Disputes Thread

[Swiss Pauli]

As its name suggests, the place to try to sort out disputes between teams where one side accuses the other of breaking the rules.

[Zoid]

Taken from the turn thread by GeoModder in the Rabbits private forum

For starters, PAL has made double moves.

They took out Watership Down, and moved an army next to Valley Hutch in 500 BC. Probably not long before the timer lapsed because the last time I checked, there were less then 12 hours left for that turn. At the onset of 475 BC (the turn has 40+ hours to go as I type this) they attacked Valley Hutch with the moved army and lost 3 units for our axe defender and chariot. They then conquered and razed the city.

Below's the eventlog of things that happened.

Strictly speaking, they lost their "first move" pregorative when they played the turn mere hours before it finished in 500 BC, and took it back when they played before us in 475 BC. The outcome would probably have been different in 475 BC because we could reinforce Valley Hutch with an extra axeman if we could have moved before them.

[joncnunn]

Quoting for reference.

The Double Move Rule : 48 hour turns

1. No double moves during a time of war, except as noted below.

During times of war all concerned Civ's should allow for 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) to pass between moves if the other Civs involved in the war have not moved since a concerned Civ has moved.

In other words: You cannot make moves during periods of war until either one of two things have occured:

i. All other concerned Civs in a war (being at war in game) have made moves/completed one turn since you have made your moves/completed a turn.

ii. 1/2 the turn timer (24 hours) has past since you made your moves/completed your turn.

The reason "made your moves/completed your turn" is worded that way is that a team can log in make some moves, log out, log back in and make more moves. Once a team makes ANY moves the requirement that says a team must make a move/complete a turn is fullfilled.

[mostly-harmless]

I suggest the next thing is:
1.) to get a statement from PAL - I suggest that Rabbits contact PAL asap to make them aware of the accusation and their required input in this thread.

2.) assuming the claim is a valid one, to decide what to do next. I suggest reloading (if possible snoopy?) from a save just before the double move.

It is unfortunate that all this (Automated Teller holding together Banana, double move accusation) taking place at a time with lots of people gone for the holidays.

mh

[Swiss Pauli]

It looks to me that Rabbits certainly have, at first glance, a reasonable case that PAL made an illegal double move.

I would suggest that we put the game on hold from today (instead of tomorrow), so that PAL can respond to the accusation.

EDIT: it seems that the game is down, so a pause probably won't be needed!

[Zoid]

[mostly-harmless]

I am copying tonycivs statement from the pitboss thread:

Sorry for the delayed response from PAL, we don’t really check this forum much.

Yes the rules HAVE been broken … by Rabbit. But PAL couldn’t really be bothered to report it.

PAL have always moved before Rabbit … check the logs. But 2 turns ago, it was a fairly neutral turn, nothing much was happening so rabbit decided to move before us and killed our warrior … DOUBLE MOVE! Why did Rabbit do this? The answer is simple so an extra unit could be moved into there second city.

I find it quite shocking; they used such underhanded tactics and then at the nerve to call foul play.

Yes this posts give a lot of information about what is happening in game, but Rabbit are rather bitter about attacking us and then getting owned and therefore have been dropping hints.

I’m genuinely annoyed by this whole episode!

Seems there is a lot to clarify here.
Better start on it so we can all go back enjoying the game.

mh

[Zeviz]

It looks like there are two counter-accusations:

1. Rabbits double-moved 2 turns ago, killing a warrior.

2. Rabbits were the ones who initiated PAL-Rabbit war.

Is my understanding of PAL's post correct? If it is, can one of the teams who had contact with both CIVs confirm who started PAL/Rabbit war? Also, can somebody check civstats log to see whether it's possible that Rabbits double-moved 2 turns ago?

[mostly-harmless]

So lets try to piece together what happened. I hope I have the timings right. Rabbits and PAL please verify.

T?? - ???BC:
The war starts. When it did and who started it should not be of significance for this issue, as long as the double move had nothing to do with the initial turn of the war, which is not the case if I have my bearings right.

T93 - 550BC:
Turn starts at 12/19/08 1:07 am
PAL finish their turn at 12/19/08 4:51 am
Rabbits finish their turn last at 12/21/08 5:55 am

T94 - 525BC:
Turn starts at 12/21/08 5:55 am
Rabbits are still logged in
Rabbits accusingly double moved, killing a PAL warrior.
PAL finish their turn at 12/21/08 10:20 am

Civstat times out (unfortunately)

T95 - 500BC:
PAL takes out one of Rabbits cities.

T96 - 475BC (current turn - game down):
PAL accusingly double moved and takes out another of Rabbits cities.

Those should be the facts.
I think it should be pretty straight forward to confirm a double move, especially as both double moves took place during wartime.

Under the assumption that both DMs happened, I personally would say that:
1. Rabbits are to blame for double moving during wartime with the intention to gain an advantage.
2. PAL are to blame for not bringing up the breaking of the rule in the public forums, but using it as an excuse to employ the double move themselves.

It is a tricky situation.
I can see four routes from here on:

1.) The game is reloaded to a point before the Rabbits DM. This will give both parties information about the "future" but that can't be helped. All teams "sign" a gentlemen agreement not to abuse the replaying of a couple of turns. Rabbits and PAL do not DM.

2.) The game is reloaded to a point after the Rabbits DM but before the PAL DM. Rabbits are somehow punished for DMing.
PAL does not DM.

3.) We call it even and the game continues. Whether in a state of war or in a peace brokered by someone else (preferable by a civ that has contact to both parties or even Krill, should he be interested. (he is away now, but I have PMed him over at CivFanatics about the ongoing discussion)).

4.) The whole game dies a disgraceful death with teams breaking rules, swapping accusations, abandoning their civs, etc.

This is my personal attempt on rescuing this game, as I got quite some fun out of it by now. If other people have other ideas or suggestions, bring them on.
My interest is to have that game back on whenever snoopy can do it and to have all teams actively playing and having fun.

mh

[Krill]

Dude, I may be away in some god forsaken country with crappy internet access but Iäm still watching this.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Zeviz
It looks like there are two counter-accusations:

1. Rabbits double-moved 2 turns ago, killing a warrior.

2. Rabbits were the ones who initiated PAL-Rabbit war.

Is my understanding of PAL's post correct? If it is, can one of the teams who had contact with both CIVs confirm who started PAL/Rabbit war? Also, can somebody check civstats log to see whether it's possible that Rabbits double-moved 2 turns ago?

As on point 1, the killed PAL warrior was a result of PAL failing to play its turn in time. As I understand the rules, they have as the first party 24 hours to do their moves, which they didn't.

As on point 2, it was PAL which made a DoW after issuing us a warning to pull back.

Their accusation of us deliberately killing their warrior to reinforce a city is quite void. We'd had to do two moves in order to do so while a war chariot was already in place to take that city that same turn. Infact, if PAL had played in time (as first party) that city would already have been taken.

[tonyciv4]

If no team double moved ... the out come would be exactly as it is now ... Only difference PAL’s warrior would be alive.

Rabbit knew they had lost and start this rubbish when they were the team to double move. Maybe we should have reported it, but in all honesty interest among the team is not great.

The turn log clearly shows we were moving before them each turn, if we continued to do so, both cites would have fallen as they have ... Someone please explain to me how the outcome would have been different.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by GeoModder
As on point 1, the killed PAL warrior was a result of PAL failing to play its turn in time. As I understand the rules, they have as the first party 24 hours to do their moves, which they didn't.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by tonyciv4
If no team double moved ... the out come would be exactly as it is now ... Only difference PAL’s warrior would be alive.

Rabbit knew they had lost and start this rubbish when they were the team to double move. Maybe we should have reported it, but in all honesty interest among the team is not great.

The turn log clearly shows we were moving before them each turn, if we continued to do so, both cites would have fallen as they have ... Someone please explain to me how the outcome would have been different.

The outcome may have been different if we had played our turn between your turns in 500 BC and 475 BC. And as GeoModder has said no double move was made on our part as you failed to play your turn in time. Read the rules ffs! Also we have a screenie to prove that PAL broke another rule and moved troops after they've ended their turn. I will not post it here as it will give away map info to the other teams... Maybe Krill can verify it?

It's maybe too late for the Rabbits, but this clearly proves that PAL can't be trusted in Civilized company. I'm sorry if I'm wrecking this game for the other teams, but they should know who they're dealing with imo...

[joncnunn]

Who DOWed on who and weather or not it was justified has no bearing on this.

Turn 93 indicates PAL was first to move; Rabbits second (and in fact last).

That would indicate that in turn 94 PAL was suposed to have been given 24 hours to start moving for turn 94; the order for turn 92 doesn't matter.

What needs checked here with regards to turn 94 is the first timestamp for the first PAL move vs the timestamp for the first Rabbit move.

PAL should have brought this issue up at that time, but might of felt a warrior was of too little consequence to do so.

We need time stamps for the pressing of End of Turn for turn 95 to determine who was supposed to wait for the other to start moving (or 24 hours whichever is first) for turn 96. Previous turns don't matter for that. (So far at least no one is accusing the other of making a double move in turn 95).

(I do think it ought to be obvious that if you hit end of turn and it caused the game to move on to the next turn you were obviously last and so need to wait for the other to move or 24 hours.)