[SPOILER]PB58 - Mr. Cairo residing over the remains of Serdoas Library of Knowledge

[Cornflakes]

For a situation where two settlers arrive at the same area on the same turn, I favor the German forum’s method of coin flip, which I think is a better than anything that what we have in any of our games here. But coin flip doesn’t work for the current turn in this case where you could have moved a unit onto the hill and declared war to prevent Ruff’s move onto that same hill ... only thing that could have been done is for you to have previously declared war as soon as you saw his settler.

[Serdoa]

This is one of the unfortunate drawback of Simultaneous mode. Where do you look for the turn split to be active? Do Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you this turn when he didn’t know you had a settler headed for that spot? Do you get precedence because you happened to play before Ruff on the previous turn when you didn’t know he had a settler headed for that spot? Does Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you 2 turns before that? ... ... ... where does one draw line?

I always interpreted the etiquette quite thread as a list of duties for a player to abide by, rather than giving any players a duty or right. As in: once you saw his settler you are obligated to not double move, but not the right to impose a turn split ... unless you use the in-game mechanics of a war declaration And the resulting duty of both players to abide by the firmly established war turn split.

a) I understand the issue with precedence, though in this case Ruff played the last two turns after me, so going by that you would have to actually go three turns to get to the point when he was going before me. 

b) These turns do not matter though because the only turn that matters is this turn, as it is the only one in which he double-moved me. 

I understand that there is some weight on me to have sent a PM but going by your point about the etiquette I think one can argue that Ruff should not have double-moved in a situation that very clearly could be influenced by that double-move either. So I think we both can be blamed for our situation.

As for your other point: I think if the rule is to be understood as you interpret it, that would mean that I just have to be oblivious to my surroundings and the other players and suddenly I'm allowed to double-move everyone - that can not be the intended consequence imo. But that is imo what you would propose: Because Ruff might not have realized (or simply not cared) that he double-moved me he is free to do so? When does "his duty" to not double-move come into play here? Of course you can't abide by that rule if you do not know that your double-move does influence something - after all we can play so fast in this game because we all the time double-move. But I think if you did, it is just fair to go back to the situation before it happened and not double-move.

[Serdoa]

edit: The following is more or less a translation what I wrote in English but in German as I am not sure I can actually put in words what I want to say in a way that is easily understood.

Ok, so ich bin nicht sicher ob ich meinen Standpunkt in Englisch richtig erklären kann, also versuche ich es mal auf Deutsch. Charriu du kannst das ja zumindest lesen und civac auch und falls ich mich schlecht ausgedrückt habe in Englisch könnt ihr ggf. ja helfen, dass verständlicher zu machen?

Ich sehe keinen Grund über frühere Turns zu sprechen, weil wir 2 Runden lang vor dieser Runde jeweils zuerst ich und dann Ruff gespielt haben. Das heißt nur diese Runde ist interessant, weil Ruff hier direkt nachdem er die Runde beendet hat die nächste begonnen und gespielt hat. Das ist halt ein klassischer "Double-Move" der dazu führt, dass ich nicht reagieren kann auf das was er macht. Hätte ich die Runde davor nach ihm gespielt, dann wäre die Situation natürlich eine andere - nur dann hätte ich auch anders gespielt, da ich dann wiederum mehr Informationen gehabt hätte.

Mein Verständnis ist aber eigentlich, dass wir diese Doppelzüge nicht wollen die spielverändernd sind nicht wollen, sonst könnten wir ja einfach nach den "Spielregeln" die uns das Spiel selbst vorgibt spielen und generell es jedem freistellen. Alternativ hätte ich bei jedem Turn warten müssen, dass jeder seinen Zug macht, bevor ich spiele, damit Ruff mich nicht "double-moven" kann. Das ist aber doch gerade das Verhalten, dass durch diese Etiquette verhindert werden soll.  

Mir ist bewußt, dass Ruff das möglicherweise nicht erkannt hat, aber ich mache ihm ja auch keine Vorwürfe. Ich sehe aber auch nicht, dass Ruff "bestraft" wird, wenn wir uns an eine Zugorder halten, da das ja der ganze Zweck dieser Etiquette ist. Ich habe ehrlicherweise erwartet, dass wir jetzt schon neu geladen hätten, weil es mir recht offensichtlich erschien, dass das ein sehr klarer "Doppelzug" war. Und die lassen wir halt zu, damit es schneller geht, nicht damit man den anderen damit "ausspielt".

Allerdings glaube ich, dass Ruff sich selbst bisher gar nicht geäußert hat, ob er das nachvollziehbar findet oder nicht. Ich habe ihm dazu aber auch nichts geschrieben, da ich keine "Diplomatie" durch die Hintertür machen wollte. Aber wenn ihr das sinnvoll empfindet, kann ich auch versuchen, dass direkt mit ihm zu klären.

[mackoti]

Sincerly I never liked this  turn split on settler race. IF you wanna establish an order declare war. If not , I dont think there is much to say if the other played clock games.

I think a coinflip would be fair.

[Serdoa]

Well, I certainly can agree that there are different possibilities how to handle these situations. But that Cornflakes and you think that a different rule would make more sense should not influence how we handle a situation in a game that did not agree to the rules you would find better. 

Don't get me wrong please, I know you guys try to help. It just sounds like "well, yes, I never liked how American law handled these things, we should simply use Chinese one". That can be a valid opinion in a discussion about how to do things in the future, but it is not a way to decide a situation from the past that happened under an existing ruleset.

[mackoti]

Well, I certainly can agree that there are different possibilities how to handle these situations. But that Cornflakes and you think that a different rule would make more sense should not influence how we handle a situation in a game that did not agree to the rules you would find better. 

Don't get me wrong please, I know you guys try to help. It just sounds like "well, yes, I never liked how American law handled these things, we should simply use Chinese one". That can be a valid opinion in a discussion about how to do things in the future, but it is not a way to decide a situation from the past that happened under an existing ruleset.

I will never say to do the things like Chinese   , i lived under comunist 11 years and still remember, but  yeah  I just proposed a solution for a thing, which how is now is unfair, and was used against me as well many times, I always solved by  war. And I realy like the germans are doing a lot of stuff we should learn from them.

At least I am not admin on this case, so i can relax.

[Charriu]

The admin is not the one doing the decision, it's the lurkers together.

[Old Harry]

So this is unfair on you because you spotted Ruffs settler and you played assuming that the turn split had been established. But reloading would be unfair on ruff because he can't see your settler and he played a double turn to keep the clock moving (I don't think I agree with your suggestion that he should realise - perhaps he did but if we start assuming bad faith we might as well give up on simultaneous turns.)

Am I right in thinking you plan to settle on spear hill?

[Serdoa]

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.

[Serdoa]

Deleted my last post... seems Ruff agrees with me, so I'll try to just leave it at that. I probably will write in the etiquette thread when a few turns have gone by.