RBP4 [SPOILERS] - Shaka of Zulu (sunrise089, regoarrarr, and friends)

[sunrise089]

Not a much of a difference from cities to workers...

I'm surprised you have this view. There are two key differences IMHO. First, cities have a much larger impact. Of course there is some sort of exchange rate for cities vs workers, but getting 2-4 workers is nowhere near as valuable as getting multiple cities and the land they carve out for you. Second, as Profane says, and as I said in an earlier post, cities cannot avoid capture. By gifting cities away you're sniping the the spoils of war from the victor. Even in a real-time AW game capturing workers should be pretty rare.

As always, the exact wording could be more accurate, but that's why you even have a "good faith" clause to begin with.

My problem, and basic disagreement in interpretation, is that I think the above issue is not the primary reason you have a "good faith" clause. I feel it's to allow for sensible consensus ruling for situations that no one foresaw before the start of the game. We've played three RBP series games so far, and a ruleset was created banning third party city gifts during war, temporary city gifts, and heroic unit gifts. I repeat my contention that the community did not forget about workers during this discussion, they just didn't ban gifting them. Now I'm not saying the players in this game wouldn't change their minds, particularly those that aren't benefiting from the worker gift. What I am saying is that the reason we write down rules in the first place is to make them predictable so players can plan around them. Otherwise we could play with no rules, and ask GES to just make rulings for every dispute based on how he felt that particular day.

Anyways, this is moot since Regoarrarr and I are complying with the decision from the game admin.

[Krill]

*shrug* I've not commented on (my opinion of) any of the rules in place for this game, and I sure as hell am not starting now.

[Twinkletoes89]

I think the issue is this:

You gained/stood to gain workers which you would not have received without WK's move to allow you to take them instead of going as spoils to plako. Had you declared war 'naturally' (i.e. without any collaberation with WK before hand) to take his cities and/or help out plako, you probably wouldn't have received those workers.

Also, there was no exchange where he was gifting you these things for something like a NAP/safe haven etc so that is probably why the action was taken. Worker gifting shouldn't be banned, so long as its involved in some form of exchange rather than simply to 'get back' at an aggressor by giving them to a rival.

[Kuro]

On an entirely unrelated note, any chance we can get the F4/Tech screen, along with possibly F2 @ 0% and 100% and F5 screen?

[scooter]

I'm a little late to the controversial discussion since I've been busy, but I was strongly supporting GES's decision in the lurker thread and via chat, so I'll pop into this thread to say hello .

What really irked me about this worker gifting thing was that it felt it was a very blatant example of "it's not technically against the rules!" kind of behavior which is very frustrating. I mean be realistic here. Let's say you are invading someone and you are about to finish them off. You have them backed into a corner, and this person who is almost dead gifts a bunch of his units to one of your biggest rivals just to spite you. You really think that's not slimy? What's the point of a "good faith" rule if players like you guys do anything and everything that isn't technically forbidden. And the bit about giving WK a second chance and that being the trade is garbage since you guys were just going to kill him off immediately and get the rest of his stuff anyways.

Sunrise's post #891 really irked me as well, as the whole post was a defense of why what was done is technically not banned, and maybe it SHOULD be banned, but because it's not, then it's ok for you guys to do it. If we want to play like that then fine, but remove the "good faith" thing from the rules, because reasons like that basically mock the good faith rule. Saying the worker thing is ok because it's not as big of an impact as a city is silliness. It shouldn't matter that there is no rule against this - it should be pretty blatantly obvious that it's a cheesy and exploitative move to make. I would have much more sympathy if you were allied with WK and/or helping him in the war, but you guys were planning on killing him when he was near you! It was complete exploitation.

Besides all this, I would say this is a clear violation of the rule which states to avoid moves that artificially imbalance the game.

It's something that I first learned of with Krill as admin vs. Spullla in PB2. I do not condone cheating nor would I cheat, but if there was something that I felt was within the rules but that might be interpreted otherwise (such as this), it makes me very hesitant to post anything about it in my thread.

Hopefully this doesn't sound too harsh, but maybe in that case you should do the appropriate thing and ask someone before doing it, rather than purposely not talking about it in your thread and hoping you won't get caught. Also, the "other players didn't complain" defense is worthless because no players could have known short of reading your spoiler thread.

Apologies if some of this is re-hashing, but I wasn't really around much this week, so I missed the conversation until now.

[regoarrarr]

I'm a little late to the controversial discussion since I've been busy, but I was strongly supporting GES's decision in the lurker thread and via chat, so I'll pop into this thread to say hello .

What really irked me about this worker gifting thing was that it felt it was a very blatant example of "it's not technically against the rules!" kind of behavior which is very frustrating. I mean be realistic here. Let's say you are invading someone and you are about to finish them off. You have them backed into a corner, and this person who is almost dead gifts a bunch of his units to one of your biggest rivals just to spite you. You really think that's not slimy? What's the point of a "good faith" rule if players like you guys do anything and everything that isn't technically forbidden. And the bit about giving WK a second chance and that being the trade is garbage since you guys were just going to kill him off immediately and get the rest of his stuff anyways.

Sunrise's post #891 really irked me as well, as the whole post was a defense of why what was done is technically not banned, and maybe it SHOULD be banned, but because it's not, then it's ok for you guys to do it. If we want to play like that then fine, but remove the "good faith" thing from the rules, because reasons like that basically mock the good faith rule. Saying the worker thing is ok because it's not as big of an impact as a city is silliness. It shouldn't matter that there is no rule against this - it should be pretty blatantly obvious that it's a cheesy and exploitative move to make. I would have much more sympathy if you were allied with WK and/or helping him in the war, but you guys were planning on killing him when he was near you! It was complete exploitation.

Besides all this, I would say this is a clear violation of the rule which states to avoid moves that artificially imbalance the game.



Hopefully this doesn't sound too harsh, but maybe in that case you should do the appropriate thing and ask someone before doing it, rather than purposely not talking about it in your thread and hoping you won't get caught. Also, the "other players didn't complain" defense is worthless because no players could have known short of reading your spoiler thread.

Apologies if some of this is re-hashing, but I wasn't really around much this week, so I missed the conversation until now.

No problem Scooter. I'm kind of done with this conversation for now, but I did want to point out that at no point did it ever even cross my mind that this would not be allowed. Maybe it should have? But it really never did.

In any case, sounds like we've found another thing to discuss in the ruleset for PB5

[sunrise089]

I just deleted a much longer reply.

@Scooter - ok, fair enough. Like regoarrarr says, we both disagree with the ruling. I personally think it's an overstep of authority, that Zululand did bring something to the table to compensate for the workers anyways, and that the ruling creates more bad consequences than good ones. GES disagrees on, I think, all of the above and regoarrarr and I are trying to choke down our frustration and move on.

[Krill]

Any new cities?

[regoarrarr]

Any new cities?

Sure there are - they're just founded in areas that would break the rules if I showed them to you, so we're keeping it quiet

Okay not really. It's just hard to get back in the habit of posting. I will try to give a good updated of where we are tomorrow

[Thoth]

It's just hard to get back in the habit of posting

What? Am I really seeing you of all people post this?

:faint: