[NO PLAYERS] Lurking and Mapmaking PB55

[Bobchillingworth]

Jowy certainly seems to be doing his darndest to make it a reality.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Why do I have to be busy when all the drama starts...

[Bobchillingworth]

Oh, Jowy

[Rusten]

This forum has gotten much spicier since the return of Noble and the gang.

[naufragar]

I've had a nightcap or three, so I'm probably not as reserved as I should be, but c'mon guys wtf are we talking about. PB53 was an issue: how are turns splits decided if war is declared the turn after enforced peace? Hitru had a solution to start the turn split 3 turns before the end of the war. Somebody in the etiquette thread suggested keeping a split throughout the peace. Great. All great solutions. That's solved. PB52 was not an issue with the rules. Mjmd wrote a PM to Pindi (recounted here) "claiming" second in the turn order. As Noble points out a few posts later, this is irrelevant. If Mjmd wanted second, he should have played second. This was an error of inexperience, not some flaw in OH's etiquette guide. (I'm sober enough not to barge into somebody's spoiler thread to argue with them. Noble here conflates player controversy with rules-intelligibility. Yes, even with laws written by the pen of God himself, we would still have controversy. Who cares. The point is that our rules give us a framework to resolve the dispute. We've seen one problem point (PB53) and maybe another (OH's example of a TOW game); otherwise, perfect score.)

And in the case here, Lewwyn-Gaspar-Noble are egregiously, flagrantly, adamantly, incontrovertibly in the wrong.

They camped the turn timer with no intention of stopping (as Amica, another wronged party who hasn't come up, points out). And unless I've missed it, there is zero recognition on that team's part that they're in the wrong. Charriu told them in his master-diplomat way, and I hope it landed, but Christ. If Superdeath logged in in the last two minutes and declared war and then the turn rolled, tough fucking titties. They only missed their turn because of their camping ways. We fixed this situation in a way that compromises and keeps the game going, but make no mistake, Superdeath was in the right, team LGN was guilty as sin.

The cause of the sheer inability to see the other side is, I think, what civac pointed out in the etiquette thread: team LGN have a notion of turn splits that is not included in the rules in which players with hostile feeling ought to maintain a turn split. This is garbage. There's a way for hostile players to require a turn split. You hold down the "alt" key and then press on the offending player's name. Done. The staggering tone-deafness Gaspar displayed in complaining in the etiquette thread that the rules were inadequate while he was in the process of breaking them boggles the mind. I read this:

The current rule - attacker chooses sounds great.  But if I recognize my opponent is preparing for war, all I have to do is attack him and I can get the turnsplit I want. 

And promptly had an aneurysm. If you know all you have to do to get a turn split is to attack, why didn't you?!!?!?!??! He goes on to say that we need to reduce player agency when the evidence that we need to do so is his own team's misbehavior. At this point, I feel like I must have eaten my entire bottle of crazy pills.

Alright, ranting is very fun, but I'll reel it in. Team LGN are blatantly in the wrong. They seem to have the honest belief that hostilities between neighbors allow the various neighbors to camp the turn timer indefinitely. While against clearly against the rules, this belief seems genuinely held. The problem is not the ambiguity or even the ineffectiveness of our rules, rather certain players' misunderstandings. Therefore, we should all be kind to each other, Jowy.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please remind me to delete before the game ends.

Edit: And obviously, much love to the parties involved. All ranting intended as rhetorical.

[Serdoa]

Sorry, but I could not agree less with your post nauf.

I've had a nightcap or three, so I'm probably not as reserved as I should be, but c'mon guys wtf are we talking about. PB53 was an issue: how are turns splits decided if war is declared the turn after enforced peace? Hitru had a solution to start the turn split 3 turns before the end of the war. Somebody in the etiquette thread suggested keeping a split throughout the peace. Great. All great solutions. That's solved.

Neither is any of this agreed upon nor does is solve the question who gets which half, as the question remains: Who is the attacker in this case?

PB52 was not an issue with the rules. Mjmd wrote a PM to Pindi (recounted here) "claiming" second in the turn order. As Noble points out a few posts later, this is irrelevant. If Mjmd wanted second, he should have played second.

So, the attacker can choose which half he gets - but not if he is in a timezone that prevents him from playing second in the turn before the war. And only if there is a specific turn before the war, but what if you prepare for it while waiting for the best opportunity? You do not know which turn is the turn before you attack.

This was an error of inexperience, not some flaw in OH's etiquette guide. (I'm sober enough not to barge into somebody's spoiler thread to argue with them. Noble here conflates player controversy with rules-intelligibility. Yes, even with laws written by the pen of God himself, we would still have controversy. Who cares. The point is that our rules give us a framework to resolve the dispute. We've seen one problem point (PB53) and maybe another (OH's example of a TOW game); otherwise, perfect score.)

That's the issue I and others have: They do not. And I don't see your examples doing anything to illustrate your point. To the contrary, it seems the cases in which the rules had to be looked at because we had disputes are the cases in which they did not help resolve it.

And in the case here, Lewwyn-Gaspar-Noble are egregiously, flagrantly, adamantly, incontrovertibly in the wrong.

They camped the turn timer with no intention of stopping (as Amica, another wronged party who hasn't come up, points out). And unless I've missed it, there is zero recognition on that team's part that they're in the wrong. Charriu told them in his master-diplomat way, and I hope it landed, but Christ. If Superdeath logged in in the last two minutes and declared war and then the turn rolled, tough fucking titties. They only missed their turn because of their camping ways. We fixed this situation in a way that compromises and keeps the game going, but make no mistake, Superdeath was in the right, team LGN was guilty as sin.

I couldn't agree less and I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. There are only 4 rules to follow:

3. The person declaring war can choose which half of the turn timer they get, so long as they didn't move after the victim on the previous turn.
4. Don't try to play after another player on a regular basis. If you are trying to prevent them getting the second half when they attack you then you're playing clock games and Krill will find your pathetic civ and crush it. If you are planning to attack them then just drop behind them one or two turns in advance (it's actually less likely to telegraph your intentions). In fact you can play before them the turn before you attack - there is no problem with letting your victim double move you.
5. If you are at war with someone don't log in before/after they've played unless they have given you explicit permission. (Edit: Controversy! See thread for details...)
6. 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.

As far as I see you can only refer to rule no. 4 in terms of them playing "clock games" but that rule states that you should try not to play after another player on a regular basis. Try does indicate that this is a suggestion not a hard rule that has to be followed. And regular is an unspecified amount of times. Is 5 turns already regular? Not in my book.

And no. 6 lists examples of peace-time turn splits which indicates that there can be more cases than these. As it states in that rule [i]"The turn you realise there should be a split is when the order is established"[i], meaning there can be peace-time turn splits for several turns and for an undefined number of reasons. How is team LGN in the wrong for adhering to a peace-time turn split in order to prevent double-moving their opponent? The reason "War could happen any turn, we attack in T-5 or earlier if the opportunity arises" is not against the rules. The rules also state nothing about having to inform the other party about the turn-split you adhere to.

The cause of the sheer inability to see the other side is, I think, what civac pointed out in the etiquette thread: team LGN have a notion of turn splits that is not included in the rules in which players with hostile feeling ought to maintain a turn split. This is garbage.

Why? Which part of the rules forbids that? Having been around back at the day, AFAIK that was exactly one of the issues in most games: Double-moves that happened because no turn-split was adhered to before war started. I also point to my above statement about hostile intentions that could at every turn lead to war. If you expect that you could start the fireworks between now and 10 turns, you have to adhere to a turn split every turn, else you will double-move.

And on that note: I also see nothing in the rules stating that you have to attack the next turn if you adhered to a turn split the turn before. Just because I intended to attack on T99 does not mean I will go through with it on T100. What if I wait now, if some units are moved around in a favorable way for me? Again, a turn split outside of war has to be followed, not despite but to be in accordance with the rules.

There's a way for hostile players to require a turn split. You hold down the "alt" key and then press on the offending player's name. Done. The staggering tone-deafness Gaspar displayed in complaining in the etiquette thread that the rules were inadequate while he was in the process of breaking them boggles the mind. I read this:

The current rule - attacker chooses sounds great.  But if I recognize my opponent is preparing for war, all I have to do is attack him and I can get the turnsplit I want. 

And promptly had an aneurysm. If you know all you have to do to get a turn split is to attack, why didn't you?!!?!?!??! He goes on to say that we need to reduce player agency when the evidence that we need to do so is his own team's misbehavior. At this point, I feel like I must have eaten my entire bottle of crazy pills.

Because if I follow your logic to the end, we play always war. If you require players to declare war as soon as the possibility arises that sometimes down the line there will be war, then this is the only way to resolve it. SD and LGN would stay at war indefinitely because neither would want to give up going second. Or do we add something in the rules that you also have to attack? War weariness isn't a factor IIRC so the only reason to maybe consider peace is gone at that point. Oh, and while we are at it, they also have to declare on Amica, same reasoning. Now we already have 3 parties that need to get in some turn order. But if I followed the game correctly, there are more parties that are or could go at war, someone else maybe that attacks Amica? And all of them would have - following this to its logical conclusion - to declare war in order to claim second half, even if they do not intend to go to war right now but only in a few turns. If you have several neighbors, maybe declare against all of them, as to not tip one off to your impending attack. At that point, we can play PBEM / sequential PB as well, would probably even be faster...

Alright, ranting is very fun, but I'll reel it in. Team LGN are blatantly in the wrong. They seem to have the honest belief that hostilities between neighbors allow the various neighbors to camp the turn timer indefinitely. While against clearly against the rules, this belief seems genuinely held. The problem is not the ambiguity or even the ineffectiveness of our rules, rather certain players' misunderstandings. Therefore, we should all be kind to each other, Jowy.

As listed above, I do not see how what they do is against the rules. I would love if you could not just make that statement but actually point to the exact rule you think they have broken and how they did so.

I would also like to say that I completely agree with Gaspar: As soon as parties clash with each other that are really invested - and the game is not already lopsided at that point - you will run into issues. That there were no issues for the last 3 years with them - according to Old Harry - says imo more about the games and players than about the rules.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please remind me to delete before the game ends.

Edit: And obviously, much love to the parties involved.   All ranting intended as rhetorical.

I'm very much against deleting posts in the lurker thread. If you don't want to stand for it when the players can read it, you should not write it at all.

[Serdoa]

As for the etiquette and people all loving to call out Noble and talk like he is acting in bad faith: In PB56 he told an opponent that we had a scout next to his borders and which direction we faced because he had to double-move him because of time-constraints (and he had already waited as long as he could before doing so). There was no reason to do that, no rule, no advantage. But he felt it was the fair thing to do, because in the intended way to play (sequential), our opponent would have had that information. 

Be upset with him as much as you want, but he really does try to play fair and not take away from anyone. Just because he is direct when he makes a statement and does not sugarcoat it does not mean that he tries to gain an advantage by abusing rules.

[Old Harry]

Serdoa, I don't think point 6 justifies peace-time splits except for settling and hut popping. It certainly doesn't justify camping the timer because you don't know if your neighbour has a surprise attack lined up.

Also you only need to adhere to turn split to avoid double move if you want the first half of the timer. It's fine to let the target double move you.

I can't respond to the rest of your post because phone.

[naufragar]

Well shoot, now I can't delete it.

Look, I'm totally fine with people camping the turn timer if we decide to change our rules to allow for it. I'm not morally offended by any of this.

The question is who gets to move second. We all agree that in a war the person who is going second stays second; the question is about peace. Again, we all agree that double-moving to gain an immediate and unfair advantage in settler or hut popping races is forbidden. Presumably, always-peace games need peace time order too. I can't think of any other reasons for a peace time split. You (and Lewwyn) disagree.

Having been around back at the day, AFAIK that was exactly one of the issues in most games: Double-moves that happened because no turn-split was adhered to before war started. I also point to my above statement about hostile intentions that could at every turn lead to war. If you expect that you could start the fireworks between now and 10 turns, you have to adhere to a turn split every turn, else you will double-move.

And on that note: I also see nothing in the rules stating that you have to attack the next turn if you adhered to a turn split the turn before. Just because I intended to attack on T99 does not mean I will go through with it on T100. What if I wait now, if some units are moved around in a favorable way for me? Again, a turn split outside of war has to be followed, not despite but to be in accordance with the rules.

We had 2 enforced peace treaties expiring within 2 turns of each other with 2 hostile neighbors that were clearly working together (amica gifting SD horse) and had in the past shown that they would both attack us at war (Amica running chariots at our capital). I'm staying out of all the pitboss etiquette because honestly I've tried not to be a jerk this whole game, and I think a few turns of a peace timesplit at imminent war is reasonable. [...] I honestly think that a peacetime split in this situation of a clear war situation coming out of enforced peace, where we literally plan to attack is pretty clearly within the bounds of etiquette. It just makes sense when both parties are very clearly "at war" even if they aren't strictly at war yet.

I disagree. During non-enforced peace, players have the ability to force a turn split. If they don't force the turn split, they have no right to the half of the turn they want. Their opponent does not gain an unfair advantage by not adhering to this peace time turn split, therefore they don't have to. I understand that people disagree with me on this, but I honestly see this as black and white. (And people can bring up counter examples, which would be great! We need to know if this standard fails. I don't think it does, which is why I brought up PB53 and '52.)

Both you (Serdoa) and Gaspar disagree that War and Peace are the only two relevant states.

Because if I follow your logic to the end, we play always war. If you require players to declare war as soon as the possibility arises that sometimes down the line there will be war, then this is the only way to resolve it. SD and LGN would stay at war indefinitely because neither would want to give up going second. Or do we add something in the rules that you also have to attack? [...]If you have several neighbors, maybe declare against all of them, as to not tip one off to your impending attack. At that point, we can play PBEM / sequential PB as well, would probably even be faster...

The current rule - attacker chooses sounds great.  But if I recognize my opponent is preparing for war, all I have to do is attack him and I can get the turnsplit I want.  The attacker is a meaningless distinction.  All it means is he who declares war. 

But I've got no problem with this. Yes, if you think you're going to be at war, you're within your rights to play an Always War game. You lose out on stuff (OB, trade), but you can do it. I don't care if attacker is a meaningful distinction. I'm just trying to figure out clock problems. The threat that we would turn into slow, simultaneous pitboss doesn't bother me, because that's already under discussion with long-term, peacetime turn splits.

If people believe me thus far, then players don't have the right to a particular half of the turn timer during peace time (barring settler and hut popping races). What about the ability (instead of the right)? In this game, Lewwyn missed his turn because he was waiting on Superdeath to play. I don't believe he had the right to play second after Superdeath. SD didn't think he [SD] needed to play before Lewwyn. The two players weren't at war. So, Superdeath waited until the end of the turn and played. This seems legal to me. Then the turn rolled because Lewwyn had been camping the timer and missed his turn. We decided that Lewwyn ought to have a chance to play his turn. Fair enough, we're often adding time so people don't miss their turns. I suspect it's been done for me, too. But that's a charity. Lewwyn missed his turn. The motives behind it (wanting to play after Superdeath) don't matter because he wasn't guaranteed second in the turn order. So, even if you believe you can consistently play after someone in peacetime, there's no reason why it couldn't have been Superdeath now playing second. Superdeath did after all play his turn within the timer. This is why I said at the beginning that I'm fine with timer camping if we legalize it. If people want to play chicken with the clock that's on them, but in that case we have to allow them to take the hit when the clock occasionally runs out.

Wherever there are laws, there are going to be lawyers. Guilty. And the language of "Do not try to play after someone on a regular basis" can be pushed and prodded, sure. It's a lot easier to say "PYFT." That takes precedence. If you're going to declare that very turn, you can wait. Otherwise, PYFT.

I'm very much against deleting posts in the lurker thread. If you don't want to stand for it when the players can read it, you should not write it at all.

Some posts, like my previous, are written to let off steam and for lurker entertainment. I'd talk differently when ranting to the lurkers than when discussing with players (who have more invested) where we disagree. But I guess it stays up now.

[mackoti]

So much lawering around and everyone is right    .  Why dont we use the civ forum method? For peace time use a coinflip in setler race, then no point in trying getting to play first.

In war time I see dont be a jerk  is not working anymore, I played  5 years pitboses with that rule and we never had a problem   , an did played quitte alot and there were other games as well..., and a solution is very hard to have, but  one could be if you know that you declare war in 2 turns to say so and to whom , and if the other want to do the same, to use again a coinflip  for what part of time everyone gets.Its not necesary to tell who are the ones which want to declare, just inform he lost, win the coinflip and what part of timer must play in.