(June 23rd, 2017, 05:09)Coeurva Wrote: Reminds me of that one challenge in You Don't Know Jack, where you have to extract proverbs or quotes from more-or-less nonsensical rhymes. Ever played that?
I don't remember that challenge in the version of the game I had. But it's a fun game!
(June 24th, 2017, 06:13)Coeurva Wrote: 1. Would this be a good idea to build mutual trust, or just paranoid lawyering that would rather undermine it?
Depends on the people involved, could go either way.
Quote:2. What is CML allowed to do during our (i.e. the second) split of the turn? Can he whip? (as far as CivStats shows, he didn't) Can he change production? And so on.
3. What can we do on CML's split? (My current guess is: nothing.)
It's arguable, honestly. On question 3: Nothing is an easy answer, since there's no advantage you can gain (nothing happens to your production between first and second half). Question 2 is harder: he has reasons to want to change things (especially if you step on tiles, pillage things, etc) but it's also a trust issue. In modern era the consensus is actually leaning toward allowing management because otherwise plane bombing of resources can be overly powerful, but in ancient times that's not nearly as important.
Here, it's not so much an issue of trust that he wouldn't uphold the rules, but rather that he may not know what exactly the rules are on a turn-split, this being his first RB pitboss -- I'm guessing from my own situation. I'd also trust that he's intelligent enough to realize that it's always better to whip / enqueue / adjust etc. after we play, not before, due to the information gained. (If nothing else, he'd know from ingrained Magic habits to delay the commitment of resources as far back as possible.) He's already moved his warrior after finishing turn, then suddenly seeing our unit after our move, once before -- but that wasn't during a split.
He was conciliatory on the double-move issue with dtay, though, and it's possible that he feels as stressed about the war as I do, or more. Don't want to add to that by out-of-game actions, and those would also have the touch of "diplo", which we're looking to avoid for everyone's benefit. In the end, I think you're right, Bacchus -- a message makes no sense either way.
Warrior:
Outlandish as the warrior's spawn chance was (3 of ~1500 land tiles -- I've only eyeballed it, but we own 3.7% of total land at 56 tiles according to the Victory screen / demographics), I could actually have improved our position by not leaving Ames-Ace on the X-6 hill on the last turn, but rather moving him onto the road instead: he could have arrived inside Sicil within 2t. That would still leave Sicil's pcow to get pillaged, but we might have been able to save the whip on the axe.
It fits with the blasted scout-eating lion coming from the same place, though. Could have seen it coming.
You Don't Know Jack:
I've never owned any version of You Don't Know Jack, but played it (in German) over at my best friend's house from time to time. The challenge itself was called "Schnickschnack, Blech & Co." and rhyming variants thereof. Unfortunately, I don't know which version that was, either. I do remember that the game featured "nailing" (forcing one player to answer the current question by spending one's "nail", given at the beginning and resupplied later), but that could have been a staple of the series for all I know.
Can't play T58 today, and probably not until late tomorrow, but am thoroughly fine with that. Don't think I'll need a pause unless it rolls right now, but just in case, I'll leave that note here.
I think we need a reload. During the last turn (T57), when we played, his warrior was still in the capital. Yet now his capital is empty, and there's a warrior 99 of his capital, which makes a difference because it arrives in time to reinforce Cincinnati, delaying the autoraze, and this move -- during our split of the timer -- was no doubt carried out with information he gained during his T57 log-in after us, since he could not even have seen the axe before we moved onto the hill on that turn.
I don't know how else he could have moved the warrior 99, other than by double-moving, due to the placement of rivers restricting movement even with roads, and because it looks very likely that the capital warrior is the same that now appeared 2 tiles south of Cincinnati. It's possible that I'm just not seeing something. But in any regard, I'm sure that the warrior was inside his capital on T57 and, having moved onto the oasis, I can see that there's no warrior inside now.
I'm annoyed. He was told about double-moving before.
EDIT: Screenshot of empty capital, after moving warrior 1. Unfortunately I didn't take any shot of the warrior, but a global lurker could log in as him to confirm. Don't have screenshots of the warrior inside cap on T57, only on T56, but it didn't move out. T57 also has a screenshot of our axe after movement (1 onto hill).
If a reload is granted, I think the best solution would be our log-out save from last turn, and ask CML not to log in again for the remainder of T57. Then, if the warrior still shows up 99, I'll put my foot where my mouth is, and apologize.
That's bad on his part, albeit I'm not even sure that he gave himself an advantage by his move. He might need to reinforce the capital quite soon at this stage, rather than worry about Cincinnati. Anyway, I think you are eligible to ask for reload, and looks like its best for everyone to abstain from logging in outside of turnsplit.
Quote:3.The person declaring war can choose which half of the turn timer they get, so long as they didn't move after the victim on the previous turn.
CML could technically have chosen the latter half. (Which would have given us a legal double move on him, so I guess he'd have avoided it, but it would have been possible.) By playing before us on T57, though, I think he has made that decision.
Opinions are divided on log-ins during turn-splits (#5) in that thread as well, and there's no rule either way in the sign-up thread itself. The double-move doesn't hinge on this, though.
Allowing his log-ins on our split would have rewarded us playing clock games (i.e. waiting for Ventessel to play first), so that he wouldn't have had any way to spot the axe on T57, because we could immediately roll the turn after movement. This is the "optimal play", but it doesn't actually require any extra thought to execute, punishes every other player by making them wait, and makes time zones, pause requests, and sleep schedules part of the game, which I'd imagine would be as fun as it sounds. I don't know if CML simply thought I wasn't aware of this and thought he'd be exploiting my negligence.
If log-ins during our split (or at least changing build queues) aren't allowed, then I'll have to insist on a T57 reload with CML not logging in before T58.
If changing builds is allowed, I'll agree to T58 with the warrior moving back, and no other changes (and then I'll play PBEMs exclusively in the future, if anything) -- but only reluctantly because that will just invite further clock-timing bullshit (on both sides).
A T57 reload has the advantage of showing conclusively whether this was a double-move, if CML disputes it and nobody can verify either claim.
I don't want him to claim he was screwed over by an inferior opponent's rules-lawyering, or anything like that. That's why I'm advocating a mild ruling. I do think it's a really low blow, though, since he can't claim the double-move rules weren't made crystal clear to him two weeks ago.
Bacchus -- I disagree here, the double-move makes a huge difference. He might have copper or horses connected to his capital (I'm not sure whether the river transmits to the lake transmits to the capital; will have to WB this today...) and he whipped something in the cap on T58 (possibly losing the whip penalty, as a result of changing build orders urgently on T57 after our axe became visible). If that's an axe, the capital warrior arrives in time to stall our own axe until his axe moves inside the city, after which we're definitely not auto-razing Cuckcinnati (the city cannot defend itself at size1), which is otherwise a near-certainty at 250-1 odds in our favour.
He does have to whip the capital again at a penalty to protect against the warrior, but that's probably worth not losing Cinquecentucky.
I'd have something more to say in the IT thread, but it's probably best to wait for CML's response first.
He definitely cant log in and change anything. You can agree with him to let you both log in to take a look. But if you have any doubt you can demand arbitrating your dispute.
Mardoc has asked that we resolve the issue via gentlemen's agreement. I sent this proposal to CML (some of the message, especially the beginning, is redundant with what I've already posted in here):
Quote:Hi CML,
from what our team can see, your team has appeared to have double-moved us with the warrior now located 99 of Cuckhokia -- presumably, that's the same unit we saw fortified inside the city after you had finished T57.
As far as we've been told, the rules allow neither this, nor your logging in during our half of the turn-split in order to change e.g. build queues, research, or anything else, after we've played but before the turn rolls. For both of these actions, you'd be using new information from seeing our units after their movement, which you wouldn't have gained on sequential turns, such as in a PBEM.
Otherwise, as everyone would realize sooner or later, each team's "optimal play" (so to speak) would involve waiting for all other players to finish their turns, then to move and finish the turn immediately -- for the same effect as the turn-split rules, and adding the side-effect of making every other player wait. The RB Pitboss rules and etiquette, from what I understand, have evolved as a means to keep up the turn pace while cutting down on the stress, by eliminating the inherent advantages to leveraging the turn timer, which would turn time zones, working hours, sleep schedules etc. into in-game resources.
You've already double-moved dtay not long before this, by mistake. The stance has since been made clear by Mardoc's post in the tech thread, and you should have been careful to avoid repeating this. Double moves that confer advantages are forbidden; this time, you can't claim you didn't know.
Yeah, no pretense, I'm kind of sour about what I'm thinking that you've done here, but I can also understand where you're coming from. Mardoc has asked our team to reach an agreement with you via PM, rather than to resolve the issue without reloading to our T57 log-out save, which is what I'd prefer.
For compensation, Carthage proposes this to Russia:
* On T59, you won't move the warrior that is currently 99 of Cuckhokia.
* On T59, you won't move any of the items that you've whipped on T58.
* We agree that, for as long as the turn split continues, neither of our teams will log in during the other team's split of the turn.
We'll be open to a counter-proposal if you consider these points unfair. None of the issues can be dropped outright, though.
If I'm wrong to accuse you of a double-move, please give your side of the situation -- to us, if it can be explained without spoilers, or in your thread, if not. In that case, I'll owe you an apology.
We'll probably not agree on much in the immediate future, but let's bring our best game from here, whatever comes, kick some ass...
-- Coeur
Signed, Slowhand. I think writing about the game consumes at least double the time that I spend on it. Diplomacy, or anything to that effect, is even worse.
At the end I just wanted to get to sleep and find some conciliatory words after all this; these intentions don't mesh well. But yeah, for all that I distrust CML right now and feel annoyed by what I think his move was, I'll shake his hand once this world ends, as far as the Internet allows, if he's game. That's regardless of which asses might get kicked.
I think that when your ass gets whooped with gusto in one game, teaming up with your vanquisher in the next one is a good idea... let's see what comes, although I probably won't play Pitboss again after this, at least not for a long while...
Here's another great decision, my username on RB. It's impossible to spell and resembles a slur shared across all Slavic languages. No wonder I shorten the kickshaw. (That's another hapax. I've been slacking on the Bard's department.)
"and resembles a slur shared across all Slavic languages."
Yes. Yes it does.
Did CML actually whip anything in his out of turn login? Don't think anything showed up on civstats.
Edit: Ah, you probably mean that he may have changed builds to put a hammer into something and whip on proper turn avoiding the penalty. Probably should be clarified that only those units are affected if there are any at all.
Alright, CML has responded and looks open to talking about it; concerns you as well, so here it is:
Quote:Hey Coeur—I've had a friend making the moves, let me get his take on it real quick and get back to you. CML
Quote:Got it. I understand the rules and their purpose, and that's my fault for not communicating more with my homey or being clearer on the situation. I can't believe he left the worker uncovered! Shit happens, though
Let me make sure I have it right: we're supposed to go second on the turn split (which we did on the previous turn), but we moved before you this turn, which obviously fucks things up in the abstract. What I'm less clear on is if this confers any advantage to us if we just switch back to the correct order next turn, with you going first—and of course I agree to this. If the warrior is just on the 99 tile a turn earlier and doesn't engage in combat or prevent you from moving to the spot, then it's arguably an advantage for you with the extra information—especially as restoring things to their rightful order means _you_ get to make a double move now.
Would you be open to that as a solution?
Honestly, I'd prefer a reload too.
OK, sweet. Let me know if you need anything else from me. I hope this indicates we're good-natured morons instead of mouthbreathing Machiavellis, if the course of the game didn't already make that clear ...
Cheers, CML
Quote:Couple more things:
—In order to get an advantage, we'd need to go first subsequently as well, if I'm not mistaken
—We didn't request a reload after the worker misclick. We are idiots, but we are honorable idiots
CML
In brief: he seems to have a turnplayer making his moves, and to think -- erroneously -- that he went second on the turn-split on T57. Not so; we have screenshots documenting that our team has been going second since T54. Thank the heavens for that little asterisk on the scoreboard. EDIT: Also I don't know why he'd still go first on T58 if he thought he had the second half.
He also wants to make us think he's not intelligent and underestimate him, but I'll pass on that.
In general, his style seems to fit with how his naming scheme is simultaneously the worst in the game (by design) and also the funniest one by making such a blunt parody of naming schemes (also by design) that the parody itself becomes ironic again (also by design!). That is, clearly not a moron.
Our response:
Quote:Hi CML,
first of all, thanks for being a good sport about it.
CML Wrote:Got it. I understand the rules and their purpose, and that's my fault for not communicating more with my homey or being clearer on the situation. I can't believe he left the worker uncovered! Shit happens, though
I don't think it constitutes a spoiler to say that we were just as surprised, and to agree that shit happens. The details will have to wait until the game is over.
Quote:We didn't request a reload after the worker misclick. We are idiots, but we are honorable idiots
Misclicks -- or misunderstandings of game mechanics -- generally don't warrant reloads (the most famous precedent is RBPB2, where the Roman player forgot he had signed open borders with a party he wanted to declare war on, and moved four galleys with eight praetorians into their borders... before declaring. Those were then teleported away when he declared -- this 2t delay made a huge difference in the war).
Quote:Let me make sure I have it right: we're supposed to go second on the turn split (which we did on the previous turn), but we moved before you this turn, which obviously fucks things up in the abstract.
That sounds like the source of our dispute. You see, our team was under the impression that you were clearly first on the turn-split.
We have been finishing our turns after yours, without exception, ever since T54 (declaration was T56), as both the screenshots in our thread and CivStats can document. If you can't take our word on this, we can ask a neutral party (Mardoc? Or anyone you'd like) to verify this. We're also aiming to play honourably -- raise your issues if you don't get that impression.
We've seen that your turnplayer logged in to play T57, finished turn -- signalling that he had finished movement, which we took as a go-ahead for us to play. We played our half of T57 and finished turn; then your turnplayer logged in again, to move a (fortified) unit of yours in response to our movement, and immediately moved it again before us on T58. That's not allowed, plain and simple -- even disregarding the double-move itself, all your units must be moved on the same split.
Yeah, you have to make sure that your turnplayer also understands the rules. Whether you play the turns or not, you had the responsibility to keep him updated, since he would also have been the one to double-move dtay two weeks ago.
You could, in fact, have claimed the second half of the timer right after the declaration, but as you correctly point out, that would have given us a legal double move, as we went second on T56. Since your team played first on T57 instead and finished its turn, we were assuming that you had effectively claimed the first half of the split, and we were bound to go second.
Quote:If the warrior is just on the 99 tile a turn earlier and doesn't engage in combat or prevent you from moving to the spot, then it's arguably an advantage for you with the extra information—especially as restoring things to their rightful order means _you_ get to make a double move now.
As stated above, we don't get to make a double move by the proposed solution, since we were already second on the turn-split and you would continue to go first.
The warrior makes an important difference, and it's on that tile a turn earlier only because of a rules violation. That the warrior remains in place on T59 -- since that is, in fact, the tile it would have legally ended this turn on after movement -- and that we don't log in during each other's window, are the absolute minimum we have to agree on after this.
If none of your build queues, research, EP spending, or anything else has been changed on your team's last T57 log-in (after ours), then we can agree to drop the issue of T58 whipped units not being allowed to move on T59. To clarify, this clause was included to avoid you gaining an advantage from changing builds on T57 after we had played (not allowed), then whipping on T58 without the penalty on items with no hammers invested, or anything that would lead to whipping at the capital for 1 pop rather than 2 on T58.
Quote:Honestly, I'd prefer a reload too.
Unfortunately that would screw over the other players, especially JR4/Ref who landed a fortunate roll of the RNG on T58 (as they said in the tech thread), and would also force everyone to replay their turns exactly, which is always a hassle.
But if this is the only agreement we can come to, we'll take it (reload to our T57 log-out save), under the agreement that neither of our teams will log in during the other team's window, from the reload onward, and that the turn-split is upheld with your team continuing to go first.
Quote:OK, sweet. Let me know if you need anything else from me. I hope this indicates we're good-natured morons instead of mouthbreathing Machiavellis, if the course of the game didn't already make that clear ...
We don't think you are morons -- and morons can't self-identify.
One could argue that Nick (who wrote his own name in any number of variations) was in fact a pessimist merely describing the decline of Northern Italian city-state republics without semblance of glamour. Appreciating the assonance, though.
-- Coeur
In brief: Disagreed that he had the second half of the turn, since he clearly didn't and we can demonstrate it. Proposed the same deal again, but without the "whipped units can't move" clause, if he or his turnplayer did indeed not change any build queues (I assume he did, but what can we do); alternatively proposed to agree on a T57 reload to our log-out save. Insisted on the log-ins being strictly split from now on, regardless of the solution. Told him that his worker misclick (or the turnplayer not understanding that you must cancel a worker's action before it is carried out) does not warrant a reload, citing the most famous precedent (sorry Whosit).
Hoping we'll get this resolved by tonight...
Final note:
Bacchus Wrote:Yes. Yes it does.
Have you been keeping that inside since the sign-up thread?
![[Image: sFiMlDS.png]](http://i.imgur.com/sFiMlDS.png)
and find some conciliatory words after all this; these intentions don't mesh well. But yeah, for all that I distrust CML right now and feel annoyed by what I think his move was, I'll shake his hand once this world ends, as far as the Internet allows, if he's game. That's regardless of which asses might get kicked.