Beyond the Pit [Pitboss Diplomacy Thread] [Warfare-Turn Timer Issue Discussion]

[MMC]

Why do you even use caps lock? The only use I've ever found for it (when typing) is when I want to type a whole sentence in caps (very rare indeed), or occasionally when I'm dealing with complex chemical formulae. For everything else, the <shift> key works well enough.

Of course, when I'm using a PDA or similar device (like now), I'll use caps lock as there is no shift button to hold down (or rather it doesn't stay down). Even then I can tell the difference between a capital letter and a lower case letter. Although, since I don't drink, I can't really comment on the ability of alcohol to decimate your IQ.

[The Capo]

As an experienced drunk-typer; normally being drunk results in an inability to do everything correctly, I think you still know when you are writing in all caps when drunk. Its more a matter of whether or not you care or whether or not you WANT to. Typos are probably more likely because you are less likely to reread or realize you have made a spelling mistake.

You may think typing in all caps is a better idea when you are drunk as opposed to when you are not.

But I don't think he said he was drunk.

[Pitboss Japan]

i'm at work rewriting locations for items we have in the warehouse. so between looking at apoly and doing my job without my boss( who is right behind me) catching me i tend to forget to take it off.

[Robert]

I simply said we lost a player because of it. And we did lose a player because of it. And you keep saying the Mayans didn't gain anything so it wasn't an exploit. They got a worker.

They didn't lost the worker because of the 'double move'.
The lost the worker later with a 'single move'.
And he didn't leave because he lost the worker. He left because the Mayans putted military pressure upon him to accept a border-proposal.

but you were the most vocal against it

I wasn't against the posts.
I just was confused because you guys took my example and started an debate over it.

AND posts WERE deleted. And regardless of what you deleted was spam or not, and sometimes it wasn't, it was still deleted and people still complained about it.

I haven't deleted anything in weeks.

Just because you think they're wrong about it doesn't make MY statement any less true.

It's not less true, it's completely untrue.
I haven't deleted any posts, neither spam or content-posts. Nor did I have a problem with you posting those posts. I just wanted to make clear that I didn't post that line to debate it, but as an example.

- You claim that discussing this issue hurts the game, I think that deleting people's posts about it, calling it spam, and then saying they shouldn't even have a seperate thread for it is more harmful to the game than simply discussing it.

I've never said that.
The Capo, you are all the time jumping to conclusions.

You've got to give an avenue of dissent to people or their dissent will become worse.

The spammers got the spam thread, you are free to have this thread. You're even free to debate this issue in the org thread.

You're just missing my point, you don't understand me at all, but you keep on talking to me based on what you think that I did or said, not on what I actually said or did.

If you don't let people talk about an issue they disagree with THAT will ruin the game.

I never have NEVER not let people talk about it.
I have advised to just not debate about anything and everything all the time into eternity. Can't I voice that opinion?

people will think they don't get a say and people will take it personally towards you.

Those people are crazy.
I cannot have the opinion that we shouldn't talk about it? And voice that opinion?

Just put yourself in Raz' shoes. If Raz went around telling you to stop spamming threads when you were trying to bring up a game issue you thought needed more discussion you'd be pretty sour at him too.

The spam issue was never about rule-debates. It was about the Japan/Oldonian: "I am going to kill you" "no I am going to kill you" "I hate you" "no I hate you" threads.

The Capo, you have no idea what you are talking about. Nevertheless you keep on talking about it. (typing)

[Pitboss Vikings]

Originally posted by CyberShy


They didn't lost the worker because of the 'double move'.
The lost the worker later with a 'single move'.
And he didn't leave because he lost the worker. He left because the Mayans putted military pressure upon him to accept a border-proposal.

you fail to see that the double move caused the whole issue.

Korea protested the move and awatied the community to take action.

due to the double move the korean player panicked and attacked with his only warrior and lost. silly yes but understnadable when you panic because some one broke the rules.

now it is the mayans outside your capital with a warrier applying pressure.

if the community had balls the turn would have been redone and the korean would stil lbe here.

how on earth can maya with one warrier apply pressure to korea. only because the double turn caused an advantage.

The community demnaded the worker be returned immedialty this was not done and the korean finally left.

please stop denying the advantage he got, the mayans broke a rule and no matter what the community decided delayed the worker return.

[Pitboss Spain]

Why is there this discussion now and not before the game? We agreed to rules before the game started and we should adhere to them. I am getting sick of all this childish behaviour by a few players who want the game run on their terms. You had the chance to speak out, but it is too late now. As such we do not need this discussion.

[Robert]

due to the double move the korean player panicked and attacked with his only warrior and lost. silly yes but understnadable when you panic because some one broke the rules.

laywer talk.
No rule was broken since the Maya didn't benefit from the double move. period.

It would've been different if the Maya would've attacked using their 2nd move.
There's no reason to panic in a pitboss game where you have 8 hours to think your moves through.

Sure the Koreans panniced, but that's not an argument in their defense.
The confusion that followed was the problem.

The Coreans posted: "Well, so far this game for me" or something like that. I assumed that he had already lost his (only) city. But he only assumed that he would lose it next turn.

Because I thought he lost his only city I promised to reload the game. (nobody will be exterminated in this game, that's why).

While he waited for my reload the Mayans took his worker (next turn). (not b/c of a double-move benefit but just b/c of single move).

When I found out he didn't lose his city but only his warrior because of his own move (not a Maya double move) I saw no reason to reload the turn. (I want to limit reloading to only those cases where there is no other solution, otherwise we may find ourselves reloading all the time).

Since the Mayans promised to return the worker the case was closed for me.

That's where things went wrong. The Mayans kept promising to return the worker but didn't return it in fact. We waited to long to indeed pause the game and force the Mayans.

I think that the Mayans have promised to return it 3-5 times, 2 times in private to me. With the knowledge we have now we should have force the Mayans earlier to return the game by pausing it. I believed them, that was the problem.

But the double-move has never been a part of the problem.
It was only enlarged into a huge problem by those who apparantly try to make something big out of the very small things.

The double move was never big, the Mayans didn't got any benefit from it, neither did it hurt the Koreans. Period. That he paniced doesn't change that.

Even today I would say that such a double move is only against the rules if you're a laywer seeking for anything to hit the Mayans.

What I had against the mayans is that they exploited the confusion that occured and wasn't willing to cooperate despite it's promises.

The confusion did not occur because of the double move but because the Koreans made a stupid attack and had a defenseless city, then they assumed that he was out of the game.

[Pitboss Vikings]

no amount of argument is ever going to persuade either of us to change opinions. so will leave it there. you know i believe it was a cheat. you feel it wasnt.

this is why it is vital to reveal all players at end of game so we can assess who we wish to play with next game. Those that are happy with players actions can do so, those that arent can choose not to.

same for those that dont like me, dont play with me next time.

[Robert]

no amount of argument is ever going to persuade either of us to change opinions. so will leave it there. you know i believe it was a cheat. you feel it wasnt.

You can persuade me with good arguments.
"Korea paniced" is not a good argument.

I really can't see how my "it didn't benefit the Mayans" argument is not a good argument.

I get the idea that you don't base your opinion on facts but on a feeling. You just want that the Mayans have exploited the game. If I'm incorrect then just tell me your opinion on the arguments I gave and tell me why the "Korea paniced" argument is a good one.

[The Capo]

Cybershy cybershy cybershy

Again, just like I said you did before, you did one of those quote by quote things and took everything I said out of context to make your argument more impressive. That's fine, people can still read my original thread, but here's something NOT out of context that you said.

But the double-move has never been a part of the problem.
It was only enlarged into a huge problem by those who apparantly try to make something big out of the very small things.

The double move was never big, the Mayans didn't got any benefit from it, neither did it hurt the Koreans. Period. That he paniced doesn't change that.

Even today I would say that such a double move is only against the rules if you're a laywer seeking for anything to hit the Mayans.

What I had against the mayans is that they exploited the confusion that occured and wasn't willing to cooperate despite it's promises.

The confusion did not occur because of the double move but because the Koreans made a stupid attack and had a defenseless city, then they assumed that he was out of the game.

Alright, that is your statement at the end of your diatribe. Here is why its wrong/why there are people (Raz mostly) who disagree with the way that was handled; The double-move may not have been "the problem" as you call it, but that isn't what he is saying. He's saying the double-move can be USED TO START PROBLEMS like it did here! Then you say it wasn't "big," but there are two issues here; the first is that yeah it wasn't big but a precedent is set that you CAN do it and get away with it in certain circumstances, and secondly he stole a worker by doing something that wasn't supposed to happen! You can't just say, well it wasn't a huge advantage so it wasn't an exploit, it totally was an exploit, Korea moved into position where a worker was taken and they had the chance to take a capital due to the double-move, and you sit there and try and say it wasn't an exploit? Are you high? Then you say "Even today I would say that such a double move is only against the rules if you're a laywer seeking for anything to hit the Mayans." That is simply stupid CS. If you break the rules there should be consequences, and you said he broke the rules yourself. That is why Raz is upset, and that's why I keep arguing with you. I like the rule as it stands, but what I don't like is having a straw-man for a rule. If its a rule it should be enforceable, otherwise its just a suggestion.

And this is in no way an attack on the Maya, as they HAVE returned the worker since this incident and are now Korea's ally.

[Robert]

If something invalid comes from something valid, then that valid something doesn't become invalid.

The double move was obviously the start of the crap. But that doesn't make the double-move rule the problem. I don't think that the Mayans really broke the rules. Maybe it was bad form at most.

I doubt that we would've ever heard of the double move if the Korean Warrior would've killed the Mayan warrior. But Korea decided to attack first, then when he lost and had no defense anymore in his city he decided to make an issue about it. That's what happened.

The problem was not that we didn't enforce rule that was broken. We did nevertheless not deal very well with the things that followed. I've learned from that. Next time I won't believe someone on his blue eyes for 5 times in a row without pausing the game.

[The Capo]

I am not saying you are totally wrong in this, but I am saying this whole thing would have been avoided if the double rule had some teeth to back it up. If there was no double move made the Korean player would have nothing to complian about, but that isnt' how it went down. You can't pick and choose events, I agree that the Korean player should not have quit, nobody is arguing that. But incident a DID cause incident b to occur, whether or not you like it, or whether or not it fits into your logic that is what in fact occured.

I don't know why it is so difficult for you to see the argument I am making, all I am saying is this; if we put a PENALTY on the rule then we can be assured it will be followed, there's no reason to discuss it on a case by case basis because it shouldnt' happen in the first place. If it never happens there won't be fights about it, its that damn simple. If you want to stop the debate make a damn penalty. But you'd rather stick to your points and prove you are right because the glorious majority isnt' saying anything. **** the majority, the majority is usually stupid, keep the rule just make a penalty for it. That's all you have to do and the issue is done.

[Pitboss Japan]

Just out of curiosity what is the penalty for breaking the double move/ war timer rule?????

[The Capo]

There doesn't appear to be one. Either that or they reload the game, which effects everyone.

[Robert]

I'd say we let that depend on the situation.
If the other player really gets a backlash from the double move we reload.

If it's not that bad we can just let it go with a warning.
And if it's bad we could disallow any votes for that player for one month, ie.

But if you guys want a clear punishment, fine with me.
My opinion is that we should be a bit relax on the issue and not punish a small problem with a huge penalty.