[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[pindicator]

I think Nau had a stronger case if he had complained for the first city. Which is going to really upset him

[Charriu]

The first city settling was ok with it being so close to the end of the war. T186 and T188 respective

[pindicator]

Ok, looking at the turn order:

t185: Amicalola > Naufrager
t186: Amicalola > Naufrager
t187: Naufrager > Amicalola
t188: Amicalola > Naufrager
t189: Naufrager > Amicalola
t190: Amicalola >

So they've been double turning each other back and forth. I'm finding it harder to agree with a reset seeing this. There is no baseline to go off of as to establish who was first. If anything the baseline is that they both are doublemoving. Naufrager double-moving and then saying "This is now the new baseline" when it's convenient for him doesn't seem right to me either.

I take it that's what your point has been, Charriu?

[Mjmd]

So the first time Amica double moved into a settler race didn't know was occuring, which again under our current rules is fine.

In this case Amica HAD to have seen the 2 workers on the hill and KNEW Nauf had a settler (even if didn't know where). Therefore I think Amica's double move isn't valid here because there was probable cause to know was in a settler race, vs first time where Amica wouldn't have known.

I would say Naufs reload request is correct here.

For the record I also think its a stupid city for Nauf to settle as I don't believe he gets 1st ring culture (hasn't had a city there before right?). But that is his decision to make.

[pindicator]

Thoughts on the fact naufrager double-moved to put his settler in that position? Is that even relevant for how the rules are currently set up?

[Mjmd]

Thoughts on the fact naufrager double-moved to put his settler in that position?  Is that even relevant for how the rules are currently set up?

NOPE.

I've stated this multiple times in my attempt to change this rule, but our current system rewards double moves into possible settler races (like how Amica did). So while I don't agree with it, Nauf is in his rights here.

[Miguelito]

But basically, if at any point before nauf's t188/189 double move they had maintained turn order, then Amica gets the city. I really don't see how Amica is wrong here. If nauf knew that he was in a settling race, why did he double move?

[Charriu]

Yes, pindicator that was my point. This is a rare case, where exactly can reconstruct the turn order due to the recent war.

Also if they established a turn order when Amicalola noticed the settler aka founded feverdream the outcome would be exactly the same

[Psillycyber]

I've been re-reading the pitboss etiquette thread, and I came across this Serdoa post that sums up my thoughts on settler races:

"1) We all agree double-moves are bad, but are necessary for turn pace. This thread and countless discussions here and in other forums are prove to that.
2) If a double move would impact the game we elected to put a turn order in place to prevent that. (rule 3 and 6)
3) The turn order is decided on the turn before war is declared or the turn you realize that a turn split should happen. (rule 3 and 6)"



And further elaboration from Serdoa:

"Double-moves are allowed 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 that it would not have had without the double-move, 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."

So, I think naufragar is perfectly within rights to request a reload of T190 to go back to the turn order as it had been on T189, which was with naufragar going first.  

By that same token, Amicalola would have been perfectly within rights to request a reload of T189 to go back to the turn order as it had been on T188, which was with Amicalola going first.  If Amicalola wanted to ensure a certain turn order (in order to, say, move first a few turns later to get a settler into place), it was up to him to raise that objection to nauf's double-move on T189 before going on with the turns.  

This way of resolving the issue does not confer any additional rights or powers on nauf that Amica did not also enjoy.  It's just that nauf has chosen to use this power to dispute a double-move when that double-move would impact the nature of the game, which was a power that was always present.  

By this same token, nauf would have been within his rights on T188 to request a reload and go back to the turn order of T187, where nauf played first.  (And likewise, Amica could have anticipated that a settler race was afoot and could have requested a reload of T187 and go back to the turn order of T186, where Amica played first).  

But, neither player contested those turns at the time, so we've moved on.  But I do think naufragar has the right to object to a double-move that changes the game-state, and the fact that both he and Amica had just recently done previous double-moves that also potentially changed the game-state has nothing to do with this.  They could have objected to those double-moves but didn't, and I don't think we want to establish the precedent that "once you let one double-move slide, you are implicitly agreeing with it and also have to let other double-moves slide."  If you do that, then players are incentivized to get all lawyerly and object to every double-move regardless of how much they are intrinsically interested in that specific instance of it, lest they implicitly forfeit any right to object to other double-moves in the future.

[Psillycyber]

In the future, I'd favor having the wartime turnsplit continue through the 10 turns of enforced peace afterwards as well in order to prevent this sort of issue from arising in the first place.