Pitboss etiquette

[civac2]

Was the intended spirit of the rules to make sure double turns confer no advantage? If so Serdoa is right.

[Serdoa]

I absolutely agree with you Charriu, it can. I stated that as well in my thread that we could have prevented the reload if I had thought about sending a PM. But suppose I had sent the PM. Then we would be in the exact same game-situation that was now achieved via the reload and which complies with the ruleset we ourselves gave us. Had we not reloaded I would have been punished for not doing something that we actually never agreed to do. 

That's why I have issues with the whole thing and believe we need to do something to get that sorted.

[Mjmd]

Was the intended spirit of the rules to make sure double turns confer no advantage? If so Serdoa is right.

I would agree he was in right with current rule set. Should we change the rules?

Problems with current is: when does the turn order get established (which was part of the issue as the turn order kept changing; both obviously had settlers meant for said site being produced and moving towards during this time period). Also issue of people can change to playing early in the turn (if they have that availability) anytime they are advancing settlers to insure that split if they deem that in their interest.

Options:
1) Add PM to current rule if you become aware / care. Obviously informs opponent of situation, but establishes a known turn order to prevent reloads.
2) Have lurkers flip a coin for choosing turn order.
3) Leave as is.

[naufragar]

Was the intended spirit of the rules to make sure double turns confer no advantage? If so Serdoa is right.

I would agree he was in right with current rule set. Should we change the rules?

Your first objection (when does turn split start) is already covered. Your second (people can play early in the turn) shouldn't matter because people should already be trying to play as early as they can (rule 1). People live in different time zones; turns roll at different hours of the day. It happens.

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.

When Serdoa (or whoever) realizes there should be a turn split, that turn split is established. It would be best if the first party to notice would tell the second party, but it doesn't change who has right-of-way. Ruff didn't notice, so the reload fixed it. A necessary reload isn't a mark of infamy.

I admit I'm not following PB58. Am I correct in understanding that: 1) there was a double-move 2) the double-move was corrected with a reload in keeping with the etiquette guide? This seems like an example of the guide working, not failing.

...a lot of it was that the rules as currently written meant you [Serdoa] should have sent a PM and therefore Ruff didn't do anything wrong.

Sure. Serdoa should have sent a PM. Sure, Ruff did nothing wrong. Ruff couldn't abide by a turn split he didn't know existed, so a reload was granted to make sure the turn order was kept and Serdoa didn't lose a city spot by being double-moved. Again, I haven't dived into PB58, but this all seems like a non-issue. No need to fix what isn't broken.

But then again, I am an Ent.

[Mr. Cairo]

I agree with Nauf (and thus Serdoa in that instance). The rules quite clearly state that in a settler race a turn-split is created the moment any one player notices that there is a race. So the turn-split exists and should be enforced, even if one party of the turn-split isn't aware of it. There is nothing in the rules about sending a PM to make them aware, although it is certainly a good idea (and something that could be added to the rules).

So if the turn-split is violated, even unknowingly, a reload to correct that violation is the obvious and logical solution based on the rules as they were at the start of the game. I haven't followed PB58 but I don't see how there could be any argument otherwise based on the rules as they are written.

The only change to the rules that could be argued is necessary is adding that a PM should be sent to the other party if a player notices that there is a turn-split. With wars things are a lot more complicated, especially when a player deliberately double-moves to gain an advantage before the war is actually declared, and I don't really know how to prevent that other than by saying "don't do that, it's not nice".

[Charriu]

But it should be clear that sending a PM is only recommended to avoid a reload. I think it would be wrong if we punish people for forgetting to send a short PM.

[sunrise089]

Man I like that dice-rolling idea

Serious question, call it a turn-split RB-style variant: what's the downside to a rule of "Before the first turn is played we roll a random turn order, a la a PBEM, which is in force for the entire game. The turn order is only put in effect when there is a war, settler race, accidental double-move, etc., but the order then-used is known to everyone in advance"?

[Old Harry]

That means someone is going to be first in all the wars they play, putting them at a disadvantage for producing units. It could be doable if you balance it somehow up front, but I'm not sure how I'd value turn order.

Actually, was it PB50 that had a snake pick for location, leader and civ? Perhaps you add position in turn order as a fourth option?

[sunrise089]

That means someone is going to be first in all the wars they play, putting them at a disadvantage for producing units. It could be doable if you balance it somehow up front, but I'm not sure how I'd value turn order.

Actually, was it PB50 that had a snake pick for location, leader and civ? Perhaps you add position in turn order as a fourth option?

Thanks for weighing in Harry.

Years ago a writer I like proposed NFL overtime rules be adjusted to giving the home team possession first, and restore the 'first score wins' rule. His argument was the rule was completely fair on a seasonal basis and it was known and predictable on a per-game basis. That mindset has stayed with me. So long as each player has ex-ante an equal change of getting the 'best' turnsplit slots prior to T1 I think it's no less fair than rolling for starting position and pick order. Now if you want to add some sort of bidding component to assign the order that's even better, but overall I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to a rule like this which lets everyone know where they stand and adapt their own play accordingly. "Roll a die at the start of a war" has some benefit of smoothing out the advantage within the game, but has what I see as a major corresponding disadvantage in that people only know their side of the split once they're in position to declare, and so they may end up playing, ex-post, suboptimally. I think I like the known, albeit random, split at game-start better (especially since this basically already exists in all PBEM games as I understand it).

[Charriu]

Also if you match this turn order with the ID from PBSpy you can always and easily check, where everybody stands.