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

[Pitboss Celts]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
if the penalties are not of a preset format then you are opening the door to discrimination and subjective decisions


such as , did that double turn actually give any advantage, is the loss of a unit worse than the loss of a worker.

such things are all dependant on the situation

if you leave it to subjective analysis the game will have to be paused while we get the lawyers in to ananlyse the situatuion and make judgments

with set penalties it is easy. break the rule you do the time.

The severity of the penalty should depend on the severity of the crime. Double moving and taking a worker should not incur the same penalty as ransacking a city.

Trying to develop a penalty for each possible infraction is ridiculous and makes this les of a game and more rules lawyering.

Thus, if a double move is performed, a penalty should be given at the time that matches the severity of the crime.

[Robert]

@MMC: Yes, please host it temporarily!
I've attached the save.

password is diplo or 0123456 or 123456 or blank.
Something like that

Good luck!
It may take up to two weeks before I'm back online
Well, right now I'm stealing my neighbours connection But it's wireless so I can't connect my server on it


edit: oops, by accident I attached the save to my other post below. remember to capitalise the extention correctly.

[Pitboss Vikings]

And so we end up with the maya / korea situation again , where as long as there is no percieved advantage there is no penalty. it becomes too subjective and those who can talk a lot and well will get off more often than those that are not gifted with the golden tongue.

[Pitboss H Roman]

Originally posted by CyberShy
password is diplo or 0123456 or 123456 or blank.
Something like that

Keys to the Kingdom! Keys to the Kingdom!



I presume you will still be able to play your turns, CS.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
if the penalties are not of a preset format then you are opening the door to discrimination and subjective decisions

Nothing is perfect.
It's a decision between two types of rule enforcing.
You are advocating the strict and preset type of enforcing.
The disadvantages are that minor mistakes can result in huge penalties.
The disadvantages of the other type of enforcing are indeed some form of debate.

But 'your type' needs much presetting. In fact you need to setup an entire set of possible situations and possible concequences. That's imho way too much for a simple game. The alternative is one punishment for every type of exploit, which may cause in huge punishments for small exploits.

I'd rather have a system where 3 random-not involved players will judge if such a situation occurs. Both parties can then make 2 posts (party A, party B, party A, party B) to make their case. Then the 3 judges decide upon the possible punishment. If problems occur more often then the 3 judges should obviously take earlier punishments into account.

If one of the parties really disagrees with the result of the 3 judges then they can call for a complete vote where all players vote if they do or don't agree with the judgement of the 3 'judges'.
If majority disagrees with the 3 judges then 3 other judges will be appointed. Then the same cycle will happen again.

That way the workload is moved to the situation where a problem occurs instead of trying to find a solution for every possible solution in advance.
But if there's a laywer among us who wants to work out an entire legal system for this game, then we can form political parties and vote for the legal system, etc. etc.
I'd say: let's focus on the game instead of that.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
And so we end up with the maya / korea situation again , where as long as there is no percieved advantage there is no penalty. it becomes too subjective and those who can talk a lot and well will get off more often than those that are not gifted with the golden tongue.

Having an advantage is not subjective.
And people who aren't very well able to defend their case can always ask someone who is to help them.

But it's very well possible that a problem will not occur and nobody will bend the rules. Then we wasted hundreds of hours on this subject while it'll never be reality.

I know that you guys are anglicans and wasted by an extreme legal system where every problem must be fixed in advance, etc.
Fortunately I'm dutch. We're a bit more relaxed. That's why we, the Dutch, are among the happiest people in the world.

I'd say: ligthen up, it's only a game.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss H Roman


Keys to the Kingdom! Keys to the Kingdom!



I presume you will still be able to play your turns, CS.

Yes.... I'll always find a way
Even if I have to connect through my phone
I've downloaded about 1GB through my cellphone last month...

[MMC]

grr... password problems again.I've tried the following (each without the ' '):

'dilpo'
'0123456'
'123456'
'blank'
' '
'admin'
''
'password'

[The Capo]

I don't think its right to give penalties based on what we THINK the advantage was. If you make one severe penalty nobody will cheat. Isn't that what we want to prevent? What's the point in trying to figure out a fitting penalty and CAUSE MORE ARGUMENTS in the process?

[Robert]

Originally posted by MMC
grr... password problems again.I've tried the following (each without the ' '):

'dilpo'
'0123456'
'123456'
'blank'
' '
'admin'
''
'password'

yeah, just tried to load it myself and bumped on the same problem
I'm trying to figure out the password as well right now.....

[Pitboss Japan]

Originally posted by CyberShy






I'd rather have a system where 3 random-not involved players will judge if such a situation occurs. Both parties can then make 2 posts (party A, party B, party A, party B) to make their case. Then the 3 judges decide upon the possible punishment. If problems occur more often then the 3 judges should obviously take earlier punishments into account.

how will these 3 parties be picked and how will you ensure that the anon civs involved don't get exposed by acident?

[Robert]

Originally posted by The Capo
I don't think its right to give penalties based on what we THINK the advantage was. If you make one severe penalty nobody will cheat. Isn't that what we want to prevent? What's the point in trying to figure out a fitting penalty and CAUSE MORE ARGUMENTS in the process?

People can screw things up in the heat of the moment. Forget about the rule. Move a few minutes too early. Are not aware that the other player didn't move yet. Are in a hurry and don't think about it. Move a unit that's not even close to an enemy unit thinking it won't harm anybody, etc. etc.

We're dealing with game-players, not with criminals who should know about their punishment in advance.

So someone screws up by accident for any of the above mentioned reasons (or maybe even a better one), then we should punish him big time only because we said to do so in advance?

It's a game. People play it out of fun. Sometimes people make mistakes. That's why I'd rather deal with it case by case instead of setting up some legal system as if we're dealing with possible criminals who should be punished.

[The Capo]

We can not have three non-involved people, because everyone is going to be involved in some way shape or form. If you do it like that Cybershy, you are guaranteeing more fighting.

[MMC]

The penalty itself should be fixed... however, whether or not we apply it, and whether or not the offender gets let off with a warning (for a first offence, perhaps), should be decided at the time.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss Japan


how will these 3 parties be picked and how will you ensure that the anon civs involved don't get exposed by acident?

How to pick them is something we have to figure out.
To not get exposed: just only let them say 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and post the punishment, if there is one.

If they keep their communications low profile that shouldn't be a problem.