"Just because after 150 games germany has clearly more wins that means nothing.... It can be idiotic play of italy player as it could be just luck... last time I was at the casino RED came 34 times in a row.... so what? does that mean RED is better than BLACK? in your theory yes lol...."
Your inanity knows no bounds. A casino luck game is obviously just luck. Diplomacy is not a casino luck game. Stop making fucking stupid comparisons, please. I only have so many brain cells to waste on them.
"PE you wrote again some tons of text and there is still missing your soooo big facts about GvI beeing so imbalanced"
That's because I was asking if anyone still upheld that it wasn't balanced. You're the only one still desperately clinging to the illusion that a game where one country of two wins 65% of the time is balanced, so I'll just quote fasces and leave it at that because this is all a halfwit somewhat rational person needs to see:
"Stats per date in this tourney (w-l-d):
Germany: 20-4-2 (ommiting the 2 games in which there was an NMR)
Italy: 4-20-2"
We are talking about an EIGHTY-THREE win percent for Germany of all games soloed, SEVENTY-SEVEN win percent overall. That is RIDICULOUSLY imbalanced and cannot be attributed to mere luck.
"We stated this at start of the tournament and as we play each side once it's perfectly fair...."
No, it isn't. You have no right to force me to play an imbalanced map. We've gone over this already in the misrepresentation argument, but I'm sure you didn't understand that or just ignored it like you ignore every other decent point contrary to your beliefs, so I'll restate it here in the hopes you don't do it again: We all agreed to GvI ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS A BALANCED DEFAULT MAP. It is NOT A BALANCED MAP, and BECAUSE WE DID NOT AGREE TO PLAY AN IMBALANCED DEFAULT MAP, we NEED TO CHANGE GvI BECAUSE WE HAVE DISCOVERED IT IS HORRIBLY IMBALANCED.
"but I won't accept any other change to the rules in an ongoing tournament!
not even with a supermajority."
As if your one voice means shit. Your record isn't even carrying any weight for you because mine is better and I'm on the opposite side, so now we look to your actual arguments for not doing it and it boils down to:
"BAAAAAAWWWW I'M GOOD AT GvI DON'T CHANGEEEE IT PWEEEEEASE IT'S NOT IMBALANCED DON'T LOOK AT THE FACTS JUST LISTEN TO MEEEE BAAAAAAWWWW I DUN WAAAAAANNAAAAAA"
And it's extremely unimpressive.
Now, for someone who actually makes good points, Guaroz:
"1) It's unfair change the rules while a tourney is in progress (agree Devonian), but, if it happens, at least it must be at the end of Phase 1. "New Phase new rules" could be ok. Basically I hope to end up qualifications with the same Rules I started them. Changing the Rules with the Phase in progress without unanymous consent it's an abuse."
Here's the thing, though: The rules already WERE changed. We all agreed to play a balanced default map. We picked GvI because we thought it was the most balanced. When it turned out that GvI is NOT balanced, that rule for a balanced default map changed. This is correcting an abuse that already occurred, not creating a new abuse.
That said, it could still be argued that we agreed to play GvI as well as agreeing to play a balanced default, so an abuse is done either way. In that case a compromise is best to minimize the abuses created, and so I'd be alright with delaying the change.
"2) An imbalanced map in the next Phases could be unfair only because they have an odd number of games. So why don't we change the Rule only for the last game (5-7-9) of the set? The more little the change is, the less unfair it is."
Again, the unfair part (from my and others' point of view) is that some of us never would have agreed to the tournament if we knew we would be forced to play an imbalanced map in the case of disagreement over the map of choice. Merely making the odd game be a balanced map, while correcting the unfairness to an extent, would not correct it in its entirety. Hence, the proposal for a new balanced default (FvA, Duo, Lepanto).