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

[OzzyKP]

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.

Who? Well I don't know the apolyton community at all. So I suggest that Ozzy (who clearly does, and who has expressed fairly neutral views on here) appoints someone. And that person decides. No 'presentations' online to that person, turning the thing into some sort of debate when all of us just want to get on playing, no arguements about whether the person Ozzy chooses isnt impartial, no arguments afterwards about whether their judgement was fair. No requirement that they explain why - indeed I would prefer they didn't because their explanation will only then be discussed ad nausiam. They just say what should happen.

(Sorry Ozzy to land you with this without asking, but I think we just need to get somewhere fast.)

As I saw no objection to this suggestion I will find an impartial arbiter. I will neutrally present both sides of the dispute and PM this person. This person will be someone whose views, I believe, are respected by both sides.

[Pitboss Celts]

Do all diplo games devolve into this cat fight? If so, I'll not be playing another. It's a ****ing game for crying out loud. Just play and quit whining about what happened. If you want to be pissed at someone for backstabbing or whatever then so be it. I'd be pissed too because I'm entirely too trusting of my allies. Backstabbing is a game strategy though. It's bound to happen to someone. Accept it and move on.

[Robert]

Celts, in every game there are disputes. board games, card games, both online and offline.
We just have to deal with that.

The discussion is not about the backstabbing. it is about the possible breaking of a rule.

@Ozzy: I want to present my own position, like I have done a few post earlier. I get the idea that you don't understand my position and can therefore not present it. And I'd say: just post it as a seperate thread in the poly-mp community. Not just a few arbiters. We need as many views as possible, preferably at least 5-7. 1 arbiter is not a good idea. Just do it like Ming did recently. Post it in public.

[Pitboss Celts]

Don't know about anyone else, but I've never seen any game played by ADULTS resolve to this type of bickering.

[OzzyKP]

Celts, in every game there are disputes. board games, card games, both online and offline.
We just have to deal with that.

The discussion is not about the backstabbing. it is about the possible breaking of a rule.

@Ozzy: I want to present my own position, like I have done a few post earlier. I get the idea that you don't understand my position and can therefore not present it. And I'd say: just post it as a seperate thread in the poly-mp community. Not just a few arbiters. We need as many views as possible, preferably at least 5-7. 1 arbiter is not a good idea. Just do it like Ming did recently. Post it in public.

That will simply end in endless bickering. This needs to be resolved quickly and impartially. You and Capo, for obvious reasons, have a very biased view of the situation. I have read both your arguments and am able to summarize both impartially.

[Pitboss Maya]

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.

I address your argument, and you are correct in that I don't consider it. A rule was written, BY YOU, and now that it puts you in a position of disadvantage you want to argue against your own rule.

Just because you call it a double move, doesn't make it one. You can post all the quotes you want, draw little diagrams, and flood the thread with your "position", but that does not change the fact that the rule is written in black and white (by you) and does not back your current argument. END OF DEBATE.

I believe that I have given very very good arguments, and as long as you don't address them, they stand tall.

I agree with your argument. It however does not change the rule that was written by you. I think YOU are the one missing the point here. We are not debating wrong or right, popular opinion or the opinion of the few... a rule was written so we wouldn't HAVE to argue about this situation. Now you want to argue it anyway, even though YOU wrote the rule. Anyone with even a slight grasp on logic can see that.

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 declare
war or attack a unit for 8 hours* after ending that turn.

Yes, that was my proposed rule, and you chose to keep your rule instead... so live with it.



My final assessment of the situation...

Greece has for sometime threatened and bullied both Korea and Maya, practically treating them like vassals.

Korea and Maya get sick of it, and decide to plot against Greece. Considering Greece is more technologically advanced, and more powerful in terms of production and GNP, the only way to conduct a semi-successful war would be through deception.

Korea and Maya decide to build up military, but to keep Greece in the dark fake tensions are created between Maya and Korea. There is NO problem with this considering it was done completely with words (ie. this situation differs greatly from the Viking/Japan fake war in which they were lying about actual ingame battles that never occurred in order to score military votes). Cyber argues this would never happen in real life, although the truth is that part of real life espionage and counter espionage is to feed your enemy false information.

Korea and Maya get the drop on Greece, who despite giving ultimatums and threats has not kept a sizable standing army. The element of surprise was used, and is totally legal according to the written rule on the matter.

Greece cannot fathom the concept of last place Korea possibly taking any of his cities. Further, he knows Maya could also pose a very real threat. The only way to perhaps minimize the advantage is to weasel, swindle, manipulate, and bend the rules, knowing full well that in the end he is the only one that can reload the turn. Therefore, he continues his skewed and illogical arguments knowing that people will just get sick of it and he can successfully CHEAT.

I second Ozzys call for an unbiased arbitrator. However, I think it should be stressed to whoever it is that a rule was established, as well as what that rule is.

If you find a logical person, I am confident they will find in favor of Korea, based on the wording of the rule written by Cybershy.


PS: If there is a reload, players should be required to move in the same fashion they already did up to this point. Screenshots are being taken. Considering I have been forced to move due to this not being resolved, I don't think any advantage should be obtained by anyone in the form of knowledge of future moves, on account of Cybershy being a sneaky baby.

[Robert]

I agree with your argument. It however does not change the rule that was written by you.

The rule says it is forbidden to double move during wartime. Right?

definion of a double move: when player X moves twice without player Y moving in between. We have allowed double moves during peace time and prohibited during wartime, right?

1635 was a double move, right? (According to the defenition of a double move, not including the question if it's a legal or illegal double move)

1635 was wartime, right?

Well, that means that it is a double move during wartime, and is thus illegal.
That's what the rule says. That's what we meant the rule to say as well. It's according to the spirit of the rule as well.

The rule says: 'no double move during wartime'
Korea did a double move (he moved twice without me moving in betwen) and the 2nd move (the double move) happened during wartime. It's as clear as well. Tell me how I 'bend' or 'corrupt' or whatever else I did.

[Robert]

1. I have been backstabbed in the most rude manner possible. I have accepted that
2. I have seen my defence army being 'borrowed' by Korea to use against 'Maya' now used against me. I have accepted that as well already.
3. Now there is also this double move that is used against me.

I am accepting a lot! I am accepting more then ANY of you would ever have done!
And now you guys blame me for not accepting a rule breaking AS WELL?!
Should I be crazy Robert with whom you can do whatver you want, he'll accept anything anyway?

[Pitboss Russia]

Play the game and fight your war!

Please can we have an end to this. We have gad 1 reload and for all arguments over double moves the result is effectively the same. It would also impact on storyline - I thought to be an essential part of the game - as you cannot go over the same ground again.

When a war is being waged it is often to the great benefit of a 3rd Part, The Maya in this case, to position ships or troops hard by and give all signs of being 'about to attack'. There is no justice in forcing them back as they really are not at war. It doen't matter that we all know they shortly will be but that's politics!

The only beneficiary of this has been the Greek engineer and this, if I recall, was the primary Greek complaint.

Can we not go back into the accusations of cheating. If a convention has been broken then let us settle it between ourselves and simply vote on it. A sanction 'in game' be it in pts deduction or missing of a Turn could be imposed and we would have precedent for any such future malpractise.

A series of screen dumps to be studied is also a bad idea. Someone must study those and they must be agreed. This means that the numbers, composition and deployment of everyone's units becomes known to one or more people. Who cares if a Celtic cavelryman heads north or south or if a Wyandot maceman holds or moves? Should my Caravel, far distant from any possible point of conflict, turn due east or remains on a north-east tack am I to be penalised because I simply cannot genuinely remember?

[OzzyKP]

Everyone just relax!

Stop arguing!

It isn't helping anything. I have presented both sides of the debate to independent parties, and they will rule on it. Whatever they decide WE WILL LIVE WITH.

So save your breath, the decision is entirely out of our hands at this point. All you need to do now is sit and wait for the results. Creating more bad blood, accusations, and threats isn't helping anything.



btw.... HAPPY BIRTHDAY CAPO!!!!



(finally, in the interests of peaceful co-existence, I am going to soft-delete any recent and new argument posts.)

[Robert]

the last post was a post in which I said that I had given up my GE. Can you please undelete it.

[OzzyKP]

You'd rather just concede the debate instead of waiting to hear the results from our panel of independent judges?

As you suggested, I asked 3 people. I have a response from one and am waiting on responses from the other two.

[The Capo]

For the record, in one of the posts you deleted I said I wouldn't agree to bringing in third parties. Having said that I am interested in knowing what they have to say on this subject, but its only an interest. Further I would appreciate it if you sent me via PM whatever you sent them, or at least post it here. I believe everyone has a right to see that.

And thanks for throwing me a smilie party.

Also I'd like to know who you contacted, I will not contact them I'd just like to know what your considerations were when choosing these people.

EDIT: I also think DanQ should be made aware that his moderators regularly are deleting posts that are not inappropriate. I highly disagree with this practice. This pertains to both my posts as well as Cyber's, I don't see the use in doing it, I understand there were good intentions, but good intentions do not make the result inherently good.

[OzzyKP]

I will post all of that when the decision has been reached. The temptation to lobby the judges would be too great for any here to pass up. I will also post the judge's comments and rationale.

But sorry, you can't put your foot down and say you refuse to abide by the ruling. You (or CS) don't have sole control over these matters. The rest of us in this game have an interest in keeping things moving forward smoothly. If you believe that the rest of us have a say but outsiders don't, well fine, but my "vote" goes to whatever the outside judges say. I imagine others in this game would feel likewise.

So do you believe you alone should have sole authority to decide what to do?

The way I see it, either everyone just calms down, relaxes, and waits for the decision (and accepts the decision, whatever it may be). Or one of you simply back down. CS is indicating he might be doing that. If that happens, the point is moot.

There are no other options.

[Pitboss Maya]

1635 was wartime, right?

Part of 1635 was wartime. Everything after Korea declaring war.

1635 was a double move, right?

No, because of the chronological order of events. When Korea logged in to play his turn, Korea and Greece were not at war.