[NO PLAYERS] The Kibitzer Klub: PB13 Map & Lurkers

[pindicator]

Do you play games for your enjoyment or to harm other's enjoyment?

[Gavagai]

Do you play games for your enjoyment or to harm other's enjoyment?

For my own enjoyment, of course, and harming your foe in a desperate situation can be quite enjoyable. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a conqueror who would be disappointed if his victim doesn't do all things possible to spite him as overcoming this challenge is fun for him. And a different player would expect his enemies to roll over like AIs and would be annoyed to see people actually defending. I think "enjoyment" is too subjective a thing to be a productive concept for our discussion.

[The Black Sword]

I see your point Gavagai/Bacchus, I don't see much difference between razing an enemy city and whipping your own down to size 1 on the last turn. I've been trying to figure out what my distaste for the second one comes from and not the first. I think there's just an element of roleplay involved for me, I'd like to see 'my people' prospering, even if not under my rule and I wouldn't hurt(whip) them for no benefit to myself. On the other hand I have absolutely no problem with razing an enemy city. Now I do play civ mostly as a strategy game, not to roleplay empire management but the two aren't completely divorced for me.

In addition, I feel that the multiple whips per turn is a bit of abuse of the mechanic as you say.

So, I wouldn't have a problem with a scorched earth strategy for your first front cities, pillaging improvements and such, I liked reading about your play there. Once my enemy reaches the jewels of my empire though, I don't think I'd have the stomach to do that to them, and if I lose them I've lost anyway.

[Ceiliazul]

i agree with Gaspar and Xenu mostly, but i would also like to see a more concrete list of *guidelines* about where the line is. However i thA perfect example is Lewwyn's city gift out from under certain conquest by Scooter.

I dont think we can solve the general case here, what do people think about the case that happened yesterday? Good sportsmanship?

[Gaspar]

i agree with Gaspar and Xenu mostly, but i would also like to see a more concrete list of *guidelines* about where the line is. However i thA perfect example is Lewwyn's city gift out from under certain conquest by Scooter.

I dont think we can solve the general case here, what do people think about the case that happened yesterday? Good sportsmanship?

I think the city gift was in poor taste, but I'm pretty much just giving up on my vision of sportsmanship. This is why I left RB after PBEM38 for a while, I think I'm just a little too Pollyannaish for online multiplayer.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

This conversation has moved along quickly and yet feels like it is basically in the same place 50 posts later.

"Compete hard, but fairly" is the essence of sport. "Win at any cost" or "Hurt your opponent as much as possible in defeat" are not sporting. I think if all of this conversation was about a little league baseball game, it would be much easier to figure out which side of shenanigans your argument puts you. "Don't be a jerk" isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp, and certainly does not require 50,000 words of back and forth argumentation and concept/logic-lawyering to accomplish. I mean, seriously, advocating that someone deletes units rather than fighting in a hopeless situation? What is that? And don't give me garbage about it being unsporting, trying hard in a fair competition is the very essence of sport. Never give up! Do it fairly!

To Krill's earlier point about preventing your opponent the gain of unit XP/GG generation, I don't want to legislate this, but if you're on your way out of the game, what interest in that do you have? I think there is a non-zero benefit to the other player that remains because there is no required healing time and perhaps a city or two fall sooner and so the city comes out of resistance sooner. But the main reason I would object is on the basis that it isn't the most "sporting" thing to do. This is the "edge case" you mentioned, and I would like to believe that players, even if they honestly disagree about what is in and out of bounds, would make each decision specific to each circumstance to the best of his/her ability based on his own understanding of fairness. We can narrow down the range of edge cases by legislating specific rules, but this becomes tedious with diminishing returns the further down you go, and I'd prefer to have an honor system where it isn't complicated. With that in mind, there is only one rule that matters:

The Rule: "Don't be a jerk."

Corraloary to the only required rule: "Compete hard, but fairly".

If you want to cascade failgold, or any of a number of other questionable actions, play base BTS because it's been removed from RB Mod. Have this brief conversation before the game starts. But I don't think any game realistically requires a conversation about how hard a player should defend. If you don't know where the line is drawn, look around to others in the community and see where they have drawn the line. All of this discussion is relevant to the prevailing culture and standards of play at RB. CFC/WPC may have their own notion of what is acceptable. I just don't want to have to play like I'm signing a contract.

[Boldly Going Nowhere]

i agree with Gaspar and Xenu mostly, but i would also like to see a more concrete list of *guidelines* about where the line is. However i thA perfect example is Lewwyn's city gift out from under certain conquest by Scooter.

I dont think we can solve the general case here, what do people think about the case that happened yesterday? Good sportsmanship?

I was harsh on lew about his invasion of scooter to begin with, but I've come around on that issue as it being his right as a player to determine for himself his best play for his civ, as the attack has or could have had merits. For the city gift, it seems terribly timed to me to be anything other than what it turns out to be, a way to deny the city to scooter. Yes, he gets a tangible benefit to his civ by having a secure flank against Azza for 10t, but it seems a bit opportunistic for my taste because this could have been offered previously to Azza at any point, but now it happens when scooter is knocking at the gates.

But wait! Lew needed the money from his shrine for as many turns as possible to make sure his invading army wouldn't be disbanded and he would have lost the city with no benefit to himself next turn anyway! I concede this legitimate point, I just don't have to like it. I hope scooter cleans up the invasion, doesn't have to raze another lew city but gets to keep the rest, then swallows Azza. Or, just demands the shrine city from Azza in a war dec + peace offer. Ultimately, that will benefit scooter more than just capturing the city because he'll cancel out accumulated culture and get all the buildings intact.

I'm done being the sportsmanship police for the day. Chat me up in my PB18 thread. I'll be setting up my own ridiculous argument clinics over there.

[pindicator]

Re: Lewwyn's gift. His reasoning smells more like rationalizing after the fact. Agree with Gaspar & Boldly

[Gavagai]

I'm sorry Boldy, I didn't realize that you have an authority to speak on behalf of the community as a whole and to define unilaterally what is "jerk". Having realized that, I'll better remain silent.

[SevenSpirits]

That city gift is ridiculous and it's shameful that two separate players in the game accepted the deal. I mean, how can you get any more cheesy than gifting away a city that's about to be captured by someone else? If I were in the game I'd demand a reload.