Pitboss etiquette

[superdeath]

I suppose a minor change to the actual rules would be to require the maintenance of a war-time turnsplit during turns of enforced peace.

This. Then, if there isnt a war/no one is declaring after the enforced peace, there is no turnsplit. Simple.

[Serdoa]

#1 could be negated by allowing the 1st in turn order an opportunity to log back in, swap build queues to units, and adjust build queues after a DoW, and whip as desired (but not move any units). Turn order between 1st and 2nd mover would be preserved, but 1st in turn order is compensated with that additional round of whip response that is otherwise lost.

I do not like this at all. I think that defenders in this game (all else being equal) are advantaged over attackers. That's why the rules are that the attacker gets to choose. It's not arbitary. This would essentially negate that small advantage and favour the defender even more than the game mechanics already do.

That wonderfully illustrates why, while we probably can all agree that the letter of the rule is unambiguous, the rule has issues. The rules are written in a way that were meant to alleviate the advantage the defender in general has in Civ4. But according to the rules, as long as you track when the playing window of your neighbors is, you can, together with Demos and other things, reasonably incur when they are about to attack - and then you simply declare, take the second half WHILE being the defender and - while not adhering to the intention of the rules - can claim to have followed the rules by the letter.

I also think dismissing what Gaspar wrote by pointing at the wording of the rules, while he clearly talks about the intention and the behavior of players, is disingenuous. Yes, we can easily lawyer the wording - that does not mean that everything is fine OR fair. There are clearly issues - I'm just a few weeks back here and so far we had already issues in 2 PBs and another had at least to be reloaded. And those are just the ones I actually became aware of, I'd assume there are more.

While writing about this: Does the rule "don't be a dick" also entail not to declare war when you are actually the defender? Who decides if it does or not?

[civac2]

I'm completely symphathetic to the argument that the rules don't work as intended. (Still, turn splits are an odd way to alleviate defenders advantage. This is something the balance mods could do.)

If you are in a running game though you adhere to what was agreed upon even if it is imperfect.

[Cornflakes]

The rules are written in a way that were meant to alleviate the advantage the defender in general has in Civ4.

What? I do not understand this at all. Rules about double moving and turn order have nothing to do with defender’s advantage. The rules are made to address the issues introduced by simultaneous turns and prevent gaming of the clock. They have absolutely nothing to do with modifying or reducing or altering the inherent Civ4 defender’s advantage. They have everything to do with preventing one player from gaining advantages over another player that they otherwise wouldn’t have if the game was being played with sequential turns (e.g. moving a 2-mover 4 tiles before the defender can respond).

[superdeath]

While writing about this: Does the rule "don't be a dick" also entail not to declare war when you are actually the defender? Who decides if it does or not?

i will say ive done this, but i am in favor of the defender ( whomever knows that they arent the aggressor ) not being allowed to grab whatever side of the clock they want knowing full well they are going to be attacked.

[The Black Sword]

I've always been under the impression that Harry chose words like Guidelines and Etiquette in the OP deliberately. The over-arching rule has always been 'Don't be a dick', and this is some advice on how to do that. But even if you follow the guidelines to the letter, there's still almost certainly ways to game the clock for an advantage and if you do that deliberately you are breaking the rule.

I'm curious if that's OH's view as well or it's just something I've projected onto it?

Regarding attackers advantage - allowing the attacker the choice is necessary for surprise attacks, since the attacker might be the only one who knows that a turnsplit needs to be followed.

[novice]

If you are in a running game though you adhere to what was agreed upon even if it is imperfect.

I’m curious, has this etiquette thread been included as part of the ruleset of the pitboss games being played currently? Because with all due respect to Old Harry, it was never refined to an extent where that would work. The only suggestion universally agreed upon in this thread is «Don’t be a jerk» (apart from obvious «don’t cheat» stuff). Notably, the top two players on the site, Krill and SevenSpirits, disagreed on point 4 regarding peacetime turn splits.

What Gaspar wrote above is 100% to the point.

[Old Harry]

If you are in a running game though you adhere to what was agreed upon even if it is imperfect.

I’m curious, has this etiquette thread been included as part of the ruleset of the pitboss games being played currently? Because with all due respect to Old Harry, it was never refined to an extent where that would work. The only suggestion universally agreed upon in this thread is «Don’t be a jerk» (apart from obvious «don’t cheat» stuff). Notably, the top two players on the site, Krill and SevenSpirits, disagreed on point 4 regarding peacetime turn splits.

What Gaspar wrote above is 100% to the point.

It was rule 5 that seven disagreed with. I stupidly inserted a rule which makes the thread a bit harder to understand. He and krill had no problems with rule 4.

And yes TBS, I intended the thread as an aid for newbies who don't know the things that can trip them up. I doubt it's going to stand up to a full-on rules-lawyering about point 4, but I'm not sure what else we can do.

[Jowy]

Re-posting from my spoiler thread:

I think the best solution is to split the players who want to follow the "Pitboss Etiquette" or just common sense in general, and those who require a lawyer to write a rule book. These two groups are inherently incompatible.

The Pitboss Etiquette can serve as a guideline for those in the more lax group.

[novice]

Re-posting from my spoiler thread:

I think the best solution is to split the players who want to follow the "Pitboss Etiquette" or just common sense in general, and those who require a lawyer to write a rule book. These two groups are inherently incompatible.

The Pitboss Etiquette can serve as a guideline for those in the more lax group.

common
/ˈkɒmən/

1. occurring, found, or done often; prevalent.
"salt and pepper are the two most common seasonings"

2. shared by, coming from, or done by two or more people, groups, or things.
"the two republics' common border"

Unfortunately, common sense is neither prevalent nor shared.