"you did not prove anything here... it's just your thoughts and opinions....
and before you ask I will not pull up my thoughts before end of this tourney as stated more than once!"
I didn't say here in this thread specifically. I don't remember which thread it was, but I definitely demonstrated decisively (or, barring that, demonstrated to no lasting objections) that GvI is imbalanced on a prior occasion. You have not on any occasion done anything to rebuke it. I'm not asking you to spill the beans on your secret super awesome strategies or whatever. You don't have to resort to that to address the objections I raised. The simple fact is that you've done nothing to challenge anything I've said in here, so don't tell me "it's just your opinion," because I've substantiated it with facts and had no one challenge it.
"I still think GvI is pretty balanced... btw you lost several times as germany so stop it again ;)
and you won as italy to but it's soooo not doable!"
First, there you go again, just stating your opinion without ever having proved it anywhere on any thread here ever. I'll go dig up my prior posts on the subject if I have to in order to demonstrate that I'm not doing the same thing.
Second, a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's not broken. Similarly, one or two counter examples -- or even the ~35% of games Italy has won -- do not disprove the fact that Germany still wins almost twice as many games as Italy does. I highly suggest you stop misrepresenting my argument as "Italy cannot ever win" and instead address the actual argument I've put forth the entire time -- that being "Germany has too substantial an advantage to call GvI 'balanced.'"
"And your pretty nice system just gives you FvA whenever you want, cause you will always "chose" FAll of american empire, as nobody takes that one and then FvA will be played... lol...."
Fine. Make Duo the first default on the list. I don't care if I don't get "my" FvA whenever I want... unlike you. Because it's incredibly clear that you're just desperately trying (and failing) to uphold your preferred game type as the standard despite the fact that it is ridiculously imbalanced.
"unfortunately GvI was agreed to. For next season I think it will be either Duo or FvA as the standard..."
"In this tournament, the only option would get unanimus consent to change the rules of the tournament. Anything less than unanimus consent would force a map on the player or players who did not agree to the change."
I'm incorporating both of these quotes with one response because (a) they're the same point, more or less, and (b) this is the first objection I've seen that has merit. I'll go try to ratchet up support to get a rule change. I would request a majority rule (or even 2/3 supermajority rule) instead of unanimous, though. After all, if we're going to take arguments from consent into play, we have to acknowledge the long-standing legal precedent of 'misrepresentation.'
Misrepresentation invalidates a contract if the contract was signed under false pretenses which directly impacted the signing party's consent. In my case, for example, I did in fact agree to the rules of this tournament which included GvI as the default [pardon caps] -- UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT GvI WAS A BALANCED DEFAULT MAP. Had the game been, for example, Russia vs Germany, probably the most infamously imbalanced 1v1 on the website, I would never have agreed to signing up for this tournament. As it turns out, while GvI obviously isn't RvG bad, it is imbalanced to the point that I would not have signed up for this tournament had I known GvI was this imbalanced and the default map.
Thus, per misrepresentation rules, anyone who signed up for this tournament under the pretense that GvI was a balanced default map signed up under a false pretense and thus should not be held captive to that contract. I believe that gives us cause to reconsider, and hold a vote, because just as a non-unanimous vote would hold captive someone who did not want a change, not voting at all would hold captive someone who would never be captive if not for imperfect information.
(Note: People simply not reading that GvI was the standard is not the issue here. If people knew GvI was imbalanced and didn't read that it was the default and signed up, that's their fault for not reading. I'm with Devonian on that point, definitely. The issue here is that several of us signed up for a GvI default under the explicit pretense that GvI was a balanced default. It is not, thus we are moving to get it changed.)
"Ah and no changing rules.... the tourney started with this setting and we play it with this setting dot over and out..."
I refer you to a previous statement I made: "The logic that says "Well, we missed the fact that this was unfair before, so we can't correct it now" is ... bogus." "We did it wrong before" is not justification for continuing to do it wrong now. If you object to the premise that we did it wrong before, fine -- make your case that GvI is balanced or at least address my arguments as to why it isn't. But if we're resorting to the "We did it wrong before so we have to be consistent" argument then there is no argument to be had at all, because that argument makes no sense whatsoever.
---
So, to recap: I'll look for either a majority (9/16) or a supermajority (12/16) to get GvI replaced with Duo/Lepanto/FvA. Would prefer majority, of course, but I understand a supermajority. I feel the misrepresentation argument entitles my side to seek less stringent recourse than a unanimous vote. I'll also change the proposed alternate system not to make FvA the first default so that any complaints about me having an ulterior agenda are silenced. I am not trying to force FvA on my opponents; I'm only looking to ensure an imbalanced map isn't forced on me and those who agree with me.
In return, I ask that the GvI crowd either provide more conclusive reasoning as to (1) the supposed "balance" GvI really does have that I'm somehow missing, or (2) why we can't change an imbalanced map. If neither condition is met then I'll just start looking for that [super]majority and point to this thread as proof that GvI is imbalanced and should be changed.