The Horse, The Deity, The Dude and The Aztec

[deity]

Horsie thinks I crossed the line with these last few posts!

LOL The pot calling the kettle black!!!

Horsie still doesn't seem to understand. No official alliances have been created in this game because, oh well, you see, it's a no alliance game! Duh!

Has been since 4000BC. I wonder if Horses approach Elephants in memory capacity?

Anyway, because we are all now agreed that it has been and IS a no alliance game with no city bribe OIR unit bribe I think it's a most logical deduction, consistent with Apolyton culture and custom, to say that ceding a city would be, errr, breaking the rules. Phew.

So, in more than my own humble opinion I'm now reluctantly agreeing to play on from where we last saved, despite Makeo's excellent sporting gesture.

So Horsie, you don't have to agree or disagree with anything!!

We just play on

[Alexander's Horse]

Sorry deity - no further reply from me tonight

I think you are teetering right on the brink here and I don't want to aggravate the situation.

Let's just chill out for a while

[deity]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'll be interested to read makeo's explanation of why he gave me the city if he thought it was a breach of the rules. Very interested indeed.

I didn't say Makeo said it was a breach of the rules, that's up to him. I simply said that he offerred to go back to that point in the game. Most gentlemanly.

But of course all we have at this stage is your word for it. Been busy on the icq persuading him have we?

All my arguments have been presented in this wonderful thread

And if you are wondering why the smilies have disappeared I think, as I mentioned in my icq message, that you have crossed a line, sadly for all the civ world to see.

In my opinion a rule has been broken BUT I've accpeted that I've been outvoted. What total fear trip are you on now Horsie?

Now having played these sorts of games for nearly 30 years against all sorts of opponents, there is nothing new here for me in what you are doing, and one game isn't more important than another to me frankly, so it might be time for a bit of a chill out I think.

Ask gaming vets like Ming and RAH what I'm talking about if you don't know what I'm getting at. I suspect its your rep at stake here, not mine with where you are taking this.

What I'm doing? I'm doing what you do

Suffice to say I wouldn't have ribbed you so much about the state of the game if I had known this is how you would react. To that extent I accept some blame - this is obviously far more important to you than it is to me - I should have realised that when you started making multiple consecutive posts. But there it is

So let's have a little pause shall we? To take stock.

Ah - I did manage to work a couple of smilies in

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Horsie gets all serious now and wants to chill out! LOL

I think my rep is enhanced here. I'm not quitting. I've simply been arguing a case - most persuasively by all accounts

[deity]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
edit...
Ask gaming vets like Ming and RAH what I'm talking about if you don't know what I'm getting at.......

Ohh, The Big guns brought in now - the Howies

Horsie must be feeling really insecure now..... I'll just keep practising my Archery, seems more effective than nukes

[Hydey]

All this reminds me of an episode of Thomas the tank engine.

Grow up the pair of you the whole world is watching.

[finbar]

Originally posted by deity
Anyway, because we are all now agreed that it has been and IS a no alliance game with no city bribe OIR unit bribe I think it's a most logical deduction, consistent with Apolyton culture and custom, to say that ceding a city would be, errr, breaking the rules. Phew.

Therein lies the problem, D. Your extrapolation - that there's a connection between unit/city bribe and city ceding - is yours alone. It's not a logical deduction, it's an extrapolation. It's a free world, you're entitled to extrapolate how you like. Just as others are entitled to disagree with you.

Apolyton culture and custom? I must remember to cite that vague, shifting, amorphous mass next time I'm in a discussion. It's a beaut.

[deity]

Originally posted by finbar
Therein lies the problem, D. Your extrapolation - that there's a connection between unit/city bribe and city ceding - is yours alone. It's not a logical deduction, it's an extrapolation. It's a free world, you're entitled to extrapolate how you like. Just as others are entitled to disagree with you.

Apolyton culture and custom? I must remember to cite that vague, shifting, amorphous mass next time I'm in a discussion. It's a beaut.

Extrapolation:

To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information, assuming that the estimation follows logically.

Yes, I can live with that.

---

But primarily I had made an assumption that city ceding, gifting units, gifting gold and all the normal alliance stuff was not allowable.

In my opinion I felt that a rule had been broken and I protested at the time of the city ceding but I was out-voted 3:1, so we played on.

Subsequently I've argued the case in this thread, drawing on everything I'd picked up in games with Apolytoners and thread discussions.

So far no one has responded to my logical extrapolations. You've simply said you don't agree but it would be good to see arguments presented.

Why is it that you guys are so against unit bribe but quite happy about city ceding (incl units)?

Having said all this I have always accepted the situation in the game because I did play on, despite my protests in King Chat.

I didn't quit and I will continue to play on.

---

However, are we now saying that anything other than no unit bribe and no city bribe is allowable?

Can finbar cede cities near Makeo's capital?

Can we gift gold?

[deity]

But, getting back to the game and putting aside my concerns I think strategically it is a very interesting challenge for me. I may well have been in this position anyway so, are we on an even keel now?

[Ming]

Originally posted by deity
Ming must be delighted with the ratings this week....

This sure beats the heck out of most of the new TV shows this season

[finbar]

Originally posted by deity


Extrapolation:

To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information, assuming that the estimation follows logically.

Semantics, huh?

1. An extrapolation operates only on known information. Importantly, there's no assumption of fact. That's why it's an extrapolation.

2. And your logic doesn't follow. Because it's absent.

But primarily I had made an assumption that city ceding, gifting units, gifting gold and all the normal alliance stuff was not allowable.

Those things are part and parcel of alliance games but I don't think they're all necessarily exclusive to them. If we have to label our game it's a cooperation game - because it's not a non-cooperation game. I've never assumed that cooperation is limited only to trading techs and maps. Why should it be?

So far no one has responded to my logical extrapolations. You've simply said you don't agree but it would be good to see arguments presented.

Why is it that you guys are so against unit bribe but quite happy about city ceding (incl units)?

I copied this from one of your earlier posts:

Isn't the idea behind the 'no unit bribing' rule to stop civs from getting cheap units and unreasonable tactical advantages?

That might be some people's view. I disagree with unit bribing on two counts: (1) it encourages lazy play; and (2) it's part of my problem with the power of diplomats in the game relative to their cost. I disagree with city bribing for the same reasons.

Regardless, it's the logical connection between unit bribe and city ceding that I struggle with. They're entirely different concepts. Your line of thought seems to suggest that city ceding can provide an unreasonable tactical advantage except in an alliance game where it's okay. I know that's not what you're saying, but that's where the process ends up and where I struggle.

However, are we now saying that anything other than no unit bribe and no city bribe is allowable?

Can't the same be said of any game? Rules are decided at the outset and anything that arises along the way is dealt with accordingly.

Now I'll go back to editing Mao's essay for him in the OT Forum trying to get him into a US college.

[deity]

he he

What's this? Horsies off to lick his wounds and now his running dog (meant affectinately) finbar has taken up the gauntlet!!

But here I am all on my own continuing this most interesting and humorous debate...

Makeo! Come in Makeo!!!

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Originally posted by finbar
Semantics, huh?

1. An extrapolation operates only on known information. Importantly, there's no assumption of fact. That's why it's an extrapolation.......

I said I DID extprapolate! No argument there but my definition, which I'm happy with, came from Atomica.

Those things are part and parcel of alliance games but I don't think they're all necessarily exclusive to them. If we have to label our game it's a cooperation game - because it's not a non-cooperation game. I've never assumed that cooperation is limited only to trading techs and maps. Why should it be?

OK, so this is a co-operation game. Fine.

I copied this from one of your earlier posts:

"Isn't the idea behind the 'no unit bribing' rule to stop civs from getting cheap units and unreasonable tactical advantages? "

That might be some people's view. I disagree with unit bribing on two counts: (1) it encourages lazy play; and (2) it's part of my problem with the power of diplomats in the game relative to their cost. I disagree with city bribing for the same reasons.

Right, so unit bribing is lazy play but getting a city for free that is chock full of units is extremely challenging game play? LOL!

Regardless, it's the logical connection between unit bribe and city ceding that I struggle with. They're entirely different concepts. Your line of thought seems to suggest that city ceding can provide an unreasonable tactical advantage except in an alliance game where it's okay....

That's WHY so many games have become non-alliance games. Apolyton culture has deliberated on this for years. Ceding cities is generaly regarded as pretty cheap play.

With unit bribe you have to build a diplo then pay to bribe. With city ceding you get a FREE city with whatever units are inside it... Go figure

[finbar]

Originally posted by deity
I said I DID extprapolate! No argument there but my definition, which I'm happy with, came from Atomica.

That's the difference between reading a dictionary definition and understanding it.

OK, so this is a co-operation game. Fine.

You understand this only now? Having swamped my civ with trade? Traded techs?

Right, so unit bribing is lazy play but getting a city for free that is chock full of units is extremely challenging game play? LOL!

Yes, in the same way that your logic says you can only gain an unreasonable tactical advantage in an alliance game. This is why I didn't bother posting in the thread. There's no point when you're just dealing with obfuscation. Look it up in Atomica.

[deity]

Originally posted by finbar
That's the difference between reading a dictionary definition and understanding it.

You understand this only now? Having swamped my civ with trade? Traded techs?

Yes, in the same way that your logic says you can only gain an unreasonable tactical advantage in an alliance game. This is why I didn't bother posting in the thread. There's no point when you're just dealing with obfuscation. Look it up in Atomica.

I'm happy to admit that I extrapolated A sincere statement.

This is why many games are non-alliance games these days. I'm not happy with alliances gaining unreasonable tactical advantages. The game can get quite artificial. I agree that gaining an unreasonable tactical advantage in an alliance game is similar to unit or city bribing which really doesn't suit MP. For a long time I thought unit bribing was OK but I can see that it really is a cop out - just like city ceding.

[deity]

Originally posted by Ming



This sure beats the heck out of most of the new TV shows this season

You actually read this stuff??

Don't answer that...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by deity

What's this? Horsies off to lick his wounds

Hardly.

Its more the case that I've resigned to that fact that if you win you will say its your great skill and if you lose you will say you were robbed

You'll say someone broke the rules, there was a conspiracy against you, whatever other excuse you can think of to distract readers from your loss. You've got form, you've done it before

If that's the way you play the game, I don't like it but I can't change it.

So what's the point of indulging your rules witch hunt any further, which I think I predicted btw about 3 pages ago before all this nonsense blew up?

So huff and puff and obfuscate all you like Deity but don't expect me to pay any attention to it.