the zerk/the dang/the deity/the dude - the real one:)

[Deity Dude]

This game was not a diplo game, so I can attack anyone I want whenever I want. Furthermore, to quote Deity, my reputation is spotless in that game.

I wont even get into the fact that the three of you are on the same island and have been trading all game. That is legal and if u find it in your best interest to have a 3 way trade pact go ahead. By the same token, if I find it in my best interests to protect the seas around me I will. Both actions are legal.

But to say that because I sank one of your ships and one of Deity's you have the right to do what you guys did is BS.

BTW, I fully expect you to attempt to take that city, I figured that when I put it there. I just expect you to try to do it legally.

[deity]

This is nonsense DD.

I've only ever played ONE game where it was specifically illegal to ask another civ to devlare war, even in non-alliance games.

WE were not being sneaky. I was on the phone to a friend from Singapore and Dang asked me to get him to declare war on you. I thought nothing of it - it is totally normal. In game play and storyline sense you had attacked me and refused contact or peace treaty. If you were smart as a civ leader you would have befriended at least one other civ to get you island trade advantage that the thre of us don't have between each other.

There is no rule about no trading.

The ONLY rules we agreed on were:
NO GW & NO GL
NO Tech trading or stealing
NO Alliances
Rah Rules

If I've broken any of these rules I'm sorry but I haven't as far as I can see.

Look, your post is very up setting to me cos we are as you say online buddies. I was drunk -I'm 50 you know AND on the phone to Singapore when all this was hapening. It was not deliberate and you know me better than to post high and mighty stuff like that. I'm usually more on the ball than this but this was a very distracting game session for me - I sank two of my own tri's remember!

BUT, I really want to let this go. This is a very challenging game, especially for me at the bottom of the pg! So if you insist on the 'war declare rule' we will go back a few turns to the save Dangime is referring to.

The most important thing is to get over this, trust each others human failings and continue this excellent game.

And again, sorry I called you an idiot. I was drunk. AH is the only other friend I've called an idiot and we ended up having each other for dinner at finbars.... LOL

[Alexander's Horse]

And they call them diplo games

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by deity
WE were not being sneaky. I was on the phone to a friend from Singapore and Dang asked me to get him to declare war on you.

Look at it from my point of view. You had time during your phone call to recieve and respond to his ICQ and take the action he asked. But you couldn't respond to my 2 or 3 ICQ's for 5 minutes. And then only after I said I wasn't moving until I got a response.

Originally posted by deity

I thought nothing of it - it is totally normal.

If that were the case, when you finally did respond, why not just say what you did. Instead I was given all sorts of evasive responses like "berz has caravans in my area" and "there were no Deitian forces in the area."

Originally posted by deity
In game play and storyline sense you had attacked me and refused contact or peace treaty.

This has no impact on what you guys did. If what you did is legal, you need no excuses. If it is illegal, there is no excuse that makes it OK

Originally posted by deity
If you were smart as a civ leader you would have befriended at least one other civ to get you island trade advantage that the thre of us don't have between each other.

Thanks for the advice. Again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand but if you want to discuss strategy, lets do it.

Why do I need a trading partner? I have the lighthouse and I am isolated on an island. I can trade at will with all 3 of my opponents coastal cities while at the same time stopping them from trading with me. It might not be the strategy you would choose but it is a viable one. Remember I was supreme and spotless at te time of the incident so I must have been doing something right.

Originally posted by deity
There is no rule about no trading.

I never said there was a rule against it. In fact, I said if the three of you felt it was in your best interest to have a trade pact that you should do that. Just as if I feel it is in my best interest to sink trirenes in my coastal waters I will. Remeber this isn't a diplo game.

Originally posted by deity
The ONLY rules we agreed on were:
NO GW & NO GL
NO Tech trading or stealing
NO Alliances
Rah Rules

If I've broken any of these rules I'm sorry but I haven't as far as I can see.

Yes, but during the game the definition of NO Alliances was discussed. Coordinated attacks were prohibited. As I stated earlier, this was coordinated and involved an attack. Berz, unaware of what you had done, specifically mentioned what you did as something that would be illegal if it were done.

Originally posted by deity
It was not deliberate and you know me better than to post high and mighty stuff like that.

I would have been more then happy to settle this privately on ICQ. You were the first one to post about it here.

I would never go so far as to call you a cheater, but you must admit you have been involved in your fair share of controversies involving actions that others in the game felt were either a direct violation of the rules or a loophole around the rules. I speak 2nd hand here, but I've read about games where this sort of thing has happened in the past and has resulted in players quitting.

So if I may give some advice now, if you are planning to do something which could be considered a grey area discuss it with the other players first.

Obviously what u did isn't as cut and dry legal as you claim. I thought it was illegal, Berz thought it was illegal and your partner said "It was open to interpretation"

BTW, Frank is equally at fault if not more because he admitted it was a grey area, wouldn't respond etc etc etc

And Frank, please don't give me any of your self-righteous crap about what a bad guy I am for sinking one of your ships. Thats part of the game. A part of the game you didn't seem to mind too much the last time we played. Remember that game when u built an early army of chariots and took me out before I could get bronze working. If you'll remember I didn't complain and I didnt ask anyone else to declare war on you either.

Originally posted by deity
BUT, I really want to let this go.

The most important thing is to get over this, trust each others human failings and continue this excellent game.

Agreed, and suggest any more discussion on this be done on ICQ until we all come to an agreement on what should happen. I don't particularly like airing the dirty laundry here. It makes us all look foolish and petty

Originally posted by deity
And again, sorry I called you an idiot. I was drunk. AH is the only other friend I've called an idiot and we ended up having each other for dinner at finbars.... LOL

No need to apologize. I didn't even know you did, maybe I was already offline and besides I've been called alot worse.

But if you wanna send me some roundtrip tickets I'll be happy to come over for dinner.

[Hydey]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Agreed, and suggest any more discussion on this be done on ICQ until we all come to an agreement on what should happen. I don't particularly like airing the dirty laundry here. It makes us all look foolish and petty

No . Please continue the discussion here as I have just restocked with beer and popcorn.

[deity]

LOL at Hydey

OK DD, continue on icq...

It's a classic case of mis-communications and mis-understangings.

*controls himself not to write BIG reply*

[Makeo]

Definately continue the discussion here. I need something to do between turns.

[deity]

Sorry Makeo, DD and I had a nice LOOOOONG icq chat

God he can talk...

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I would never go so far as to call you a cheater, but you must admit you have been involved in your fair share of controversies involving actions that others in the game felt were either a direct violation of the rules or a loophole around the rules. I speak 2nd hand here, but I've read about games where this sort of thing has happened in the past and has resulted in players quitting.

OK Deity, time for me to eat a little crow here. Even though I did say my knowledge was 2nd hand, it was still a cheap shot AND I APOLOGIZE.

After our discussion, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to a big mistake/misunderstanding on your part/my part.

Anyways I hope there are no hard feelings between us and would like to continue the game.

Having said that, I still feel what happened was illegal and I guess that is something the 4 of us need to iron out.

If anyone doesnt know my reasoning by now - they dont know how to read So there is no reason for me to discuss it any further.

My proposed remedy would be to go back to the save before it happened. Put a 5 turn cease fire at that location between me and dang. (It would be totally unfair if the game changed its mind and let one of us attack the other this time. And remember dang i was the one who got refused first not you) And go from there

I would also like to propose a rule that prohibits contact thru the foriegn minister screen. Given the rules we have, its only legitimate purpose is to declare a cease fire or peace treaty - and that can be done just as effectively thru ICQ.

[Frank Johnson]

This I disagree to then.

My attack hinged on the element of surprise on many aspects.

If ineed what you say is true, then you had to have missed twice, since you had a shot when my 1 move units first appeared, and after the first time my units couldn't attack.

To be fair, we'd have to go back to exactly where your despute orginates, and allow me the first shot no matter what. Anything else would be the same as reloading to avoid an unfavorable combat result.

Any ceasefire would have to be part of a larger peace agreement involving agreeing to spheres of influance. Your out of game despute shouldn't have effects beyond the exact instantces you object with.

[deity]

Thanks DD

Nice post too. I agree with the rule you propose but please sort out that war situation with Dang. Sounds like he's got a point?

You two sort it out, peacefully AND just agree on which save we start with on Sat night. OK?

Thanks again DD.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
My attack hinged on the element of surprise on many aspects.

Element of surprise? You moved a cat and pike up next to my city that had vet crusaders. They were sitting ducks. The only surprise to me was when you magically became able to attack.

Originally posted by Frank Johnson
To be fair, we'd have to go back to exactly where your despute orginates, and allow me the first shot no matter what. Anything else would be the same as reloading to avoid an unfavorable combat result.

It seems to me that is exactly what you ar trying to do. Reloading and allowing you to attack (if it does) would be allowing you to reload "to avoid an unfavroable combat result" Namely your inablilty to attack with out assistance from Deity.

I'm not sure if reloading changes the senates opinion the same way it changes huts but its pretty apparent the game wasn't letting us attack each other the first time. If upon reload it allows you, or me, to attack this time, that hardly seems fair.

Originally posted by Frank Johnson

Any ceasefire would have to be part of a larger peace agreement involving agreeing to spheres of influance. Your out of game despute shouldn't have effects beyond the exact instantces you object with.

First of all I have no "out of game disputes." My only dispute is what you did in the game. The ceasefire I propose has nothing to do with other spheres of influence. It is the only way I can thnk of insuring that the original intent of the game be honored.

Let's face it, you did something that 2 of the 4 players thought was illegal and you yourself said was open to interpretation. At a minimum, since you felt it was open to interpretation, you should have inquired about the legality of it before you did it. Because of your action we have to reload the game. I would have been more than happy to play it the way it was going but you made that impossible. Believe me, if I was about to do something that I thought could be interpreted as against the rules I would ask about it first. I don't think you, or myself for that matter, should benefit from your decision not to get a ruling about the action you took.

It was apparent the game wasn't going to let us attack each otherthe first time. If we reload and it lets one of us attack the other - tell me how that is fair.

Anyways we both stated our point of view and unfortunately it is obvious we aren't in agreement. I suggest therefore, that Deity and Berz decide.

PS I'm not sure exactly what saves I have, I only had autosave on. I can check that tonight and let evryone know what our exact options are.

[Frank Johnson]

Ack long post.

Listen I don't have time for any of this laywer bull****.

You didn't have any problem with me trying to attack you. Just the method. All I'm asking for is to go back the exact momment before the event you have a despute with takes place.

Senate opinion is supposed to be a 50/50 chance in rep. I don't know the exact mechanics behind it, but I assume that you get that 50/50 chance at least each turn.

So far you've had 2 chances, and apparently failed on both. I've had one. I just want to go back to the order and get my 2nd shot in, its that simple. I could even take the rash choice to simply topple my government before hand to assure victory.

That is MY option. I won't accept anything that takes that option away. It was MY turn when the event happened you had a despute with, so we go back to MY turn to play it out if we go back.

And I'll try to just avoid all your lawyer BS.....if you want something banned say it before hand. Don't leave it open in interpetetion. Turns are long enough with out waiting for the supreme court to rule on if asking a neighbor to help you declare war on someone else in a no strategic alliance game is illegal.

Besides, in the world of civ in areas as gray as this one man's opinion is as good as another.

Which brings me to my final point. MY CABLE IS OUT. I AM PISSED.

Its been down for 2 days, and I've had to drive to uni to play my other little games and check my email, which SUCKS.

The guy is set to come check it on monday, which is too late for this game, and might interfere with my other one too.

I will keep you informed if it restores itself somehow in the next 24 hours, which I doubt....

[Berzerker]

...

[deity]

I've got a feeling that Berz only thought what we did was illegal because he thought, quite possibly, that "co-ordinated atack" meant that we were BOTH atacking DD. This not so. Just for Berz info, all we did is that I asked Dang to declare war on DD, which is a normal thing in most games - even non-alliance games.

I can see DD's POV on all this and that's why we are prepared to now make it a rule so that you can't ask another civ to declare war. And we are happy to go back to the turn before I asked Dang to declare war on DD.

Let's keep it simple and play in good faith and the spirit of the game.

In the long run the big game is more important and we'll be more vigilant to discuss rules in-game but Rah Rules plus our published rules is fairly comprehensive.

So let's just all pull back for the sake of the game and put it all down to unfortunate misunderstandings.