Civ4BtS : UMBRIEL - #40 Pitboss APT

[macedon79]

Well lets see:

1.Can Catalina see chaka has open borders with churchie? of course can. so can ask those to be closed.

2. Reload is made when one of the parts broke the rules and that part is punished. Here we have a third part which get punished because other 2 parts have a very convenient NAP. So in this case chaka and catalina make the mistake and me gets punished.

3. I wasnt informed that there is a Nap between Chaka and Catalina and I dont see why i should be held responsable for it to be respected.Nap is between you and catalina, someone can wrote in nap Churchie cant atack Catalina and say look he violated the Nap.

4. Is chaka fault so he must pay, otherwise we can find in situation were this kind of stuff can be exploited big time because some others had a NAP.

5.If you want to get better ever at playing this game you must asume mistakes not hide behind some rules .Any contract on earth is void if there is a third party there which never agreed with that .And no agreement cant be cast upon someone if he didnt knew about that and signed that.
6.You bought techs from me when there was tech embargo on me and that was ok so stop with this nonsense and apologize for it.
7. You said Catalina is victim of this thing, and i will be the victim of the reload, what i get in exchange? WHAT IF WE FIND A NAP WAS BROKEN 30 TURNS AGO?


When i got your maill i was stunned, I couldnt belive what you wrote there but i see you are serious and use some strange construction to manipulate other people to agree with you.I find calling this vote disgracefull as this thing shouldnt be discused here and you and catalina solve the problems between you.

[2metraninja]

For me, from juridistical point of view, the clause “Enemy units will not be allowed to pass through their own territory to the other signatory.” ïs vague. If it was saying: Both signatories agree to close borders with any nation which declares war to the other at first possibility" then Russia should had protested in the first turn in which England and Russia were at war and Zulu did not closed borders. But everyone keeps borders open, trade goes, people are making plans according to the fact borders are still open, etc.

And what if England and Russia were in peace in the start of turn 183? England loggs in and declares war to Russia. Then proceeds and attacks russian units in Zulu territory. Plays his turn and leaves. How will Zulu fulfill his agreement of not allowing How is England at fault? He does not even know about the agreement between Russia and Zulu? How can Zulu agrees to something which he cannot control?

When this NAP between Russia and Zulu with this clause signed? If it is before turn 183, then Zulu has signed 2 incompatible agreements. Because England could had declared war to Russia in turn 181 for example. How Zulu closes borders with England if he have NAP with him who states OB must be kept at all time? What would had happened if England attacked Russia's army in turn 181? In court, agreement which cannot be fulfilled is disregarded as void. Precedence takes the deal which was signed first.

“Enemy units will not be allowed to pass through their own territory to the other signatory.” can means other things too. It can means you will still have OB with everyone for receiving trade routes, but you will be forced to have agreement with everyone not to explore or enter your territory with enemy units. FA+ or how was this called? Then if England enters Zulu territory, then the game is reloaded and England is at fault and gets penalized. In the clause there is no clear obligation for Russia to close borders at t183 with England.

Also, this problem is from 3 turns. Players should had seen this. Are we now reloading to 3 turns ago? Because England made efforts to execute this attack in the last 3 turns. England could used those units and this time to attack another enemy, take another city, workers, pillage improvements to weaken enemies and get money, etc, etc. Now England have to move back those units from where they came, renew his attacks elsewhere, but there defences can be already very strong and now gains there can be not possible. How is England going to be compensated for wasted 5-6 turns of its main army during wartime?

As I see things, Zulu promissed something, then did not do it for one or another reason. Both Russia and Zulu fail for 2 turns to notice something is wrong. As there are no enemy units in Zulu territory. But borders are open. There is no way Zulu to forbids entering to England, because England is not part of that agreement and Russia is not protesting Zulu not closing borders until something bad for Russia happens. As result, Russia loses units. Possible solution is Zulu compensate Russia with similar units, or another mutually acceptable compensation - money, territory, etc for the loss which resulted from Zulu being unable to make sure there are no enemy units in its territory.

So, I vote no reload and situation is resolved in-game betwen the all 3 involved.

[2metraninja]

Another point of view I want to share is that all 3 players involved/damaged by the situation should not have the right to vote, as they will be more or less tendentious and non-objective.

[CHINCHIN]

Voto SI a la recarga.

[Vicente_Pisha]

Yo también soy parte implicada ya que estoy en guerra con Churchill, pero siendo sincero no sé muy bien qué pensar. Creo que es un incumplimiento de NAP pero que se produce por una negligencia por parte de Rusia y Zulús y que perjudica a ambos al estar en guerra con Churchil (y también a mí). Entiendo las posturas de las dos partes, pero siendo justos no estoy seguro de que debiera recargarse.

[Vicente_Pisha]

Estoy pensando sobre el tema, pero creo que si tengo que votar ya votaría que no se recargue, a pesar de que va muy en contra de mis intereses.

[astrologix]

Quiero advertir que un voto negativo podría asentar un peligroso precedente sobre la inviolabilidad de los NAP. Pensadlo bien.

[CHINCHIN]

Yo no entiendo nada, resulta que Catalina ha perdido todo su ejército por una irregularidad clara y manifiesta que ha cometido Churchill, por inconsciencia, desconocía el NAP entre Chaka y Catalina, y Chaka por un despiste. ¿Y Catalina que no ha cometido ninguna irregularidad tiene que ser el perjudicado? ¿Y os parece bien?

[Vicente_Pisha]

Con todo el respeto, Astro, no estoy de acuerdo en eso. Chaka no ha violado el NAP voluntariamente para beneficiarse. Ha cometido un error en su aplicación y ha salido perjudicado él mismo. Me meto yo en el saco (que soy Isabel, por si alguien no lo sabe aún), ya que es un error que hemos cometido nosotros y salimos perjudicados. Creo que tenemos que asumirlo y ello no implica que para el futuro tengamos carta blanca para violar los NAP cuando nos interese.

[Vicente_Pisha]

Yo no entiendo nada, resulta que Catalina ha perdido todo su ejército por una irregularidad clara y manifiesta que ha cometido Churchill, por inconsciencia, desconocía el NAP entre Chaka y Catalina, y Chaka por un despiste. ¿Y Catalina que no ha cometido ninguna irregularidad tiene que ser el perjudicado? ¿Y os parece bien?

Bueno, esto también es verdad, Catalina no ha cometido ninguna irregularidad. Estaba tranquila porque pensaba que Chaka cumpliría con su parte. Pero tampoco Churchil ha cometido ninguna irregularidad. Él no tenía por qué saber del NAP de Chaka. La irregularidad la comete Chaka, no con mala intención, sino por despiste.

[astrologix]

La pérdida total de un ejército por un despiste ha dado lugar a recargas en el pasado

[macedon79]

Yo no entiendo nada, resulta que Catalina ha perdido todo su ejército por una irregularidad clara y manifiesta que ha cometido Churchill, por inconsciencia, desconocía el NAP entre Chaka y Catalina, y Chaka por un despiste. ¿Y Catalina que no ha cometido ninguna irregularidad tiene que ser el perjudicado? ¿Y os parece bien?

I dont know why you ommit catalinas fault here, i was in war with him and he should be carefull about his units, and not forget that chaka and catalina are allied against me having even embargo on me so theyr alliance does a mistake and get saved like this?

[HBHR]

Ostias.... decido yo eso me pasa por llegar siempre de último. Necesito tomarme un par de horas mientras me libero de algo urgente. Veo argumentos en pro y en contra. Eso sí, desde ya digo que voy a votar a conciencia por lo que considere correcto, sin importar si beneficia a mis intereses o no o quienes estén implicados.

[macedon79]

Enemy units will not be allowed to pass through their own territory to the other signatory.This is what Astro said is written in NAP.

Read this well, I practicatily didnt pass to Rusia teritory as Rusia was in chaka teritory, So no NAP was broken they just try to find an excuse for a reload.

You can say that is a problem with transalation .

But this reload can generate some serious problems in future...an example

Me and Gilga have a Nap in Titan lets say were is stipulated that GIlga must close borders with hamurabi at turn 305.

At turn 306 i miss move my units and with some clever maneuver Maya kills all my units. But i have an ace in my hand at turn 305 Gilga didnt closed borders with hammuraby and becasue NAP has a value like game mechanic i request a reload and must be granted. So we, which are allied just got a nice reload.

And i dont wanna think in how many ways this can be exploited and be perfect legal, because this reload is not legitim and not legal as well but you create a precedent.

[astrologix]

Párrafos extraidos del reglamento:

1) La violación de un NAP implica siempre la anulación del turno en curso y la recarga de la partida a la situación anterior.

En el caso que nos ocupa, Chaka ha violado (por despiste) su NAP con Catalina al no cerrar fronteras con Churchill

2) "...Sin embargo, si el olvido o impedimento tiene consecuencias dramáticas para la partida (por ejemplo el jugador en cuestión está en guerra y pierde todo su ejército), el administrador puede echarla para atrás y recargar si una mayoría de jugadores restantes de la misma así lo piden."

En el caso que nos ocupa, el olvido (un simple clic para anular la apertura de fronteras con Inglaterra) de Chaka ha implicado la destrucción total del ejército de Catalina, lo que tendrá consecuencias dramáticas en la partida (desequilibrio total de la situación imperante hasta ahora y en el futuro).

Creo que no hay vuelta de hoja. Podemos pasar horas debatiendo, pero ya ha habido precedentes de este estilo en este campeonato que han dado lugar a recarga.

Aquí se trata de ver con qué espíritu estamos jugando estas partidas. No jugamos más que por el placer de tener partidas agradables, simpáticas y en un buen ambiente. Las victorias deben basarse en la superioridad estratégica y/o táctica pero no en un golpe de suerte que lo trastorna todo. En este sentido, en esta misma discusión he sido acusado de ser un tramposo y un manipulador. Este campeonato lo cree hace ya 13 años, paso muchas horas de mi vida para que todo funcione bien y es la primera vez, que yo recuerde, que se me trata así.

Esto es un modesto campeonato en el que no hay premios de dinero, ni salimos en la prensa ni en la televisión. Y este es un factor primordial que hay que valorar. Por favor, sigamos en el buen espíritu.