Disputes Thread

[Hercules]

Perhaps we could agree that the turn should go back to that point in turn 94, after PaL have ended their turn as shown above. Only this time, the move of the stack, from PaL after the end turn would not be allowed, as per the rules.

Or go back to the start of turn 94 (525 BC) and PaL replay but complete the move of the stack to where they intended and then press end turn.

Either I believe from what I've read, leaves the outcome of what happens to Valley Hutch open.

As I read it, there was one possible breach of the double move rule by Rabbits, we need the civstats log to prove or otherwise.

There was one breach each of two rules by PaL; the move after end turn (525 BC) and the double move between turn 95 (500 BC) and turn 96 (475 BC).

We all want the game to restart asap. My suggestion in the opening paragraph, allows that to happen and to an extent removes temptation.

[joncnunn]

Well, looks like chances are that both double moves occured. But the possible cause city to be lost is more serious (and timely) than caused warrior to be killed.

I would propose as follows:

Rabbit double move against PAL killing warrior -> Rabbit to choose a warrior that's away from the combat zone and hit the delete button to remove it.

PAL double move against Rabbit possibly causing loss of a Rabbit City -> back up turn to before this double move occured. PAL to forfeit this turn's movment.

(This would result in the following turn it being PALs turn to move first)

[GeoModder]

So, in short, you want Caerbannog to sacrifice one of its hard-pressed units for an alleged double move while it was PAL's own actions which caused the alleged double move?

Think of it, joncnunn. An army moved illegally on 525 BC would have the Caerbannog turn player to believe that at least part of PAL's turn was already played in 500 BC first time he came online, because said army was on another spot then the turn before!

[joncnunn]

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

Stats show that in 550 BC Rabbits were the very last team to end the turn. Which would mean that PAL had the right to first move first in 525 BC.
If the accusation had been more timely, a restart back to the beginning of 525 and a forfeiture of move would have been called for. But it's a bit late too do so, and it caused the loss of a PAL warrior, so a Rabbit Warrior disappearing away from the combat zone would bring this back to even.

About the only way this might not have been a Rabbit double move is if PAL had any units in the combat zone with goto orders that immedately executed at the very start of that turn. (Which is also something that shouldn't be going on in time of war in & near the combat zone)

The PAL forfeiting a turns movement for their double move is actually a bit more significant, it would apply both in and outside the combat zone; including any goto orders they had. Their reinforcements are going to be a turn late.

[crescentfresh]

yes Tony has been the PAL turn player and he has been our only turn player for a while now. I will try to get some useful info for this thread if I can, but AFAIK Tony was the only one logging in around the time of these events.

[mostly-harmless]

@ crescentfresh: tony said that PAL resigns from the gane. are you willing to continue on behalf of PAL? Or will you try to help us to recruit new people for PAL?

After all, this discussion is pretty academic if we can't get people to continue for PAL.

mh

[crescentfresh]

We do have other people on our roster who are regular and dependable pitboss participants. (I am not one of them, I am a pitboss noob and joined the PaL team to learn more about it.) I am actually holiday-subbing for teammate Indiansmoke in a couple pitboss games right now. He is one of the players I suspect will be game to take over for Tony. I am working on it.

I guess there is no way to join the game now and check the event logs?

And I don't have access to whatever channels Tony was using for diplo communications with the other teams. Was he doing it all by email?

[GeoModder]

Stats show that in 550 BC Rabbits were the very last team to end the turn. Which would mean that PAL had the right to first move first in 525 BC.

AFAIK, this is not disputed. As far as could be checked for visible units, PAL didn't start double moving before 525 BC. If I think what you imply is correct (that Caerbannog killed the PAL warrior at the onset of 525 BC), that's not the case. Infact, the same screenshot that Zoid already showed also has our "killing unit" with its move spent next to the PAL warrior.

If the accusation had been more timely, a restart back to the beginning of 525 and a forfeiture of move would have been called for. But it's a bit late too do so, and it caused the loss of a PAL warrior, so a Rabbit Warrior disappearing away from the combat zone would bring this back to even.

My point is that the PAL double move couldn't be detected for sure before they finished 500 BC (and since they played last as far as I could determine in hindsight and also played in 475 BC as first team), and they moved their main army in 525 BC after Caerbannog had finished its turn. The loss of a PAL warrior resulted directly from the misdirection PAL put up simply because the Caerbannog player could have reason to assume they played already because the friggin' PAL army was moved. Not to mention (again) that half the time for that turn had passed before Caerbannog made their moves.

About the only way this might not have been a Rabbit double move is if PAL had any units in the combat zone with goto orders that immedately executed at the very start of that turn. (Which is also something that shouldn't be going on in time of war in & near the combat zone)

GoTo orders execute only after the player of a team logs in.

The PAL forfeiting a turns movement for their double move is actually a bit more significant, it would apply both in and outside the combat zone; including any goto orders they had. Their reinforcements are going to be a turn late.

What reinforcements? Comparing the power stats indicates close to their whole army is on the move already.
Essentially, you propose to weaken Caerbannog further while PAL (at most) delays its advance one turn.

[conmcb25]

I'm doing a lot of right now because I said legislating against a double move was a bad idea.

You just need to play for it, and take your double move to counteract.

But thats neither here nor there right now. Wake me up when we can actually play again

[sunrise089]

@Geo - I would tend to argue one unit is trivial compared to a delayed attack. In my experience, even one turn can result in reinforcements arriving into the threatened city or a new build completing. Perhaps in this specific case punishing both teams will harm Rabbits more, but in both cases punishment fits the crime. After all PAL is left in the same situation as if there had been no double move. I don't think they need to receive further punitive actions as a deterrent since surely the week-long pause to figure this out is deterrent enough for all of us

[Swiss Pauli]

If I understand Geomodder correctly, the sequence of events according to Rabbits is:

Turn 94 - PAL ends turn with units in Rabbits line of sight, then Rabbits move units, then PAL moves units although they had previously ended their turn (see screenshot: http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....9&postcount=25.

Turn 95 - Rabbits kill PAL warrior whilst under the belief that PAL had played their turn as their army had moved from where it should have ended the turn. PAL note a double move from Rabbits, but don't report it, and play their turns.

Turn 96 - PAL plays before Rabbits, making a double move which allows them to kill units and capture a city (which is razed).

Have I got this right? Either way, PAL haven't responded to the 'sneak move' accusation, so they should do so ASAP. If there's no reply before 3rd January, I propose that we accept Rabbits version of events, and we look to find a solution to get the game going again.

[GeoModder]

@Geo - I would tend to argue one unit is trivial compared to a delayed attack. In my experience, even one turn can result in reinforcements arriving into the threatened city or a new build completing. Perhaps in this specific case punishing both teams will harm Rabbits more, but in both cases punishment fits the crime. After all PAL is left in the same situation as if there had been no double move. I don't think they need to receive further punitive actions as a deterrent since surely the week-long pause to figure this out is deterrent enough for all of us

Well, if an alleged double move needs be punished by deleting the unit responsible, how about deleting the PAL army responsible for taking and razing the city which they couldn't have attacked before reinforcements arrived anyway? Both circumstances resulted in the loss of units/property.

If I understand Geomodder correctly, the sequence of events according to Rabbits is:

Turn 94 - PAL ends turn with units in Rabbits line of sight, then Rabbits move units, then PAL moves units although they had previously ended their turn (see screenshot: http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....9&postcount=25.

Turn 95 - Rabbits kill PAL warrior whilst under the belief that PAL had played their turn as their army had moved from where it should have ended the turn. PAL note a double move from Rabbits, but don't report it, and play their turns.

Turn 96 - PAL plays before Rabbits, making a double move which allows them to kill units and capture a city (which is razed).

Have I got this right? Either way, PAL haven't responded to the 'sneak move' accusation, so they should do so ASAP. If there's no reply before 3rd January, I propose that we accept Rabbits version of events, and we look to find a solution to get the game going again.

On turn 95, the army that was moved was circumstantial evidence. The main reason the turn was played was that 24 hours had past despite that PAL hadn't finished its turn. 't Was clear that PAL hadn't moved the warrior for whatever reason and hadn't taken another small city which they could have taken with reasonable chances.
For the rest, your list is correct.

[mostly-harmless]

It is good to hear that PAL is trying to re-organize themselves.
Crescentfresh, the game is down at the moment, for technical reasons I assume, so no logging in.

From what I gather the following things need to be sorted out soonest:
- PAL re-organizing
- A statement from snoopy when the game will be up again and what the chances are to re-load from an earlier save (if that is the way to go).
- Decision on how to sort out the double double move accusation
I personally would expect Rabbits to make a fair suggestion how to proceed, ideally speaking for the whole team with one voice. The same for PAL once they are re-organized.
- Teams having received Banana diplo messages in the last days, please respond to keep Automated Teller = Banana happy and interested.
- Get back to gaming.

Let's work on that.

mh

[tonyciv4]

I don’t know if PAL will be able to find a team, but if they can I would be willing to fill them in on what’s been happening both in the game and on a diplomatic front.

If the game is reloaded, I would even be willing to play those 2 turns in question, so we are in a position where no double moves happen.

But I strongly doubt Rabbit would want to reload the game 2 turns … The outcome would be EXACTLY as it is now (well we would be plus 1 warrior but that don’t matter). They need 2 consecutive moves to save the city, at some point during the 3 turns.

The only terms Rabbit will agree to, is reloading PAL’s double move only … Or there will be no change in outcome.

EDT:: BTW, how are you meant to keep track of the game timer when the tracker is down?

[Hercules]

So shall we agree to go back to start of turn 94?