RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[Krill]

And that, my friends, is what we call PWNage.

[/drunk posting. Maybe]

[Axiis]

It's funny because Krill didn't actually write it.

reminder that that post was constructed by several lurkers acting in concert to interpret a rule, which is really no better at all and undermines the crux of the pro-Krill argument, namely that the game needs a neutral arbiter to enforce the rules. When the justification for the rule enforcement is provided by a person who has no actual role in the game, what does that say for Krill? Do you honestly think that that post adds legitimacy to Krill's ruling?

The fact that some random lurkers wrote the defense of what seems like the make-or-break decision of the game is also ridiculous in light of all the panty-twisting everyone was doing earlier about lurkers not impacting the game. Seems like a pretty big impact to me.

Now, Spullla's argument rests on the fact that they could have achieved exactly the same ends with only minor alterations to how the turn played out. The fact that you guys had to dig into a sub-example of a rule and extrapolate it out to say something that it plainly does not say in the text itself further hurts your case. I'm no Constitutional Constructionist, but I do feel like your case is really really weak. Add in the fact that Krill is now taking it personally, and I think the only actually reasonable thing to do is for Krill to step down and for Spullla to pay some minor reparations.

No offense Krill, but it's clear that you're taking this personally. I can't blame you - I would have blown up at Speaker and Sullla a long time ago based on the inflammatory nature of their posts. However, your role must be neutral if you want anything you say to be taken seriously, and you are clearly not neutral right now. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

By the way, this whole stupid situation could have and should have been avoided. Y'all should be pretty embarrassed about all the things that have been said over a game that no one has any real stake in. Take things less seriously for god's sake. It won't kill you.

[SevenSpirits]

Now, Spullla's argument rests on the fact that they could have achieved exactly the same ends with only minor alterations to how the turn played out. The fact that you guys had to dig into a sub-example of a rule and extrapolate it out to say something that it plainly does not say in the text itself further hurts your case.

Did you even read their proposed alternate way of getting the "same" result? It completely ignores dantski's catapult bombardment (which obviously means it would produce a different result) and STILL requires a cheesy city gift. (This is all just reading the obvious and indisputable interpretation of the rules.)

Their problem is they
1) Broke a rule,
2) Were informed of this by a lurker,
3) Completely ignored that,
4) Have not yet admitted they did anything wrong,
5) Have generally attempted to avoid any kind of punishment.

For punishments to be effective, they have to be scaled up in proportion to the amount of effort expended by the rule breakers to avoid punishment completely. Otherwise, it becomes smart to contest everything, and do stuff like turn hits into hit-and-runs.

What they're doing is like not showing up to court, or arguing with the ref in a soccer/football game. That's bad!

Personally, I am pretty amazed that they found a way to lose, even while their victory in the game is certain.

[Beamup]

@ Axiis:

I can't disagree with anything you said. (And yes, I am aware of the irony of one of the people who worked on the post agreeing with your position.) I think it was beneficial to make the strongest case for the ruling in order to promote discussion, but it's true that it's still weak.

[Shoot the Moon]

Just throwing this out there as a completely random idea that popped into my head:

My understanding is that the only objection to the reload is having to move "100 units" (Speaker's words, not that I'm doubting the number) in the exact same way again. Would a potential solution be to reload and, in this instance only, not require that units be moved in the same manner? In my mind, this would allow:

Spulla/Dantski to capture/gift the city in a way that is compliant with the rules (Dantski bombards, Spulla captures, gifts and then continues moving). (Obviously assuming gifting is legal, which I think in the interest of reaching a compromise it should be allowed to be)
From then on, teams are free to play however.

I understand that the objection to not requiring turns to be played the same way is that the teams would have advanced knowledge of what the other team was planning...but that could also lead to some interesting mind games about whether you do the same thing a second time or not. It also seems that this benefits and hurts both teams equally and would at least be close to fair.

Obviously reloading the game two or three turns slows it down, but compared to the current slow-down, I don't think that's really an issue.

Thoughts? There might be something I'm completely missing, but this was just an idea that would potentially allow the rules to be enforced (and that precedent to be set) while also being agreeable to both sides.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

By the way, this whole stupid situation could have and should have been avoided. Y'all should be pretty embarrassed about all the things that have been said over a game that no one has any real stake in. Take things less seriously for god's sake. It won't kill you.

+1.

My guilty pleasure is Big Brother. This whole situation reminds me of late August in Big Brother. As a viewer, I get sick of the actions/words/attitudes of all of the players. So much so that I say, every year, 'I am done. I'm not even going to tune in to another episode'. Of course, I watch every episode all the way through the finale, and then count down the days until the next season starts.

And so I sit, and I say to myself "okay, I'm done with this pitboss. It was fun for a while, but I am not going to read another post." And still I click on the forum to read every post that's been written.

Anyone else sharing that experience?

[MJW (ya that one)]

here

Are we sure that Dantski would have to log in and accept the city gift? Couldn't they (India) have "liberated" the city when they took it?

I thought you knew this would not work because of what you tried to Broker.

I think the player gets a pop-up when you liberate a city as seen in the line AI always accepts liberated cities through diplomacy.

[Serdoa]

Perfectly fine with me Krill.

edit: Deleted so as not to spawn any sort of conflict.

[zakalwe]

Frankly, this "moderation/arbitration by proxy" is getting ridiculous.

Y'all really need to step back and let the players work this out, involving Krill as they see fit (by now, all players have been informed of the facts - if they need Krill to step in they can just ask him).

[ManiaMuse]

I think they should just end the game tbh. It's clearly no fun for any of them any more.