--Dogpilers click here-- (PB7 Player Communication Thread)

[Ichabod]

Snark aside Seven I'm not sure what you're proposing as an alternative. I didn't make the RBP7 world we live in, and remember that world has, I think, 5 separate people threatening to quit for 3-4 different reasons.

Just so there's no misunderstanding. I'm not threatening to quit the game. I can keep on playing just fine. But between the choices that Mist pointed out, I prefer to end the game. I just don't think things are going to become any better in the long run.

I also don't think there's a way to change the double move rule without giving a big disdvanatge to some of the players that were following the rules (like Mackoti and Seven, for example). And between harming the players who are behaving to avoid certain players misbehaving and just letting things stay as they are, I prefer the latter.

That doesn't mean I'll quit the game or play it purposedly bad or something.

[plako]

Too bad this game seems to have gone a bit too far on the "dark side" and getting back from there is a bit of a challenge. We need to find a way to make the game enjoyable from casual to competitive players. New rules has been suggested, but they have't got wide acceptance. I don't like the fact that we would need to add rules to formalize the spirit of the game . So I think we should give the old ruleset one more try.

LP has promised to change his ways so I think he should be given another chance to play more casually. If no one else is following his formers foodsteps, we could have the needed recipe for continuing the game. We just need a replacement for ASM and convince Mist to continue with us. Sevenspirits how strong is your objection concerning Azza? He haven't seemed to be vengeful towards you so I don't think you killing him is a big problem and he has also promised to play to his best ability so that he wouldn't utilise the knowledge he has.

btw. ASM also told me that Mist has his password so, if Azza or someone else is approved he could take over easily.

[T-hawk]

And just to make this part of it really clear:

DEFEND YOUR CITIES. DOUBLE MOVES WILL HAPPEN. Do not rely on logging in at any particular time to guard against a double move.

[nabaxo]

And just to make this part of it really clear:

DEFEND YOUR CITIES. DOUBLE MOVES WILL HAPPEN. Do not rely on logging in at any particular time to guard against a double move.

That reminded me what actually happened, I had forgotten...Nyaaaa~~ -________-;;

[HitAnyKey]

btw. ASM also told me that Mist has his password so, if Azza or someone else is approved he could take over easily.

Maybe Mist can play this one turn in the meantime? Or at least send the password to Azza right away so that he can log in to play it?

[SevenSpirits]

Sevenspirits how strong is your objection concerning Azza? He haven't seemed to be vengeful towards you so I don't think you killing him is a big problem and he has also promised to play to his best ability so that he wouldn't utilise the knowledge he has.

Well I guess if he at least doesn't share any information he got from his past life as a player and lurker, and tries his best not to use it (except he can use his knowledge that our land is crap, that's fine ), I am fine with him playing. I would like him to get another chance in any case!

[antisocialmunky]

That reminded me what actually happened, I had forgotten...Nyaaaa~~ -________-;;

Well it wasn't necessarily double moving but controlling the 1st and last moves.


Go luck Azza. I hope your way of dealing with frustrations is less bad than mine!

[sunrise089]

Hey Sunrise, want to agree on a NAP until.... whatever you like?

Possibly. It would depend on a) your settling plans in my direction and b) how you treat my scout + your future military decisions around my territory. I'm certainly willing to open a dialogue though.

[Mist]

<snip>

I'll say this again, and hopefully for the final time. I never, for one moment suggested or requested that Lord Parkin is kicked out of this game ( despite some people being unhappy at me for this stance ). What I did float as a possibility ( I admit, desirable from my point of view as an admin ) is that he steps down on his own. He is a highly driven, competitive person. This was supposed to be a casual game with loosely defined, good-faith rules. And I personally think, this game is not for him. What's more, I think his otherwise respectable attitude is poisonous in this particular environment.

I think the problem is wider than two points you described and it has not been addressed yet.

<snip>

This is my biggest source of misgivings at the moment. We had one of the messiest clusterfucks of an argument I have ever seen on this forum, yet noone sees a problem, noone is presenting an alternative and noone is even trying to reach a consensus or mutual understanding of what the ruleset present already actually means ( see PB5 for an example of how this could be done )

This framework in place has failed already, with people relatively early in the game, not that invested and with rather little at stake. I have no faith whatsoever that "no change" will result in situation automagically sorting itself out into a fun game full of harmony.

<snip>

Yes it's a shame. The personal cynic in me also thinks that's it's pretty hard to rebuild good-will and good-faith in an environment that suffered catastrophic failure of both. Said cynic also notes that there's been very little effort in this direction.

I don't think this game, in its current form has a long term future. You're certainly not making much effort to make it easier/more enjoyable on yourself. In the end, I don't think I want to be part of this project if it doesn't shake itself up. You on the other hand don't seem to think said shakeup is needed. Therefore, I'd like to bow out.

When/if you find a replacement for me I'll hand over all the passwords in my possession ( I've got 14 out of 18 if I recall correctly )

Best of luck guys.

[pindicator]

This is my biggest source of misgivings at the moment. We had one of the messiest clusterfucks of an argument I have ever seen on this forum, yet noone sees a problem, noone is presenting an alternative and noone is even trying to reach a consensus or mutual understanding of what the ruleset present already actually means ( see PB5 for an example of how this could be done )

This framework in place has failed already, with people relatively early in the game, not that invested and with rather little at stake. I have no faith whatsoever that "no change" will result in situation automagically sorting itself out into a fun game full of harmony.

I suppose I have more optimism. The way I've been looking at it is that the two people who have been outside the spirit of the rules have been warned / left. The one big issue was the constant avoiding ending turn to be able to game the double turn rule, but I think it's safe to say that has been addressed. Honestly, Lewwyn's post was better than anything I ever could type up (but I'll try :D). If we lose the spirit of a casual game and start relying more on a legalistic framework we're only encouraging people (IMO) to be legalistic and skirt as close to the rules. That's just my opinion. I think less rules are better here, but I'm willing to go along if people think a change is necessary.

I do agree that this is a great opportunity to make sure everybody has the same understanding and interpretation of the rules to this game. I'll try to help get the ball rolling on discussion. Stealing this from sunrise over in the PB5 thread:

A given player avoids double moving almost all the time, but he has a neighbor who he has no peaceful plans for. He is scouting near the neighbor's borders when he noticed he has a couple workers he's been sloppy with once or twice by leaving them unguarded near the border and figures he could double-move and snipe them. So on a given turn he waits for this neighbor to login, then he logs in afterwards and moves next to the worker. He manages to login first next turn and steals them. He then attempts to make peace and/or keep a rough turn split with this neighbor, but he did intentioanlly double-move within the rules to get himself the upper-hand on the conflict.

I agree that this is in the spirit of the current rules. It's a one time thing, not done over and over again, and it's clearly the exception of this person's playing schedule.


[SIZE="3"]Audience Participation Portion:[/SIZE]

What do you think? Does this fall in line with what you expected after reading the rules? Did you expect something else?