[PB64] Amicalola Gets To Heaven with Tarkeel and Ljubljana

[Amicalola]

Sorry, what? So you're suggesting that on T188 I should have asked to continue our wartime turnsplit because I saw a settler in a completely different area of the map? And, assuming I'm a normal person and don't do that, what is the intended counterplay to his double move? Once he double-moves his workers (that I'm apparently supposed to realise are a settling party, but actually it doesn't matter if I do anyway), I'm just fucked? "Sorry mate, Naufragar gets three moves to your one in a consequential settler race because he says so." Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the rules... And besides, surely the default in an 'unclear' scenario (I don't think this is unclear at all, but you apparently do) is to revert to the Very Recent turnsplit that we were already under, to avoid anyone benefiting unfairly.

I'm not asking you to tell me which player is more honest or likable; Nauf's a pretty likable guy. I'm asking you to judge the actions of each player without taking their personality into account. My issue is not that Naufragar double-moved in a vacuum. If he'd let me do the same in return (again, as our precedent established Two Turns Ago), I'd assume he was just PYFT'ing. My issue is that he double-moved, supposedly establishing a new turnsplit contrary to the past 15 turns, with the purpose of settling a contested site, all the while without telling me (can you imagine how ridiculous it would have sounded if he HAD tried to tell me? ). Then he demanded a reload when it didn't work. Those are not the actions of someone trying to play fair.

This idea of proof is absurd. If Naufragar was not trying to get an unfair advantage, he would not have demanded a reload when he did not get one. The only purpose of this reload is to gain said advantage. That's just irrefutable.

[Miguelito]

This idea of proof is absurd. If Naufragar was not trying to get an unfair advantage, he would not have demanded a reload when he did not get one. The only purpose of this reload is to gain said advantage. That's just irrefutable.

He might also just be mad that he now lost a city spot twice after a double move. Not saying that he's right or wrong,  just that there is not necessarily ill intent.
I'm sorry this is causing you frustration.
My 2 cents is that peacetime turnsplits are bullshit and we should just flip coins for contested settlements. Fairer and much less to argue about.  I'll try to make my case later in the etiquette thread.

[Amicalola]

This idea of proof is absurd. If Naufragar was not trying to get an unfair advantage, he would not have demanded a reload when he did not get one. The only purpose of this reload is to gain said advantage. That's just irrefutable.

He might also just be mad that he now lost a city spot twice after a double move. Not saying that he's right or wrong,  just that there is not necessarily ill intent.
I'm sorry this is causing you frustration.
My 2 cents is that peacetime turnsplits are bullshit and we should just flip coins for contested settlements. Fairer and much less to argue about.  I'll try to make my case later in the etiquette thread.

I appreciate your post - it would be nice to hear from multiple lurkers on this. 

He might not have ill intent; I actually edited out a bunch of ad hominems because I realised they might be unfair (thank you for reminding me regardless). But what should happen at that point is that lurkers should gently explain it to him. For the result to instead be that he gets a reload (for which, again, the consequences are that Nauf moves three times while I move once in the middle of a settler race) is dumbfounding. 

I do not think that a coin toss would be a reasonable solution to this argument. Heads is 'Amica and Nauf move an equal amount' while Tails is 'Naufragar triples Amica's moves.' That is unreasonable to make into a 50/50.

Edit: I agree with you that peacetime turnsplits over long stretches of time are silly. This one refers to a lengthy war from four turns ago, and to the immediate resettling of razed cities, which is not the same. Besides, ironically enough, without a turnsplit I still get the city.

[Mjmd]

I can think of 3 cases as precedent for this ruling.

PB58 Serdoa double moves ruff.
PB58 AT double moves Tarkeel.
PB61 Josh double moves Bellarch.

All these cases were decided in favor of the person who double moved.

This one is a little messier, but the rules have to be consistent. Now Nauf has agreed to a coin flip, but mind he hates it. I know you also hate it, but to get this game going again would you reconsider.

[Amicalola]

I can tell you a few reasons why this is different, but to be honest I already have.

I think a coin toss is a terrible solution to this situation and I cannot understand why we are considering rewarding blatantly shitty behaviour (deliberate or not; the precedent this sets is also disastrous). Additionally, if we both hate the coinflip, I suspect whoever loses it also loses their interest in the game,and whoever wins it will win the game by default.

If it is the only solution,I guess it has to be ok (although I'm overworked, and I'm comfortable calling the game a draw at that point, though I can see why Naufragar wouldnt want to. Alternatively, a sub could take over)

[Miguelito]

Another solution that I brought up is to let both of you settle (your city would have to move 1W). Would that be mole palatable to you?

[Amicalola]

Another solution that I brought up is to let both of you settle (your city would have to move 1W). Would that be mole palatable to you?

I could accept that, although it does still benefit Naufragar over the reality. It's definitely better than an all-or-nothing dice roll.

To a point, and I've already said this, it's not really about the city. It's about the audacity to demand a reload over a turnsplit that was supposedly established last turn by a double-move, in contrary to our long-term prior split, without telling me (and deciding that I HAD to figure it out anyway, but also if I didn't, it didn't matter), and that clearly skips me in an otherwise fair settler race.

Again, can you imagine how completely ridiculous it would have sounded if he'd tried to tell me?

Edit: Thank you again for any lurkers who are trying to resolve this. It is definitely appreciated that you are here, even if I dont like the outcomes. Silence would be much worse.

[Amicalola]

Whatever, just do a coin flip. Or anything else. Naufragar is very likely to win either way, and Ive wasted far more time/energy than I could spare on this farce already.

[Amicalola]

Heads is 'Amica and Nauf move an equal amount' while Tails is 'Naufragar triples Amica's moves.'

Tails it is! 

[Amicalola]

By the way, I will play this out if necessary, and play it properly, but a replacement is more than welcome. My remaining interest in this game primarily lies in reading the lurker thread afterwards, because I still cannot fathom how this was even a question.