Cape Town Bar & Grill - Public Player Thread

[regoarrarr]

Well, I don't think I admitted any guilt. I thought we had both agreed that my moves were legal and within the framework of the rules.

So I don't support any type of penalty on myself.

The only thing I admitted to was that it was somewhat of a "gamey" move.

Also, the city of Evendale was not taken with any type of legal double move - we are talking (at least *I* am) about the raze of your city of ZZ Top.

[shadyforce]

While gamey, Rego's move was legal and he was not obliged to cede anything to you. But in the interests of keeping this a pleasant friendly game, he kindly offered a reload to restore equity.

We're not out to punish anybody. Even in cases where there is a clear rules breach, restoring equity is what we do. In other words, approximate what would have happened if the double move had not taken place. You're proposal is trying to grab more than you're entitled to.

So either accept the reload, propose another non-reload solution that restores equity or just get on with it and point all those whipped muskets in Rego's direction as you threatened to do (and which will surely make the bloodthirsty lurkers happy).

[Exploit]

I misspoke when I said the moves were legal. What I meant was that they met the legal minimum in terms of:

© - During a war all units in enemy or neutral territory, and all units in friendly territory that are capable of attacking or defending versus enemy units at any point during the turn must wait at least 9 hours following any previous move before they may move again.

We have both agreed that you made a "shady" double move that gave you an unfair advantage. The rules clearly state

Result of poll 12: Double moves
Double moves prohibited*

[snip]
(d) - When in doubt, act in good faith.

Clearly you made a double move which is expressly prohibited. I find it hard to believe that you didn't intentionally plan the double move given the careful planning required but that is a judgement call for each of the other players to make for themselves.

I am willing to accept a vote, similar to a UN resolution, whereby every player gets 1 vote to say whether the penalty I proposed is appropriate. If the majority say it is inappropriate then the matter will be dropped. If the majority say it is acceptable then you either accept the terms or defy the resolution. If you defy the resolution then everyone else agrees to impose sanctions on you prohibiting the trading of tech, gold, units, open borders and resources for 50 turns.

To the rest of the players in the game, is the vote idea acceptable to you as a fair way to resolve this matter?

[Broker33]

Wow this is the most action this bar has had the entire game. ::grabbing beer and watching the show::

As for how to handle the situation I see it as one of 4 possibilities.

1) Reload -- Offered by Regoarrarr declined by Exploit for reasons he has stated which make sense.

2) Exploits vote and penalty situation

3) Do nothing and play on

4) Some compromise between Exploits and regoarrarrs solution.

As for me I dont know which would be the most reasonable or correct and will defer my choice till others have chimed in

[shadyforce]

Is the fence comfortable there Broker?

[Exploit]

I need to learn to type faster as I seem to be cross posting a lot.

Shady, as previously stated I concur that Rego met the bare legal minimum of © however he did not meet the good faith requirement of (d). I do not believe a reload of the game in anyway restores equity. Rego now has valuable intelligence on my troop positions that he did not have before. If you do not think troop position intelligence alters game equity then lets reload prior to Rego moving into my territory and I can show you the difference troop position intelligence makes!

[Exploit]

Also, the city of Evendale was not taken with any type of legal double move - we are talking (at least *I* am) about the raze of your city of ZZ Top.

Rego, the double move allowed you to reinforce Evendale and to pre-emptively attack my war elephants, catapults and horse archers that were positioned to retake Evendale so your keeping of Evendale was very much the result of your double move advantage.

The major crux of this debate comes down to whether you were acting in good faith or whether you are deliberately manipulating the rules to bypass their intentions.

If you are not deliberately manipulating the rules then why is it that during this entire war you have never ended your turn until you are the last to play and 9 hours have passed since your last move?

You are certainly logging in for long periods of time several times throughout the turn prior to the end of turn. Have you simply forgotten where the enter key is?

[Broker33]

Is the fence comfortable there Broker?

Well here is my attempt to jump off the fence.

I believe Exploit has a vaild point that the good faith clause was either broken or at a mininum abused and should recive some form of settlement.

So far on the table are a reload and exploits vote/compensation request.

I believe a compromise is in order between the two.

Reload is problematic for many reasons that Exploit stated plus what is happening with other civs and really is no fun.

Exploits request for one of regro's cities seems excessive.

Here is my compromise

1) 10 turn nap to reposition and recover from loss of the stack that was double moved on.

2) Return the taken city to Exploit that could have been counterattacked except for the destruction of the stack by the double move.

3) Provide a settler for the razed city before the 10t nap expires.

I believe this would allow us to continue on while not unduly penalizing either party.

[sunrise089]

Guys, I know it's very very hard to stay truly neutral in arguments like this, but the general principle across all of the Pitboss games we've played in has been to do a reload. Now I get that Regoarrarr may have some new info about unit composition or the like, and I can see a minor advantage to Explot for that, like first more initiative or deleting a single unit or something, but turning over cities or 10 turns of enforced peace sounds really excessive to me.

[Dreylin]

OK, I'll chime in here as a party with an acknowledged dislike of our current ruleset for this situation.

I have checked Civstats, and it reports that all of the last 10-or-so turns have been ended by turn-timer only, not by an accumulation of all players ending turn (though there was some hiccoughs with the disconnection a couple of turns ago).

This was certainly the case for the turn in question: http://www.civstats.com/viewyear.php?yea...ameid=1362 Regoarrarr did not control the end of turn, merely made certain to be logged in at the time it rolled - as Exploit has proposed to do. Civstats, however, has a quirk that it reports an "End Turn" message for anyone currently logged into the game at the turn roll so it may look like they have controlled the EoT.

We all know that the vote proposal isn't really an option given the allianced nature of the game, so I see two solutions:

1) Rego & Exploit agree to a turn-split arrangement; we reload to the start of the turn in question and continue from there.

2) Rego & Exploit arrange a mutually-agreeable time; sunrise reloads from start of turn, and the two of them are able to throw their armies at each other in real-time s if they had both been present at the turn-roll.