[PB63 Mjmd] Drunken Sailor

[Mjmd]

In my mind this is like a settler race turn split except for the turn order is for "you settle war" or "you no settle no war" for the spot.

[naufragar]

In my mind this is like a settler race turn split except for the turn order is for "you settle war" or "you no settle no war" for the spot.

This doesn't make sense. You two aren't in a race. Nothing stops you from sending the diplo and then declaring afterwards if it's disregarded.

[Mjmd]

Lets say this, if you are settling a spot right on someone's border that is an aggressive act and you shouldn't double move them. I know after PB62 you don't agree.

[Mjmd]

Sorry I attacked rather than defending my argument.

In a settler race, you both have settlers aimed at a spot. You can establish a turn split which essentially is going to dictate who gets that spot. This is a turn split over that spot. Either him settling or deciding not to settle. Again because I considered this a war act I responded accordingly.

[Mjmd]

From the etiquette forum: 

1. In a peace-time turn split (eg a settling or hut-popping race) the turn you realise there should be a split is when the order is established.
   

The listed items are examples and not the end all be all in my mind. I realized there should be a turn split and I established one. The intention was to only establish for 1 turn at that.

1. Try to only log in once per turn, or play all your moves in one session - this is harder for teams or if you have a surprise or simming to do, but it makes figuring out turn splits easier.
   

The reason I had to send the message at all was that Ginger logs in all the time all over the turn.

[Amicalola]

Is there a settler race here?

If you want a war split, there needs to be an actual war, not a potential one.

[Mjmd]

It is a turn split about a settling spot; its equivalent. Actions (ie my diplo message / him actually settling or not) are going to matter.

Edit I realized that my etiquette quotes and your message were posted at the same time, but basically I'm saying rule 6 isn't definitive and I think this is essentially equivalent.

[Mjmd]

I can think of examples when people have requested peace time turn splits so they don't have to worry about double move / people can't change their builds based on their unit movements (ship movements ect). I've been subject to these before and I'm confused why people think this is different. Just to spell it out as maybe people aren't thinking about this: Ginger just got to change his builds based on my diplo message about that spot (potentially; its possible he was already planning war / its possible he will withdraw next turn).

[Mjmd]

What I'm hearing from the defeaning silence is I'm punished for giving him the option between war and peace and I should just always choose war because by giving him the option I've given him advantage in the war if it comes. Noted.

[naufragar]

There’s no punishment. You requested a reload. You did not have grounds for one.

I'm grateful to Ref for expressing the lurker consensus. You and I have had almost this exact same scenario, where you thought you were doing another player a favor by communicating with them about a turn split you wanted established. I understand that you're trying to be conscientious towards your neighbors. Here, the diplo and the turn split demand weren't legal, but again, it's not an issue of punishment. A request for a reload was denied.