[LURKERS] Setting Up Tents for a Ren Faire

[Old Harry]

Yeah, that's funny and over the line.

[Zargon]

I guess it's against the letter of the law, but seriously what harm comes of it?  What possible effect is it going to have on the game?  Anybody who has vision of Mack's stack of phracts on the border of REM's conquest during their enforced peace doesn't need named units to know exactly what they're there for.

[Dreylin]

I guess it's against the letter of the law, but seriously what harm comes of it?  What possible effect is it going to have on the game?  Anybody who has vision of Mack's stack of phracts on the border of REM's conquest during their enforced peace doesn't need named units to know exactly what they're there for.

Well RMOG seemed to think they were coming to bite off a chunk of them before they saw the names....

[Krill]

Naming a military unit generic "kill stuff" names isn't over the line. Naming them "RMOG gonna be ded" would be. I don't see what's wrong with that.

What mack did probably isn't even as bad as naming workers "Worker 1" etc as that actually gives real information away.

[Krill]

Also, lurkers saying that those unit names are over the line is total bullshit when players are using gold to numerically signal NAP lengths. That disgusts me.

[Thoth]

Also, lurkers saying that those unit names is over the line is total bullshit when players are using gold to numerically signal NAP lengths. That disgusts me.

I'd say that both practices are over the line. But I ain't playing in this game.

[Tyrmith]

Also, lurkers saying that those unit names are over the line is total bullshit when players are using gold to numerically signal NAP lengths. That disgusts me.

That's where I stand. 

Who cares anyway, one of the parties is about to be dead...

[Dreylin]

Naming a military unit generic "kill stuff" names isn't over the line. Naming them "RMOG gonna be ded" would be. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Well I probably wouldn't have brought it up if they were named generic "kill stuff" names, but most of them aren't, they are mostly "pillage stuff" names and with the "revenge" names added are equally clearly aimed at REM. To me that contravenes "no signalling with unit names".

Also, lurkers saying that those unit names are over the line is total bullshit when players are using gold to numerically signal NAP lengths. That disgusts me.

While I agree that I dislike that that sort of NAP signalling, their only rule about trades was "treat it as a valid trade". The AI-diplo dance is one that is danced every game, with some pushing the boundaries further than others; as far as I can tell there's no RB consensus on the allowed level, so it seems to end up evolving as far as any one player is willing to push & interpret it.

Who cares anyway, one of the parties is about to be dead...

RMOG were actively considering a revenge strike of their own on mackoti, can you say that his REM-specific unit names didn't contribute to them ultimately deciding against?

Anyway, I guess I'll go back and tell mackoti that I overstated consensus.

[Fluffball]

Isn't the lurker's job to stay out of the way? It's kind of making something out of nothing. I can't imagine any of the players feel the game is made worse by goofy names on units.

[OT4E]

Expressing your intentions to anyone is wrong, no matter is it dying civ or the civ you have enforced peace with. 

I dont like gold to gold deals, but they in fact dont give away any information. It became a tradition that people treat them in similar way so I wouldnt prohibit them with rules. But the situation is different when you give unit name "I am going there" or "I pillage this" or "I will attack another guy". It is direct communication. In case of Mackoti he says to RMOG "let me pass".