Chat Log

[snoopy369]

(6:19:29 PM) Golden: What do we have for topics? Cheats?  Poor behavior?
(6:19:41 PM) Golden: C4 doesn't allow too many cheats.
(6:20:02 PM) Golden: The behavior part is trickier.
(6:20:06 PM) Snoopy369: Well, not "cheats", except specific behaviors that aren't obvoius ... 
(6:20:13 PM) BigFree[Sar]: 1. No reloading (though it might as well go without saying)
(6:20:21 PM) Snoopy369: i'm more thinking things like out of game contacts
(6:20:30 PM) UnO[Merc]: not enforcable, BF.
(6:20:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(6:20:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(6:20:57 PM) Golden: Damn he's fast.
(6:21:07 PM) BigFree[Sar]: It is enforcable within a team UnO
(6:21:41 PM) Golden: OK, in the sp c4 game there are techs that allow different levels of diplo - however, I am certain that pp will want to form alliances immediately on contact.
(6:21:42 PM) Snoopy369: It's worth saying, at least. ;)
(6:22:00 PM) Snoopy369: GB, that's the question.  Do we allow all forms of alliance from contact?
(6:22:03 PM) Golden: Actually, the game itself does not allow military alliances except defensive.
(6:22:13 PM) Golden: I don't know how you can prevent it.
(6:22:46 PM) AC-PJay: Alliances mostly exist in the brains of the people involved in the contact. You can't ban that.
(6:22:50 PM) NicodaMax [juser@pc-111-100-104-200.cm.vtr.net] entered the room.
(6:23:02 PM) UnO[Merc]: The new open borders allows pretty much any form you would want.  It just won't show on the diplo screen.
(6:23:06 PM) Snoopy369: If that's the consensus, then that's the answer ;)
(6:23:16 PM) nye_GS: true, and the game has mechanics for trade/movement, etc
(6:23:23 PM) Snoopy369: but that's a change from other games, and thus worth mentioning
(6:23:39 PM) Snoopy369: What about using open borders/war to teleport units?
(6:23:54 PM) nye_GS: the thing that has been banned, i think, is allied victories of any sort
(6:24:06 PM) Golden: teleport is a cheat, but not as bad as before.
(6:24:17 PM) UnO[Merc]: Yes @ nye, I would be against teleport.
(6:24:32 PM) UnO[Merc]: That is to say, intentional teleporting.
(6:25:17 PM) Snoopy369: Do we require teams to vacate territories entirely BEFORE cancelling open borders?
(6:25:19 PM) nye_GS: you mean 'we dow on you to speed us accross your land, not lets make peace and go back to trading'?
(6:25:26 PM) Golden: So if someone declares war on a open borders treaty, they need to follow up with real fighting?
(6:25:26 PM) Snoopy369: That's the only way to actually enforce that
(6:25:30 PM) AC-PJay: Moving close to a border, knowing/suspecting it will expand in order to explore 2 tiles in 1 movement. Is that  considered intenional teleporting ?
(6:26:09 PM) Golden: PJay, that might just be good game play?
(6:26:33 PM) Krill_GS: I can't see how it can be regulated...
(6:26:37 PM) AC-PJay: That's what I thought too, but just making sure what's "intentional teleporting"
(6:26:44 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm saying no to moving 1/2 +1 tile through a territory and then closing the borders to teleport to the other side should be outlawed.  
(6:26:56 PM) UnO[Merc]: 2 teams would know it happened.  Hard to hide.
(6:27:08 PM) Golden: I'm thinkgin more that X and Y are attacking Z together... then AA attacks Xs homeland and Y declears war to send Xs troops back home for defense.
(6:27:40 PM) UnO[Merc]: Troops don't go home, they go to the nearest available tile.
(6:27:42 PM) Golden: Also, Snoops would see it in the forums perhaps.
(6:28:09 PM) Golden: Sure, they don't go home but they could get a lot closer if no other open border agreements exist.
(6:28:12 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed, though obviously it could be hidden from there also
(6:28:27 PM) BigFree[Sar]: It could not be hidden for long
(6:28:49 PM) Golden: Can we just agree not to do it?  Aren't we honorable enough for that?
(6:28:51 PM) AC-PJay: Can't we rely on general fairness for this one ?
(6:28:52 PM) UnO[Merc]: I can't see 2 entire teams conspiring to break that rule if we put it down.
(6:29:01 PM) BigFree[Sar]: I agree
(6:29:15 PM) Paddy: indeed
(6:29:26 PM) Golden: OTOH it is possible for 2 teams to suck a third's armies away from home and then turn on them.
(6:29:28 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Hi Paddy
(6:29:31 PM) Snoopy369: I suggest a pretty well worded rule, though, so people know what they're breaking ;)
(6:29:36 PM) Paddy: hi there
(6:29:36 PM) Golden: I'd hate to lose that opportunity.
(6:29:41 PM) Golden: Hi Paddy!
(6:30:05 PM) UnO[Merc]: Conspiring against us already GB? ;)
(6:30:11 PM) Snoopy369: hehe
(6:30:19 PM) Snoopy369: okay, anyone want to suggest a wording?
(6:30:22 PM) Krill_GS: question: 
(6:30:24 PM) Golden: :)
(6:30:33 PM) AC-PJay: GB, that's teleporting too. I don't see why teleporting other people's units would be allowed
(6:30:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(6:30:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(6:30:48 PM) UnO[Merc]: "No use of teleporting through borders to gain an unfair advantage"
(6:30:49 PM) AC-PJay: 5 sec
(6:30:59 PM) Snoopy369: wait, what's GB suggesting?
(6:31:03 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Simple UnO, I like it.
(6:31:20 PM) nye_GS: i think GS would support a rule that says visiting nations cannot declare war on hosts with the sole intent of teleporting
(6:31:20 PM) Snoopy369: A and B "allying" with C, getting C to attack (somewhere), then closing borders with C to ?
(6:31:23 PM) Golden: I'm suggesting that we just be honest.
(6:31:25 PM) Krill_GS: two teams have plans from beforehand to attack a third party, and a few turns before they plan to start the war, the third party moves a number of troops through one teams territory.
(6:31:46 PM) Krill_GS: say, moving via roads in one of the two teams lands
(6:32:32 PM) UnO[Merc]: @nye/GS.  YOu don't need to 'declare war' to end an open border deal, which would teleport just the same.
(6:32:34 PM) Golden: OK, A and B agree to eff over Z.  Get Z into Bs territory to attack, um, Sarantium.  Boom, B declares war and A attacks Zs territory while Zs forces are far away.
(6:32:39 PM) Golden: That's legitimate.
(6:33:00 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Let's go with UnO's rule and let the moderators decide what is unfair or not.
(6:33:30 PM) Paddy: yeah
(6:33:34 PM) Golden: I say we should treat this like golf and just self judge.  Just don't do it.
(6:33:35 PM) Krill_GS: so any plans any team comes up with have to be run past the mods, to make sure they are "legitimate"?
(6:33:42 PM) BigFree[Sar]: yes
(6:33:45 PM) Krill_GS: that is the way we are running...
(6:33:51 PM) Golden: That's not a bad idea.
(6:33:59 PM) nye_GS: one moment
(6:34:01 PM) Solver: who calls the mods :)?
(6:34:01 PM) Snoopy369: I'd prefer a more set "suggestion", if possible, just so people know where the intent is going
(6:34:17 PM) nye_GS: say A is in B's territory with a couple units
(6:34:21 PM) Golden: UnO said it well.
(6:34:25 PM) nye_GS: A and B have a greed to a border
(6:34:27 PM) BigFree[Sar]: The intent is not to cheat or gain an unfair advantage.
(6:34:51 PM) nye_GS: B has sent a settler into A's 'territory'
(6:35:06 PM) nye_GS: A has discovered the settler/archer with an axe
(6:35:15 PM) Krill_GS: and that is the problem, BF, intent will have to be interpreted, and two peoples interpretations can be very different
(6:35:32 PM) Golden: keep going nye
(6:35:36 PM) UnO[Merc]: In GB's case, the teleport is not being used so much as the raw diplomacy to gain the advantage.  YOu have tricked the team into moving their army away from home.  YOu cannot be penalized for the game's mechanics creating the teleport. 
(6:35:36 PM) nye_GS: A can't delcare war and kill the settler/archer before they settle, because they have units in B's terriory
(6:35:58 PM) nye_GS: thus A has to allow a city with increased defence for tyhe archer, and forgo a slave
(6:36:02 PM) nye_GS: bad rule
(6:36:15 PM) nye_GS: say something along the lines of 'sole intent'
(6:36:38 PM) Golden: But, nye, the intent there would not be to use the teleport. Just to kill the freakin settler.
(6:36:48 PM) Golden: s'ok in my book.
(6:37:01 PM) nye_GS: but the teleport would be a consequence, and if the rule says no teleport, then A is screwed
(6:37:04 PM) UnO[Merc]: Right, teleport is strictly for BORDERS, not "borders".
(6:37:26 PM) nye_GS: i would urge GS to reject an inflexible rule that effects legitimate in game actions
(6:37:26 PM) Golden: UnO's rule is to not abuse the teleport part of the situation.
(6:37:37 PM) Golden: I agree with you nye.
(6:38:09 PM) Snoopy369: I'd suggest UnO's rule, coupled with one or two scenarios where it's illegal, and one or two where it's legal, if you want to be thorough ;)
(6:38:14 PM) Snoopy369: but that's up to y'all
(6:38:15 PM) nye_GS: all uno's rule needs is something along the lines of 'cannot do such and such with the sole intent of...'
(6:38:18 PM) Krill_GS: The problem is that the teleport may well give the attacker an advantage, the other team complains...
(6:38:21 PM) Golden: "No INTENTIONAL use of teleporting through borders to gain an unfair advantage."
(6:38:41 PM) Snoopy369: The problem I have with that simple of a rule, is that EVERYTHING you do in this game is with the intent of getting an advantage
(6:38:46 PM) Snoopy369: that's called strategy
(6:39:02 PM) Snoopy369: "unfair" tends to be different, in different peoples' minds
(6:39:07 PM) Golden: unfair advantage vs. advantage. different things.
(6:39:41 PM) nye_GS: if any team has a legitimate reason for an act, they should be free to do it
(6:39:45 PM) BigFree[Sar]: There will be teleporting in this game; there will be explorers who get caught behind borders.  It would not be cheating to teleport them home.
(6:39:45 PM) nye_GS: such as declare war
(6:39:47 PM) UnO[Merc]: teleporting to speed movement: bad.
(6:40:00 PM) UnO[Merc]: Teleporting as the side result of other situation: ok.
(6:40:20 PM) BigFree[Sar]: That why we let the mods decide
(6:40:27 PM) BigFree[Sar]: too many "what if's"
(6:40:28 PM) nye_GS: that's why i urge 'sole intent' to be in the rule
(6:40:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(6:40:43 PM) AC-PJay: nye: "main intent"
(6:40:44 PM) Snoopy369: okay, okay, so state a rule and agree on it ;)
(6:40:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(6:40:57 PM) nye_GS: even better, PJay
(6:41:18 PM) nye_GS: snoop, we are not going to be able to agree on language here.
(6:41:36 PM) nye_GS: that could take days and would not be the best use of time
(6:41:57 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Why not?  I think we are close. :)
(6:42:04 PM) Snoopy369: Then why are we here ... ;)
(6:42:10 PM) nye_GS: are we agreed that abusing open borders with the Main Intent of teleporting is against the rules?
(6:42:20 PM) Golden: Yup.
(6:42:32 PM) BigFree[Sar]: yes
(6:42:36 PM) nye_GS: we would be better served by discussing ther ideas and then nailing down the words later
(6:42:38 PM) Paddy: abuse is out
(6:42:47 PM) Snoopy369: "The use of Open Borders to teleport units as its main purpose is illegal."
(6:42:57 PM) Snoopy369: ?
(6:43:09 PM) Golden: Good enough for a start.
(6:43:15 PM) UnO[Merc]: :b:
(6:43:24 PM) nye_GS: good to start
(6:43:35 PM) Paddy: yeah
(6:43:37 PM) Snoopy369: k
(6:43:50 PM) nye_GS: chaining?
(6:44:07 PM) BigFree[Sar]: like S&M?
(6:44:08 PM) nye_GS: you can still chain for two moves with ground forces
(6:44:13 PM) nye_GS: in boats
(6:44:30 PM) nye_GS: it was left in the game by the designers. do we care?
(6:44:34 PM) Senethro [~Senethro@res05-ah59.res.st-and.ac.uk] entered the room.
(6:44:40 PM) Golden: I don't care.
(6:44:56 PM) Senethro: Hi pjay
(6:45:00 PM) UnO[Merc]: So long as all teams are aware.  (I wasn't until now, frankly.)
(6:45:05 PM) AC-PJay: hi senethro
(6:45:24 PM) Senethro: PM for you...
(6:45:26 PM) Golden: Although, I would LIKE it better if we didn't chain.
(6:46:12 PM) Snoopy369: hehe
(6:46:19 PM) Golden: Vote?
(6:46:24 PM) NicodaMax left the room (quit: Quit: Bye bye).
(6:46:36 PM) Snoopy369: Chaining would be easy to cut out, but isn't a big issue compared to most of the other ones here i'd say ... anyone other than GB have a problem with it?
(6:47:00 PM) Golden: Now, did I say I have a problem? I would vote against but can live with it.
(6:47:22 PM) Golden: We're playing pangaea, right?
(6:47:32 PM) UnO[Merc]: Continents.
(6:47:43 PM) Senethro: Eugh...
(6:47:45 PM) Snoopy369: We're playing continents, yes
(6:47:46 PM) Senethro: why continents...
(6:47:50 PM) ***Golden Bear holds up "JOKE" sign.
(6:47:51 PM) Senethro: thats going to turn into a buildathon.
(6:47:55 PM) Snoopy369: Balanced continents ;)
(6:47:56 PM) Paddy: was the vote of the teams
(6:48:02 PM) NicodaMax [juser@pc-111-100-104-200.cm.vtr.net] entered the room.
(6:48:03 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed.
(6:48:31 PM) Golden: Are we done with chaining?
(6:48:46 PM) Golden: Not too many opinions voiced on it.
(6:48:47 PM) Snoopy369: Apparently ;)
(6:48:59 PM) NicodaMax left the room.
(6:49:13 PM) Solver: Night people!
(6:49:16 PM) Solver left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving).
(6:49:24 PM) Krill_GS: I see no reason to remove it, if it was left in, and it is balanced...
(6:49:38 PM) Snoopy369: It's only 2 moves now, compared to much more before ;)
(6:49:58 PM) nye_GS: ok. next topic?
(6:50:06 PM) UnO[Merc]: Right.  It was left in, all teams can use it, leave it alone.  The fewer out of game rules the better.
(6:50:17 PM) Snoopy369: I'd like to bring up time limits briefly, although there's already been discussion in the fora
(6:50:17 PM) nye_GS: GP gifting. Is it even possible?
(6:50:23 PM) Snoopy369: k, after that then ;)
(6:50:25 PM) UnO[Merc]: Yes, it's possible.
(6:50:29 PM) UnO[Merc]: :D
(6:50:30 PM) Snoopy369: GP gifting is possible iirc
(6:50:31 PM) nye_GS: oh oh
(6:50:31 PM) Golden: ugh.
(6:50:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(6:50:41 PM) Snoopy369: also something easy to bar, if you want to
(6:50:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(6:50:53 PM) Snoopy369: although there are certainly valid reasons for doing so
(6:50:53 PM) nye_GS: I'm not sure of the opionion of the team, but personally, it should be banned
(6:51:01 PM) Krill_GS: gifting what, precisely?
(6:51:05 PM) Krill_GS: everything?
(6:51:12 PM) nye_GS: Great People
(6:51:14 PM) Senethro: Why ban GP gifting?
(6:51:22 PM) UnO[Merc]: Oh, come on! let me have an auction.  
(6:51:28 PM) Krill_GS: gives the mercs something else to hock...
(6:51:30 PM) Paddy: hehehe
(6:51:31 PM) Snoopy369: Imagine wanting to end a war in exchange for a Great Artist or somesuch
(6:51:31 PM) nye_GS: It is too easy for teams to act together to manage GAs
(6:51:40 PM) Snoopy369: True
(6:51:45 PM) Golden: Hmm.
(6:51:52 PM) nye_GS: Our GP cities do Sci and art
(6:51:55 PM) BigFree[Sar]: I think it would just add to the game
(6:52:03 PM) nye_GS: Our ally does merchants and priests
(6:52:40 PM) Snoopy369: Certainly make a culture victory easier ;)
(6:52:40 PM) Krill_GS: yeah, I can see that being pretty damned exploitive, truth be told...
(6:52:50 PM) Golden: Yeah.
(6:52:56 PM) AC-PJay: bwah
(6:53:04 PM) NicodaMax [juser@pc-111-100-104-200.cm.vtr.net] entered the room.
(6:53:23 PM) UnO[Merc]: Well, if permanent alliances are outlawed, would not a vassal civ giving artists be as well?
(6:53:25 PM) AC-PJay: With co-op victories disabled, I don't think anybody would give away his GP's to help an other team win the final stretch
(6:53:27 PM) nye_GS: OK. it is on the table, and our teams should decide which side of the question we are on it. agreed?
(6:53:45 PM) Snoopy369: We need to keep going on this one, nye
(6:53:51 PM) nye_GS: ok
(6:54:00 PM) Snoopy369: Does anyone feel that it SHOULD be allowed, and why?
(6:54:15 PM) Snoopy369: (other than me, anyway, and i'm mixed)
(6:54:16 PM) NicodaMax10 [juser@pc-111-100-104-200.cm.vtr.net] entered the room.
(6:54:30 PM) UnO[Merc]: I do.  Cause I want an auction, and want to see the fun/interesting thing teams do with the idea.
(6:54:35 PM) Senethro: I think it should be allowed.
(6:54:38 PM) Senethro: It adds to the game.
(6:54:42 PM) Senethro: More feature, more interest.
(6:54:51 PM) Senethro: I think that extortion of GPs or auction is fine tbh :P
(6:54:51 PM) AC-PJay: I think it should be allowed. Good diplomacy (ie: team co-operation) shouldn't be cripled.
(6:55:01 PM) NicodaMax10 left the room.
(6:55:02 PM) UnO[Merc]: Plus, as with chaining. "it's in the game".
(6:55:15 PM) nye_GS: so is teleporting, uno
(6:55:19 PM) Snoopy369: That's a specious argument ;)
(6:55:21 PM) Golden: Here's a thought. Merc wants to sell stuff. GPs would be expensive, thus the leading teams would be the bidders. It is a deviation amplifier, not a balancer.
(6:55:22 PM) Senethro: ....teleporting?
(6:55:29 PM) AC-PJay: It's part of the point of the "diplomacy" in a diplomacy game. Winning it depends on diplomacy too.
(6:55:51 PM) Krill_GS: UnO
(6:55:53 PM) nye_GS: i would like it discussed by the teams, that is all
(6:55:59 PM) BigFree[Sar]: I wouldn't vote against it for my team.
(6:56:15 PM) Krill_GS: If GS offered you 600 gold for a GA, and Saratnium offered you 400 gold, who would you sell it to?
(6:56:17 PM) Golden: Really? I might.
(6:56:23 PM) nye_GS: all of this is going to have to be voted by the teams, yes?
(6:57:01 PM) Snoopy369: That's up to the teams
(6:57:25 PM) UnO[Merc]: @Krill, well, neither of you would know which the other offered, and we'ld be free to choose based on whichever criteria we pleased.
(6:57:28 PM) nye_GS: gs wants this decided by the teams, point by point
(6:57:28 PM) Snoopy369: This looks to be big enough to be worth a thread, unless you all get to an agreement shortly ;)
(6:57:47 PM) Krill_GS: Thanks UnO
(6:58:03 PM) Snoopy369: Anything else to contribute, or shall we move on?
(6:58:15 PM) Krill_GS: map trading?
(6:58:23 PM) Krill_GS: screenshot trading in particular...
(6:58:41 PM) Snoopy369: Sure
(6:58:42 PM) nye_GS: should be polled (wasn;t it already)?
(6:58:51 PM) Snoopy369: I think it was already, but there's no harm in making sure people agree
(6:58:59 PM) Golden: I thought that we said yes, with first contact.
(6:59:01 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm for Screenshot trading on meeting.
(6:59:08 PM) Krill_GS: same here
(6:59:10 PM) UnO[Merc]: So is team Merc.
(6:59:12 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed, that was the result of the poll
(6:59:31 PM) Snoopy369: Paddy, PJ, you guys on board with this?
(6:59:57 PM) Snoopy369: ... you guys here? :)
(7:00:04 PM) Snoopy369: ...
(7:00:07 PM) Snoopy369: okay, moving on ;)
(7:00:10 PM) Snoopy369: Time tables ...
(7:00:13 PM) Snoopy369: er, time limits
(7:00:18 PM) nye_GS: ok. no pre contact contact?
(7:00:26 PM) nye_GS: ok. time limits
(7:00:35 PM) Paddy: screens on meeting - indeed
(7:00:35 PM) UnO[Merc]: No pre contact contact.
(7:00:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:00:44 PM) Golden: None.
(7:00:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:00:55 PM) AC-PJay: I thought my view was clear on that one  : screenshots after contact is ok
(7:00:59 PM) Paddy: can you make maps available in game for contact?
(7:01:05 PM) UnO[Merc]: Time limits, I'm for 48 hours, while I don't foresee the need for that long.
(7:01:11 PM) Snoopy369: No, I didn't mod that in, and probably can't
(7:01:15 PM) Golden: What do you mean, Paddy?
(7:01:34 PM) Snoopy369: i'm able to mod xml, but not python
(7:01:35 PM) UnO[Merc]: I would be against map trading in game earlier.
(7:01:35 PM) Krill_GS: mod it so that all ofthe early techs allow map trading in game...
(7:01:47 PM) Golden: Ah.
(7:01:55 PM) nye_GS: yuk
(7:01:57 PM) Senethro: Wouldn't map trading be too powerful because of religion scouting?
(7:02:01 PM) nye_GS: personally
(7:02:03 PM) AC-PJay: I would also be against in-game map trading earlier. Screenshots is just "talking" with less words.
(7:02:10 PM) Senethro: If we're playing continents we're going to have religion popping up everywhere via sea trade routes.
(7:02:25 PM) Paddy: screenshots /maps no big difference
(7:02:29 PM) Snoopy369: kk
(7:02:30 PM) Snoopy369: Anyway
(7:02:48 PM) UnO[Merc]: Big difference, paddy, but discussion for another time.
(7:02:58 PM) Snoopy369: My reason for bringing this up, is to have a natural language discussion of how hardball do you want aeson and I to be with time limits
(7:03:06 PM) nye_GS: time limits: 48 hours with a suggestion that 24 (or less) is courtious
(7:03:27 PM) nye_GS: snoop. not hardball at all
(7:03:42 PM) Snoopy369: 48 hours I think was the agreement, but a) unlimited or limited (how) with extensions on request, and b) do we instantly play the save after 48 hours are past?
(7:03:47 PM) Golden: I saw some bad blood over this.  Let's talk it out.
(7:03:47 PM) Snoopy369: (or do we wait a bit longer)
(7:03:56 PM) nye_GS: persistent abusers can be discussed, and the teams can agree to set you loose on them woiuld be my personal vote
(7:04:11 PM) Snoopy369: Problem there, is it's a lot of discussion
(7:04:15 PM) Snoopy369: *diplomacy
(7:04:16 PM) Snoopy369: bah
(7:04:17 PM) Snoopy369: tired
(7:04:18 PM) Snoopy369: anyway
(7:04:46 PM) Golden: 48 hours seems like a lot of time right now...
(7:04:48 PM) Snoopy369: Frankly, I don't think it should ever be left up to a team vote in the individual instance, or even anything post-start, unless it's some sort of huge deal ...
(7:04:51 PM) nye_GS: yes, snoop, and this game will be a monumental amount of time by a lot of people. I for one want to see it decided on the map, and not by any other means if possible
(7:05:03 PM) UnO[Merc]: Case by case IMO.  I can't say skip a team in the middle of a war because main turnplayer's computer went to **** and will be down for an extra 48 hours.
(7:05:06 PM) Snoopy369: thus i'd rather know your feelings now
(7:05:42 PM) AC-PJay: If your team can't play within 48 hours, somebody should post a msg in the general forum asking for an extension, which should be given by default
(7:05:46 PM) Golden: If 48 hours becomes a problem, it might be a symptom of something more drastically wrong with the game.  
(7:05:50 PM) nye_GS: these things tend to run themselves well. we should discuss if there are problems as they arrise
(7:05:59 PM) nye_GS: those are my feelings
(7:06:07 PM) AC-PJay: If your team doesn't post an extension request before the deadline, the team gets some kind of "warning"
(7:06:09 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm with nye.
(7:06:19 PM) ***UnO[Merc] wonders if he just said that out loud...
(7:06:26 PM) Paddy: I would like to see each team with 24 hours - and each team having back up turn players
(7:06:28 PM) Snoopy369: The problem i have with discussing it later on, is c3dg, the time issues became an extension of the game itself
(7:06:31 PM) nye_GS: damn, it just got cold all of a sudden
(7:06:32 PM) Golden: I agree with nye except when it gets to be a regular occurance.
(7:06:36 PM) Snoopy369: hehehe
(7:06:48 PM) Snoopy369: We're fine being lax on the turn timer
(7:06:52 PM) Golden: who said THAT?
(7:07:00 PM) Snoopy369: but I'm not sure i'm comfortable putting it up to a vote whether to skip
(7:07:10 PM) Snoopy369: (hence why i wanted to ask now)
(7:07:24 PM) Krill_GS: So long as that one vote became precendent...
(7:07:28 PM) Paddy: we have 7 teams - it can be a long time moving the save then
(7:07:34 PM) Golden: I don't know how to define it, but it becomes apparent when a team goes comatose.
(7:07:39 PM) nye_GS: well, i would imagine we would discuss the need to begin skipping, for everyone, and not just the problem point
(7:07:40 PM) Snoopy369: Certainly
(7:08:15 PM) AC-PJay: If all other teams can come up with a vote before the slow team is able to play the turn, they'll have an extension of 1 week already by itself.
(7:08:22 PM) Snoopy369: hehe
(7:08:24 PM) Snoopy369: exactly
(7:08:24 PM) nye_GS: in the meantime, lets keep our powder dry and not have teams calling for skipping right off the bat
(7:08:26 PM) Paddy: so if we going 48 hours - we may need to give more latitude as some teams may not expect the save for several days...
(7:08:35 PM) nye_GS: call it a safety on the big gun
(7:08:41 PM) Snoopy369: Say turn 5 comes around, and GS has the save for 48 hours
(7:08:44 PM) nye_GS: the big gun that could ruin the gmae for many
(7:08:45 PM) Snoopy369: without saying anything
(7:08:48 PM) Snoopy369: What do you want me to do?
(7:09:00 PM) UnO[Merc]: Well, if it's GS....
(7:09:03 PM) UnO[Merc]: ;)
(7:09:04 PM) Snoopy369: ;)
(7:09:06 PM) Paddy: hehe
(7:09:12 PM) nye_GS: nothing, beyond work with the team that is having problems to get the game moving
(7:09:17 PM) Golden: Or, what if everybody is wrapping up in 8 hours and one team is always taking 48?
(7:09:21 PM) Snoopy369: And if 72 hours goes by with no word?
(7:09:34 PM) nye_GS: then we discuss it on the forum, snoop
(7:09:34 PM) AC-PJay: snoopy : you should look in the private forum to see what's happening
(7:09:35 PM) Paddy: no word is bad
(7:09:40 PM) Snoopy369: Basically, do you want any actual time limit, or is it just a guideline
(7:09:45 PM) UnO[Merc]: PM at 48, skip at 72, IMO.
(7:09:55 PM) Golden: Earlier, I proposed that we scale the time sothat we have more early on and less later.
(7:09:59 PM) UnO[Merc]: Without word at 72, that is.
(7:10:00 PM) nye_GS: guideline, it always has been
(7:10:23 PM) Golden: And skip at 48 on subsequent?
(7:10:24 PM) UnO[Merc]: yes, less time later is good...
(7:10:25 PM) Snoopy369: Not in C3dg, although it wasn't strictly enforced
(7:10:31 PM) Snoopy369: it was a time limit
(7:10:33 PM) Snoopy369: in theory
(7:10:40 PM) nye_GS: NO SKIP without discussion and decision by the teams
(7:10:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:10:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:11:06 PM) Snoopy369: NYE, you're getting into muddy water, there, though
(7:11:08 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm ok with a no skipping without serious discussion first philosophy.
(7:11:11 PM) Golden: It would probably be appropriate to call a chat or something before skipping.
(7:11:13 PM) Snoopy369: but fine ;)
(7:11:25 PM) Golden: Also, keep discussion of skipping out of public forums.
(7:11:26 PM) nye_GS: no snoop, i am getting into the same water i have been with a lot of demo games
(7:11:37 PM) Snoopy369: As long as you all realize that any discussion, well into the game, becomes tainted by what happens in it.
(7:11:41 PM) nye_GS: muddy water to me would be admins who are aiming to have to much impact
(7:11:46 PM) Paddy: suggestion: try to work with the teams either side of you so you have an idea when you will get the save, and then be able to give the next team a heads up on when the save may be coming down the line
(7:11:49 PM) nye_GS: sorry, but i gotta say it
(7:11:56 PM) Snoopy369: Say what you want ;)
(7:12:01 PM) UnO[Merc]: PTWDG went fine with no skipping.  c3cdg had some skipping and did not.  am I correct in this?
(7:12:17 PM) nye_GS: you know why they don;t give mod powers to people who ask for them? because the person who wants the power is a potential danger
(7:12:18 PM) Snoopy369: However, more than one team has expressed an interest for a speedier game, hence why i'm trying to make sure it's not just the NYE show ;)
(7:12:19 PM) Senethro: Problem is that Civ4 has more turns in it.
(7:12:27 PM) Snoopy369: Actually, Civ4 has fewer
(7:12:29 PM) Snoopy369: iirc
(7:12:31 PM) Senethro: Especiially with expanses of water...
(7:12:36 PM) Senethro: Its got a really slow early game!
(7:12:36 PM) Krill_GS: in Normal speed it does...
(7:12:37 PM) Snoopy369: 'max' turns, anyway
(7:12:50 PM) nye_GS: you do not need the power at this point, and the more you ask for it, the more convinced i am that i can;t trust you witgh it
(7:12:52 PM) Snoopy369: C3DG went poorly, but that had nothing to do with skipipng
(7:12:57 PM) Snoopy369: I'm not asking for anything ... grr
(7:13:04 PM) Snoopy369: I want to make sure you all get the game you want
(7:13:16 PM) Golden: Normal seems fast, but, let's get back on topic!  I KNOW that Paddy likes fast turns and so do I. But sh!t happens.
(7:13:19 PM) Paddy: too many desires for us all to be happy
(7:13:27 PM) Snoopy369: that's the point ... just that i don't know that what YOU personally want is what is wanted in general
(7:13:40 PM) Senethro: Heh, democracy.
(7:13:42 PM) Paddy: 6 - 12 hours is a better speed for 7 teams ;) 
(7:13:51 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed. lol
(7:13:52 PM) UnO[Merc]: hey, let's all beat it out on snoopy. ;)
(7:13:58 PM) ***Snoopy369 hides
(7:14:07 PM) Golden: I am concerned about 2 situations: 1) 6 teams play fast and one always pushes the limit; 2) a team is buggered down to their last citadel and just sits on the saves.
(7:14:18 PM) Krill_GS: paddy, that will likely happen early on, 
(7:14:20 PM) Paddy: that sux
(7:14:44 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed, golden ... in those circumstances, what should happen?
(7:14:47 PM) Senethro: Team Mercenary, how much to buy your current settler unit? ;)
(7:14:57 PM) Snoopy369: Particularly (1), as that's not uncommon in any PBEM
(7:15:03 PM) UnO[Merc]: @GB: 1) I am fine with that, considering time zones.  2) I don't see a team doing that.
(7:15:08 PM) Paddy: yeah Krill here is hoping it does - fast early turns builds good momentum and thus good team participation for us all
(7:15:33 PM) UnO[Merc]: @senethro 1/4 hammer cost.  Unfortunately you have neither contact with us nor the tech to trade gold.
(7:15:49 PM) ***Snoopy369 pushes the merc discussion to #c4dg-mercmarket
(7:15:55 PM) Paddy: hehe
(7:15:58 PM) Snoopy369: Any other discussion points?
(7:16:15 PM) UnO[Merc]: No one's there. :(
(7:16:21 PM) Paddy: snoop time should be a guidline - and then come back to the open forum with issues
(7:16:32 PM) nye_GS: agreed

[snoopy369]

Pt 2 ...

(7:16:52 PM) Golden: public forum behavior?
(7:16:53 PM) UnO[Merc]: agreed
(7:17:06 PM) Paddy: it is my hope that the open forum will be used for keeping this game on track
(7:17:14 PM) Snoopy369: Public forum behavior isn't really up for discussion ... that's Markos' decision, and Ming's
(7:17:26 PM) nye_GS: i agree with snoopy
(7:17:26 PM) Paddy: behaviour should be straight and honest
(7:17:26 PM) UnO[Merc]: You guys forbid my 'news' and/or stories I'm quitting. 
(7:17:27 PM) Snoopy369: Behave yourselves is about the most we can really say
(7:17:35 PM) ***nye_GS feels really cold draft
(7:17:36 PM) Snoopy369: Honesty is up to you
(7:17:47 PM) Snoopy369: there's no requirement for that, it's a backstabbing game after all
(7:17:52 PM) Snoopy369: but be polite
(7:17:53 PM) Paddy: ;) 
(7:17:53 PM) nye_GS: UnO, don;t let it get you
(7:17:59 PM) Golden: :)
(7:18:04 PM) nye_GS: if one complains, **** 'emn
(7:18:17 PM) Paddy: as my accountant would say - I lie all the time, I am lieing to you now ;) 
(7:18:19 PM) nye_GS: don;t quit and then come back to us later and tell us why
(7:19:05 PM) Paddy: can we have a way of marking some threads in open forum as work threads - and others as game threads?
(7:19:13 PM) Snoopy369: ?
(7:19:16 PM) Snoopy369: Like what
(7:19:18 PM) Snoopy369: do you mean
(7:20:13 PM) Paddy: something in the title
(7:20:35 PM) Paddy: some threads we need for working issues - timeframes etc
(7:20:42 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:20:43 PM) nye_GS: to prevent discussion and or spamming and or rp?
(7:20:47 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:20:57 PM) Paddy: others are game threads - news items, stories etc
(7:21:04 PM) Paddy: yes nye indeed
(7:21:09 PM) Snoopy369: [C4DG] should precede "work" thread, i suppose
(7:21:13 PM) Snoopy369: something like that?
(7:21:16 PM) nye_GS: no comments in news threads?
(7:21:26 PM) Paddy: let the roleplayers know where they can play etc
(7:21:43 PM) UnO[Merc]: Comments are fine, and welcome, in newsthreads.
(7:21:55 PM) UnO[Merc]: Can't think of an author that thinks differently.
(7:22:06 PM) Golden: Ah, cr@p, I'm back. What are we discussing?
(7:22:13 PM) UnO[Merc]: It's the reporting needlessly to mods that got annoying. 
(7:22:38 PM) Snoopy369: ?
(7:22:45 PM) UnO[Merc]: LONG story.
(7:22:46 PM) nye_GS: unfortunate, but unavoidable UnO. on this board that is the 'right' of any reader
(7:22:47 PM) AC-PJay: I don't get anything about this.... Has there -ever- been a problem with roleplaying / news items ???
(7:22:57 PM) Snoopy369: this is in an area i'm not familiar with the history of ... ;)
(7:23:02 PM) Krill_GS: uh
(7:23:04 PM) nye_GS: have to have another way to ride it out
(7:23:28 PM) nye_GS: like let us know you are having a problem so we can support you
(7:23:38 PM) Snoopy369: you mean people reporting to ming/etc. that you used profanity or somesuch
(7:23:40 PM) Snoopy369: ??
(7:23:58 PM) nye_GS: no, people reporting him because they didn;t like the stories
(7:24:05 PM) Golden: Paddy, what kind of work threads are you thinking about?  Beyond a turn thread, of course...
(7:24:19 PM) Snoopy369: wow, that's odd, nye
(7:24:20 PM) nye_GS: i can't see ming taking that seriously though
(7:24:25 PM) UnO[Merc]: And they were 'not civ related' or 'offensive to one team'.
(7:24:26 PM) Snoopy369: why would ming/markos do anything about that?
(7:24:35 PM) nye_GS: though maybe UnO can clarify
(7:24:39 PM) AC-PJay: We don't need a rule like "don't roleplay/spam in the turntracking thread" do we?   (maybe bt and cata need such rule though)
(7:24:51 PM) Snoopy369: i wouldn't worry about it too much, ming will mostly let me alone in the forum more than likely
(7:24:56 PM) Snoopy369: and i can always go bug him over lunch ;)
(7:25:06 PM) ***Snoopy369 works about 500m away from Ming
(7:25:18 PM) Krill_GS: I don't know weather that is good or bad...
(7:25:21 PM) Krill_GS: anyway
(7:25:27 PM) Snoopy369: hehe
(7:25:27 PM) Krill_GS: I'm off now, so night all
(7:25:28 PM) UnO[Merc]: I don't know, I did eventually get banned for one of the news stories.
(7:25:29 PM) AC-PJay: snoopy : watch out about power-abusing posts now!!   (damn, too late)
(7:25:32 PM) nye_GS: g'night
(7:25:36 PM) Krill_GS left the room (quit: Quit: ).
(7:26:00 PM) nye_GS:  I don't know, I did eventually get banned for one of the news stories.
(7:26:03 PM) Snoopy369: Anyone has the right to post news items, for their Civgroup
(7:26:07 PM) nye_GS: ?? what? how did that go down?
(7:26:13 PM) Snoopy369: and any full site news gets sent through me
(7:26:16 PM) UnO[Merc]: Apparantly a picture of a lego boat is less civ related than a picture of jar jar entitled "mz"
(7:26:22 PM) Snoopy369: lol
(7:26:26 PM) Snoopy369: upload violations?
(7:26:33 PM) Paddy: sorry phone - work threads in open forum would be issxues such as teams going over 48 hours, etc
(7:27:04 PM) nye_GS: i have a solution for you, UnO. Ask DanQ in advance. He really appreciated it when I did for the GS coat of arms
(7:27:08 PM) Golden: Paddy, so, could we have a work thread in addition to the turn thread where mostly team leads would post?
(7:27:28 PM) Paddy: why would you have a turn thread in open forum
(7:27:59 PM) Snoopy369: There is typically a "save game is with XXXX" thread
(7:27:59 PM) nye_GS: 'turn to next team'?
(7:28:04 PM) Golden: ?Don't we have a turn thread? Merc to Vox, etc.?
(7:28:09 PM) Snoopy369: Golden, i'd doubt we need one
(7:28:13 PM) Snoopy369: of the earlier, sorry
(7:28:37 PM) ***Golden Bear is befuddled.
(7:28:42 PM) Snoopy369: there will presumably be a "save tracker" and a "save game discussion"
(7:28:55 PM) Snoopy369: i don't see a need for team leads to discuss out of game issues, normally
(7:28:59 PM) Snoopy369: do you predict many will come up?
(7:29:00 PM) Golden: I believe that is what I meant to communicate.
(7:29:05 PM) Golden: ;)
(7:29:06 PM) Snoopy369: i'd assume we can open them as needed
(7:29:45 PM) Snoopy369: no?
(7:29:45 PM) Paddy: ok :) 
(7:29:46 PM) Golden: I don't know, I'm trying to mind meld with Paddy and understand if there is a need.
(7:29:51 PM) ***Snoopy369 is afraid
(7:29:53 PM) Snoopy369: VERY afraid
(7:29:56 PM) Paddy: indeeed
(7:30:22 PM) Senethro: How large is this DG compared with previous?
(7:30:35 PM) Paddy: in demo games we have had two types of threads - those that keep the game working - and more roleplay types
(7:30:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:30:42 PM) Golden: Yup.
(7:30:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:31:03 PM) Snoopy369: This is somewhat bigger than C3DG i'd say
(7:31:07 PM) Snoopy369: not sure about start of PTWDG?
(7:31:17 PM) Golden: Y'know, can I bring up the unpleasant? (say yes, 'cuz I will anyway).
(7:31:49 PM) nye_GS: no *means yes anyway*
(7:31:49 PM) Golden: My biggest concern in this game is avoiding the public unpleasantness that we were all guilty of in the C3CDG.
(7:32:22 PM) Golden: I am scared to death of living through that again. Any thoughts about avoiding such a horror?
(7:32:42 PM) Senethro: Nerve staple offenders.
(7:32:44 PM) UnO[Merc]: I wasn't there.
(7:32:45 PM) Snoopy369: Staying polite with each other.
(7:32:54 PM) Golden: The only one I have had is that if ANYBODY complains about ANY post, it should be immediately deleted. That might help.
(7:32:58 PM) Snoopy369: That, and the understanding that i'll bring Ming in if there's a problem ;)
(7:33:08 PM) Snoopy369: Golden, then you have UnO's problem all over again
(7:33:13 PM) AC-PJay: I hope we'll have lots of roleplaying threads and will need only very little get-the-game-going threads. Problems with pwd's, wrong saves forwarded etc... can all be put in the turn tracking thread.  This only leaves rule-violations as possilbe "serious" threads, of which I hope there'll be none.
(7:33:28 PM) Senethro: Ming: Decreases pop by 5 but removes all unhappiness.
(7:33:31 PM) Golden: I would rather avoid the Ming solution.  Most of the folks that might now be POd at me were potential and hopefully future close buddies.
(7:33:40 PM) Snoopy369: Part of the problem with C3DG was people took things too seriously, and others took things not seriously enough
(7:33:51 PM) nye_GS: we usually have a turn passed thread, and a seperate thread for turn progression discussion
(7:33:58 PM) Snoopy369: Both groups imo have learned what is needed to be learned ... I don't see that problem again.
(7:34:08 PM) nye_GS: that's not just 'us' poly. that's also intersite games
(7:34:21 PM) UnO[Merc]: All games I've been in.
(7:34:25 PM) Golden: Well, Sarantium has been warned to behave itself.
(7:34:41 PM) Senethro: Heh, thankfully the AC team doens't have this history...
(7:34:48 PM) UnO[Merc]: Of course, god willing, "we" will also have the Public Mercenary Contract Thread.
(7:34:59 PM) UnO[Merc]: And associated discussion...
(7:35:04 PM) AC-PJay: that's roleplay uno
(7:35:16 PM) UnO[Merc]: And in game as well, actually.
(7:35:25 PM) UnO[Merc]: A list of all contracts we perform in game.
(7:35:34 PM) Golden: Sorry, I am just hoping that with some early preparation we can avoid bad things.  I need more friends rather than fewer.
(7:36:04 PM) Golden: Merc is going to post their contracts? Hmm (ears perk up).
(7:36:12 PM) nye_GS: some sort of spirit of the game rule within the rules
(7:36:23 PM) UnO[Merc]: Once contact with all teams, yes.
(7:36:23 PM) nye_GS: that can be done
(7:36:47 PM) Paddy: sure
(7:37:24 PM) Snoopy369: Once merc has contact with all, or once all have contact with all?
(7:37:31 PM) Golden: Can we agree that we are workign together to have a succesful game? And that success will largely be defined by the success of our relationships?
(7:37:50 PM) nye_GS: i agree with that, GB
(7:38:14 PM) Golden: I certainly want to strive for that.
(7:38:25 PM) Paddy: good to see
(7:38:33 PM) Snoopy369: (7:37:24 PM) Snoopy369: Once merc has contact with all, or once all have contact with all?
(7:38:45 PM) Paddy: good question
(7:38:54 PM) Snoopy369: That makes a difference ... Rommel would say the latter is required, after all, to have public forum discussions... :)
(7:39:08 PM) Snoopy369: but that's up to y'all how hardcore you want to be about "contact"
(7:40:02 PM) nye_GS: well, nothing should be posted that would give a team that lacks contact information about teams they have no contact with, would be the guideline, yes?
(7:40:02 PM) UnO[Merc]: Well, I was going by once WE had contact with all.  As far as I'm concerned, it's just a speedier way of relaying the same info to all teams.
(7:40:09 PM) Golden: with continents, it might be a lot of turns before anybody meets Merc. (Dreams of merc on a tiny island in a vast ocean) LOL.
(7:40:18 PM) Snoopy369: shh!
(7:40:22 PM) Snoopy369: don't give it away!
(7:40:24 PM) Golden: Ooops.
(7:40:25 PM) Snoopy369: :p
(7:40:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:40:45 PM) Snoopy369: Still wish i had a screenie of that one map we considered ... :lol:
(7:40:45 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:40:46 PM) Golden: 5 seconds
(7:40:52 PM) Snoopy369: civ4's map generator amuses me to no end
(7:41:09 PM) Snoopy369: by "considered" i mean aeson said "hah, that's funny"
(7:41:11 PM) Snoopy369: :)
(7:41:12 PM) Golden: I love map generators. Just LOVE them.
(7:41:16 PM) Snoopy369: Anyhow
(7:41:25 PM) AC-PJay: If there is anything like a "don't insult people"-rule, I guess I'll write in my sig I don't care about that and people are free to insult me if it fits their roleplaying.  I do undstand however, some people might not be able to make such a seperation between real-apolyton-user and roleplaying-military-general, and just don't want to be insulted.    (hmm, I shouldn't write such long sentences, this discussion is over already)
(7:41:30 PM) UnO[Merc]: [url]http://forums.mzocentral.net//index.php?showtopic=15246[/url]
(7:41:34 PM) Golden: OK, merc starts a contract thread after all have been met.
(7:41:35 PM) UnO[Merc]: Something like that.
(7:42:03 PM) Golden: PJay, I don't consider it over. 
(7:42:49 PM) Golden: I think that insults are in the eye of the beholder.  Personally I feel awful even if I've done it accidently.  THat's just me.
(7:43:06 PM) nye_GS: brb
(7:43:08 PM) Golden: Fortunately, I'm team lead this time and not FAM.
(7:43:16 PM) Senethro left the room (quit: Quit: ).
(7:44:12 PM) Snoopy369: Are we done with this point then?
(7:44:25 PM) Snoopy369: Since GB is Leader, there are no potential problems? ;)
(7:44:38 PM) Golden: Ouch!
(7:44:48 PM) Snoopy369: Hey, that was a compliment!
(7:44:54 PM) ***Snoopy369 shakes his head
(7:45:10 PM) Snoopy369: ANYhow, are we ready to move on ... ;)
(7:45:30 PM) Golden: Group hug first?
(7:45:37 PM) Golden: Where's Vox?
(7:45:44 PM) Snoopy369: hehe
(7:45:47 PM) Snoopy369: Vox and Banana couldn't come
(7:45:53 PM) ***nye_GS hugs bears like cats hugs dogs
(7:46:05 PM) AC-PJay: I have to get up in 5 hours and still need to go to bed before that, so ... goodnight all !
(7:46:07 PM) Snoopy369: NYE, you said ye had something else?
(7:46:10 PM) Snoopy369: cya pj
(7:46:12 PM) nye_GS: ok
(7:46:13 PM) UnO[Merc]: Vox and Banana are having their own secret meeting !!!!
(7:46:15 PM) Golden: bye pj!
(7:46:24 PM) nye_GS: Fake Wars for experience?
(7:46:29 PM) Paddy: bye
(7:46:30 PM) UnO[Merc]: Oh hell no.
(7:46:41 PM) Golden: Does anybody else think Bananarama when they see team Banana?
(7:46:47 PM) Golden: Or am I just odd?
(7:47:01 PM) Golden: How about fake wars for deception?
(7:47:13 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed
(7:47:19 PM) UnO[Merc]: Team Mercenary will not take part in one knowingly. 
(7:47:35 PM) Golden: Err, which?
(7:47:41 PM) nye_GS: a lie about a war would be different from gs buying three warriors from the mercs to slaugter for experience
(7:47:44 PM) UnO[Merc]: Fake war of deception.
(7:48:10 PM) UnO[Merc]: You can't pay us to 'invade' you.
(7:48:25 PM) nye_GS: or two teams trading warriors to hone the city assault swords which are intended to go kill a third civ
(7:48:50 PM) Golden: Let's say that Horde and Vox declare war on each other but are actually allies.  They beat the **** out of each other and trade cities. Is this OK?  Later they turn around and conquer the world together before squaring off for the final conflict.
(7:48:54 PM) UnO[Merc]: Yes, Team Mercenary will not sell units to be slaughtered no matter what rule is made.
(7:49:18 PM) Golden: Oh, the noble mercenaries.
(7:49:21 PM) nye_GS: GB, that would be bad pool in my book
(7:49:44 PM) Golden: Then it is a good point to discuss, yes?
(7:49:58 PM) nye_GS: Wars where the goal is anything other than a victory of some sort (geography, extinction, etc) is dirty pool
(7:50:00 PM) UnO[Merc]: I've tried it in PBEM's.  Usually just end up annexing my 'ally'...
(7:50:35 PM) Golden: Should we make a statement then?  I don't know but that I might just regard it as a bloody form of diplomacy.
(7:50:37 PM) nye_GS: ]Yes, GB, it should be discussed, so here it is ;)
(7:50:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(7:50:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(7:51:02 PM) UnO[Merc]: I've seen it, used it, and personally see it as a viable strategy.
(7:51:11 PM) AC-PJay left the room.
(7:51:11 PM) nye_GS: No wars for the purpose of training units.
(7:51:13 PM) Golden: Can someone PM settler and find out what's going on?
(7:51:32 PM) nye_GS: what about to get your ally to wipe out a city you made a mistake and put in the wrong place?
(7:51:41 PM) Golden: Ah, that is the difference. It is NOT for training units but to deceive the rest of us that they are actually allies.
(7:51:45 PM) Snoopy369: Settler's a bot.
(7:51:52 PM) Snoopy369: It records the people in the room, for the web page.
(7:51:54 PM) Snoopy369: forum*
(7:52:05 PM) Golden: OOOOh. I'm such a newb.  Hit me.
(7:52:11 PM) nye_GS: hehe
(7:52:13 PM) ***Snoopy369 slaps Golden with a trout
(7:52:29 PM) Snoopy369: :)
(7:52:35 PM) ***Golden Bear eats trout. Yum!
(7:53:06 PM) nye_GS:  Ah, that is the difference. It is NOT for training units but to deceive the rest of us that they are actually allies.
(7:53:10 PM) Golden: OK, war for intentional city removal, training, is outlawed. 'K? Any other abuses?
(7:53:12 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm with GB on war for deception.  Course, if they two teams were smart, they'ld not 'beat each other up', but TRADE cities to make it APPEAR that they were...
(7:53:16 PM) nye_GS: that's a good point, and should be allowed perhaps
(7:53:47 PM) nye_GS: i meant gb's deception
(7:53:48 PM) Golden: Even if they intentionally conquer each others' cities, they have still lost some building...
(7:54:00 PM) Golden: I'm not deceptive! :)
(7:54:03 PM) UnO[Merc]: Bah.  Buildings.
(7:54:16 PM) UnO[Merc]: Who cares, that's builderer crap.
(7:54:22 PM) Golden: LOL!
(7:54:27 PM) Golden: Mercboy!
(7:55:04 PM) nye_GS: i think we need to be specific
(7:55:08 PM) nye_GS: no war for training
(7:55:14 PM) nye_GS: no war for city relocation
(7:55:14 PM) UnO[Merc]: Yes, we do.
(7:55:15 PM) Golden: Rule: War for material advantage is outlawed. War for deception is allowed?
(7:55:19 PM) nye_GS: anything else?
(7:56:03 PM) Golden: I'm done. Just waiting for the last insult!
(7:56:06 PM) UnO[Merc]: "Allowing inferior units to be attacked/attacking said units expressly to gain XP is forbidden"
(7:56:23 PM) Golden: Seriously, yes. Do not allow that.
(7:56:26 PM) Snoopy369: 'inferior" is probably not needed
(7:56:34 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm not sure about the city relocating, honestly.
(7:56:52 PM) nye_GS: go back to the teams as seperate issues
(7:56:54 PM) Golden: If you fight a war, even for deception, you gotta fight it. Period.
(7:57:11 PM) Golden: Uno? Explanation?
(7:57:47 PM) UnO[Merc]: having your friend/us kill your city because you want one 2 tiles to the left.  I don't know that should be disallowed.
(7:58:01 PM) UnO[Merc]: You're paying a price for the settler and lost time already.
(7:58:10 PM) nye_GS: i feel it should, but grant that others may feel differently
(7:58:27 PM) nye_GS: three options back to the teams
(7:58:35 PM) nye_GS: no war for experience
(7:58:46 PM) nye_GS: no war for city relocation
(7:58:50 PM) nye_GS: no fake war at all
(7:59:00 PM) nye_GS: any or all three may be passed
(7:59:02 PM) Snoopy369: Indeed
(7:59:16 PM) UnO[Merc]: I'm afraid I need to be getting off, folks.
(7:59:16 PM) Snoopy369: well, you can't pass #3 without #1 and #2, but picture gotten
(7:59:26 PM) Snoopy369: Anything else, or is this over?
(7:59:29 PM) Snoopy369: 24's starting ...
(7:59:34 PM) Snoopy369: ;)
(7:59:38 PM) UnO[Merc] left the room (quit: Quit: ).
(7:59:46 PM) nye_GS: yes
(7:59:55 PM) nye_GS: saving teams by city gifting
(8:00:10 PM) Golden: I don't liek wars for city relocation, but, Snoopdog, good luck with enforcement!
(8:00:23 PM) Golden: What is wrong with that, nye?
(8:00:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(8:00:44 PM) nye_GS: and final issue. no action taken with save that is irreversible without it being an actual move
(8:00:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(8:01:06 PM) Snoopy369: ?
(8:01:14 PM) Snoopy369: you mean don't load it and play around?
(8:01:16 PM) nye_GS: GB, problem with city gifting to save a civ is that it has caused problems in other games
(8:01:33 PM) nye_GS: yes, i mean load and play around, with irreversible actions
(8:01:43 PM) nye_GS: settle here to see farther
(8:01:59 PM) nye_GS: disband units to gague changes in mil strength
(8:02:15 PM) Golden: Dude, first PBEM I was in I hit the wrong key and moved the wrong direction. THat's the way it is. No take backs, right?
(8:02:25 PM) nye_GS: move a unit onto hill 1 and then reload and go onto hill 2
(8:02:31 PM) Golden: Ouch. You are scary subtle.
(8:02:46 PM) Golden: Reloads, strictly out of play.
(8:02:54 PM) Snoopy369: I thought that was already covered earlier?
(8:02:54 PM) Golden: We all know that, right?
(8:02:56 PM) nye_GS: GB, when you do that, you are to recuse yourself from any further discussion until what you saw is known to your team
(8:03:39 PM) Golden: nye, I am in total agreement.  That is self policing, but is the only way to play. Where is the fun otherwise?
(8:03:45 PM) nye_GS: i don;t recall, snoop. it's been a long time. i recall BF mentioning no reloading, which isn;ty practical
(8:03:57 PM) nye_GS: what has to be defined is what not to do prior to a reload
(8:04:14 PM) Snoopy369: "No moving of pieces to places other than the final move location"?
(8:04:18 PM) Snoopy369: something like that/
(8:04:18 PM) Snoopy369: ?
(8:04:25 PM) Golden: And by extension, if a teamie plays their save and sees something, they have to keep their effing mouths shut to the TP.
(8:04:26 PM) nye_GS: yes, GS, self policing, but it has to be stated so that people know what is across the line
(8:04:37 PM) Snoopy369: indeed
(8:05:04 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Well, if a person on the team was reloading and then comparing what he did to reloads then he might try to persuade others into a certain action.  That information might be in the private forum where snoopy coould catch such a thing.
(8:05:04 PM) Golden: I'll tell Sarantium.  I'm pretty certaih that they already know.
(8:05:24 PM) nye_GS: snoop, 'no action that is irreversible without it being the move of the turn player in the official game that will be sent to the next team'
(8:05:35 PM) Golden: It would be their task to avoid influence in that case.
(8:06:08 PM) Snoopy369: I'm not sure i comprehend "irreversible" in this context
(8:06:21 PM) Golden: Snoopy, are you going to post these rules in the PF?
(8:06:25 PM) nye_GS: snoop. you do it, it is in the save that is passed
(8:06:50 PM) nye_GS: shifting wf is reversible. disbanding a unit, or making a move is not
(8:06:51 PM) Golden: If a TP does something. Then that is the move.
(8:06:59 PM) nye_GS: yes
(8:07:08 PM) Snoopy369: This chatlog will be posted, along with polls for things that weren't clearly decided
(8:07:12 PM) nye_GS: and nobody does anything other than what the TP did. period
(8:07:34 PM) Snoopy369: Let's wrap this up, we only have 2 teams here really at this point ;)
(8:07:45 PM) Paddy: ok
(8:07:50 PM) Golden: However, for 2 move units, they can move 1 and then the screenie posted for comments... that is OK, agreed?
(8:07:55 PM) NicodaMax: :b: good job guys
(8:07:56 PM) nye_GS: ok. city gifting to save a civ.
(8:08:03 PM) Snoopy369: 3 then, didn't realize you're still here, Paddy
(8:08:13 PM) Paddy: watching
(8:08:15 PM) nye_GS: yes, GB, but that one tile is done. no taksie backsies
(8:08:17 PM) Golden: I saw Paddy over there nursing a beer.
(8:08:23 PM) Golden: Yessir.
(8:08:53 PM) nye_GS: now. gifting cities to save a civ...
(8:09:13 PM) Golden: I don't see the problem with that. Perhaps an example would help.
(8:09:31 PM) nye_GS: we have a large land mass
(8:09:37 PM) Snoopy369: Let's put that in a poll, so the absentee civs can answer
(8:09:41 PM) Golden: (in your dreams)
(8:09:52 PM) nye_GS: it will be a long time til we can use all the land at peak efficientcy
(8:10:17 PM) nye_GS: we have contact with a landmass just across some uncrossible water
(8:10:23 PM) nye_GS: (no galleoins)
(8:10:41 PM) settler [[U2FsdGVkX@67.15.24.46] entered the room.
(8:10:44 PM) nye_GS: our 'friend' is going down to swords and horse of two other civs
(8:10:46 PM) settler left the room (quit: Quit: settler).
(8:11:02 PM) nye_GS: we give them a city in a remote area of our landmass
(8:11:24 PM) nye_GS: that becomes the cap of the now untouchable civ once there last city is taken by their oppo
(8:11:40 PM) nye_GS: now we have a friend, and an additional palace on our landmass
(8:11:55 PM) nye_GS: and we are both safe til galleons
(8:12:07 PM) nye_GS: which we get to first because of our cooperation
(8:12:22 PM) nye_GS: or...
(8:12:34 PM) Golden: you are killing me with the suspense.
(8:12:48 PM) nye_GS: i was going to say we do it for the un vote
(8:12:55 PM) nye_GS: but that is pop determined now
(8:13:14 PM) nye_GS: but concerns of them going off to settle islands in galleons are stil valid
(8:13:35 PM) nye_GS: and then they give us our land back when we have the civics and tech to use it
(8:13:47 PM) Golden: I'm probably stupid but don't see the problem here.  We'll all be sulking and not talking to each other long before UN.
(8:14:14 PM) NicodaMax left the room (quit: Quit: Bye bye).
(8:14:20 PM) nye_GS: it was a bit more blatant in c3. save the science civ for the free tech at the ages
(8:14:33 PM) Golden: You have a point, but, mostly, you are scaring me.  Just be kind to us when you win, ok?
(8:14:41 PM) Golden: ;)
(8:14:45 PM) nye_GS: but now, save the philo civ for the scientists for many more free techs
(8:14:59 PM) nye_GS: heh
(8:15:10 PM) nye_GS: haven't won one yet ;p
(8:15:19 PM) nye_GS: just seen a lot of... battles
(8:15:47 PM) Golden: Nye, you really dohave a point, but perhaps it is minor compared to the others we have dealt with. Maybe just don't worry about it and hope that it doesn't frag the team later?
(8:16:08 PM) Golden: err, substitute "game" for "team."
(8:16:10 PM) nye_GS: doesn't need to be decided here, GB
(8:16:14 PM) Golden: I type really fast.
(8:16:23 PM) nye_GS: it is out there now, so teams can discuss it
(8:16:51 PM) Golden: I'm just thinking that I like to have lots of people involved... if saving a civ means more people and more intrigue, then, why not?
(8:17:00 PM) nye_GS: and civ saving has had a negative impact on a few dg's. sometimes even for the saved
(8:17:07 PM) Paddy: snoop - did you say you will post this chat?
(8:17:15 PM) Snoopy369: indeed
(8:17:39 PM) nye_GS: oh last thing. we need to integrate the already discussed. alliance victory and all that stuff
(8:17:43 PM) Golden: Uh oh.  I really WAS only joking Paddy.
(8:18:04 PM) Golden: No alliance victory, right?
(8:18:07 PM) Paddy: cheers - I will head off for some lunch then
(8:18:14 PM) nye_GS: i think that was the decision
(8:18:17 PM) Golden: Or Dinner.
(8:18:19 PM) nye_GS: cheers, paddy
(8:18:28 PM) Snoopy369: dinner :b:
(8:18:33 PM) Golden: See ya Paddy! Take care.
(8:18:44 PM) Snoopy369: Alliance victory is out, isn't it?
(8:18:48 PM) Paddy: 1.18pm here - that be lunch ;) 
(8:18:53 PM) Paddy: thanks all for the chat 
(8:18:54 PM) Golden: Very, very out.
(8:19:12 PM) nye_GS: while this is being logged...
(8:19:18 PM) Golden: I could do second lunch and then dinner! Are you serving something good?
(8:19:23 PM) BigFree[Sar]: Adios
(8:19:34 PM) Golden: Bye!
(8:19:35 PM) nye_GS: snoopy, i apologise if i said anything overly harsh or that you truely do not deserve
(8:20:05 PM) nye_GS: my concern is that the game be decided on the map
(8:20:11 PM) Snoopy369: As is mine. ;)
(8:20:23 PM) nye_GS: excellent. we are agreed then
(8:20:26 PM) Golden: Yup. You got it nye.  We'll see you there!
(8:20:39 PM) Golden: And, farewell, my good friends!

[snoopy369]

I'll try to post the polls tomorrow, or if someone else wants to, go ahead... Sorry for the widening of the thread, but i'm too tired to fix it right now ...

[Paddy]

was a great chat

[Golden Bear]

I will repeat. I thought that we settled several issues, however, I see them now posted as polls. Why did we bother with the chat?

[notyoueither]

I would think that teams who were not in the chat would like to have a say, wouldn't you, GB?

[Jon Miller]

I agree, thanks for posting

JM

[Golden Bear]

OK, both of you, jon and nye, have attacked for not wanting to be inclusive. I did not say that. That is an unfair misinterpretation that I never stated.

I asked WHY we bothered to have a leaders chat if it was going to be an open discussion anyway.


GB

[snoopy369]

GB, I'm not sure what's the problem. We talked some things out, and five of the seven teams made their opinions known. Not everything was decided, and thus we have polls.

The chat was to discuss things so that these decisions could be made easier and quicker, and so if there were any difficulties they could be hashed out, which I'd say some things were.

[Golden Bear]

And, now, Snoopy, YOU are misinterpreting me. Who said that there is a problem?

Not a problem. More like a question that needs an answer, 'K?

GB

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
OK, both of you, jon and nye, have attacked for not wanting to be inclusive. I did not say that. That is an unfair misinterpretation that I never stated.

I asked WHY we bothered to have a leaders chat if it was going to be an open discussion anyway.


GB

Woah.

I'm not attacking you. I stated an idea of why posting these things to the forum for discussion and decision would be a good idea.

I thought I specifically stated that I thought many of these things would go back to the teams for decisions. I certainly didn't expect a straight up or down vote in chat for issues that I raised 'out of the blue' so to speak.

PS. Can you fix this thread, snoopy?