Tweet
Amen
P.S I hope this gets resolved quickly and both parties grow over this issue. Do not forget we play for FUN!
P.S I hope this gets resolved quickly and both parties grow over this issue. Do not forget we play for FUN!
-
-
Beta
The double move rule needs only apply when declaring war or at war.
whip[lash
*Declaration of WarDouble moves are the bane of PitBoss. They should be prohibited during wartime or DoW*.
Igloodude
A rule which might be helpful to everyone is "No DMing as part of a war declaration". In other words, one cannot have two moves and a declaration of war on another player in between that player's two logins. This has the advantage of preventing the most balance-tipping sort of DM (an invasion when the defending player doesn't even know he's at war), is relatively easy to avoid (no question of variable login schedules - if one cannot abide by it, one simply does not declare war that turn), and is relatively easy for the game administrator to judge - and a reload back to the end of the DMing player's second turn is probably readily done. On the flip side, it doesn't require ongoing schedule coordination between two warring players (unless they agree on that first turn to their own private no-DM agreement for the remainder of their war).
Snoopy369
Don't forget to include the turn BEFORE the war as well as the turn of the war - as opposed to what was posted a few posts above. Double moving to start a war is really worse than doing it during a war.
Pinchak
The same goes with the "double move" exploit. Without spelling out a specific rule there will come a time when someone gets screwed by a double move and the accused offender pleads that he didn't do it intentially. This WILL happen. The solution is again to spell out for everyone what the "self control" is.
Therefore I would like to put the following rule on the table for voting. EIGHT HOUR RULE: If you find yourself the last to play a turn (thus causing it to flip) you cannot declair
war or attack a unit for 8 hours after ending that turn.
bamf266
I like the 8 hour timetable, but I think it should extend to anyone declaring war and during the war.Last edited by Robert; March 2, 2009, 19:55.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
A few responses to the Roman position. I don't like doing the quote and response posts, but I need to in this sitaution:
First of all, it is in poor form to suggest that expedience is more important that getting the game going correctly. As I have stated before part of Cyber's own rule on this subject (which if you read it you will find I am fully in compliance with, while he is not) is being utilized here, he says that a reload, if found to beappropriate DEPENDING ON THE MINDSET/ACTIONS OF THE VIOLATOR (in this case himself) would occur. The entirety of my war relies on strategy, I am weaker than his country. I am more backward than his country. I don't have the resource wealth or the economic superiority his country boasts, so within the rules I have found the best possible strategy for me to gain a victory. By attempting to punish me for doing so is more ruinous to diplogames than him losing a Great Engineer. That is part of my strategy. I made every effort to make sure I did not break the rules, and I stick by that. All we are doing is allowing him to break his own rules in order to gain some small advantage over me. This is wholly wrong, and for a host to do this is very disappointing.Originally posted by Pitboss Rome View Post
Cyber has done much for the diplogaming community, he has organized (nearly on his own) anonymous play, he has organized seperate e-mail accounts and has hosted the game. These are all good things. But simply because of those actions, he should NOT have cart blanche over everything else. Being the host does not make him the end-all be-all of rules. He can not unilaterally decide to break his own rule simply to save a unit. The very fact that this is even up for debate is sickening to me.
You are only being asked to recreate your moves and decisions because of Cyber, there is no other way around this fact. He broke his rule, I did not. He is completely to blame right now.
The issue is not clear because he refused to clarify it. Despite the constant insistance on the part of players who are still in the game, and players who are no longer in the game he refused to refine and clarify a rule that is no doubt going to cause contention. The very nature of war is personal, I knew this the entire time which is why I pushed for REAL rules and REAL ramifications. Because otherwise the two sides can not see the possible error in their ways. I assure you I hold the ability to realize when I am erring, and in this situation I am not at all. What he is doing is wrong, and if he says he doesn't think it is, he is a liar. He ignored it handily, he is to blame for this impasse. Not me.2. The arguments made in favour and against on here on the double move issue aren't getting us very far. The 'sides' you might expect are being repeated; I won't bother to add my voice but its fairly predictable. Lets be honest (a) its because the issue isn't clear - i can certainly see both sides and (b) none of us are objective - the are IG reasons for various of us supporting on side or another.
It is ludicrous for you to suggest that an advocation for either side can not be made. What type of justice is this? If we do agree on, what you and others may consider an "impartial" third party they are likely already biased anyway. On top of that the inability to make one's case, in my mind, is unfair and against the concept of true justice. I don't understand why you think we should not be allowed to make arguments. That makes absolutely no sense. Besides that, how can a third party TRULY establish what occured without talking to the parties involved?Suggestion
We get someone who is not playing to simply decide what should happen. Quickly. Whatever they decide someone is going to be very unhappy, but that's life. The best we can do to save the game and so those of us who aren't involved don't get too fed up is find a way of resolving this quickly and decisively, and that means a person, who isn't playing, deciding. And that being final.
The facts are easy to realize. I did not double move during war. I moved when I could, just like everyone else does. We did not, from the onset of this game, decide that certain players had to move in a certain order. The only rule there was was that, during war, adversaries had to go in turns. And we made rules (such as the six hour rule) to ensure this occured fairly. What Cyber did was unilaterally decide that he gets to change this rule simply for his own benefit and without disregard for the integrity of the game. That type of false authority is damaging to the nature of a diplogame. This is more important than your ability to move quicker, or your ability to redecide your decisions. This is fundamental to Diplogaming. The very fact that you are now going to reconsider a decision you made because of this is indicative of your own character and integrity; NO WRONG WAS DONE TO CYBER, but he blatantly broke his own rule for his own self-benefit. Looking at it any other way is a clear case of bias. I disagree with basically everything you said.Last edited by The Capo; March 2, 2009, 23:03."Our cause is in the hands of fate. We can not guarantee success. But we can do something better; we can deserve it." -John Adams
One Love.Comment
-
I must also say that none of Cyber's posts in favor of his act have anything to do with a diplogame format, nor do they pertain to what occured in this situation. He asked that things be treated on a case by case basis, and so should this.
Besides all of that, there is no reason we have to accept these claims either."Our cause is in the hands of fate. We can not guarantee success. But we can do something better; we can deserve it." -John Adams
One Love.Comment
-
This did not occur. I moved first, declared war on you. No attack occured and you had every opportunity to respond in the same turn. The rest of your quotes have nothing to do with this, as I declared war on you BEFORE you played your turn. So stop your crap and reload the game.A rule which might be helpful to everyone is "No DMing as part of a war declaration". In other words, one cannot have two moves and a declaration of war on another player in between that player's two logins. This has the advantage of preventing the most balance-tipping sort of DM (an invasion when the defending player doesn't even know he's at war), is relatively easy to avoid (no question of variable login schedules - if one cannot abide by it, one simply does not declare war that turn), and is relatively easy for the game administrator to judge - and a reload back to the end of the DMing player's second turn is probably readily done. On the flip side, it doesn't require ongoing schedule coordination between two warring players (unless they agree on that first turn to their own private no-DM agreement for the remainder of their war).
EDIT: to clarify my meaning, since this quote is not clear (as all of his are) I played a regular peace-time turn. The "invading army" was in the same exact position it was for the last two terms, there was no advantage gained at all. And he is claiming there was.Last edited by The Capo; March 2, 2009, 23:14."Our cause is in the hands of fate. We can not guarantee success. But we can do something better; we can deserve it." -John Adams
One Love.Comment
-
Seems pretty clear to me.Civilizations that are at war have to wait 6 hours after the new turn started after their last move. When all opponents have moved before those 6 hours have passed the player can move as again well.
1630: No war
1635: Korea moves first and declares war (rule goes into affect simultaneously with the declaration of war)
1635: Greece moves after Korea and thus must wait 6 hours the next turn or wait for Korea to play their move first the following turn)
Considering Greece violated HIS OWN RULE by moving first in 1640, a reload is defiantly in order. Technically, since Greece knew this was a violation of HIS OWN RULE, and it is now holding up the game, I would motion for a penalty against his vote points for the month of February.
And now on a separate note... why on earth would Maya, who is not at war with anyone, be obligated to move ships or any units back to a previous location???
I swear you make this stuff up as you go along. Not that it comes as any surprise to me... I wrote an entire piece on it, which you Cyber (or Ozzy?) decided to delete.
Maybe I wasn't a crazy paranoid lunatic after all for writing that infamous post. The exact message of that post is clearly playing out in this situation.Comment
-
This is turning into a real bore! We had a 6hr rule so keep it. It's clearly stated in the game briefing. I do not agree with stretching it to 8hrs as were the war to involve a transatlantic confrontation 1 party could be placed at a huge disadvantage. I work and cannot gain access to the game for 10hrs, at least, on a normal weekday. Were I to find myself at war with an american palyer I could easily find myself missing turns which would be fatal in a wartime situation. It is clearly, to me, wrong to change the rules to fit a particular situation or else I could cry foul over almost anything and demand 3rd party arbitration. It is nonsense!
I realise that 'stab in the back' type of attacks are not considered good form in diplogames but there is nothing outlawing them. Korea pulled a fast one and betrayed Greece. To me as 'Lord of all the Slavs' in game it is a disgrace and I will condemn it! To me as a player I regard it as simply the continuation of diplomacy by other means. It may be against the 'spirit of the game' but it is not debarred and as a player of a weaker power I could easily find myself in the same position. If I have to give ample warning of hostile intent before launching war I would need to remain perpetually hostile to everyone so that, if needed, I could stick the knife in. As a lesser power how could I give Sparta, Maya. Khmer, Portugal, etc 'fair warning' and yet still hope to succeed? There is a huge imbalance of play here, result of history OK, between the great and the weak. Very soon we will see Infantry facing Maceman and Destroyer against Frigate and with those odds how can a weaker nation hope to ever better herself? I know that victory counts only as 25% of pts but for a game to be fun you must be able to actually do something rather than just accept that only a convention against utter destruction allows you to exist at all!
I am also against another re-load. This has now gone too far and actually affects my position. I have made decisions and adopted policies that I cannot retract. I am placed at a huge disadvantage, again with a greater power, if I am not able to place troops in a suitable position and make my demands upon the same turn so that, if needed, I can use those troops to do what I threaten upon the start of the next. To replay the turn means that rather than negotiate from a position of strength I cannot negotiate at all. You cannot just have selective amnesia on a repetitive basis - it cannot work!
So please can we just play the Turn and get on with things!“Quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur”
- AnonComment
-
And now on a separate note... why on earth would Maya, who is not at war with anyone, be obligated to move ships or any units back to a previous location???
1. you don't have to do that by game rules at all. Let me be clear about that.
2. If you're not going to declare war at me, I'm fine and I will obviously not ask you to do anything.
3. If you do want to wage war at me, then I ask you to pause your move west by 2 turns for the reasons I have stated.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
The Capo, you keep repeating that you have not broken the rule witout addressing my aruments. You even say that I did not "clarify"
I have posted 100 clarification posts. Do you no see my posts?
The '6 hours' is not being debated. I Just post very old posts from the beginning of this game when we created this rule. Back then we had '8 hours', that's changed later.
This is not about the 6 or 8 hours, this is about when te double-move rule starts. It's clear from those quotes that we intended it to start with the declaration of war which should not be a double move in itself.
This discussion is not about backstabbing.
Maya, you once again post a post without addressing my issues at all.
Are you guys just posting your own arguments without reading mine at all?Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
Dear Capo, let's be honest, you don't understand my arguments at all, do you?EDIT: to clarify my meaning, since this quote is not clear (as all of his are) I played a regular peace-time turn. The "invading army" was in the same exact position it was for the last two terms, there was no advantage gained at all. And he is claiming there was.
Please first try to understand me. If two people debate they first must undestand each other's position, otherwise it'll be pointless.
Giving that you don't address my arguments at all (And neither does Ozzy or Maya) I think that you don't even consider them at all.
It's pointless to debate with people who don't understand, try to understand or consider arguments raised by the other at all.
I believe that I have given very very good arguments, and as long as you don't address them, they stand tall. And I'm not going to continue to debate untill you have addressed them. Continueing to repeat your vision is not a dialogue but a monologue.
I've also proven by my many quotes that I am not alone in this vision. 3 players in this game have stated the same when we created this rule (among which is Pinchak).
So I am done with this debate untill someone starts addressing my arguments.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
Suggestion for a post to ask non-involved apolyton-members for their opinion.
The Capo: please let me know if you disagree with the way I have formulated your point of view.
--------------------------------
Hello fellow civ4-multiplayers,
We have a dispute in our game about the 'double move rule'.
Since we are not able to settle it we wish to hear the opinion of non-involved people.
The situation:
Civ X is accusing Civ Y of breaking our Double Move Rule.
This is how the rule has been formulated in our game-rules:
This is what happened- 6 hours time between moving during war-time
Civilizations that are at war have to wait 6 hours after the new turn started after their last move. When all opponents have moved before those 6 hours have passed the player can move as again well.
Thus, a civ at war can move after:
- 6 hours have passed since the new turn started after his last move
- all his opponents have moved after his last move
Action A. 1630 Civ X moves
Action B. 1630 Civ Y moves
Action C. 1635 Civ Y declares war and moves
Action D. 1635 Civ X moves
Now I will try to explain both positions.
First the position of the accuser (Civ X)
1. According to the game rules a double move is not allowed during war-time. Action C (1635: Civ Y declares war and moves) is a war-move and a double move.
2. The rules are not clear about the fact if both moves of the 'double move' have to be during war-time to be illegal, or if is already illegal if only the 2nd move (the 'double move') happens during wartime.
The rules just say 'during wartime'.
Therefore we should look at the debates we when we created this rule.
Some quotes from back then, months ago:
snoopy369:
Don't forget to include the turn BEFORE the war as well as the turn of the war - as opposed to what was posted a few posts above. Double moving to start a war is really worse than doing it during a war.
Pinchak:
The same goes with the "double move" exploit. Without spelling out a specific rule there will come a time when someone gets screwed by a double move and the accused offender pleads that he didn't do it intentially. This WILL happen. The solution is again to spell out for everyone what the "self control" is.
Therefore I would like to put the following rule on the table for voting. EIGHT HOUR RULE: If you find yourself the last to play a turn (thus causing it to flip) you cannot declair
war or attack a unit for 8 hours* after ending that turn.
*ignore the '8' in hours, that has been changed later into 6.
bamf266
I like the 8 hour timetable, but I think it should extend to anyone declaring war and during the war.
When you read that discussion back then you see that *nobody* argued wat snoopy / pinchak / bamf266 said. Apparently everybody agreed.
We just formulated it poorly.
But the idea behind the rule always was: avoid advantage for any player during wartime by exploiting game mechanics.
The double-move thing is a game mechanic exploit. In normal civ players play turn-based. During peace time it is no problem if people 'double move' but during war time we wanted to avoid game mechanic advantages
3. Player Y got an advantage vs Player X when he 'double moved'.
If Player X would have moved before Player Y then his Great Engineer would have been safe (because of the natural direction the GE was walking to). But now Player Y moved first the Great Engineer could become a pray for player X.
Thus: the double move gave an unfair advantage to player Y during wartime.
Which is at least against the spirit of the Double Move rule.
Conclusion:
1. Player Y's double move was a war-move
2. eventhough the game rule isn't clear the setup-discussion of the rule back in may 2008 makes clear that we intended this rule to apply on a declaration of war as well.
3. Player y got an unfair advantage because of game mechanics which is at least against the spirit of the game.
proposed solution:
The Great Engineer was 'bumped' out of Player Y's territory to the east. (Player X is on the west).
If Player X would have moved first the great engineer would've been able to move 6 tiles west (roads) and would've reached Player X's territory.
But now the GE was bumped to the east, the GE became an easy pray for civ Y. He effectually had 2 chances to kill him! (b/c of mountains / hills / water)
Player Y screwed up his first chance (as he admitted himself) but made himself ready to kill him at chance (turn) 2.
Player X said: "Double move! but I can fix things by moving my Great Engineer before Player Y into a safe zone, which will fix all problems." and did so.
Thus Player X suggests now to keep things like they are because the double-move of player Y has been fixed by Player X's double move.
Summary:
1630: Player X moves
1630: Player Y moves
1635: Player Y moves
1635: Player X moves
1640: Player X moves
1640: Player Y moves
Player X says: things are fixed now.
---------------------------------------------
Now the position of Player Y:
1. There was no double move because turn 1630 was not during wartime.
The rules say that double moving is only prohibited during wartime and only 1635 was wartime, 1630 was not.
2. Player Y had no advantage because Player X would not have known about the upcoming war anyway.
3. Player X has double moved during wartime by moving his Great Engineer into a safe spot. Therefore we should reload the game at the turn of the double-move of Player X and give me the chance to kill the Great Engineer.
----------------------------------------------
So now the question to you guys:
Who is right, Player X or Player Y
Should the Great Engineer be killed by a reload, or was Player X right to bring his great engineer to a safe spot.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
I fear that you guys are hijacking the game; this is just not fair for the rest of us. It will be really annoying if we reload the game AGAIN.
I see both parties at fault here.
1st Capo doing that double move, yes I agree with Capo that nothing was gained by doing that. His army was already there for some turns. But why the hell would you do that knowing very well that Sparta will call you on this as a double move. You should have seen it coming.
2nd CyberShy by purposely breaking the rule, the next turn just to make it even. Not to be biased here, but CyberShy was the one to benefit from the actual double move when he moved. From what I understand that was done to save a great engineer. Capo you say that your invading army was there already and nothing wrong was done. Ok I believe you, but what about that Great Engineer when you double moved did you actually position units closer to be able to take the guy out? If so that is violation. And I understand if Cyber double moved just to move him out of harms way. But Capo if you did not, in order for Cyber to make it right he will need to disable the Great Person.
Please could we come to a resolution so we can continue playing.
Last edited by Pitboss Portugal; March 3, 2009, 08:50.Comment
-
Portugal: if I would've moved first my great engineer would have been safe.
It has nothing to do with purpose or not, but I fear that there has been purpose by The Capo. Especially since he is now making such a big deal of the GE. But that can of course never be proven.
That's why these things should not be about 'purposes' or 'knowing' or 'planning' or 'intentions'.
We just have clear rules. And if The Capo had a double move, then he made a wrong, and in that case I have made it right again with my double move.
Case Closed, imho.Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento MoriComment
-
I hope this explains it.
Comment
-
Oh, you should know that this all has been planned by Korea!
We made a deal that I could walk my engineer through Korea. He knew my GE was there.
He even built roads to the east for my GE.
I thought that was kind of him!!!!! (to help my GE to move faster to Sparta!)
But now it appears that he could use those roads very well to kill me GE.
I can't proof this, of course. I still stand firm that rules have nothing to do with intentions and plans. But if people think that that should be incorporated: fine with me.
Korea was very aware of my GE in his territory! We even made a deal for it. Like we made a army-gift deal and a frigate deal.Comment
Comment