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

[MMC]

Since there wasn't any unanimity when the current rule was decided upon, I don't think you have much to worry about there. Personally I'm against any kind of restriction on tech trading, although I can accept the idea behind "No Tech Brokering", even with the unfortunate 'all or nothing' approach in the game mechanics.

I still don't understand why we're punishing generosity, and yet the scavenger gets away with it. A fairer system would be to mark techs received instead of techs given.

[The Capo]

Well (sorry to piss off whoever complained about me saying this last time) I wasn't around when we discussed any of this so I have no idea what was agreed on, what was unanimous, what was voted on, or what have you.

I am on the same side as MMC; in that I agree there should be no rules against trading either way. But I am also used to the fact that none of my ideas ever get used, and this is one of those cases. It seems the group has already agreed on a voucher system which I deduce because (a) we are using the word "voucher" which indicates it was already discussed and decided and then (b) a thread was made for reporting trades.

It appears this issue arose (again) after a trade between Rome and Piercia. So I guess what is happening is yet another game issue that was (supposedly) determined before the game has come up again for debate/discussion. It looks like there are a few options here;

1) No rules, allow free trading of techs.
2) No Tech Brokering, and because this is something you can set up in the game I assume this is not one of the things we are giong to agree on (because it was never set up)
3) Regular voucher system (15 vouchers)
4) Using beakers to determine a techs value and then going from there

If there is another one I forgot, remind me. I await the people who are "in charge" of this game to tell me its "set in stone" to end the issue.

Thank you for reading this, you've wasted your time.

Come to think of it, so have I.

Ozzy, CS, Pinchak.... your audience awaits.

[Robert]

Nobody is in charge and nothing is set in stone.

Peronsally I would prefer just only 'no tech brokering'.
But the majority (who voted) voted for the voucher system.

If majority changed mind then that majority should speak up now. We can only change it now, not after we've used the voucher system for many many turns and trades.

[Robert]

Nobody is in charge and nothing is set in stone.

Peronsally I would prefer just only 'no tech brokering'.
But the majority (who voted) voted for the voucher system.

If majority changed mind then that majority should speak up now. We can only change it now, not after we've used the voucher system for many many turns and trades.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by MMC
Since it's too early in the game for you to go over whatever the stupid limit was (was it 15?), I'd suggest you trade away happily but keep a record of every detail of the trades. Then you can work out the appropriate values or whatever once people have decided what rules we're playing by.

The rules have already been decided upon. The Voucher system is in effect. We spent a great deal of time discussing it.


Personally I think 15 tech was too high a limit since the game is played on epic speed not marathon.

[Pitboss Rome]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Nobody is in charge and nothing is set in stone.

Peronsally I would prefer just only 'no tech brokering'.
But the majority (who voted) voted for the voucher system.

If majority changed mind then that majority should speak up now. We can only change it now, not after we've used the voucher system for many many turns and trades.

The Voucher system is good at preventing game spanning, game wrecking alliances. A simple rule of no tech brokering could never do that.



Perhaps Persia system should be up for consideration for future games. But how would it effect alliance dynamics?

[Pitboss Vikings]

We already nearly 4000 years inot the game only 2000 years to go.

Appears to me that alliance already made are going to last well into the rest of the game with no changes going to be made.

So this silly coucher trading system is not preventing game lasting alliances at all , you are all just fooling yourselves if you beleive this.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by Pitboss Rome



The Voucher system is good at preventing game spanning, game wrecking alliances. A simple rule of no tech brokering could never do that.



Perhaps Persia system should be up for consideration for future games. But how would it effect alliance dynamics?

It wouldn't affect them at all. I can only repeat myself, it's only a more detailled version of the voucher system, where one voucher can be containing multiple techs, as long as they are worth less or as much beakers as the (single) tech they are traded for. It's that simple.

[Pitboss Persia]

Originally posted by Pitboss Vikings
We already nearly 4000 years inot the game only 2000 years to go.

Appears to me that alliance already made are going to last well into the rest of the game with no changes going to be made.

So this silly coucher trading system is not preventing game lasting alliances at all , you are all just fooling yourselves if you beleive this.

Hehe, this is a cute one. ^^

The further we go in years, the less years will pass per turn. In the latest years, (1950+ IIRC) 1 turn = 6 month, while anything before BC means 1 turn = 25 years.

So be sure that we are far from reaching the 2/3 of the game as you may think. VERY far.

[Robert]

Just an idea: Maybe I should lock this thread and only post important messages here.

That way everyone can see very easily and quickly what really matters, like voting announcements, rule discussion results, warnings for people who forget to turn enter, etc. etc.

Then we can debate and chat in the chat thread and just use this thread for info reference.

[Pitboss Persia]

I disagree. This thread has it's purpuse for us just as for you. No need to take it all for yourself

[Robert]

Well, now we have 2 chat threads. In fact there's no difference between the Chat and the Organisation thread.... IMHO.

We can promote posts from this thread to the organization thread, if nessecary. But by closing it we just stop the needless posts and make it really informational.

[Pitboss Persia]

Thank you for telling my suggestion is needless. -_-

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Pitboss Maya


Keep in mind that other commodities can be used to even the deal, gold being the most common.

And if you are behind and don't have any "big" techs to trade, you can always trade a voucher.

I see the mentality behind using beaker values, but I fear it would cause too much confusion. Some people can barely grasp the current concept of tech trades in it's simple form.

I agree. Lets keep the tech trade rule as is.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Pitboss Persia
Thank you for telling my suggestion is needless. -_-

No, it's a very good suggestion. I want to add to it: let's close the organizational thread, and only put posts in it that really matter.

It's an addition to your suggestion.