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

[St Jon]

I assume this means that we all have to re-play our turns?

The game has been reloaded.
I tried to pause it but my VNC doesn't work anymore on my phone right now (don't know why)

I think that Rome's explanation for damage is clear and the reload is therefore needed.

The game has been reloaded, all continue now.

[Robert]

Yes, if you had already played your turn. (only a few players)

[Pitboss Maya]

You would think after the Capo incident we would have learned some lessons about rules and applying them.

Guess not.

One thing I did learn from that whole fiasco was that regardless of who is right or wrong, Cyber will do what he wants. For that reason I am not going to fight about this or go into detail.

I suggest two options...

1. The turn in reloaded back to when Greece declared war on Maya, as mandated by the rules.

2. Ozzy has his MOD status revoked. IMO this should have been done a long time ago due to his tenancy to remove peoples posts that do not break forum rules, but he disagrees with. Apparently, he also changes rules without informing anyone as well. I realize you may need to petition Ming or DanQ for this.


Pick 1 or 2 Cyber if you want me to continue this game. I'm done being screwed over by a phenomenon I explicitly pointed out early in this game in which the rules are selectively applied. I bit the bullet during the whole Capo ordeal, but I could not live with myself to continue again and again being taken advantage of.

[Robert]

First: Since Maya apparently isn't agreeing I've paused the game.

@Maya:
- Ozzy's Mod status is not up to us. Technically he edited his own post thus I doubt that he crossed any moderation rules. From now on I'll however be the one to create the first-posts of these threads.

- Where do the rules mandate a reload back to where Greece declared war?

The rules are not selectively applied.
The first post of this thread showed an invalid version of the rules since 2 days. That is indeed very bothering and I am waiting or Ozzy's explanation.

We know what the problem is: an invalid change of the rule post (not the rules!!), please don't push this beyond this problem.

There was a double move according to the rules
1. Because of special circumstances nobody blames you or requires a penalty from you
2. The game was paused, like the rules say
3. The victim (Rome) was asked if there was damage
4. The victom showed that there was indeed damage that needed a reload
5. The game was reloaded
6. Now there apparently is still disagreement the game has been paused again.

If you can point out where the rules were not followed then I'll certainly follow up there.
Please do it asap.

May I also ask you some honest questions:
- did you really had not any idea that your action would result in this?
- You most obviously noticed that the first post showed a very different ruleset the the one we agreed upon, when you read it, why didn't you raise a question about this?
- You say that you followed the (apparently false) rules. These (false) rules say that a turn order has to be agreed on. You never tried to make such an agreement. Why do you both blame others for not following these (false) rules while you did not do anything yourself to follow them either? (while you apparently were the only one aware of these false rules.)

You don't have to answer these questions since I do very well understand that things are troublesome and you are not the cause of this.
But please be cooperative here, that's all I ask.

CyberShy

[Robert]

The first post and the 2nd post of this thread have been moved back to the Org Thread IV.
I've turned the new first post (by me) into an official opening post.

[Pitboss Maya]

The rules stated that the moment war is declared both sides need to agree to a turn order. This was never done when Greece declared war on Maya, and subsequently never done when Rome declared war on Maya.

did you really had not any idea that your action would result in this?

How does my "ideas" have any bearing on the rules as written on page one of the Org Thread? Again Cyber, you are venturing into this mythical concept of the "spirit of the rule" which is in the eye of the beholder only. Yes, I knew there would be bitshing, but that is irrelevant.

You most obviously noticed that the first post showed a very different ruleset the the one we agreed upon, when you read it, why didn't you raise a question about this?

I stopped following the rule argument about halfway through. I figured some other problomatic rule would be enacted, and when the time came that I found myself in a double move situation I would reference whatever new phucked up rule had been written.

You say that you followed the (apparently false) rules. These (false) rules say that a turn order has to be agreed on. You never tried to make such an agreement. Why do you both blame others for not following these (false) rules while you did not do anything yourself to follow them either? (while you apparently were the only one aware of these false rules.)

I only saw these these rules the other day, and realized that in effect both Greece and Maya were in violation. That is why a reload to that turn is the only correct option... unless we want to once again disregard the written rule.

[Robert]

The 'written rule' you refer to is not the 'written rule'.
It's never been validated and I have fixed things.

Let's not hurt this game but continue now. I'm going to sleep in a few minutes which effectively means no game continueing for 6 hours.
We all know that we are not going to follow false rules that have not been validated in this org thread.

Imagine.... that means that Ozzy or me would be able to change the rules to our opinion and advantage.
Let's continue and follow the correct turn order: Sparta - Rome - Maya.

[St Jon]

Where is Ozzy when his input is vital?

I cannot see any justification for a re-load back to the Greek attack as both players were then, corrct or incorrect, operating under the same rule-set. This second incident penalises both Maya and Rome as they were operating under, honestly, a different set of rules.

How can someone unilaterally take it upon themselves to change the rules of a game without telling any of the participants? I would never have thought to re-read established rules in the hope of an amendment!

I honestly cannot see a way round this one for Rome would never have acted as they did with knowledge of this change and a re-load will render their attack toothless. Fore-knowledge of the attack will shift all the odds anyway and we have a situation where it is impossible to do right for doing wrong.

This is very very bad and it will take a very clever man to sort out a just solution for I certainly can't see one!

[Pitboss America]

Unable to connect to game... is it down? Is this game stalled in controversy again or is this down legitimate?

[OzzyKP]

I made that change weeks ago when we were talking about the rules. CS' rules (and several changes that were never agreed to) were very confusing & poorly written (not blaming him, English isn't his first language) so I cleared it up. The rule, as I wrote it, takes out the main points and accomplishes the main job of the rules, but is easier to enforce, clearer, and less problematic after the huge debates and drama we've had with the broken set.

I rephrased things after discussion people were having on the rules (after the last bit of rule drama) and tailored the wording to address the good suggestions everyone seemed to agree to in the thread. I mentioned the rule changes and no one objected, though I did notice CS just erased the changes. I don't know when he did this, but I did notice he reverted my changes two days ago and put them back.

As for what the reworded rule states:

- Turn Order During War Time

Civilizations that are at war must agree to a set turn order that is enforced from the moment war is declared in-game until the war ends in-game (i.e. spoken agreements or promises to end the war don't count, the war must end in the game). All combatants shall alternate their turns according to a consensus agreement by all war participants. When during the day each player plays his or her turn will be decided by consensus of all war participants. This will be done to ensure all players take their turns in the proper order without inconveniencing any player or preventing any player from taking a turn.

During war, each player is allowed to log in to the game only once each turn, and take no more than one hour to play their turn. The next player in the turn order is not allowed to log in until the preceding player has logged out.

If the turn order is violated in any way, or an allegation of violation is made, the game shall be paused immediately.

If turn order is violated it is then up to the victim(s) of such violation to decide whether a reload is necessary. If the victim(s) requests a reload, a reload is to be done immediately (no debate). If the victim(s) is satisfied with alternate solutions, then an arrangement can be made between the turn order violator(s) and the victim(s) and a reload will not be necessary and the game shall be unpaused.

Alternate solutions must be agreed to by all war participants by consensus, and will be enforced by all game participants. If an alternative solution is not carried out exactly as agreed, a reload shall occur immediately (with no debate) to the turn of the original turn-order violation.

Since CS somehow thinks this rule allows double-moves, please re-read it. This does a much better job of stopping double-moves. No 6 hour nonsense which is meant to specifically allow double-moves, and seems to just cause more problems. An agreed upon turn-order, as many people called for earlier, is the only flexible and just way of handling this.

Also, no one should have to explain how they were harmed, or have the violation judged. As the rule states, there is no debate. If the turn-order was violated, then the rule was broke. It is up to the victim to invoke the rule. If they invoke it, then reload, no questions asked. Rome clearly is invoking the rule, so we should reload.

Seems pretty straight-forward.

And I don't understand why CS is making a fuss about my rewording & clarifying the rule when he has done the same himself in the past. This new wording is a more workable system than what we've had so far, and is based on everyone's suggestions.

[Pitboss Maya]

Rome clearly is invoking the rule, so we should reload.

Whoa... I INVOKED THE RULE. Rome was apparently not even aware of it. See below.

What does the rule say?

Maybe YOU and CS need to read the rule.

Reload needs to go back to the first instance of the rule being broken, which is the turn Greece declared war on Maya.

[Robert]

Ozzy;

1. Even if the original wording was poor, even yours is perfect, that all doesn't matter, you can't just out of the blue changet the rules on your own!

2. My comment that I disagree with you rule proposition and that you can't chance the rules like that

3. Here I try to debate Ozzy and my rule propositions
After that we discuss this together
We do not agree, nobody else comments, after which neither your nor my rule is being accepted unfortunately since there's a status quo.

This status quo (in which the old rules obviously continue) endured till you changed them again. (this time even without notifying us).

I did not apply my rule change proposition (eventough some players did indeed support it) because you said that you didn't agree. I expect you, and everybody else to do the same.

4. Your comment that 'several changes were never agreed upon' are false (not to mention that you don't offer support for this statement).

5. I still 100% disagree with your rule proposition, it doesn't say at all that double moves are forbidden. It just forces people to make agreements and there's no way to handle the situation as long as there is no agreement on the turn order.

---------

Conclusion:
- You did not 'clarify' the rules but created a new ruleset
- You did so while at least 1 player disagreed with your proposition and nobody showed any support
- Even while you were already told to not just change the rules on your own, you did it again.
- Now you talk about how you don't understand what my 'fuss is about' by which you completely ignore the situation you brought us into right now.

I hope that you can take responsibility for your actions.
If anybody thinks that Ozzy's action is legitimate, let him speak up.
We can discuss your rule proposition again when the game has continued, but it will only be applied if after all players had their time to comment on it, the majority of the players agree.

In the meantime I hold you accountable for this situation and insist that you don't touch the rules again.


Unfortunately this situation apparently can't be solved by all people cooperating.
Can all players vote for the following:

A. The double-move turn has been reloaded and we continue from there
B. The double-move turn has to be reloaded again
C. Reload from the moment Sparta declared war on Maya, 2 turns before the double move
D. There was no double move at all, just continue from the last possible safe

Also an additional vote here:
1. Ozzy's rule change was illegal (no matter if I do or do not support his ruleset)
2. Ozzy's rule change was valid (no matter if I do or do not support his ruleset)

All players get 24 hours to vote on this, after that the game will continue as the majority voted.

Another way to deal with this issue sooner is if both Rome and Maya agree on the A,B,C or D option above

[Robert]

My votes:
A. The double-move turn has been reloaded and we continue from there

and

1. Ozzy's rule change was illegal

[Pitboss Rome]

On CS's version of the rules - there was a double move which needs a reload.
Ozzy agrees that on his version of the rules - there needed to be a reload.

Therefore I vote A - the needed reload has happened so lets get on with it.

(There is no need for a reload from earlier because turn order was observed by the waring parties - Sparta and Maya - even if there was no formal agreement - and no complaints about turn order or double moves between Sparta and Maya were made at the time).

Regarding the rule change I suppose I have to vote 1 because changing the rule without everyone being aware was foolish, though I think there is merit in Ozzy's system (we should just change though so that the turn order in the turn before the war, is the fixed turn order throughout the war, unless the players come to another agreement - this gets rounds CS's valid point of what do we do if the players don't/can't agree an order).

If terms of an agreement with the Maya - happy with either A or B. C doesn't work because the Maya would then play out two turns knowing that I was going to attack him. D allows the double move - when Maya attacked me I didn't double move to save cities, so I would need some pursuading that he should be allowed to when I attack him.

[mzprox]

My vote is A (or B- what is he difference?) and 1

Actually i like Ozzy's variation/wording more (for me the six hour rule makes no sense..). But changing a rule during game can only be done with consensus among the players

The most important points for me:
-during war you must do your best to move alternately.- this is really common sense, this i why i vote A, none of the rules suggest that you could move twice (on the contrary actually).
-only log in once (to avoid accusations..)
-move in one hour, -not that important if you could agree with your opponents when you make your turns

About this line:
"...must agree to a set turn order that is enforced from the moment war is declared in-game until the war ends in-game "

I don't see why this would require an actual talk between the players. Both sides check the turn order in the first round the war was declared and from that point they follow that- that is the agreement. ((just imagine telling your opponent: " heya! i will declare war on you this turn, when do you want to move before or after me?".. this would go against the meaning of suprise attack ))
(a suggestion to anyone who wants to declare war: if it's possible try to be the one who moves after your future opponent, that way much trouble can be avoided)