[PB58 Spoilers] Sea Monsters and Other Lurking Types

[Old Harry]

I always interpreted that to mean the person who notices has a duty to abide by a turn split, not the duty (or the right) to enforce a turn split ... except by declaring war which establishes a turn split

This is my first instinct in this situation. But I'm not sure if I'm being swayed by always wanting the underdog to triumph... 

I think serdoa would have been fine if he had pmed ruff to say they're in a race, but I'm reluctant to reload because he didn't... It's harsh on serdoa but the reload would be harsh on ruff. And as a surgeon I always abide by the maxim "first do no harm".

(I'm not a surgeon)

[Old Harry]

This is what I'd post to Serdoa's thread if I was in charge:

No, the intention was to settle on the sign that states "City".

Also I'm not sure that I agree that it is unfair on Ruff, because that would mean that it is unfair on him to not be able to double-move - which I thought that whole etiquette was about, allow double-moves when they do not matter to play faster and resolve them if they do happen AND matter and that in a way that all parties have agreed to before starting to play.

On that note, that we all double-moved each other countless amounts in this game does not matter. If we would never had double-moved each other one of us would play each turn first, the other each turn second. Therefore if we talk about fair either Ruff should have played T110 before I played it and then play T111 before I play OR he plays T110 after me and than he would play T111 after me as well. That is my whole point, that he played two turns in a row which we do not do if it matters (because else clock games become the norm), but he has not done that in bad faith but due to lack of knowledge of the situation.

The latter (him playing second) is what I'm suggesting with a reload because that seemed easiest and closest to what happened. The former would as well be fine for me, but requires us to reload to an earlier part of T110 and of course make it impossible to replay the turn exactly as we did the first time as roles get reversed.

Ah, thanks, I missed the sign. I think this is the relevant action this turn - let me know if I'm wrong:

T110:
Serdoa plays, settles island city, moves spear 1s of rice
Ruff plays, but seeing your spear holds his settler back so you can't snipe it.

T111:
Ruff plays, moving settler and archer to hill



I'm afraid to say that as brilliantly as you have played this game (which you are going to win at a canter by the way - the only question will be by how many laps) I think you did make a (very small) mistake here:

You assumed Ruff would know that your spear means you have a settler in the area and so he was in a race. But a much more logical assumption on his part is that your spear is going to your empty island city.

So IMO neither of you have broken any rules, and we have a choice: reload and penalise Ruff or play on and penalise Serdoa. (And yes, losing out on a city when he's done nothing wrong penalises Ruff just as much as it penalises you (although perhaps more, because of how many more cities you have already )).

The question is: do we favour Serdoa or Ruff here? I think if we stick to the letter of the ettiquette thread we should just play on, but I could be swayed to think that this situation just isn't covered by it and we need to use a coinflip. Unfortunately (and quite reasonably) Serdoa doesn't want to change the rules half way through the game, which leaves me thinking play on.

I'm definitely not certain about this and we don't want to drag this out like PB53, so if there are holes in this please point them out quick...

[Old Harry]

Thank God for relaxed Aussies.

[pindicator]

I tend to agree with your assessment OH. I think we need to update our Pitboss Etiquette, leaving towards if you want a turn split in peace then you need to announce it to the other party. It would be a pain to do every time, but this is the alternative

[Hitru]

Toin coss for settler races might also be ok solution too

[Miguelito]

If it's possible, I'd like to support coin flips for settling races in the future, in general.
Peace time turn split is a bad solution, as it encourages timer games and benefits the player with unlimited availability.
The downside I see to flipping coins is that you'd need a globl lurker around who is trusted by everybody, but is that a problem currently?
Civforum.de has an arbiter for any game they play (also to allow city trades, and flip coins for who gets a first go at conquests in war alliance situations, which are both not really issues inn or games I think), but I don't know if we want to rely on someone taking up that commitment.

[Charriu]

I could look into integrating that as a trade item, but I have to look into how feasible it is.

[Hitru]

I'm sure we can have lurker around to flip coin if needed

[vanrober]

If it's possible,  I'd like to support coin flips for settling races in the future,  in general.
Peace time turn split is a bad solution, as it encourages timer games and benefits the player with unlimited availability.
The downside I see to flipping coins is that you'd need a globl lurker around who is trusted by everybody,  but is that a problem currently?
Civforum.de has an arbiter for any game they play (also to allow city trades,  and flip coins for who gets a first go at conquests in war alliance situations,  which are both not really issues inn or games I think),  but I don't know if we want to rely on someone taking up that commitment.

What does the arbiter do with city trades? i dont understand. If you could put me an exemple it would be nice.

[civac2]

He decides whether they are allowed. You can for instance sell a culture-pressured border city or give away a threatened city to the attacker for peace. You may not give away a treatended city to a third party even if the threat is not immediate ie. the attacker still needs a few turns to reach the city.