relies 
> on you.  Await your direction,
> 
> Afeng


PE-WI-Diplo [Ima Noob (TA)]: Clarification
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 20:23:07 +0000

It seems like the problems with territorie's ownership can be traced back to a single incident and that is why most of The Alliance members are concern.  Of course our stated goal was to win the game and not become conquerors by forceful means through war.  

My understanding was that LXG was formed to stop TA from winning the game and based on that premise alone there was no reason for LXG to attack.  This reason comes from the fact that in order to achieve this the only step that needed to be taken was to put a LXG by your name and laugh in an evil manner (last part optional).  At that point our goal was defeated as we did not hold the majority and could not win.  That left us 2 choices, fight or disband.  The ball would have been in our court to try a diplomatic solution - disband - or declare war at the next turn in order to attack the turn after that.  Since it did not happen in that manner, LXGs goals were not to stop us but to be the aggressor and take land from us.  We expected as much from an unorganized, non-allied group as that is the only way to win then.  So it comes down to the fact that many TA members have that bitter taste again as we watched an unnecessary sneak attack occur.  That seems to sum up the story from here and I must also say that gentlemen would not attack in such a manner.  May I suggest a name change to Lousy Xenopobic Girly-men in that case?  

If your goal is truly to win the game then more power to you, but the mere fact that you must vote to see if LXG wants to try to win the game proves all I have stated above.

Ima

PE-WI-Diplo [Batu]: Suggestion
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 20:23:41 +0000

I would humbly suggest that all public debate on these matters be suspended until the LXG announces their decision on ending the game or not.  No need to continue citing historical events, tossing blame around, rattling sabers, and ruffling feathers if the game will be over in 5 turns anyway.

Just a thought.

	Khan Batu of the Golden Horde

PE-WI-Diplo [-xXx-]: Taking back actions, etc.
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 20:57:56 +0000

There are no time stamps on the messages to and from Skeletor.  I can only assume then that he hadn't yet received the message from Bob stating that he would allow any leaders to take back orders and that he may even delay the update further to account for this.

I had already put in orders Monday for attacks on Batu and The Watchers.  I got the notification of The Alliance disbanding Monday night and was very surprised.  I contacted Bob Tuesday to ask him if I could cancel those orders because I did not want to make those attacks anymore.  I believe it is because of my communication with him that he made the offer to everyone to take back orders for this one time.  If you ask what the G stands for I believe this alone should tell you.  You cannot expect that every leader sits in front of a computer all day and keeps up on the events.  I'm sure many people only check their Power's Edge stuff 2 or 3 times per week.  You also can't expect that disbanding an alliance in the exact middle of a turn is going to make it so no one is going to attack you.  Because of Bob's interest in this I no longer see any reason for further attacks to go on this turn.  I'm sure Skeletor will contact Bob and take back his attacks on you if he receives the message from Bob and has time.  That is the most you can ask of him.

As for the size of the LXG versus TA I believe one must take into account that Father Frobenius was only a member of the LXG until The Alliance was no more.  He will be going back to his monastery and hopefully living out his days in peace after this.  My records show that at the time of the first attacks by the LXG, including all present members except Frobenius, we were indeed the smaller alliance.  Myself and a few other leaders were trying to organize the other half of the world against TA and could not have dreamed that almost every possible leader would join the league.  The Alliance controlled almost exactly half of the world's regions and units, My Pretty Pony and the nation of D'ni both declared neutrality.  One other small nation had no borders and so was not involved.  That clearly shows that The Alliance was bigger.

I thought the only reason The Alliance came together was to end this world and the perpetual state of boredom that it had become.  By recruiting almost exactly half of the world's resources you threw down the gauntlet and challenged any other member or group to organize the rest of the world against you.  I think you should not cry because we picked up that gauntlet and backhanded you across the room with it.  You laid the challenge and we accepted.  If we simply declared our presence then indeed the ball would have been in your court ... in the real world it's better to take action first than to let your enemy prepare for the inevitable war.  We seized our advantage and made the most of it.  You'll have to excuse us for wanting to lead a successful campaign against you.  We also wiped out the boredom and actually helped to breath some life into the Web of Intrigue world.  I would think everyone would be thankful for that.

I suppose by picking a boring and unimaginative name like "The Alliance" you have removed yourself from the possibility of people twisting your name into other things.  Congratulations to you all on that.

I also suppose that there was one or two supreme leaders of The Alliance and that therefor there was no voting on important issues.  You must have just listened to what the boss(es) said and nodded your heads.  I congratulate you on being comprised of mostly sheep then.  You'll have to excuse the LXG for having democratic ideals.  I believe everyone has witnessed which system works the best.

My purpose was never to simply stop The Alliance from winning the game.  I think the surprise attacks should be proof enough of that.  I personally wanted some excitement and adventure and didn't want to be on the losing side of the fence when the world ended.

Not all members of the LXG may reflect my ideas here but we're individuals that each get an equal vote in our organization so I'm sure they'll understand that I'm just expressing my opinions.

That is all,
-xXx-

PE-WI-Diplo [AFENG]: xXx response
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 21:22:34 +0000

Skeletor was emailed on Monday.  Which doesn't seem to matter by the tone of his email.  And now that he has had a reprieve to change his action, he still stays the course.  You can rationalize and guess, but I would prefer that you stick with what is known.  Otherwise you just sound like a politician.  

Afeng

PE-WI-Diplo [Ima Noob (TA)]: Redo
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 22:01:27 +0000

I am just trying to explain why there seems to distress among the countries right now.  There was no surprise to any attacks, the surprise was in the organization of those attacks.  You can't believe we expected you all to bow down and do nothing can you?  We expected unorganized attacks or small groups such as in all of the battles hereto.  No one ever put a tag on their name to declare themselves a dominant power before this so I know I was shocked to see this as I assumed this meant you plan to end the game per the rules.  This new paradigm has put everyone in confusion and now we all have mixed feelings on what happened.  All I can say is that if you use a tag how do you interpret it per the rules:

A game will be restarted whenever there is a public announcement that a single Leader (or publicly-declared alliance of Leaders) controls enough Regions. The names of Nations (not Leaders) belonging to an alliance must be modified to indicate the alliance membership, using the "rename" forms in the Newspapers

I see nothing stating that tags are only for winning the game, nor do I see anything stating its not.  How you interpret this definitely explains how you would feel in that situation and why TA members are concerned as I stated in the last message.  

I am keeping my tag and calling my new alliance Too Argumentive and our main goal is to argue with everyone in LXG and not win the game, of course, unless we become big enough.  Ponder that one :)

Ima


PE-WI-Diplo [Picard]: Thanks Ima Noob
Date:Wed, 14 May 2003 22:43:16 +0000

Ima Noob,

  I would like to thank you for your clarifications and discussion of what your point of view is.  I am more and more feeling as though many of these angry words are coming from misunderstandings.  I am starting to better understand now what the TA members were thinking, and can understand your point of view.  This doesn't mean I agree, but that your reasoning makes more sense now.
  I just ask that TA members (or at least former TA members) consider the different light LXG members saw the situation in.  From a different perspective things looked much different.

  As for the game ending issue, I think at least part of the interest in potentially ending the game is coming from the messed relations we all now have.  I think it quite possible that things could settle back down, and relations normalize, but for some, I am sure it looks bleak, with all the negative/bitter feelings now felt.

  As for the negative feelings.  Maybe I am just burned out for now, or maybe I just realize that it makes no sense to get so upset over PE, but I think it would be best if we all (including me) cool our heads (as Batu smartly suggested), and try to work this out.  During the war it was an "I fight you, you fight me" type situation and I think most people didn't get all that upset.  I see no reason why we all have to get upset now, especially with peace on the horizon.

Finally, Thanks for the laugh Ima Noob.  It figures that a TA member would be the one to think up a good joke for the name of TA (Too Argumentive).
--- Picard

P.S.  Watchers, I still back my views I expressed as to war ending issues, but appologize for not wording them in a less inflamatory/disrespectful way.  I will try to refrain from further rudeness.

PE-WI-Diplo [WI-Independents]: Update -> Saturday
Date:Thu, 15 May 2003 03:00:30 +0000

Moderator Intervention - 

Wow.  Take a day "off" to go to work, and look what happens!
It's nice to know that everyone cares so much about the game.  I had no idea! :)

The bad news is, there was another bug late this afternoon which prevented 
at least 4 players from submitting moves, but only in this game, so I am going 
to run the update for the other games now.  Since it sounds like a cooling-off 
period would be useful in this game, I'm simply going to delay the WI 
update to Saturday.

I will have more to say about the game situation after I get the update done,
but it might wait until tomorrow.  This message will obviously require some 
thoughtfulness.

Above all, though, please avoid using "real world" references, especially historical ones.  The game world needs to be separate and self-contained.  (And historical analogies are rarely accurate and frequently inflammatory.)

More in a while,

-- The Moderator


PE-WI-Diplo [H. Hornblower]: Moving forward
Date:Thu, 15 May 2003 14:34:18 +0000

I'm going to step out of character a bit here. I hope Bob won't be too upset. I want to make some comments and try to quell some of the passions  that have been aroused. This involves some metagaming, so I need to talk a bit more like Steve and a bit less like H. Hornblower. Please bear with me. 

The Alliance formed for a number of reasons. Partly boredom, partly a desire to win the game. We intentionally chose a path which did not build an alliance which was so large that victory was a foregone conclusion. I know that various nations were upset that they were not invited to join. This was intentional, not to cause them pain, but to pick the smallest alliance we thought would have a decent chance of winning the game and provide an opportunity for others to challenge the alliance and make the game interesting. 

Clearly the Alliance members miscalculated the response. We did not expect that essentially all other nations would ally against us, giving the LXG the advantage in terms of number of moves, size of armies, and production. It could have been an interesting challenge if we faced a alliance of many smaller nations where our advantages in size of armies and production was balanced against the opponents better logistics (more moves per turn). 

Once the situation became clear, the Alliance was faced with tough choices. We could fight an obviously losing battle. This had no interest for anyone. The game rules and mechanics are too simple to allow the war to be won by dint of great tactical leadership or strategic planning. More territories, more production, bigger armies, and more moves/turn will win every time. Or we could resign, leaving the LXG without the fruit of the war. 

Instead we chose a third choice; to disband the Alliance and leave the LXG as the sole declared alliance. We were very clear here, the LXG can view this as a victory if they want and end the game as the winning alliance. From our perspective it is a victory with little glory and honor. Such a victory condition was always an option; gather more then half the nations and half the territories and victory is guaranteed. This is the option we rejected when we formed the Alliance. Now the LXG faces the same choice. To maintain the alliance and win the game while ending the world, or to disband the LXG and see what happens next. 

The 'surrender' terms proposed by -xXx- will not fly with Alliance members. We are still strong enough to fight for 5 turns. If the LXG continues as an alliance, the game ends; they are the only declared alliance and control more then one third of the world. If they dissolve the LXG then they cannot enforce the terms. 

Here's where the game world and the real world diverge. In the real world, one cannot simply leave. The stronger power can dictate conditions and if the weaker do no agree, they can be crushed. But this is a game, and we play this for fun. It is not fun to be squashed by an overwhelming force. It is not fun to play in a game where one side has all the strength and dictates the terms they expect the others to live by. We too have choices; if the game isn't fun or interesting we can resign. This is the problem with -xXx-'s comment "Even if the LXG does decide to disband we will still work together unofficially until all regions originally controlled by our members have been returned." If we perceive that the LXG will continue to act together as an alliance even if they disband officially, then it is clear that the game is over and there is no reason to participate (this is my opinion, I am not speaking for other players) whether or not Bob rules that the victory conditions have been satisfied. 

So that is my question to the LXG. Do you want the game to continue? If so, you have to find a way to dissolve the LXG in a complete enough fashion so that all nations feel like they have an opportunity to grow and succeed. Personally, I think we have the opportunity to do interesting things. For the first time in the game, my nation has no treaty obligations with any other nation. We have a chance to learn from the past and do things differently going forward. Death to 5 turn treaties. Death to stalemate. Figure out new ways to make this interesting. Or not. The choice lies with the members of the LXG. 

Steve talking for H. Hornblower 

PE-WI-Diplo [Kennendras]: Iron Legion
Date:Thu, 15 May 2003 16:42:14 +0000

In light of recent events, personal feelings, and a need for some more action, the nation of Astoec is leaving the LXG to become once again its own entity.

The LXG was a noble effort that did its job well.  Its time, in my eyes, is now over if this game is to continue.  Whether the game ends or not is up to LXG's discetion.  I retract my vote from the LXG poll.  I'll inform and make arrangements to leave promptly.  Thanks to all that helped coordinate LXG.  No hard feelings, I just feel this is something that needs to be done.

For some fun, the nation of Astoec is creating its own "alliance".  The Iron Legion [IL] will consist of no more than 3 nations (myself included), and will function as a league of close friends dedicated to helping eachother, not taking the world by force.  If you are interested in joining the IL, please contact me.

As said by Steve (aka hornblower) this is an interesting period where most if not all treaties are disolved and the world is in a pre-mature state.  There are very few ties, which makes it a great time to form new alliances that will act.  Unlike the alliances of old (I'll be your friend, but never help unless for defense), the IL will coordinate attacks with one another and actively expand, within reason of course.  It is not just for defense, i plan to attack when the time is ripe.  Sounds fun, eh?

Thats all from me.  The Iron Legion calls!

-Kennendras

PE-WI-Diplo [WI-Independents]: Rules Commentary
Date:Thu, 15 May 2003 18:50:51 +0000

Hi everyone - 

More input from the Moderator.  This message is mainly intended to provide some official interpretation of the relevant game rules.  For reference, see 
     http://www.heeter.net/pe/tutorial.html. 
I may say more later after thinking this through further, but for now I'm going to reiterate the rules and provide some commentary that may help everyone understand the situation a little more clearly.

The way the rules are written now, the Web of Intrigue world is deliberately open-ended.  Quoting the rules, "As a Leader, what you do in this Game World is up to you!" and "Leaders create their own Nation through their  explorations, and define the nature of the game-world by their actions.  Have fun, but be responsible!"  

The other rule that matters is the rule about alliances forcing a game restart.  As stated, the rule is:  

> A game will be restarted whenever there is a public announcement that a single  
> Leader (or publicly-declared alliance of Leaders) controls enough Regions. 
> The names of Nations (not Leaders) belonging to an alliance must be modified 
> to indicate the alliance membership, using the "rename" forms in the Newspapers. 
> The Leader/Alliance must control at least 1/3 of all the Regions in the game,  
> and must also control at least 3/2 as many Regions as the next-largest 
> Leader/Alliance. This level of dominance must be sustained for 5 consecutive 
> turns following  the announcement.   
 
Comments:

In terms of application, it should be clear that all five conditions have to be met before an alliance-driven-restart occurs.  (1) There must be a public declaration of the existence of the alliance. (2) Names of nations must be changed (so that individual nations have to affirm their membership). (3) The alliance must control > 1/3 of the regions in the game. (4) The alliance must be at least 3/2 the size of the next-largest alliance, and (5) All of the above must be sustained for 5 turns (updates) in a row.

What this means that "Alliance is as Alliance does" -- the rules only apply if the alliance is publicly announced and individual nations make it clear publicly that they want to be members by modifying their names.

The intent of the alliance-restart rule is to keep games from stagnating in the event that a group of nations starts working together at a level capable of dominating the course of the game.  As a practical matter, the Moderator has no way to know whether such an alliance really exists or not unless it declares itself.  (I suspect that effective alliances can exist even if individual members don't recognize that there's an alliance at all.  It may be a simple matter of cooperating with your friends, who cooperate with their friends, and so on.)  Games can still stagnate as a result of these de-facto alliances, and it is up to individual Leaders to find ways to break the stagnation (either by resigning, by creating public alliances, or by being creative in other ways).  However, the alliance-restart rule will only work as intended if nations recognize that alliances exist and choose to do something about them. If a secret alliance chooses to exist and control the game but doesn't want the game to end, there is not much to be done about it in the current rules.

The wording of the rule is also unfortunate, because it is couched in real-world terms (e.g., "game will be restarted") instead of being explained in game-world terms. ("Once an alliance controls the course of world history, a long peace will ensue, and only after much time passes will a new world order emerge, with new Leaders and new nations forming.")  The current wording leads to all sorts of breakdowns in the "Self-Contained Game World" spirit of the game, which in turn brings in a lot of meta-game discussion and personal feelings and frustrations.

The final item that ought to be discussed is the nature of a "Restart".  There are actually many ways to do this.  One method would be to end the game-world and create an entirely new world with the same rules, but all-new leaders and nations.  Another method would be to initiate a "Continuing Saga" in which all the existing Leaders stay, but everyone gets an entirely new nation starting with 2 regions and seeing what happens.

As I see it, there are two major issues that need to be resolved:

(1) Does the LXG wish to take control of the course of world history, leading to a long peace (which we will skip over) followed by the emergence of a new world order?  The LXG is on this course now, but it can change its mind sometime within the next 5 turns. If an when a new world order is to happen, I think it is fitting that the controlling alliance should be able to decide what form that new world order will take, within the constraints that I have as moderator.  (For example, in the first game, Trials of Creation, an immediate restart was not an option for technical reasons, but the Code of Honor game was eventually created as a Continuing Saga but with leaders having a choice of old or new names.)

(2) My second issue is really a developers' problem (real world), and not a Web of Intrigue game-world problem.  But I would welcome feedback (OUTSIDE the game world :) ).  I think the restart rules need to be rewritten to be in game-world terms (sort of as outlined above).  But maybe there would be even better rules to have (not just clearer, but different.)  What ideas do we have for new rules governing the possible outcomes of Power's Edge games?  Right now the basic choices are that individual leaders or nations die or drop out, or that the game as a whole is terminated, or that the game as a whole is given a New World Order.  The Quest for Supremacy game is exploring a "Survivor" type game-ending (one winner take all).  There are many other possible alternatives.  I think an ideal solution would (a) make for a fun game, (b) simulate the behavior of real leaders in the real world to some meaningful extent, and (c) not require many thousands of Bob-hours of programming time.  

One thought I had was to give each leader a finite, somewhat random lifetime.  Say you gain power at a young age (35 years is the U.S. constitutional limit for the President, for instance) and (ignoring constitutional term limits) manage to keep power until some ripe old age.  Then you start to get ill and your ability to do things diminishes, until eventually you retire or pass away.  But the nation you led continues (instead of being dissolved as it is now) and (possibly after some period of anarchy) another leader can rise up and take control of it.  This is something I could realistically work towards in the next version of the game software (after I finish fixing the bugs in the current version). 

Are there things that folks might get really excited about?  I'm open to all suggestions but again, I can't program everything instantly.  However, it's not at all clear in advance what is easy to do and what's hard to do, so all ideas are welcome.  I have a large folder full of ideas from the past few years, and I may go diving in to that to see what pops up as well.

The Moderator

PE-WI-Diplo [WI-Independents]: Official Decisions
Date:Thu, 15 May 2003 19:06:46 +0000

Moderator Decisions - 

(1) The show must go on!  I will not be intervening in any drastic way at this time.
All the major issues appear to be crystallizing, and I have confidence that the Leaders in this world have the ability to sort things out within the context of the (hopefully clarified) rules of the world.

(2) The Self-Contained Game World rule will be enforced from now on.  Messages sent using game forms should be in character.  If you want to say something out-of-character, send it to me privately and I will take appropriate action (if need be, posting appropriate parts as Moderator).  Penalties for violations, especially self-conscious violations as we have been seeing lately, will be steep.  In the future the extenuating-circumstances claim will be discounted.  If someone else steps out of character and brings in real-world information, it's your responsibility to issue an in-character response.  (In case of doubt, ask how the Ponies would reply, for they do this well.)

(3) If anyone feels there are other issues requiring some sort of Moderator decision, please let me know by private email (just reply directly to this message).

The Moderator