Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Game] [Organization Thread III]

Robert Plomp · December 18, 2008, 05:46

Originally posted by Pitboss Maya
I'm not disbanding the unit.

1. As Japan pointed out, Rome double moved against me, and no penalty was assessed. I could have made the same argument that it affected my stratagy.

2. No clear penalty was ever spelled out. This punish as we go mentality is problematic.

3. According to this, anyone involved in a war has to wait 6 hours. I don't know if this is the intent of the rule, but that is how I interperate it. How are we defining "last move"? This rule does not mention ending turn at all.

1. You could but you didn't. I've asked you if there was any damage, you never said there was any damage. There was no open war but just technical war.

Not to mention that it's a bit immature to refer back now to something in the past about which you said that it was ok.

2. I have always said that we are mature people and should decide on concequences based on situations, and not pre-set a penalty for all situations.

Apparantly I was wrong and we are not dealing here with mature people but with childish people who are not able to admit that there was a mistake and accept the (Small) concequences.

Well, that means that The Capo was right and I was wrong. Bring on your harsh penalties, Capo. I'll vote in favour of it. I'm sorry that I voted against it fist, I had no idea that we were dealing with little children.

3. Yes, we have made a clear agreement on this a couple of days ago. Not to mention that everyone knew that these things were hot debated. And that even without all those fairly new rules, the old rule would simply say: the person who voted last in the last turn will not vote first in the new turn.

Dude, please make now a comment that show that all my comments about you were unfair and out of place, and just deal with a mistake you made. There's no problem with making mistakes.

The question is not: do we make mistakes, but: how do we deal with our mistakes.

The outcome of that is if we need The Capo's hard penalty system for children or a system based on reasonable mature people.

And I am really prepared to accept The Capo's system if it apears that he was right, and you are not able to handle this thing reasonable.

Yes, I'm quite angry.

The Capo · December 18, 2008, 11:44

Let's not get bent out of shape here Cyber. I know its disheartening when one think one is "wrong." But this isn't a black and white situation. I never meant that we are playing with children that need harsh rules, what my point always was is this; we are playing a competitive game, where people will always try to get a competitive edge over eachother. And this ultimately means that people are going to read rules literally, and take whatever advantage they can find. Am I saying this is tantamount to cheating? Absolutely not. In fact its what people do in their everyday lives, you try to get the best deals from coupons and sales, you try to pay as little as possible in taxes, you lie on resumes, and in doctor's exams for insurance policies (well at least I have). It doesn't make someone bad, and taking a rule to the limit in an attempt to gain victory doesn't make someone childish. I am not saying that anyone knowling and wittingly broke rules on purpose, but what they did (and this happens in any sport, professional or otherwise) is take the rule as far as possible, and if its vague and ambiguous they act in favor of their advantage so long as it seems reasonable under the wording of the rule, or at least arguable.

So I would stop trying to judge this through a black and white spectrum CS. Its not as simple as good and evil here. Clearly there has been, and was at the time of this latest incident, a confusion over the rule. I was personally unsure about it myself, and I'm sure others were as well. So let's not assume that "my penalties" are harsh, because they aren't really, and let's not start calling people childish because they don't agree with you, or because they wanted what was best for their country in the game. What we need to do is take advantage of this 200 hour turn timer and write out a clear rule here, and then make a good penalty. Perhaps a voucher and no vote points for that month. If they refuse to vote that month then they will recieve no vote points the next month and so on until they decide to vote. This way we can prevent non-votes out of protest.

That's my idea, although I like my original "harsh" idea I posted a few months ago.

Pitboss Greece · December 18, 2008, 11:57

Just watching, no moving. (in the game)

The Capo · December 18, 2008, 12:10

Originally posted by Pitboss Greece
Just watching, no moving. (in the game)

This is the second time you've said this. What does this mean? And what exactly are you doing?

Pitboss Greece · December 18, 2008, 13:20

I want to avoid confusion about when I moved my units.
But sometimes I just want to login to see what my enemy (Rome) did.

To make clear that I did login, but didn't move anything, I post that. It may be a bit over the top, but since there have been a zillion 'double move' debates overhere I thought that it may be a good thing to post this.

Pitboss Rome · December 18, 2008, 14:01

I have certainly appreciated the courtesy.

Pitboss Rome · December 18, 2008, 14:30

I'm very reluctant to get into debates about rules and penalties. As a newcomer I've wanted to just follow the rules others have already set, have seen CS as the ref., and his approach has seemed sensible. One comment though is that the effects of a double move are felt in game, and so any consequences really need to be felt in game too. The way I see it is that its not really a matter of penalties (we are all just trying to enjoy civing) but of reversing any benefit in game that double move may have given. When a 'foul' is committed in sport, it is dealt with 'on the pitch', quickly, and with the ref making the decisions. That way the game can carry on and we can all argue about whether the Ref was blind later on down the pub.

The Capo · December 18, 2008, 14:36

Originally posted by Pitboss Greece
I want to avoid confusion about when I moved my units.
But sometimes I just want to login to see what my enemy (Rome) did.

To make clear that I did login, but didn't move anything, I post that. It may be a bit over the top, but since there have been a zillion 'double move' debates overhere I thought that it may be a good thing to post this.

Oh, okay. I was always wondering what you meant by that.

Robert Plomp · December 18, 2008, 15:32

Any ideas, Rome, on how the mistake can be made undone 'in-game', that would both acceptable by you and the Maya?

Maya, you have any ideas?

deity · December 18, 2008, 18:27

I'm just thinking that all this talk about the double move rule is spoiling things a bit.

I suggest for future games we set it up as turn based with a 1.33 hour timer (for 18 players) and players don't end turns (wait for timer). This ensures that everyone plays at the same time slot everyday (1.33 x 18 = 24)

Is this a good idea and does it work technically? I guess it has to be whole numbers of hours? (not 1.33)

Can the current game be modded to accommodate this?

The Capo · December 18, 2008, 18:40

I think the reason it is "spoiling things" is because the only time any effort to perfect it occurs is when something happens. Which will inevitably skew people's positions on the matter. As it stands now we have this Roman/Mayan thing looming over it and it is going to be painted in that picture during the debate/discussion/argument (whatever you want to call it). I think the best thing to do now is to ignore what Maya and Rome have done (whether they were right or wrong shouldnt' be discussed anymore because it happened already) and take it as a lesson learned. To me its simple; just make the rule obvious and clear. And then have a penalty. Not a major one, maybe just a voucher loss and loss of votes for that month. That way it isn't too crippling and it will be unlikely to be repeated twice by a player.

In my mind that is the best way to get over this problem now, and then ensure (as best we can) that it won't be an issue in the future. And if it happens again we'll have a quick response that won't be painted as biased by anybody.

deity · December 18, 2008, 18:40

Although my instinct is to trust to Cyber's wisdom and good judgment I'm having trouble trying to fault what Maya did.

I've got Cyber's vote so it's safe now

As I understand it Maya had auto-end turn on.

He played a turn and moved a galley with a Mace on board towards the Romans.

The turn auto-ended.

He then realised that he needed to unload his galley and afterwards on the same turn year unloaded the Mace.

Am I missing something here?

Everything he did was a single move on one turn before the 19 hour timer ended.

If I'm right let's be careful to not tie ourselves up in legal knots here.

Good faith should prevail. If I was Rome (he he) I would have not have even argued the case.

deity · December 18, 2008, 18:57

I think we run the risk of ruining military strategy if we tighten up too much on all this.

I think players should be able to log in as often as they like and move units in response to opposition moves as long as a double-move is NOT manifested.

Surely good faith can prevail here?

Turn Year 1

Player A logs in and moves some units and attacks. Logs out.

Player B logs in, responds.

Then, OPTIONALLY: Player A logs in and moves units that have not yet moved and attacks.

Then, OPTIONALLY: Player B logs in and moves units that have not yet moved and attacks.

and so on till Turn Year 1 ends. (much more fun)

Turn Year 2

Player B MUST have first go.

Player A responds etc etc.

It seems like a no brainer to me as long as we all operate on the basis of trust.

But then again the lawyers are going to have a field day with this

The Capo · December 18, 2008, 20:40

Perhaps there should be no rule at all?

deity · December 19, 2008, 00:31

Only 171 hours to go....

Robert Plomp · December 19, 2008, 04:30

@deity: I don't want to say that Maya cheated! There was just a problem. I wish he had communicated about that!

Now we need to find a solution.
The problem I have with Maya is that he's not cooperating and acting as if nothing happened.

Something happened, not too much, but now it's getting way too big.

I have no problems with ceasing all double move rules, and making some gentlemens agreement that nobody will try sneaky double moves (ie. moving at end and beginning of turn)
After all this causing headaches.

Pitboss Rome · December 19, 2008, 09:12

I can assure folks that I find the whole thing very tiresome too; I signed up to play civ not for this kind of argument.

But lets be clear. There was no ambiguity in this case. Maya has confirmed that he moved last in 1295 (moving troops off ship) and then first in 1300 before the 6 hour point, a double move which placed combat raider macemen next to a weakly defended interior city before reinforcements/interceptors could act.

If we want to say, well it doesn't really matter, or we don't like Rome so we don't mind, or you seem to have managed to cope so don't worry, fine. I have enough stress in real life to cope with that I don't need it here. Genuinely, if others want to say 'yes we see that there was a double move here, but for the sake of the game and keeping momentum going and and a stress free Christmas, can you forget it?', the answer would be yes.

But lets not pretend there was any ambiguity, it didn't make any difference, or that 'next time' is will suddenly be any clearer.

Pitboss Japan · December 19, 2008, 11:39

Lets just get ride of the rule. Between the timer and the rule that keeps popping up I have become a sad panda.

Cant we lower the timer some???

Pitboss Japan · December 19, 2008, 12:03

I have a request for either the Khmer of Holy Romans. Please burn the Inca city of Cornucopia or what ever it is called. You can’t miss it, it is the one with the Chichen Itza. And when you do please post a screen shot of it.

The Capo · December 19, 2008, 13:26

I think that the double-move issues are being exacerbated by the lack of timer going on. I think we should lower the timer to 72 hours at least. And then turn it off on Christmas Eve and Christmas. To me that is the most reasonable thing to occur.

As far as Rome saying that I am just saying nothing happened; look man, the Maya are NOT going to accept any penalty here because there was no clear defined rule to begin with, and I am not entirely sure that they actually comitted a double-move in the first place. Even if they HAD, Cybershy wanted some protection for people who did it accidentally and if they moved a ship and forgot they had to move the unit off too (which is entirely possible in a pitboss format) then why not give him the benefit of the doubt? It seems you did before and are only now attempting to get him punished for it. Obviously I am all about a penalty for breaking the rule, but I am also totally against an ex post facto ruling as well. If we had one established beforehand I'd be for it, but since we did NOT establish a penalty it is wrong to assign one now. And in the US it is unconstitutional too!

So honestly, if you guys don't want this bullshit argument to ruin the game I'd say to let it go and make a real rule.

Pitboss Rome · December 19, 2008, 14:02

I'm not going to argue Capo; I've got better things to do.

Robert Plomp · December 19, 2008, 14:19

there was a clear rule and we are trying to find a solution to repair the damage done. I have asked Maya already to propose a solution. If he doesn't answer then I can't help that. But the rule was and is clear.

Pitboss Japan · December 19, 2008, 16:30

Rome agrees with capo so lets drop this.

By the way who is subing for russia?

Pitboss Khmer · December 19, 2008, 16:54

Originally posted by Pitboss Japan
I have a request for either the Khmer of Holy Romans. Please burn the Inca city of Cornucopia or what ever it is called. You can’t miss it, it is the one with the Chichen Itza. And when you do please post a screen shot of it.

he

however we are still waiting for the Funglish to make a detailed post on the Hastings Agreement that explains the extent of this military operation.

We have a problem in that Stinca are still logging in (not always ending their turn) and moving units. They actually fought back in one case and lost an Axe.

I tried to send a mesage in the diplo screen but it comes up with "cease fire" which Khmer do not want to propose so not sure if he gets the message.

If he doesn't post and or negotiate somehow we might eliminate him...

Can anyone (Cyber?) who actually knows who the Stinca player is warm him/her?

Pitboss Japan · December 19, 2008, 18:59

He should be eliminated. Kill the Inca

Pitboss Khmer · December 19, 2008, 19:19

Originally posted by Pitboss Japan
He should be eliminated. Kill the Inca

AND in a gracious act of polticing by the Khmer, gift Cornucopia to the Japanese...

Pitboss Rome · December 20, 2008, 04:09

Rome agrees with capo

err, no. There just isn't much point going round in circles.

Pitboss Japan · December 20, 2008, 07:30

Originally posted by Pitboss Khmer

AND in a gracious act of polticing by the Khmer, gift Cornucopia to the Japanese...

I don't want it just want. Just want to see it burn

Pitboss Japan · December 20, 2008, 07:32

Originally posted by Pitboss Rome

err, no. There just isn't much point going round in circles.

err, don't care. Just trying to get it dropped could care less if you agree or not.

Robert Plomp · December 20, 2008, 14:53

I can't do much now (I'm on vacation, internet connection through cell-phone) about the Inca, but I'll see who they are when I'm home, and if needed I'll kick them and reset their password.

Perhaps Japan'd rather wants to take the Inca over?