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

[Pitboss Japan]

patched up

[Pitboss Rome]

I'm sorry Cyber but your posts on the Piercian and Maya situations are just distortions, and show a complete failure to grasp the situation.

Yesterday when I expressed my unhappiness you said

Rome: the game was paused and we talked about the Maya thing.
The game resumed when everybody (who spoke up) agreed.

but go back and actually read the thread!

I was one of the few who replied and I did not give unconditional support. I said:

Regarding Korea/Maya. For Rome IG a stronger Maya is not a good thing, but even so I agree that Maya should absorb Korea.

There is an island Korea and I share, right at the south of the world - the Korean city there (very weak and undeveloped) would fit well with Rome.

Also there is a Korean city (or two even) on New Portugal - I think that these would go well with Russia and might give them some compensation for the fact that they didn't get the land from Piercia that they should have done.

which you agreed with!

Ok, so far nobody is opposing Maya to grab Korea.
Rome's suggestion regarding the Korean cities on NP sound good to me.

So what we had was a conditional acceptance of the Mayan take over of most of the Korean territory, but not a complete permission for Maya to do just as it wanted. But Maya has just done what it wanted, and you're not interested. Maya just ignores the discussion of the issue in this thread and so gets away with what it wants. Just as when he doubled moved in war time against me, putting macemen close to a hardly defended city, it was agreed this was wrong, but Maya just ignored the situation and carried on.

Similarly on the Piercian issue you say things on here like of the 8 Piercian cities Japan only got 5, and that the only people who expressed an interest in the Piercian terriroty were Japan and Russia, BUT you happily ignore the fact that Portugal gained 2 of Piercians cities, and that if you look at it in terms of population, production etc. Japan got 95%+ of Pierica including all the gold (and it looks to me the technology).

You gave control of Pierica to Japan, and Korea to the Maya, without getting it clear what woudl happen, and even when there were understandings of what would happen which have been ignored once Japan and Maya are in the driving seat, you ignore the situation and say ridiculous things on here like territory in NS is good for Russia (when its about 25 turns sail away) and forget that Portugal was a beneficiary of the demise of Piercia in a effort to make it sound likes its all ok.

I know you wish it would all go away. I know that you were well-intentioned in trying to get these solution for Korea and Piercia and were doing it while still realing from the previous dispute. And I know that once again we are in the world of 'its too late'. But it does stink and continued to undermine any sense that this is a game - its seems more a battle of egos and for power between those players who already know each other in which the rest of us, and ideas like 'fairness' and 'reasonableness' have little place. IG I'm all for people using whatever tactics and trickery they want, but I thought OOC was meant to be different.

[Robert]

@Rome:
First: It's hard for me to 'lead' this game right now. That's one of the reasons that I expressed that another game leader should be appointed.
someone who's just been wrong cannot easily tell others what to do.

The Piercian-situation clearly suffered there. Nobody took lead.
Having said that, Russia accepted the outcome of the negotiations, and as far as I know Japan has lived up to that. Russia should therefore no continue to express it's dissatisfaction. Not because I don't understand it, because I do, but because he has accepted. He should either have not accepted or stopped being a part of the discussion.

Since apparently a leader is needed right here and nobody else is standing up I'll take charge again.

A decision has been made regarding Piercia, this is defenitely not the best possible decision, but it's what it is right now. All live up to it and stop debating it.
Things can be improved In-Game and I ask Japan to be cooperative there (he has been cooperative, afaik) since it did defenitely got a lot.
I suggest that Spain and Russia discuss an in-game trade of NS for NP. I think it'll benefit both. Keep it between the both of you and keep it in-game.

New discusions regarding the Piercia topic (and related) will be moved to the argument and debate thread.

---------

Regarding the Maya issue.
The game has been paused there, I have asked people for an opinion. Everybody agreed.
Rome made indeed a condition. A certain island in the south holds a Korean city that should go to Rome.

This is an OOC condition.
Maya is still finishing up the annexation of Korea.
Maya: you have to give that certain city to Rome.
I was wrong when I said this is an IG-issue.

Please do it asap*.

*yes, that is vague, but that's because I don't want us to put much pressure on Maya because there are no signs that he'll not cooperate. We should not make demands and ultimations right now. I'll of course keep a close eye on things and if needed place a firm-date. I suspect that this is not needed.

------------

Ok, nobody stepped being the leader.
That means that I'll continue to lead this game as a dict.. uh person who executes democratic made decisions.
You all have very good reasons to be suspicious to me, and I all invite you to be! But I also ask all of you to cooperate with your damaged and stupid game leader if not only for the sake of this game

CS

[Robert]

Rome:
Also there is a Korean city (or two even) on New Portugal - I think that these would go well with Russia and might give them some compensation for the fact that they didn't get the land from Piercia that they should have done.

which you agreed with!

Regarding the Russian cities on NP, after all it appeared that there was an in-game reason already to transfer these to Portugal. (who gave them to Spain).
It was portugal's decision. That pulled it from the negotiation-table regarding Piercia.

[Robert]

I've removed posts to the argument/debate thread.
That doesn't mean the debate isn't important, we'll coninue it there, but it means that we just have to keep this thread clean.

2 more days for voting! (thursay is the last day!)

[Robert]

A different issue.
England has logged in only once during the past 17 turns! (during that login he was able to play 2 turns)

I have sent a vew PM's to england asking him if he could play his turns.
First time he responded that he was about to.
2nd time he responded by playing that only turn.

A civ that has hardly been managed for 17 turns..... that's pretty bad for an already very behind civ.
What do we do?

[St Jon]

A different issue.
England has logged in only once during the past 17 turns! (during that login he was able to play 2 turns)

I have sent a vew PM's to england asking him if he could play his turns.
First time he responded that he was about to.
2nd time he responded by playing that only turn.

A civ that has hardly been managed for 17 turns..... that's pretty bad for an already very behind civ.
What do we do?

Simple - If they won't play for that long MMC must have just lost interest so get someone to take them over and share the cities out between their weaker neighbours. Khmer are big enough bunnies as it is but America and Celts could really use some extra land close to home that won't bankrupt them. Even Metalheads could have a piece of the pie though I don't think there is that much England to go round.

Give him a last chance and if he says no then just do it. Unlike Persia/Korea let somebody else lead them while they hand over the cities so no claims of foul play can be made.

Seems fair to me and could add a bit of life to a very quiet part of the World.

[Pitboss Celts]

Find a sub. I'm tired of the annexation of civs whose leaders lose interest or quit.

[Robert]

Finding a sub is our 2nd priority. (first priority is getting MMC back on England)
If the both of those options are impossible then FF's suggestions are good, imho.

Unfortunately we get at a point in the game where some smaller civs lose interest in the game. They perform worse then others and see not much perspective. Combined with the huge fights we had we have some drop from the game now, unfortunately.

I think it's not a bad idea to help the smallers civs that stay in the game a bit.
But everybody is right that we have to do this in a better way then we handled it so far.

I have contacted MMC again. Let's see what happens.

[The Capo]

Being a long-term diplogamer I would advise AGAINST partitioning another civilization. Clearly you don't know how to do it properly. Its best to get MMC back or get a sub. I don't think you should even entertain another partition at this point.

[Pitboss Russia]

Being a long-term diplogamer I would advise AGAINST partitioning another civilization. Clearly you don't know how to do it properly. Its best to get MMC back or get a sub. I don't think you should even entertain another partition at this point.

Capo, normally I would agree 100% and go for a sub if MMC really cannot be bothered to play. I wanted a sub for Piercia as at least they had major cities, gold and tech but none of this is the case with England. They are going nowhere and have been run by someone who clearly has lost interest for a long time. Give MMC a chance but if he doesn't who will sub a dead civ now? There are Infantry around now - soon tanks - and England doesn't even have Gunpowder! Would you take them on?

[MMC]

I never left... I've been busy with Uni work (crunch time coming up), and my civ has been on auto. Cities and units all had order queues.

As far as participating in world affairs is concerned, there's been no real need to login since 2 of the 3 main players whom I had long-term plans with have now left and their civs have been dissected.

For the record, even though I propose the original invasion of Inca (or at least I was planning on doing it before any of the Hastings members proposed it), I never supported the complete destruction of that civ. The whole purpose was to give the Incan player something close to home to post about, so they wouldn't need to worry about paying attention to the rest of the story posts.

However the Incan Invasion has set a very bad precedent, resulting in the destruction of two of the best Story posters in this game. Not just the players leaving, but the wholesale destruction of their civs, preventing them from returning (in other words, slamming the door behind them).

When I started playing Diplogames, my understanding of the rules was two-fold:

• Players must all have an equal chance of winning, so no wiping out civs, regardless of intent.
• All actions must have a valid reason behind them. (ie Why did you adopt Slavery? Was it a method of making criminals useful in society? Was it captured savages, who could only do menial labour? etc)

The latter rule evolved over time to become full story posts, although I have always understood those to be recommended, but optional.

So, when did dividing and destroying civs on a whim become the accepted form?

[MMC]

England doesn't even have Gunpowder!

England has had Gunpowder for a while now. We even sold it to our allies. We just haven't had any reason thus far to build up a huge army.

[Pitboss Rome]

@Rome:
First: It's hard for me to 'lead' this game right now. That's one of the reasons that I expressed that another game leader should be appointed.
someone who's just been wrong cannot easily tell others what to do ....

...Ok, nobody stepped being the leader.
That means that I'll continue to lead this game as a dict.. uh person who executes democratic made decisions.
You all have very good reasons to be suspicious to me, and I all invite you to be! But I also ask all of you to cooperate with your damaged and stupid game leader if not only for the sake of this game

Cyber, thanks for this. I can really appreciate what you are saying here. I'm pleased that you have stepped back into this role and have shown such energy this last day in trying to make sense of where we are with these annexations in a way which keep the game going, and tried to make sense of the conficting interests and unclear understandings.

Maybe you are right that a different 'game leader' would help, though part of me thinks that whoever does that role is going to get grief and suspicion - it comes with the territory.

[Robert]

Update: I have received a 2nd positive answer regarding the Piercia/Korea deal.
I am waiting for the 3rd answer from a 3rd civ.
After that I'll present the entire plan.

This plan will obviously not be the most perfect thing.
Unfotunately. But I think it's a very good proposal.

Thanks all for ceasing this debate for now.

Regarding England: I'm glad that MMC didn't miss anything and had his civ on auto. that's really important. Thank for posting MMC!!
You're right about your observation.

We must discuss what to do with leaderless civs.
But not right now. Let's first clean this up and take some distance.