New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

ST has been fairly careful to distinguish between "ST mode" (the Bab king) and ST (the player). A few times it was a little difficult to discern one from the other. However, he clearly dropped the "ST mode" to address the matter of cheating.

There is at least a hint of OOC manipulation in "I'll not answer ST and then screw him with the rules lawyering." That tends to make the game "unfun." Or am I wrong to perceive a mind game in this latest round of posts?

The rules are in place, IMO, to keep the game moving, to keep play fair, and to prevent conflicts from getting personal.

[Straybow]

20/20 hindsight

I briefly thought of suggesting, when I first read ST's post about delaying play, that he should play two versions of a turn for "If Kull responds" and "If Kull doesn't respond" and entrust them to a third party such as RobRoy. But then RL intervened and didn't get around to it.

C'est le vie.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Straybow
ST has been fairly careful to distinguish between "ST mode" (the Bab king) and ST (the player). A few times it was a little difficult to discern one from the other. However, he clearly dropped the "ST mode" to address the matter of cheating.

I disagree. He's all rules mode, all the time.

There is at least a hint of OOC manipulation in "I'll not answer ST and then screw him with the rules lawyering." That tends to make the game "unfun." Or am I wrong to perceive a mind game in this latest round of posts?

"Unfun". I couldn't agree more. He routinely invents new rules at the drop of a hat, and this time the existing ones have been narrowly interpreted in a fashion that works against him. Too bad for Babylon. Missing a single turn shouldn't be that much of an issue, anyway. And it's not a mind game. More like a lesson.

[Straybow]

And, by the same measure, if you felt that his request was not a valid delay, you could have said so right away.

[Kull]

See, it's a game, not a lawyer's contest. He didn't play within 154 hours of your turn, the "reason" was specious at best, he loses his turn, we all move on. Next time maybe he'll play instead of talking.

[SlowThinker]

Kull,
I think you should perceive this is not boxing and you are not Mike Tyson.

Maybe you noticed we were very close to Ctrl-N several times and each time it was evident the next player was very worried that somebody could be skipped and he did most possible to prevent it.
This is not written in our rules, because politeness is considered something self-evident that needn't to be included in the rules.

I would be considering to leave the game if I felt the next player skipped me intentionally and with a joy. So if we continue the game together I kindly ask you if it looks I forgot to play then send me a PM and wait a reasonable amount of time, unless you prefer to play with an AI or another player.
But now this is not the case. You indicated you were leaving and you didn't try to disprove it.

I will post my turn tomorrow.

ST the player

[Peaster]

OK, Kull is serious about skipping ST (or about making a point - if that is the case, the point has been made - and maybe we can move on...?)

When I was pushing players to move faster, I wondered who could decide if a request was "reasonable" or not. My interpretation (not announced) was that if there is an objection, then a majority of the players [not including the requestor] must agree the request is reasonable, with approx 24-hours allowed for opinions to be voiced. Does this interpretation seem OK?

If so, Kull has objected to the request. But Straybow and I think it is OK. If Kengel or Zedd agrees with Kull (and the other is silent, or also agrees), then ST cannot play. If Kengel and Zedd both remain quiet (or split votes) ST gets to play. Agreed?

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Kull
4) Egypt's 72 hours had expired or were about to, so we had to play, and did.

He didn't play within 154 hours of your (Straybow's - inserted by ST) turn...

This is not true.
You played in 79th hour after Hittite save, so in 7th hour of 'Egyptian time' (under presumption you didn't quit and time was flying on).

ST the player.

[SlowThinker]

Sorry, double post. New post in place of edit.

[SlowThinker]

When I was pushing players to move faster, I wondered who could decide if a request was "reasonable" or not. My interpretation (not announced) was that if there is an objection, then a majority of the players [not including the requestor] must agree the request is reasonable, with approx 24-hours allowed for opinions to be voiced. Does this interpretation seem OK?

I agree, it looks we need to clarify the 'reasonable request' definition.
So a player makes a request, then players give their opinions within 24h. If no complain arrives then the request was accepted, also in case of a tie, OK?
It is supposed the player will try to post his request before 48h of his time elapses, so that he can post at least some save (for example with most important actions) if the request is not accepted.

It looks Peaster wants to apply this rule retrospectively and he wants to extend the 24h limit in this case. But I don't understand why I shouldn't be allowed to play even if majority disagrees with the request. I was ready to play within 72h, and I didn't play because nobody objected.
In other words if you want to extend the 24h rule then pls extend also the 72h rule.

Edit: It is regrettable we need such rules, but we should have also a rule that next player must send a warning PM to the player he intends to skip for example 24h before he skips.

ST the player

[Kull]

More rules, just what this game needs. Whatever.

[Straybow]

Even in the absence of a rule about it, if you thought his request was unreasonable you should have said so instead of playing a silent game. IMO.

[Peaster]

Clarifications:

I am not eager for more rule talks either, which is why I didn't bring this up weeks ago. But it seems you both feel strongly that you are right, and we need a civilized way to move on.

I think the 24 hour voting period should normally start when the objection is made. But in this case, my interpretation was only just now announced, and that period would end in only 2 more hours. So, IMO we should give Zedd and Kengel another 8 hours to read + think + vote.

IMO with a tie vote of 1-1 or 2-2 the motion (to declare that the request is reasonable) fails. That was my feeling when the shoe was on the other foot. Otherwise, it would probably take only 2 players to kill the 72 hour rule, because we won't usually get many players to vote.

[Peaster]

IMO we have given all players a decent chance to weigh in and vote. The "aye"s have it, 2-1. SlowThinker's request for time is approved.

SlowThinker: You said you'd play today. PLEASE do that, so we don't have another messy issue to resolve!

[Kull]

People don't vote here. Any rules based on voting are ipsofacto flawed. Any decision on adding rules is, for the same reason, flawed.

The whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate that even though we have a HUGE number of rules, it doesn't matter since people ignore them. When I created an exercise to see if they ever WOULD be enforced, the answer was, NO.

Not a problem. Just wanted to go on record.