Ancient Empires #2

[Addled Platypus]

generaly after work 11:30pm -2:30am (PST)Sunday thru Thurs

Fri/Sat 60/40% chance on playing, sometime at night

sorry dont know how to convert

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Peaster
Musta forgot that one, but I'll fix it now.

This referred to the cap on deliveries - not on rehoming. As I said, we had a 4-2 vote against van rehoming, and AFAIK nobody has changed their vote. The vote on caps was not so clear, but I decided to go with that because you (RR) and ISeeAll spoke strongly for it.

I play civ2 24/7. Times zones mean nothing to me.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
This referred to the cap on deliveries - not on rehoming. As I said, we had a 4-2 vote against van rehoming, and AFAIK nobody has changed their vote. The vote on caps was not so clear, but I decided to go with that because you (RR) and ISeeAll spoke strongly for it.

Then we currently have a most unfortunate set of trade rules, IMHO. I think a caravan cap, by itself, has some elegance if it can avoid other rules. Combined with other restrictions, I fear it will only make a bad situation worse.

I believe every time I wrote about caps, it was as a mechanism to cover abusive trade exploits, in general. I thought it was clear that it was intended to replace other, more problematic, restrictions. Apparently that didn't convey. I wanted to address the inconsistency of banning some (relatively harmless) trade exploits, while encouraging others (that result in odd gameplay and take a lot of time). But perhaps I'm the only one who sees this as a problem.

If you're relying on my support to implement ANY House Rule, please remove them. My prejudice continues to be against house rules or limitations, in general. I only support rules that that make gameplay simpler and quicker, or that replace a bad limitation with something less bad.

Originally posted by ISeeALL
Everyone, please write out the same time intervals for you, converting the time to GMT.

I usually play between 0100-0400 GMT

[Peaster]

RR: I don't see any big problem with the van rules. IMO it has been clear for quite a while that most players, at least in Game#2, don't like van rehoming, and it's past time to accept that. I don't understand your flip-flop on caps, but don't really want to re-open rules talks (though this one did not go my way). Let it be.

Now Heresson is late for his first turn. If you are very serious about shuffling the assignment around, why don't you post something in the new Game#2 thread, before I Ctrl-N for Babylon.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
RR: I don't see any big problem with the van rules. IMO it has been clear for quite a while that most players, at least in Game#2, don't like van rehoming, and it's past time to accept that. I don't understand your flip-flop on caps, but don't really want to re-open rules talks (though this one did not go my way). Let it be.

I gather there has been a "flip-flop" on van caps, but it wasn't with me! Again, I never proposed or saw van caps as an additional rule or restriction. Again, I always saw them as a less bad replacement for other (worse) potential trade restrictions. Again, I always explicitly included mention of van rehoming in my discussions. Frankly, I think my position has been consistently clear to the point of being tiresome (which your comment seems to confirm). If it somehow wasn't clear before, it certainly should be now.

Let it be!? You assert that "this one did not go my way". You assert that the van cap is in place because I "spoke strongly for it". These sound disingenuous. 24 hours ago, you were still changing rules. Now, suddenly, you "don't really want to reopen rules talks" when I suggest that the ones in place 24 hours ago were better than the current ones.

You had an opportunity to go back to your professed preference. You chose not to. So forgive me for being mystified and skeptical about your apparent change of heart. But if you're going to impose additional rules or restrictions, don't try to position them as my proposals! And don't feign surprise if I or others don't like it.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
generaly after work 11:30pm -2:30am (PST)Sunday thru Thurs

Fri/Sat 60/40% chance on playing, sometime at night

sorry dont know how to convert

This would be 7:30 - 10:30 GMT

Pacific Standard Time is - 8 hours from GTM, so you need to add 8 hours to your PST time to get GMT time. When you come back from work, it's already morning in London

[Heresson]

Sorry guys, I'm moving. I can not play anymore

[Peaster]

RR: In post 494, I repeated that we would not allow van rehoming, and I thought you understood that. I repeatedly asked for votes about other van limits (see posts 494, 498, 504 and 519) and stated clearly that my vote was [b]against[/] any. You did not actually vote - no one did but me - but you prodded ISeeAll to speak for a cap, so I interpreted that as your vote. It is hard to read peoples' minds when they don't vote, and I may make mistakes, but I do resent your implications that I am pulling some kind of trick.

IMO people have had a chance to speak and a chance to vote. Now the game has started. It is time to accept the rules, and play. According to my notes, ISeeAll, Heresson, me, you (post 524) and Platypus have all agreed on that.
------------------------------

Not sure why you ignored this - "If you are very serious about shuffling the assignment around, why don't you post something in the new Game#2 thread, before I Ctrl-N for Babylon." IMO it is a bit late for changes, and they will not affect game speed much, anyway. If you want to make any, DO IT NOW! If anyone objects to their new assignment, we go back to the old! I am OK with playing Assyria or Egypt at this point - maybe Babylon.
-------------------------------
Edit: Just saw Heresson's post. Too bad.... guess we have to wait a bit or double up.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
RR: In post 494, I repeated that we would not allow van rehoming, and I thought you understood that. I repeatedly asked for votes about other van limits (see posts 494, 498, 504 and 519) and stated clearly that my vote was [b]against[/] any. You did not actually vote - no one did but me - but you prodded ISeeAll to speak for a cap, so I interpreted that as your vote. It is hard to read peoples' minds when they don't vote, and I may make mistakes, but I do resent your implications that I am pulling some kind of trick.

IMO people have had a chance to speak and a chance to vote. Now the game has started. It is time to accept the rules, and play. According to my notes, ISeeAll, Heresson, me, you (post 524) and Platypus have all agreed on that.

Ah, I think I understand now:

- The van cap rule is based on some mistake or incredible misunderstanding;

- It's my fault, anyway, that you didn't read or misunderstood my rather redundant posts regarding trade (apparently the fact that you had asked for, and I was trying to provide, other trade proposals didn't register while you were counting votes that weren't there for proposals that were still being discussed);

- You actually do oppose this rule, yet nobly manage to soldier on;

- And, gee, sorry, but the game has already begun, the rules are set in stone, we can't change them now, so I should shut up and accept the rules as posted.

Is that about it?

That argument might be less laughable if you hadn't already changed the rules after the game began. Say, isn't the rule we're discussing one of those you added AFTER THE GAME BEGAN?!

Sorry, but this is appears to be a rule you are imposing by fiat. Yet you seem to be denying that and trying to shift responsibility. Why, I have no idea. But you're not the only one who resents it.

Originally posted by Peaster
Not sure why you ignored this - "If you are very serious about shuffling the assignment around, why don't you post something in the new Game#2 thread, before I Ctrl-N for Babylon."

Perhaps your bureaucratic responses convinced me not to waste any more time pursuing something else that you'd passive-aggressively oppose?

But if you'd like me to muck up the new thread with old discussions, I'll certainly accomodate you.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by RobRoy
That argument might be less laughable if you hadn't already changed the rules after the game began. Say, isn't the rule we're discussing one of those you added AFTER THE GAME BEGAN?!

Well, I don't know why you'd say that unless you are just trying to cause trouble. I posted the van cap rule in this thread on 9/25 and play began 9/26. I editted the rules page to include the new rule by 9/27.

Sorry, but this is appears to be a rule you are imposing by fiat. Yet you seem to be denying that and trying to shift responsibility. Why, I have no idea. But you're not the only one who resents it.

I don't resent it and I am not imposing it by fiat. IMO Game#2 will have to start over and we can re-open the rules talks/votes until play begins again. AFAIK players have said all they want to say about van caps, and I'd be very happy to decide the rule democratically. So, I repeat for about the 5th time (see post 494) .... we can have a vote on "other van limits". The options that have received at least one vote so far are:

1) no limits (but no-rehoming) - 1 vote by Peaster
2) cap of 2 per turn with exemptions - 1 vote by ISeeAll

IIRC one other player seemed to agree with option 1), but I will not count that as a vote unless they speak up. ISeeAll did not actually "vote" but I interpreted his comments as a vote for 2). Since he has not objected, I assume I got that right. I mistakenly interpreted RobRoy's comments the same way, so the vote seemed to be either 2-2 or 2-1 in favor of caps. So, I decided to go with caps.

I hope more people will vote, because this kind of decision is difficult to make alone. If nobody does, I will probably go with 2) again because it seems ISeeAll cares about it more than I do.

So sorry if I am behaving like a dictator here

but someone has to manage the voting and the players (RobRoy especially) agreed that I could make some close-call decisions.

IMO RobRoy has gone a bit crazy (temporarily, I hope), but maybe I've really done a bad job with the rules. If anyone else thinks this is all my fault, please say so. I'd prefer to know.

[ISeeALL]

After some considerations, here is the timetable and what civ assigiments I would suggest.

Nation........Player.............................. ..........Approx.GMT time

Hittites.......Bostero............................ .........17:00 - 20:00
Babylon......ISeeALL.............................. .......20:00 - 23:00
Assyria.......Bostero or Peaster....................23:00 - 01:00
Egypt.........RobRoy.............................. ........01:00 - 04:00
Persia.........Platy.............................. ............07:30 - 10:30
Greeks........Peaster or Bostero...................10:30 - 14:00
Minoans......Straybow/Peaster/Bostero.......14:00 - 17:00

Other factors which I tried to pay attention to:
- an experienced player should be white
- Platy wanted Persia
- Peaster can _really_ play at any time

Please check out the time and the nations. Do you agree to this time table and nations assignment?

If everyone agrees and the time is really the time when you will be at the computer playing, we could even introduce a rule that if the player fails to do his turn within his 3 hours, the next player should hit Ctrl+N and make the his turn. That way we could really achieve smooth turn cycle and eliminate delays.

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Peaster
If anyone else thinks this is all my fault, please say so. I'd prefer to know.

You've done everything well. It's just very hard to try to organize something where 7 financially independent people are involved I think most players didn't vote much because they don't have much time for the game.

I voted on all polls, and gave explanations of my preferences, but if others want other rules, I can agree to them. In the end, rules are not as important as the fact of starting the game and get in running. This scenario is slow, turns contain little action in the beginning. So, I guess you should do dictator's decision to clear the mess speed all of this up.

I would like this game to start and to go fast, without long delays between save posts, and without rules discussions in the middle of the game.

In fact, you've already devoted too much to all of this So, just lets get it running. I hope my attempt to sort players by their usual playing time correlate with your efforts.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Peaster
Well, I don't know why you'd say that unless you are just trying to cause trouble. I posted the van cap rule in this thread on 9/25 and play began 9/26. I editted the rules page to include the new rule by 9/27.

Maybe I'd say it 'cause it's true?

As I suspect you know, the 'van cap rule under discussion in this thread was ALWAYS intended and discussed as a REPLACEMENT for ALL other trading restrictions, including rehoming. I think every post I made about trade alluded to that if you had bothered to read any of them. When I reminded you that you'd forgotten to include van caps, (AFTER THE GAME BEGAN), I, AGAIN, mentioned it in the as a replacement for the surprisingly present rehoming ban.

For some reason, you had no problem adding that rule (AFTER THE GAME BEGAN).

When I saw that you'd added it as an additional restriction, rather than a replacement for the rehoming ban, I asked and when it became clear that you were now imposing this as a separate new rule, I asked you to take it back out (no ever had ever spoken in favor of it as an additional rule, IIRC, and having the two competing trade limits, both with significant undesirable side effects, is just too much). You simply refused.

NB: As you know perfectly well, I did not try to reopen the rules discussion, nor did I insist on implementing the trade rules that I thought had been proposed, discussed, and agreed to in this thread. I simply asked you to take it back out. Perhaps I should have insisted on reopening discussions, but at that point I thought the quicker, easier solution was to go back to the situation that had existed about 12 hours before that point, even if it was still a flawed situation.

For some reason, you now claimed you couldn't possibly fix the rules, SINCE THE GAME HAD ALREADY BEGUN.

You then proceed to engage in various excuses and attacks: flip-flop, accept the rules, misunderstanding, wasn't clear, my fault anyway, didn't vote, accept the rules, thrown a fit, personal attacks, won't accept rules, causing trouble, crazy, blah...blah...blah...

All the while, you adamantly refuse to remove a late-entry rule which you claim was based on a misunderstanding, for which no one had expressed support, and which you claim to oppose.

BTW, for someone who thinks people should refrain from personal attacks, you sure do engage in a awful lot of them. You don't really need to bother, anymore. You've already succeeded in completely alienating me, I assure you.

But as long as you keep engaging in them and keep misrepresenting things, I'll do my best to drop by, respond, and set things straight.

[Addled Platypus]

agreed on nation and time

My lack of experience with the game has me not saying much.

I do get/understand most of what is said, and promise to do my best


lets all get along and play well

[ISeeALL]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
agreed on nation and time

My lack of experience with the game has me not saying much.

I do get/understand most of what is said, and promise to do my best


lets all get along and play well

Thank you Platy

Ok, 2 people (Platy and I) have agreed to the timetable.

Peaster: do you agree to the times I specified, would you like to take 1 or 2 nations?