Having slept about this thing a night did help to clear up a few things in my mind, so lets put them down in writing:
1) Ruff is unfairly treated if he is not allowed to double-move
This argument lacks any kind of substance. It is factually wrong as it is based around looking at the outcome of an event instead of at the event itself. To give a real life example, it would be similar to: He gained 100k $ by robbing a bank, but now that he has that money it would be unfair to take it away from him.
Another example within the game would be: He double-moved to get into position and attack a city before the other side could react, but now that he has, taking that away from him would be unfair and disadvantage him.
I think no one would argue that in these examples of course the unfair advantage would be taken away. But maybe that is the case because they knew they were doing something wrong? Well, lets look at another one: Playing a board-game a player (A) rolls the die twice in row, having forgotten due to banter that he already did. He moves his pieces, than another player (B) mentions that he moved twice. © argues now that (A) should be allowed to keep his advantage because it would be unfair if he had to take back his second move and (B) should just have told (B) before (B) rolled the die that (B) had already played.
I believe we all agree, that in all these situations the only course of action to rectify it is to return to the state before the action happened.
2) Ruff could not know that there was a settling race / that he could be prevented from settling, so he should not have to abstain from double-moves
That is again a twisted argument akin to 1) as it quietly adds the condition that him double-moving is ok as long as he doesn't know that it affects the game. But in actuality the opposite is true: Double-moves are ok as long as they do not affect the game but not if they do. Your knowledge or lack thereof does not matter. ¹
This would be a different case if the one double-moving would be punished - beyond not being allowed to double-move see 1). Basically if we would agree that someone double-moving has to pay every player 20 gold as additional punishment in order to deter that behavior. In that case it would be unfair to punish him if he didn't know he was doing something wrong (albeit that is how our laws work, in order to deter wrongful behavior; else everyone would get a free pass to do everything wrong once).
This argument also tries to move the goalposts. No longer is the question if the double-move gave one side an advantage, the question suddenly is moved to "but did that side know it would gain an advantage?".
3) Serdoa should have told Ruff that they were in a settling race / turn split. Ruff should not be punished for Serdoa not doing that.
This argument is similar to 2) but also puts the blame on the victim. See ¹ for why double-moves that affect the game need to be corrected. See ² for why I was not required to tell him.
As for the "punished" part, see 1).
4) Conclusion
I think the rules are actually pretty clear on how to handle a situation like this. Apparently though that is not the case for everyone, so I believe it would benefit us to have a bigger discussion about the actual intention of these rules and write that down, similar to how laws come with a rationale of the legislative branch so that in the case of ambiguities one can refer back to those.
I believe the overarching goal is to allow double-moves for the sake of speed in each and every case in which the double-move would, had it not happened as a double-move, not lead to any other outcome. However, if a double-move is played that leads to an advantage for the offending party, the negatively affected party has the right to request a reload in order to establish a turn-order. This turn order is established in accordance to the order of the turn that was played before the double-move. E.g.: If party (A) played last on T-1 and first on T0 gaining an advantage over party (B) that is directly dependent on being able to double-move, the turn is reloaded in such a way that party (B) is able to play first on T0.
This does not cover cases in which party (B) does not even realize that a double-move led to it being disadvantaged, for example if party (A) moved a scout next to a Chariot of party (B) and then (A) moved the scout immediately away the next turn, denying (B) the possibility to kill the scout. I don't think there is anything that can be done in these cases though.
5) Closing statement
In general I have to say that I'm unhappy that some people in my opinion argue fairly unfaithful when discussing these rules. If they use these rhetorical tricks unknowingly or knowingly I do not know. Though I will say, if someone already apologizes or makes restrictive statements it shows to me that they most likely do know already that what they state is questionable. Maybe if you can't argue neutrally just ... don't at all? These discussions should never be a popularity contest, but be decided on the overall merit of the argument. In real-life terms: If Mark Zuckerberg is in a car-accident with a factory worker because that factory worker did drive to fast, Zuckerberg should not be the one being punished just because he has money and can "afford" paying for two new cars.
¹ We all agreed that simultaneous turns can lead to situations which clearly favor one player over the other, something we came to call "double-move". If no rules against these double-moves are in place players will play clock-games, with those having the most time running the clock till the absolute end to make certain no one can double-move them. We do not want that and we also don't want to play slower sequential, so we agreed on rules that - condensed in one sentence - state:
"Don't double-move to get an advantage."
This was meant to prevent situations that can lead to players being pricks with double-moves - but also to prevent clock-games. But it requires that if a double-move happens that matters (-> turn order in a settling race, war) because no turn order was established beforehand we reload and establish it then. If that does not happen then it means players are again incentivized to play clock-games, as else they can get double-moved and as long as the other party feigns ignorance or was really oblivious to the situation the double-moved player would get no recourse.²
² The counter-argument against [size=small]¹ is rule 6. which states
"In a peace-time turn split (eg a settling or hut-popping race) the turn you realise there should be a split is when the order is established."
There are two important parts that should be noted here
1) This rule (and no other either) does not require you to tell the other party involved. There might or might not be reasons for that, but that is besides the point.
2) This rule does not state that the turn-split is only established for YOU but that it is established. As there need to be at least two parties for a turn-split that of course means that both parties are in a turn-split.
And yes, that can lead to one party being unknowingly in a turn-split. In this game I had several times already the situation that I did play last one turn and did - by choice - not play immediately the new turn, because I was obviously in a race / potential war situation with someone else. Heck, I even employed that rule when my scout could get attacked by another player because denying him that by double-moving would give me an unfair advantage.
Other players did so as well by the way, so it hardly seems as if I'm the only one acting according to this rule.
This rule exists for one reason: To prevent discussions about WHEN the turn split should have started.
That is all this rule is meant to do. Make it abundantly clear for everyone before the game even has started how these situations will be resolved, so that there is no need to argue about who moved first 20 turns ago. It actually should have prevented posts like this by Cornflakes:
You draw the line at the point that one party realized they were in a settling race. At that point the turn order is established. As I realized it T110 that is the turn a turn order is established and that means "Serdoa first, Ruff second".
1) Ruff is unfairly treated if he is not allowed to double-move
This argument lacks any kind of substance. It is factually wrong as it is based around looking at the outcome of an event instead of at the event itself. To give a real life example, it would be similar to: He gained 100k $ by robbing a bank, but now that he has that money it would be unfair to take it away from him.
Another example within the game would be: He double-moved to get into position and attack a city before the other side could react, but now that he has, taking that away from him would be unfair and disadvantage him.
I think no one would argue that in these examples of course the unfair advantage would be taken away. But maybe that is the case because they knew they were doing something wrong? Well, lets look at another one: Playing a board-game a player (A) rolls the die twice in row, having forgotten due to banter that he already did. He moves his pieces, than another player (B) mentions that he moved twice. © argues now that (A) should be allowed to keep his advantage because it would be unfair if he had to take back his second move and (B) should just have told (B) before (B) rolled the die that (B) had already played.
I believe we all agree, that in all these situations the only course of action to rectify it is to return to the state before the action happened.
2) Ruff could not know that there was a settling race / that he could be prevented from settling, so he should not have to abstain from double-moves
That is again a twisted argument akin to 1) as it quietly adds the condition that him double-moving is ok as long as he doesn't know that it affects the game. But in actuality the opposite is true: Double-moves are ok as long as they do not affect the game but not if they do. Your knowledge or lack thereof does not matter. ¹
This would be a different case if the one double-moving would be punished - beyond not being allowed to double-move see 1). Basically if we would agree that someone double-moving has to pay every player 20 gold as additional punishment in order to deter that behavior. In that case it would be unfair to punish him if he didn't know he was doing something wrong (albeit that is how our laws work, in order to deter wrongful behavior; else everyone would get a free pass to do everything wrong once).
This argument also tries to move the goalposts. No longer is the question if the double-move gave one side an advantage, the question suddenly is moved to "but did that side know it would gain an advantage?".
3) Serdoa should have told Ruff that they were in a settling race / turn split. Ruff should not be punished for Serdoa not doing that.
This argument is similar to 2) but also puts the blame on the victim. See ¹ for why double-moves that affect the game need to be corrected. See ² for why I was not required to tell him.
As for the "punished" part, see 1).
4) Conclusion
I think the rules are actually pretty clear on how to handle a situation like this. Apparently though that is not the case for everyone, so I believe it would benefit us to have a bigger discussion about the actual intention of these rules and write that down, similar to how laws come with a rationale of the legislative branch so that in the case of ambiguities one can refer back to those.
I believe the overarching goal is to allow double-moves for the sake of speed in each and every case in which the double-move would, had it not happened as a double-move, not lead to any other outcome. However, if a double-move is played that leads to an advantage for the offending party, the negatively affected party has the right to request a reload in order to establish a turn-order. This turn order is established in accordance to the order of the turn that was played before the double-move. E.g.: If party (A) played last on T-1 and first on T0 gaining an advantage over party (B) that is directly dependent on being able to double-move, the turn is reloaded in such a way that party (B) is able to play first on T0.
This does not cover cases in which party (B) does not even realize that a double-move led to it being disadvantaged, for example if party (A) moved a scout next to a Chariot of party (B) and then (A) moved the scout immediately away the next turn, denying (B) the possibility to kill the scout. I don't think there is anything that can be done in these cases though.
5) Closing statement
In general I have to say that I'm unhappy that some people in my opinion argue fairly unfaithful when discussing these rules. If they use these rhetorical tricks unknowingly or knowingly I do not know. Though I will say, if someone already apologizes or makes restrictive statements it shows to me that they most likely do know already that what they state is questionable. Maybe if you can't argue neutrally just ... don't at all? These discussions should never be a popularity contest, but be decided on the overall merit of the argument. In real-life terms: If Mark Zuckerberg is in a car-accident with a factory worker because that factory worker did drive to fast, Zuckerberg should not be the one being punished just because he has money and can "afford" paying for two new cars.
¹ We all agreed that simultaneous turns can lead to situations which clearly favor one player over the other, something we came to call "double-move". If no rules against these double-moves are in place players will play clock-games, with those having the most time running the clock till the absolute end to make certain no one can double-move them. We do not want that and we also don't want to play slower sequential, so we agreed on rules that - condensed in one sentence - state:
"Don't double-move to get an advantage."
This was meant to prevent situations that can lead to players being pricks with double-moves - but also to prevent clock-games. But it requires that if a double-move happens that matters (-> turn order in a settling race, war) because no turn order was established beforehand we reload and establish it then. If that does not happen then it means players are again incentivized to play clock-games, as else they can get double-moved and as long as the other party feigns ignorance or was really oblivious to the situation the double-moved player would get no recourse.²
² The counter-argument against [size=small]¹ is rule 6. which states
"In a peace-time turn split (eg a settling or hut-popping race) the turn you realise there should be a split is when the order is established."
There are two important parts that should be noted here
1) This rule (and no other either) does not require you to tell the other party involved. There might or might not be reasons for that, but that is besides the point.
2) This rule does not state that the turn-split is only established for YOU but that it is established. As there need to be at least two parties for a turn-split that of course means that both parties are in a turn-split.
And yes, that can lead to one party being unknowingly in a turn-split. In this game I had several times already the situation that I did play last one turn and did - by choice - not play immediately the new turn, because I was obviously in a race / potential war situation with someone else. Heck, I even employed that rule when my scout could get attacked by another player because denying him that by double-moving would give me an unfair advantage.
Other players did so as well by the way, so it hardly seems as if I'm the only one acting according to this rule.
This rule exists for one reason: To prevent discussions about WHEN the turn split should have started.
That is all this rule is meant to do. Make it abundantly clear for everyone before the game even has started how these situations will be resolved, so that there is no need to argue about who moved first 20 turns ago. It actually should have prevented posts like this by Cornflakes:
Quote:Where do you look for the turn split to be active? Do Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you this turn when he didn’t know you had a settler headed for that spot? Do you get precedence because you happened to play before Ruff on the previous turn when you didn’t know he had a settler headed for that spot? Does Ruff get precedence because he happened to play before you 2 turns before that? ... ... ... where does one draw line?
You draw the line at the point that one party realized they were in a settling race. At that point the turn order is established. As I realized it T110 that is the turn a turn order is established and that means "Serdoa first, Ruff second".
