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

[Blackdragon921]

jezz it just looked like all japan wanted was to know if it was ok for him to tae a few cities. it seems to me he was trying to avoid any problem so take it easy capo. you got to remember that unlike the rest of us japan has to fight to get full advantage of his civs traits so ust let him. i'm sure he will give reasons for starting wars i just hope he doesn't come my way.

[The Capo]

I understand I blew up, but if he wanted to use his civ's "full potential" and play a diplogame he should have picked a different civ. I get it, Japan is a militarist civilization, but this is still a diplogame. Just because you've got a trait doesn't mean you have to use it, I'm not mad at him for that though. I'm mostly just getting annoyed about all of these stupid posts and arguments that they keep having. I tried defending it at first, and took their side, but its getting to a point of utter ridiculousness. I tried to make a thread so we can get the war/turn-timer issue resolved and what'd they do? They spammed that thread too.

Its insane, I've never seen such relentlessness in spamming before. Its over the top, that's all. I don't know who Japan is, and I don't care to know, but I am assuming he is somebody I haven't really played with before. I actually have a pretty good inclination he is someone I've never played with before, I guess my main concern is that I am here to play a diplogame, not a normal MP/Conquest game, I can do that in the lobby if I wanted to.

The spamming has pissed off so many people, and yeah you're right Toni, I should just ignore these threads. But I don't want to be forced into that just because these two want to have some endless discussion. And for two guys who commented in another thread that they don't have that much time to devote to the game, they sure post a lot.

[Blackdragon921]

i know you want to resalve the war/timer rule but we already took care of that when we first started. the rule has been in place from the begining and from the looks of your voting chart that rule wont be changing so why get so worked up about it? just go with what was decided in the beginning and all this drama will no longer exsist.

@cyber i like the what capo set up the voting for the rule change. is there a way we can do that for the monthly voteing too??

[Robert]

I don't think so.
It's impossible to track if people voted for themselves, if people who aren't playing vote, if people vote with both their anon and their real account, etc.

[Blackdragon921]

i hope that we can all be honerable people and not do a dick thing like vote for ourselves or vote multiple times. i think next month we should try it and see of everyone plays ball and does the right thing or not.

[Robert]

We can't control non-players who vote, neither can we be sure that nobody voted for themselves.

Not to mention that we won't be able to figure out who voted for who at all, impossible to give up reasons for your votes, nor a difference between your #1, #2 and #3 vote.

I'm thinking about creating a tool for voting, like I created a tool to pick your civ in the right order. But first I need to move some boxes to my new house

[Blackdragon921]

i understand. i hope the move goes well for you cyber. maybe we could try to find a way to solve those problems when your settled in.

[The Capo]

@ Blackdragon; I was actually one of the people who voted to keep the rule the same, I didn't put the thread up to argue about it, I put the thread up so there was another place to argue about it other than the organization thread.

We can't really do our monthly voting there (although that would be WAY easier) because its an Apolyton thing and there are 18 players and three rankins for each, so it would require 54 slots (it only holds 24 slots total) and even then we wouldnt' really be able to tell who voted because people who aren't in the game could vote and people who ARE in the game could actually vote twice if they wanted to and would not be able to vote three times (which they would need to). But I do like the idea of a website of some sort we could establish to do it instead. Which is not out of the question, we've had websites before, and we've held "elections" before in diplogames, but it might prove a lot more difficult to to set up a rated/ranked website.

@ Everyone else; sorry I've been so pissy (to my English friend I mean irritable, not drunk, although I have been drunk too) lately, I've been going through some **** in RL and then on top of that I think this diplogame is very unweildy and doesn't feel the same like other diplogames, its probably the pitboss part. And its been a little disappointing that nobody seems to want to play anything but pitboss games, even though I think they are plagued with problems. We'll see though, and I'll try not to explode on people. I just think this spamming/"thread-Nazi" issue is getting out of hand, and I think it will effect gameplay. That was the point of anonymous play, and I know some of us are not anonymous (Ozzy, Raz, Myself, MMC?) but some of us can't help that (everyone knows who the Metalheads were gonna be, I came in later so we all knew who I would be etc.) but we should at least try and maintain an objective approach, and that's why I'm worried about the arguing, and my reaction to it probably didn't help, but its irritating to me.

[Robert]

I suggest that we stop suggeting new suggestions.
let's play the game within the current rules.

I'm sure that we can come up with better ideas and better rules into eternity, but it has to stop one day.
I'm really not looking forward to a 14+months game with ongoing arguments about rules and ideas.

So let's all agree to stop debating the rules.
If something comes up that really needs a debate we can always make an exception for that.

Everyone who agrees says: aye

[Robert]

aye

[Blackdragon921]

aye

[Toni]

aye captain!

[MMC]

[The Capo]

Aye.

But there is nothing wrong with talking about it in a seperate thread, and that's why I made the thread. Also shouldn't it be debated for future games too? Which is again, why I made another thread. You complain about the arguments in this thread, and then when I make another one to talk about it you complain about that. I don't get it. If you only wanted to keep the discussion out of this thread then I have done what you wanted me to do. The thread is there to discuss the issue, that's it. We aren't going to change the rule, that isn't the intention right now, if you read the first post you would understand this.

I don't get how you two guys can't understand what I've done, but that seems to be the case.

[MMC]

I don't think you need to worry too much, Capo... I see it as the kind of false-positive you sometimes get with a spam filter:
Cyber and co are just so tired of seeing post after post on the same topic (which never seem to agree with each other), that they miss the one useful post out of 20 and accidently complain about 'more of the same'.

I'll admit I may have exaggerated a bit, but I hope you see my point.