RBPB4 Email and Technical Issues

[Gold Ergo Sum]

http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showp...tcount=189

6 w/ Gaspar for some pauses.

Locke didn't care.

3 w/ Nakor (and counting sunrise/Rego future vote) for no pauses.

WK never voted.

So in total:

5 teams clearly for some kind of pauses.

1 team who didn't care.

1 team who was split.

2 teams clearly for no pauses.

1 team didn't vote.

[sunrise089]

Thanks.

The rule itself:

11. No pauses unless we are looking for a replacement player or settling some sort of game dispute. I think if you give everyone one pause, it opens the can of worms for more pauses. This way, everyone knows that there is the potential for missed turns and movement and build queues should be adjusted accordingly. If this concerns you, that is why we have dedlurkers and teammates--grab one.

I take your point that before the game started the players were not unanimous on prohibiting pauses. The way I characterized my position was therefore in error and I apologize, I should have done better research.

That said, I stand behind my general view that the recent pause decision was not consistent with the rule, however it was created, that the players were given at the start of the game.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

That said, I stand behind my general view that the recent pause decision was not consistent with the rule, however it was created, that the players were given at the start of the game.

This you are correct about that. I tried to draw a very hardline rule to prevent unnecessary pauses, mainly because I knew that you in particular hated them so much. That I never intended to strictly enforce the rule was never made clear, but that was the intent. I wanted it made quite clear that this game would not be paused regularly in the manner of past Pitboss games. I think 200 turns in, we can say that this game has not been marred by pauses. And I don't intend to let it become marred by pauses. But an inability to play in a narrow 12-hour window, while at war, on occasion, should be accommodated if at all possible, especially when Parkin held the turn accidentally, preventing them from playing on time.

[sunrise089]

So just to be clear, you wrote a rule designed to...trick?...pacify? people, and you secretly never intended to enforce the letter of the rule you yourself wrote? I'm sure I'm not reading what you wrote charitably, but do you view what you did as a proper way to treat you peers on this forum?

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I'm sure I'm not reading what you wrote charitably, but do you view what you did as a proper way to treat you peers on this forum?

Do you ever view any decisions I make in even a marginally charitable light?

If you want to view it as if you somehow got massively deceived, that is certainly your right. Considering I delivered pretty much exactly what you were looking for, a game without many delays, I would've thought we would see eye-to-eye on this. C'est la vie.

[sunrise089]

Do you ever view any decisions I make in even a marginally charitable light?

If you want to view it as if you somehow got massively deceived, that is certainly your right. Considering I delivered pretty much exactly what you were looking for, a game without many delays, I would've thought we would see eye-to-eye on this. C'est la vie.

I don't view decisions charitably when said decisions should not have been made at all. As to whether I got what I wanted from this game, I thought I had explained my position before - I don't like being under the thumb of an absolute ruler, even the most altruistic sort, when I was promised a judge operating under a code of laws. I certainly don't like it when that ruler lies to me and makes rulings against me and then tells me I got what I was looking for from the game.

Truthfully, this isn't about Gold at all though. I have no personal problem with you, I'm sure you're a good guy and a consummate professional offline. Likewise I've tried to divorce my roles as game host (where I've complied with all instructions without question), Zulu civ player, and general member of Realms Beyond. Instead this is all about incentives. Honestly I probably support Parkin's view in the reload dispute partially because I like him more in-game than some other civs. I think I'd still oppose the reload if I hated him in-game, but I can't really know that for sure. It doesn't matter though as long as no one hands me the power to make that sort of decision and impose my authority on the rest of the players.

When Gold says above though that I'm totally wrong if I imply Parkin's lack of popularity in game affected his ruling he may be totally right. Or he might be unconsciously swayed by the consensus view. Or he might be in secret PM league with Parkin's enemies. The thing is though that all of those states look exactly the same since I don't have access to PM logs or lie detectors or whatever absurd construct I'd need to be totally sure of good intentions. Since that's the world we have with this game all I want, and all I've asked for, and all I've bitched about not having, is a system where the power is removed from the hands of those with a motive or opportunity to abuse it.

EDIT: Quick example of how secret or inconsistently applied rules have hurt me this game - while regoarrarr was traveling a few weeks ago I missed a turn. What I did not post at the time was that my already narrow window of being able to play turns while traveling out of state was shrunk further because my wife and I had to take my daughter to an urgent care center (fortunately she was 100% fine). Would that have entitled me to a pause or reload? Maybe, probably not, but I didn't even think to ask because I naively accepted the rule as it was written.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I don't view decisions charitably when said decisions should not have been made at all.

This is the crux of the matter, and also, importantly, your opinion. I don't know if I am right or not. There have been several decisions this game I have thought long and hard about, and even second guessed. But someone has to make them, and regardless of how I feel about individual players, I try to make them as Gaspar would say, in an "agnostic" manner.

When Gold says above though that I'm totally wrong if I imply Parkin's lack of popularity in game affected his ruling he may be totally right. Or he might be unconsciously swayed by the consensus view. Or he might be in secret PM league with Parkin's enemies. The thing is though that all of those states look exactly the same since I don't have access to PM logs or lie detectors or whatever absurd construct I'd need to be totally sure of good intentions.

I have read every single word posted, even in lengthy chat logs, in this forum. I don't pretend that I haven't formed opinions on every player in this game, some charitable, some less so. But if I start making decisions I wouldn't normally make to avoid the appearance of impropriety, that is every bit as bad as making biased decisions.

[antisocialmunky]

Not to interrupt your debate which would certainly make John Rawls go "I told you so," but did T-Hawk manage to surgery the save to correct the issue? I'm curious if it can work as a solution. For the record, I think we should go with that in the future if it is a feasible option for weird misclick issues.

[Gaspar]

Not to interrupt your debate which would certainly make John Rawls go "I told you so," but did T-Hawk manage to surgery the save to correct the issue? I'm curious if it can work as a solution. For the record, I think we should go with that in the future if it is a feasible option for weird misclick issues.

Personally, I think sunrise089 vs Gold Ergo Sum has been more entertaining than anything that's actually occurred during the actual game.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Personally, I think sunrise089 vs Gold Ergo Sum has been more entertaining than anything that's actually occurred during the actual game.

Then you can check out his spoiler thread postgame for more entertainment.