I was going to say something similar, but I think you put it very nicely. I think, too, that an attitude of humility and respect for the gaming practices of others is the proper attitude in the BGG forums (and just about everywhere else, too, for that matter).
On Jan 3, 6:45 pm, haslo <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this is the crux of the matter: > > On Jan 4, 12:40 am, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > but invalidates the games result, > > even if it makes for a nice teaching technique. > > Outside of tournament settings, the prime result of a game I play is > me having fun together with friends. This definitely isn't getting > invalidated by who wins by what means, it's merely the side effect of > one clear victor (or sometimes a group of them) emerging from the game > that is. > > Depending on the group though, mileages vary of course. > > > On Jan 3, 6:34 pm, jdl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 5:27 pm, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Must have really entertained you to carry the conversation into a > > > > another thread. Because I've got a little bit of time, how could you > > > > argue against JC's fifth point: "Any behavior not expressly permitted > > > > in the rules of a game should > > > > be considered expressly forbidden by those rules." > > > > Is this a rehash of the "should players in a Dominant Species game be > > > allowed to speak" argument that was derailing one of the DS reviews a > > > couple of months ago? > > > > -- > > > JDL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
