RBP3 IT Office - Email and technical issues

[Lobo.Thibron]

...

As for moving in the 2nd half of the turn then requesting first half, that is a blatant request for a double move.

...

From my point of view i would allow him to move first if he did move in the 2nd half but before me. This is not the case here.

[Kyan]

I still have the worker and the city. I moved my worker already (i moved first in the turn thinking that i can), so if he attacks he get just the city.

edit: i am pausing the game.

Definitely no need for a reload then, the aggressor can take his turn and take the city and the turn order has been followed fine.

Sorry to see you go Lobo, Tales of the mighty Koreans shall be passed down in Babylonian folklore!

Much more importantly, who had turn 12 down for the first 'double-move dispute'? What, you lurkers weren't betting on it?

[kalin]

I still have the worker and the city. I moved my worker already (i moved first in the turn thinking that i can), so if he attacks he get just the city.

edit: i am pausing the game.

Lobo, sorry to hear things didn't quite work out in this game... I hope you continue to stay in this community

Kalin

[Lobo.Thibron]

That is my reading of the double move rule too except that it would have been enough for him to just move before you last turn and declare at the start of this turn.

Oh wait - who moved first at T-2 (assuming the current turn is T0)? Consider the following ...

T-2:
Attacker moves first
Lobo.Thibron moves second

T-1:
Lobo.Thibron moves first
Attacker declares, moves [they are ok with rule 28] and claims 1st half

T0:
Attacker moves
Lobo.Thibron moves second

That is perfectly legal according to rule 28 but is an obvious double move. This double move stuff is stupid. Lets change the game to a pbem .

You are right, but the attacker needs to move on turn T-1 in the first 12 hours. I think this is the correct interpretation. He did not.

[Lobo.Thibron]

I think i presented all the facts from my point of view. So you all can just decide to reload or not and continue to play. Unfortunately the decision will not affect me anymore.

[Krill]

See, my understanding is somewhat different, partly down to an understanding of real life issues, and the situation that Spullla found in RBPB2.

Small teams are not able to guarantee when they will be able to play, for one thing. That's relatively minor.

A major point is the Spullla issue: How do you judge when a player has moved? What if a player who played first wants to move units after a declaration of war etc? Whatever happens, I think we should adopt the RBPB2 double move rule, because this one is obviously broken, as Ruff has illustrated.

[kalin]

See, my understanding is somewhat different, partly down to an understanding of real life issues, and the situation that Spullla found in RBPB2.

Small teams are not able to guarantee when they will be able to play, for one thing. That's relatively minor.

A major point is the Spullla issue: How do you judge when a player has moved? What if a player who played first wants to move units after a declaration of war etc? Whatever happens, I think we should adopt the RBPB2 double move rule, because this one is obviously broken, as Ruff has illustrated.

Aha, so the anonymous team surfaces

I guess we may have to find an administrator for this game too Joke aside, the RBP2 double move rule may be a reasonable thing.

Kalin

[Kyan]

Whatever happens, I think we should adopt the RBPB2 double move rule, because this one is obviously broken, as Ruff has illustrated.

I don't think we should move back to that system. Ruff's example showed a creative way to bypass the rule. I personally would trust other players to not deliberately try and find kinks in the system. If a small team can only play at a certain time then this shoul be discussed between the parties at war so a suitable arrangement can be made.

[Ruff_Hi]

You are right, but the attacker needs to move on turn T-1 in the first 12 hours. I think this is the correct interpretation. He did not.

Well, not according to my reading of the law (and I am not the attacker here! - lazy so-and-so can come and make his own arguments)

Poll 28: Double-move Rule -
Modified RBP2 double-move rule
(a) - All settler moves that result in ending a turn in neutral territory must occur 12 hours (in-game) after the last movement of that settler, if applicable.
(b) - REMOVED
© - REMOVED
(d) - When in doubt, act in good faith.
(e) - Upon declaring war, no unit may be moved until 12 hours (in-game) have passed from the unit's last movement AND the attacker has to have (secretly) followed the turn split rule the turn before the declaration of war if they wish to be able to move first during the war.
(f) - (a) is waived for the initial settler

key parts ...
AND the attacker has to have (secretly) followed the turn split rule the turn before the declaration of war if they wish to be able to move first during the war.
The key words here are 'declaration of war'. If they declared on T-1, then they only needed to have secretly followed the turn split on T-2.

(e) - Upon declaring war, no unit may be moved until 12 hours (in-game) have passed from the unit's last movement
Well - that didn't happen but I suppose the attacker thought he had 12 hours to move. However, if the attacker moved just before the end of the last turn and the unit has to stay still for 12 hours and they claimed the first 12 hours of the next turn, then they only have 1 minute to actually move in their window.

As I said above, I think this is clearly a double move (attempt) but my reading of the double move rule supports it (only if the attacker moved first on T-2).

[Krill]

Well, no reloaded needed then, but we should probably try to tighten the rule up.

Damn, put myself on the slow players list for no reason...