Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:26:20 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Halftime
	<1k1beh$884@agate.berkeley.edu>


tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub) writes:
> In article <gfMyJG_00awQE216Qa@andrew.cmu.edu> jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph E.\
>  Beck) writes:
> )
> )tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub) writes:
> )> In article <IfM87sa00VpNMKbVo0@andrew.cmu.edu> Sean Christopher Simmons <ss\
> 72+\
> )> @andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> )> )       If there is a halftime, I think that it would be best to make it
> )> )optional.  I would STRONGLY prefer that the default be no halftime. 
> )> )Certainly, there is no reason for it to be manditory.
> )> 
> )> This is not an option.  Either all games will have it or none will have
> )> it; we are dedicated to every game setup being identical.
> )
> )This is stupid.  If halftime is instituted, and neither team wants it
> )for that game, why are you forcing it down their throats?  And has the
> )council discussed this already or are you just deciding ahead of time?
> )Will the council be discussing halftime again (and not telling us
> )again?)  We want to know.
> 
> Why do so many posts out of CMU start with 'this is stupid'?  Can't you
> guys accept that you are not necessarily the repository of all netrek
> wisdom?
If you like I'll rephrase.  "IMHO this is stupid".  And my post has
nothing to do with CMU.  If you don't understand this then you have a
problem.

> The Council in the past has unanimously agreed that all games should be
> played on identical servers; it is very unlikely that this will change.
> Your argument is spurious; if both captains want to play a 15 minute
> game, can they do that?
Umm...yes.  If both captains agree that a 15 minute game is best then
they should be allowed to do this.  Why do you think it is the job of
the council to inform teams what's best for them?  If neither team
wants halftime why the hell are you forcing them to have it?

> 
> The Council will be discussing halftime again.  I intend to push
> strongly for a halftime, a shorter game, or both.  
Good, and I will remember not to vote for at next election.

> )> This would be a possible worthwhile comprimise, if other halftime opponents
> )> feel the same way.
> )Compromise?  A lot opponents think the freeze is better, but certainly
> )don't support it (based on the reponse last time).  
> 
> Yes, this is the definition of 'compromise.'
No Tom.  The original halftime proposal was ludicrous (everyone dies,
armies carried die, etc).  Starting out at a ludicrous position then
dropping down to something that people still oppose, but is at least
reasonable, is NOT making a compromise.  

How does this sound, you want shorter games (say 90 minutes?).  I
propose that games be lengthened to 4 hours.  Let's compromise and
keep the games at 2 hours.  Are you happy with this?  Why the hell
not?  It's a compromise, we split the difference, it just isn't very
meaningful when someone starts out in left field.

> Here's a plan suggested by Chris Siebenmann (Gadfly) which may be more
> acceptable to you guys.
> 
> At the halfway point, if all ships are in green alert, the game is
> paused.  If, at any time in the next 5 minutes, all ships are in 
> green alert, the game is paused.  From 5-10 minutes from the halfway
> point, if there is any time when no ships are in red alert, the game
> is paused.  At 10 minutes from the halfway point, the game is paused
> regardless.  No ships are blown up.
> 
> This would allow the benefits of halftime without overly disturbing
> the flow of the game.  Comments?
Yes, it shouldn't be mandatory.  Other than that looks ok.

	joe
	Lamb, Leg Of