Beyond the Pit -Argument and Debate Thread

[Pitboss Khmer]

Noobs Guide

Here is the Noobs Guide or the first Argument thread...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=178779&highlight=noobs+guide

[Robert]

Here's the screenshot I posted earlier.
If Mind and/or -Jrabbit can confirm that my screenshot reflects on the 1645 situation and is indeed not a cheat or something, please do.

I had my defence of Knossos made as close as possible to that same situation in 1660. (I had only 3 phalanxs instead of 5, but moved an archer into compensate that, so in the end my defence was even a bit worse then the 1645 situation)

I have attached the autosave of 1665 so that Ming / -jRabbit can check if my 1665 position indeed started like the 1645 position which proves that I had Knossos defended in 1660 like it was defended in 1645.

Of course it all didn't matter in the end since Korea never played his turn. (which in the end makes all of this a non-discussion, but I'm willing to have it to prove that I haven't tried to cheat on Korea and that I have really tried to compensate to him.) (which was not needed either since he would not have attacked anyway because of in-game peace negotiations which delayed the war)

Anyway, here are the facts. I have sent my password to -Jrabbit and Ming.
It would save Ming and Jrabbit a lot of time if you would trust me, but I would fully understand as well if you guys want it to be checked out.

Let's try to start working on the game again!

CS

[Pitboss Khmer]

Wheels within wheels

You've really gotta laugh at this.

In fact I order you all to LAUGH!

NOW!

Or you will become a vassal of Sparta!

Assuming Korea is Deity then I think the bigger cheater, the bigger liar, and the bigger violator of our trust is Deity. Before this game started we agreed that three vets: Deity, Toni and I would refrain from picking Fin & Ind civs because they give an uneven benefit in diplogames that is taken advantage of by highly skilled players. Through the use of these traits Toni, Deity and I have been on top in pretty much every single diplogame.

I think it is entirely desirable for the best players to handicap themselves to create a more even playing field and thus ensure a more competitive (and fun) game. These games get incredibly dull and predictable with the same people coming out on top every single game. So I thought it was entirely reasonable that we take this small step to try and handicap Toni, Deity and I.

Toni, Deity and I all agreed to it.

Then Toni & Deity picked a Fin or an Ind civ.

I made a fuss and we gave them time to repick. If the accusations are true that Korea is Deity that means that he either didn't repick (and lied) or repicked a Fin civ on purpose (also lied).

That I think is far more deceitful and damaging to the game than the inconsequential 'double-move' that the Mayans did. I am quite upset over it actually. It really seems to be a low, petty move if this is the case. And an example of what the Mayans are talking about of players who will win at any cost no matter how many corners have to be cut and how many game rules need to be manipulated to do so.

Frankly I wouldn't lose any sleep if Greece & the Mayans eliminated Korea right now. I don't really want to play with someone who would so blatantly lie to us and disrupt the balance of the game for personal gain.

I still can't work out who is who in this game.

Is lz still in the game?

I can't believe Maya is the map maker!

So WTF is Toni and Deity?

Don't answer.

[Robert]

I have laughed, Khmer

In this post I have attached screenshots of the defence of Knossos in 1645 and 1665. If you guys believe that these screenshots are genuine, can we then please continue?
If not (I am a good photoshopper, that's true ) then please Ming and/or -Jrabbit, look into the saves and confirm if I did into make my 1660 defence of Knossos like the 1645 defence of Knossos.

If so, then I kept my word and gave Korea a chance to catch up. (which he missed by missing his turn)

I have also attached a screenshot of civstats (you can go there and check if it's genuine) which proofs that I only logged in to the game in the early 1,5 hours of 1660. That proves that the 1665 autosave shows the situation of the entire 1660 turn, except the first 1,5 hours.

Thus: Korea could've attacked Knossos all through 1660 in '1645 style', but did not because he missed his turn.

[OzzyKP]

I attempted to summarize the arguments in the thread, and Pin/Capo never said much about reloading being required according to the rule. I neglected to check the rule myself, which is my fault. But I don't see why this was left out in the initial arguments.

Plus you all know quite well that had I left it to you guys to write the presentation of facts we'd still be bickering over what to say.

[Pitboss Rome]

And lets remember than when Maya doubled moved against me, we didn't reload. We have never applied that reload rule consistently. We have just argued until one side has given in, as I did in that situation.

[Robert]

That's what I tried to say in my lengthy posts
I suffer from the problem that I always was to present complete details which results in nobody reading my posts anymore!

[Robert]

in 1 hour my connection is up again.
I suggest we solve this debate in 24 hours and then continue the game. (the sooner the better!

[Ming]

Here's the screenshot I posted earlier.
If Mind and/or -Jrabbit can confirm that my screenshot reflects on the 1645 situation and is indeed not a cheat or something, please do.

I have attached the autosave of 1665 so that Ming / -jRabbit can check if my 1665 position indeed started like the 1645 position which proves that I had Knossos defended in 1660 like it was defended in 1645.

As far as the defense of the city, it is as he describes with the changes he mentioned. That much I can see. I am in no position to review anything else that could have an effect on the game.
But again... if you had a rule in place that a double move violation required a stop and reload, then that is probably what you should do. Granted somebody mentions another situation where it wasn't done like that... but it sounds like it was agreed to at the time. That doesn't mean the rule changed... it just means that people agreed to a different outcome at that time. I can understand Capo's pov considering the rules as they are written. And in any game, the written rules are what the game is all about.

[Robert]

Well, it never really worked that way in diplogaming, which is stupid indeed.
I think that we have learned a lot from this. Make the rules more specific.
Neither was the original ruleset (the setup-thread!) was not incorporated properly in the organization-thread ruleset. (pre-war doule move / war double move discussion)
That raises the question: which ruleset is more legal?

Anyway,

I would not have a problem with a reload, were it not for the following reasons:
1. Maya has made an in-game mistake by 'landing' their troops in a strategical bad way.
2. Korea has made an in-game mistake by not killing my GE but only guarding it
3. Korea and Maya made the in-game mistake to fall for my false peace proposal (and since it all started with an ulra-false maya/korea proposal to me, this is only fair)
4. Korea missed a turn

If we reload all of the above will be a huge disadvantage to me.
If these faults would be honoured by Korea and Maya, and they would promise to make the same mistakes again, then we are just right where we are right now and reloading would be a waste of time.

Not to mention of course that the current situation in the game is not to blame to 'not reloading'.

[Ming]

If we reload all of the above will be a huge disadvantage to me.
If these faults would be honoured by Korea and Maya, and they would promise to make the same mistakes again, then we are just right where we are right now and reloading would be a waste of time.

Not to mention of course that the current situation in the game is not to blame to 'not reloading'.

All the comments you make are based on what occured AFTER the critical point where a reload did not occur as the RULES STATE IT SHOULD HAVE any of the "mistakes" that were made occured after the fact... and may have been totally different if you hadn't decided to do what you did.

Frankly, you broke the rules as stated. If a disadvantge to you occurs... bummer. You were the problem here. If you had done what the rules stated, there would be no argument... but instead, you did what was in your best interest, and not the best interest of the game and other players.

Granted, I could be wrong, but it sure appears to an outsider as if you used your position as host to manipulate things to your best interest, while ignoring the printed rules. Your double move was just the start of it. All your points about mistakes being made AFTER you failed to follow the rules are pretty much irrelevent. The game should not have proceeded, and should have been reloaded.

That's how one outsider observer sees it.

[The Capo]

I am going to try and make this clear to you again, Cyber, by putting it in different sitautions. There was no "failure" to move on my part, I didn't move because...

A) I should not have moved as it was pointless because a reload should have occured. I asked for a PAUSE before you moved to ensure that there would be no issues, but in your haste to reinforce your position and gain an advantage you did the double-move anyway. At which point a reload should have occured (or at least a pause to determine whether a reload shuld have occured). Either way, there was no reason for me to move.

B) Had I moved, it would have resulted in YOUR argument that since I moved and saw your city's defenses I would have had an advantage when a reload did occur. In which case, based on how you have reacted to everything else, a reload (which I had a right to) would not have occured. I didn't want this to happen so I did not move.

The fact of the matter is, 1635 was the last turn that was played correctly in this game. Everything that happened afterwards is, in American legal terminology, "fruits of the poisonous tree" (I'm sure the same term, or variations of the concept, exist in many other countries). So everything that occured the turn following my declaration of war against you is null and void. The only person here wasting anyone's time is you Cyber. Everything you've mentioned is, as Ming has said, IRRELEVANT. There is no need to find out what was going on in 1645 because there should have been no 1645 turn until the game was reloaded to 1635. That is the key turn in this entire debate, and it should have been reloaded without question to that turn at the time of YOUR violation. You failed to pause the game, which was a requirement of your own written rules. Since you did so the chain reaction of events lead us to this impasse. I ask that you stop the game again, and that the game be reloaded to 1635 and that I move first in order to declare war on Sparta.

[The Capo]

What happened or did not happen during the Rome/Mayan situation is irrelevant to this. I am not the Maya, and Greece is not Rome. I am arguing this point based on the written rules. You should have done the same if you were so wronged.

[Pitboss Rome]

I did, and both yourself and Maya argued against us reloading in that situation.

The fact of the matter is that in previous situations you have argued against automatically pausing and reloading, now you argue in favour when it affects you.

This is a difficult case, I accept that. But people jumping up and down saying 'in every situation we should just pause and reload because that is what the written rule says' when the same people argued differently in previous cases is pretty rich.

[The Capo]

The fact of the matter is that in previous situations you have argued against automatically pausing and reloading, now you argue in favour when it affects you.

This is a difficult case, I accept that. But people jumping up and down saying 'in every situation we should just pause and reload because that is what the written rule says' when the same people argued differently in previous cases is pretty rich.

First of all, the first part of what you said is entirely untrue. Find where I ever said that I was against a reload in a similar situation to this. I don't remember what happened between you and Maya, but it certainly wasn't the same situation. Further I don't remember what I said then, but for you to simply say that I argued against automatically pausing and reloading and in favor of continuing and only now switch my outlook is incorrect.

Nobody is jumping up and down and saying in every situation we should reload, but this is clearly a case for a reload as every portion of his rule pertains to this exactly. I don't have time to go back and look up what happened with you and the Maya but if I remember correctly no damage was done in that situation, which makes it different than this one.