[SPOILERS] scooter Expands the Empire Across the Sea

[scooter]

Thanks Cornflakes for the reply. I don't think there's enormous spoiler concern here as it's not exactly unclear what's been going on, but I definitely understand the caution.

@scooter, sorry for not following up earlier. I have been commenting in the lurker thread to avoid spoilers. First of all, just because something "normally doesn't happen" is not the same as "unspoken default banned".

I should be clear here. I am arguing that yes, city/unit/gold gifts of all kinds are unspoken default banned and have been for quite a long time. My goading over providing an example is because the lack of examples is in fact a strong piece of evidence that I am correct that this is default banned and has been for awhile. After all, if it was allowed, players would do it without drama. The idea of funding another player is not something Superdeath just thought up for the first time. To me, a strong recent counter-example of a big game-affecting gold gift happening without issue would be evidence that I am wrong. And unless there's been a recent game I haven't followed - possible - I don't believe such a thing exists.


And for further evidence that we do a lot of default bans do heavy lifting here, I also pointed out that this game has no rules regarding city or unit gifting, but I do not think a city gift would be allowed to go through. Now, is it bad we rely on unspoken default bans - yes. But I think it's undeniable that we do not discuss gifting rules before every game. Small games in particular can be the wild west with very little pregame discussion, honestly. But none of this changes the fact that gold gifting has been default banned for awhile just the same as city/unit gifting. Do you deny that city and unit gifting are not allowed?

I myself have made one-sided deals for purely out-of-diplo-window benefits. Not gold but in PB9 I gifted a city-for-nothing to a neighbor for no discernable benefit that they could see. For me it meant that I could chop a forest that was 2nd ring to that city but 3rd ring to a different city where I needed the production to shave off one critical turn and snatch Taj Mahal. Was that a bad faith deal because I gifted a city for nothing "in the diplo window"?

Yes, IMO that is a textbook bad faith deal. To be fair, PB9 was a very long time ago, and norms were different. You would definitely not get away with that today. Stuff like this is exactly why we have not allowed gifts for a long time. The history of games here is players dabble in mild exploits first. Your PB9 example is one of those - it was so novel at the time nobody minded. But then the exploitation builds and builds until we decide we've had enough and kill it. Iiiiiiin fact, I just refreshed my memory on the PB9 play, and roughly 1 month after you did this in the same game, you were steaming mad that another player did a cheesy city gift to save their army. A world where one is allowed, the other must be allowed. So it's best to just end that slide into oblivion and disallow city gifts because one was not worth the other.


Gold gifts being banned largely unfolded the same way. Dying players would frequently gift their treasury to a longtime ally on the way out. This was often harmless, and then it gradually became not harmless as it escalated. I do not remember what the breaking point was. But this is why we've been stricter.

To me this is the human element of multiplayer. I don’t see any evidence of bad faith in Superdeath’s gift, I see a genuine interest in [REDACTED]. Humans cooperate, and think beyond the immediate negative hit of 1000 gold to the future benefit. Superdeath is not just gifting gold, he is doing is for the express purpose of [REDACTED]. It does not look to me like Superdeath is trying to make Yuri win any more than he is trying to [REDACTED].

So that we can all ease up on dancing around spoilers. Yes, it's not hard to understand why SD might benefit. If Yuris can defend himself, or better yet make a dent in me, it obviously increases his chances of victory. From 0% to 1%, but that is infinitely better. Whether or not it's good for him is not really the point at all for me. See above.

I do see extortion for peace on an equivalent level to players pooling resources to compete (whether that be literal resources, or gold, or army cooperation, or holding a grudge for getting knocked down (as long as it only goes as far as then end of the game and resets for the next game). The human aspect is part of the multiplayer game, and making friends and enemies has a an impact on the game. If the issue is transferring economy from one player to another player, then a gold for peace has that effect just as much as gifting during peace, or gifting to buy into a war. I don’t see a difference there. Similarly cities for peace. It is again the human element of evaluating the short term impact vs the long term outcome.

It's simple. One is a gift, the other is a trade. That is, peace for money. Or specifically, 10T of enforced peace for money. I reported on how I offered a few deals like that because the enforced peace had tangible value to me, so paying for it is entirely reasonable. Gifts are not allowed and trades are. Yes, it's not hard to imagine someone trying to skirt this rule by offering "trades" that are comically one-sided. Doing this is not allowed either.



Finally, for the last Big Game, here was the voting spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...id=0#gid=0

Being the only huge game we've done in the last couple years, every setting was discussed for that one. You'll note a couple things. Gold gifting was not even discussed despite this being quite exhaustive. Why? Because it's never allowed. But to reinforce my point about gifts of all kinds being banned, look at Column H. The discussion around cities was whether or not to limit city-for-peace deals. Allowing gifting was not even on the table. The debate was about whether we were going to allow players to offer more than 1 city for peace if and only if this was a reasonable good-faith deal. Or as Tarkeel put it in his vote, "Don't be an ass."


Still don't believe me? Who do you think is the one who sets up voting spreadsheets for nearly every game that uses one?

Here is a voting spreadsheet. Feel free to modify however you want Commodore. My vote is for random block so its easier for me 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...edit#gid=0

Oh right, the guy who agrees with me strongly.


One important caveat here is I do not think Bing should have been allowed to gift Yuris money the way he did. That should have only been allowed with a war declaration first and in return for peace. There are costs to declaring war, such as 1) uncertainty if the other player will actually take the warpeace, 2) whether it inspires others to misunderstand and join in, and 3) it trashes trade routes, and 4) it time boxes any gold-per-turn peace deals. I was actually pretty unhappy when the deal happened the way it did, but I also was expecting a concession at any point, so I decided not to kick up a fuss. It seemed clear to me that fighting it would just result in a warpeace with the same terms, and I have to take a public hit for whining about it with a huge lead. Not to mention I was trying to delay a dogpile.

[Qgqqqqq]

Cornflakes and Xist10 agree with me.  Mjmd and Sullla are against.  Krill and Qgqqqqq are in the middle, perhaps disapproving but favoring non-intervention in the absence of a clear rule (if I've mischaracterized these opinions, feel free to correct me.)

My broader point was this that got muddled in that hypothetical: if you want the house rules to allow some gold deals but not others, you'll need some arbiter, since you'll never be able to cover every possible case with rules, there will always be some area where opinions are split.

I favour non-intervention in the absence of a lurker consensus. As Scooter says, not everything needs an explicit rule - we would shut down city gifting out of the blue, for instance. But no consensus exists here. I haven't expressed an opinion because I don't have a firm one. 

I believe Krill's position is quite different from mine.

(As an aside, I would have preferred not to have been brought into this conversation, and think that some of the conversation here has veered into spoiler territory and would be better suited after the game.)

[Tarkeel]

Because it's not objectively a blatant violation or not in good faith. Half the lurkers and SD himself don't think so. Who decides who's right?

I'm referring to your hypothetical of doing a fake peace treaty to skirt a rule which I am quite confident "half" the lurkers would not agree to. This is obvious, and the fact that you think it's some sort of gotcha is why I'm trying to, as respectfully as I possibly can, say I don't think you are well qualified to weigh in here on what's generally acceptable.

There actually was an example of this happening in PB66, where the rules allowed for city trading only as part of a peace treaty. During our joint war with SD, Mjmd double-moved us to capture SD's capital, and then offered it to us in what was obviously an illegal trade. I'm not sure our war-peace here would count as a fake treaty, but we were at least intending to follow up the threat.

Turn 210 (1500 AD)
Our maneuvering did open up an opportunity, but not the one we'd expect. Mjmd played after us last turn, capturing Aarhus and Lindholm in the south. This turn he played before us, moving his fleet into Superdeath's bay to capture Haithabu, Nidaros and Tønsberg. Judging by Superdeath's force disposition he evacuated Nidaros, and Mjmd took advantage of double-moving us to take the city.
[screenshot removed]
Our forces are 29 rifles loaded loaded on the main fleet at Roskilde, 12 rifles and 45 knights outside Nidaros, 14 rifles in Sigtuna, and 10 rifles and 2 knights loaded on the speed galleons.

It appears that Mjmd thinks he did us a favor by taking Nidaros, as he made the (illegal) offer of Nidaros to us for Corn. My first instinct was to declare on Mjmd to take back what was rightfully ours, and demand Haithabu in peace as recompense for the city he burned earlier. Civac talked me out of that, as it's a bit harsh. Taking the city would have the benefit of luring his army out into the field for battle. We think he's unlikely to attack Nidaros while Mjmd holds it, or the knight/rifle stack if it's standing on the hill E of Nidaros where only his mounted units can reach it across a river. If Superdeath should happen to move his forces so that the catapults can threaten the Nidaros stack, we can flee back into Sigtuna which will come under our control next turn neutralizing catapult first-strike there. We end up with 36 rifles and 47 rifles outside Nidaros and declaring war to extort the city.

I've also tried to stay away from this one, as rules lawyering is *hard,* but my opinion usually comes down to "it all depends on the intentions" (and as Scooter quoted above, "don't be an ass").

I haven't played multiplayer Civ games, but I have plenty of experience in over-the-board tabletop games where similar things can happen. Settlers of Catan for example, it's perfectly common for player C to deliberately help player B take longest-road away from player A who is otherwise close to winning. Player A hates it but it's correct and within bounds for others to oppose him that way. Being ahead in a game means that everyone is justified in using their resources against you (particularly if you've already attacked them), and the leader doesn't get to dictate how they go about that.

In boardgaming there is the term "Kingmaking," which can easily happen if every player doesn't play for their own self interest.
One of my favorite games is Power Grid, and it can be very easy for a player ont he final round to say "I can not win this game, therefore I will do nothing." This can leave options on the table for the other players in a myriad of ways (which is why I love the game) but it can clearly lead to the "wrong person winning."

TL;DR: There is a very fine line between actions that hinder the leader while improving your position, and actions that only benefit another player while hindering the leading player.

[Cornflakes]

Searching the forum for "gold gift" and similar terms yields ....

PB79: putting this in spoilers because it is an active game, but I snipped it down to just the part relevant to gold gifting.

Gold gifts mentioned not in the context of being banned but rather in the context of sucking on the receiving end. MJMD did follow up a couple posts later saying "don't gift gold, that's scummy" ... but a person's interpretation of something as scummy is not the same as something being default banned

Loans or gold gifts have swung several wars in MP due to allowing one party to reach a tech in the nick of time or make key unit upgrades. Being on the receiving end of that suuuuuuuucks.

Don't gift gold, that is scummy. Cheap loans are definitely a thing

PB75: gold gifts posed as an option for getting gold. Clearly NOT understood to be default banned.

i guess i could start begging people for gold gifts straight-up but i kinda doubt that's going to happen lol

PB72: I didn't lurk this but the context looks like a discussion about gold gifting that stemmed from a 500 gold (loan?). I see the negative feelings towards gifts but "highly subjective" is definitely NOT "unspoken default banned".

So I don't think it was abused in this game, but it is something with abuse potential. In general I'm ok with gold flowing from powerful to weak. The abuse is usually it flowing the other way from weak to powerful. And what is "ok / fair" for a transaction is highly subjective.

PB 66: Magic Science - 17 gold. Yes the absolute value is tiny. Yes it was for dying player. But it is another example that gold gifts are not default banned.

Unfortunately, my population is now so low that a Great Engineer bulb was not sufficient to discover Machinery, and my economy is now so low that generating the last 60 beakers is a struggle. .

So, I started painfully working water tiles all around the Pantheon, and I begged superdeath and Gavagai for 20 gold. superdeath gave me 17, so I discovered Machinery by the skin of my teeth EOT103.

"A GOD FROM THE MACHINE". I can train Crossbowmen now. Roman melee units beware. My last stand just became much more dangerous for you.

PB64: gold gifts are normalized, not default banned.

The strategic reasoning for the war was already shaky because of high cost and low rewards (and the choice of timing was rather quickly invalidated by the gold gifts Commodore got).

Yes Amica is a smart player, they've figured out my motivations, and we've had a bit of diplo signaling. Hence the gold gift to finish Paper.

PB59 - Jowy requested 100 gold from me (60% of my max tax), and about a a fifth of the cost of Construction that he was trying to reach.

Piccadilly's power continues to spike. Jowy came begging for 100 gold, I figured that since Piccadilly is my biggest mid-term threat that propping up Jowy as much as possible is in my best interest and gave him the money. I'm building wealth in most cities, so 100 gold is equivalent to building 2 catapults and sending them to help. If funding his construction research allows him to whip his own catapults in a meaningful timeframe then I'll come out ahead.

PB49 - Fintourist gifted me 100 gold on my way to Guilds.

I begged 100 gold from FT this turn to shave a turn of saving (or 2 turns of lower slider). If FT accepts and grants the gift I'll 100% look east at conquering territory from Commodore. If FT declines then I'll take a hard look at possibly having to knock FT down a peg now before he gets untouchable.

FT accepted! Relations increased to Friendly, and I do not plot war at friendly

Civ6 PBEM23 - gold gifting expected as part of the game. I only post one example from Civ6 but many of those games involve gold gifting.

So fastest time Korea could have the Gunpowder TECH is 20 more turns. Accumulating enough niter and gold to upgrade? Well.... that's probably not an issue (for greenline). I should expect China and Japan to gift gold and resources.

*********************
So in summary: No, I do not believe that gold gifting is "unspoken default banned" but rather normalized and generally disliked by people who are affected by it. I have no problem banning gold gifts going forward into future games. I just don't see where you can legitimately demand that because this time you are the one personally negatively impacted that you can declare it to be default banned when it is happening or mentioned as a possibility in many games, and definitely not explicitly banned. And since it is not default banned, who draws the line on what is or is not too much? Drawing a line where there is no previous agreement is where rules lawyering comes in. My position is that gold gifts are not default banned, and not explicitly banned in this game, and therefore unless a case is egregious (aka gifting the rest of your economy to another player) it is not our place to step in and reverse a play. Essentially a call of "the ruling on the field stands".

[Cornflakes]

Iiiiiiin fact, I just refreshed my memory on the PB9 play, and roughly 1 month after you did this in the same game, you were steaming mad that another player did a cheesy city gift to save their army. A world where one is allowed, the other must be allowed. So it's best to just end that slide into oblivion and disallow city gifts because one was not worth the other.

You are exactly right, I was quite hot because I had a massive army standing outside the city waiting for enforced peace to expire so I could capture and annihilate a stack of 20 knights inside, and the city was gifted out from under my nose to a 3rd party. Not to dig up old dirt, but I'd classify that as a jerk move (I don't actually remember which player that was, and hold no grudge )

Do you deny that city and unit gifting are not allowed?

Unit gifting is specifically banned in virtually every time and I can't think of a game in the last 50 where it was ever allowed so yes i consider unit gifting default banned. City gifting on the other hand I understand as allowed as long as it is in alignment with the "don't be a jerk" rule. I see no difference between declaring war and offering peace for a city vs. simply demanding a city while remaining at peace, vs. offering a city gift prior to a war declaration if it is clear that war declaration is imminent. It would be a jerk move to gift it to a 3rd party or just randomly gift a city or cities to someone. My opinion is that it is not a jerk move but a legitimate play to gift a city for an "out of diplo window benefit".

I refer back to:

I understand "good faith" to mean a deal where a player genuinely believes the benefit they are receiving is worth the cost that they are paying. You say "in the diplo window" but the evaluation of trades always and every time includes factors outside the diplo window. Even for a simple luxury-for-gpt trade you have to know the state of your empire to known whether an extra luxury is worthless or if that means the difference between running two extra specialists during a GPP push that are now unhappy and you have a luxury multiplier building already.

[Mjmd]

PB79 don't be a dick is the golden rule, which is why I said don't do it. I don't believe gold gifting is a valid play for this reason. I recognize it does happen from those in contention to those not.
The PB75 example Ljub is new to civ4 pitboss so his view on default should not be taken into account.
The PB72 example was to a NON contending player. My comment on it being highly subjective is still accurate and my comment was a warning. I should have been harsher. Again, I've admitted in the lurker thread we have been allowing to NON contending players. Emphasis on the NON / NOT in contention.
The PB66 example was to a NON contending player.
The PB64 example was to a NON contending player.
You seeing a pattern yet? I believe all the rest of the examples are the same. I am also fine with just banning, but I recognize we have been allowing from players in contention to those that are not. THIS IS NOT THAT.

We haven't allowed city gifting for a while. Again, as I stated in the lurker thread it was also default banned for a long time and we had to specifically start reallowing. This happened sometime during my time here. I will try to find the discussion later, but it boiled down to "heh do you think we should bring this back" "ya lets see if people can behave". If during the time it was default banned a city trade had been made even if in good faith the lurkers should have stepped in to stop it.

[Cornflakes]

PB79 don't be a dick is the golden rule, which is why I said don't do it. I don't believe gold gifting is a valid play for this reason. I recognize it does happen from those in contention to those not.
The PB75 example Ljub is new to civ4 pitboss so his view on default should not be taken into account.
The PB72 example was to a NON contending player. My comment on it being highly subjective is still accurate and my comment was a warning. I should have been harsher. Again, I've admitted in the lurker thread we have been allowing to NON contending players. Emphasis on the NON / NOT in contention.
The PB66 example was to a NON contending player.
The PB64 example was to a NON contending player.
You seeing a pattern yet? I believe all the rest of the examples are the same. I am also fine with just banning, but I recognize we have been allowing from players in contention to those that are not. THIS IS NOT THAT.

But in NONE of those cases was the gifting flagged by players or lurkers at the time or after the game as banned. At worst "scummy". And there appeared to be just as much hard feelings about the PB72 500 gold loan as if that had been a pure gift. Again I didn't lurk that game so I don't know the actual details.

[Mjmd]

I think it says something no one has given gold to a 2nd place player before. How many dog piles have there been? Almost every game. But in none (to my knowledge of last 40 or so games) has anyone gifted gold to a contender. I think that says something about how people view it and its acceptability. Its not like we don't know about gold gifting, but no one has done in that direction despite there being plenty of dog piles that could have benefited from. So yes it may be more a "cultural" thing that just isn't done rather than a stated ban, because most of us realize its not in the spirit of the game and its very abusable. When you are about to die do you give your gold to the 2nd place player on the way out? You've played in plenty of games and gotten eliminated in some of them. Did you turn off tech and give away your gold to the 2nd place player? It wasn't a written ban, so why didn't you!

For those older players I would be curious about the early history and any gold gifts done in this direction and reaction to them. I know there was lots of drama with gifting back then, so I have to imagine it came up. Has this happened before in the ancient past and what was the fall out? That would also go into built up culture around not being done in the future.

[scooter]

I'm not sure what to quote-reply as I've fallen behind, but in all of those examples, there's one glaring problem here.

More seriously, find me a recent game where a no-strings-attached gold gift of 1000g or more happened without controversy. This isn't some random idea I have in my head. Gold gifting has always been treated as bad.

None of them are even close to this in terms of scale/size and impact. Mjmd is probably right to point out these gifts also crucially had 0 impact on the game outcome. This is the main reason nothing happened - players did not complain. If they had been, say, 10x larger (as my quote here requests an example of) or affected the contenders, yeah it would have resulted in a problem like this one did.

[Qgqqqqq]

Size isn't raw though, it's a function of resources. If 100g is 60% of max tax then it is a relatively bigger impact than 1000g if that's 50% of max tax.