[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[Mjmd]

Its worth a try, but I don't hold high hopes on either side. Can you make the suggestion, I'm tired of talking. Edit: ask Nauf first.

[Kaiser]

Ever have your brain trying to tell you your school work is still rattling around in there. I just realized I've been arguing a small claims case!

I'm essentially arguing reasonable person and ordinary negligence. Its analogous to running a stop sign while distracted or tired. Which mind I've run a few in my time as well (two a year?). I get it (edit never hit anyone, yet). Essentially Amica ran stop sign of two workers and a settler and caused a fender bender with Nauf. 

Unlike stop sign law I think this rule sucks, but it is what it is.

Why did naufrager did not run the stop sign by double moving Amica on T189 (or T187 for that matter)?
If he did, why is on Amica's shoulders to write a PM instead of Naufragers?

Nauf didn't know about Amica's settler.

The reason it is on Amica's shoulders is that Amica knew about Naufs. Is this fair, no. Is it how the rules are right now, yes. And Amica could have also used the current rules to get first in turn order back when originally saw the settler and would have gotten the spot.

I disagree, Nauf did maybe not know about the position or existence (so effectively timeline for settling) of Amicas settler, but he should have known (since the peace declaration) that he is in a settling race for these areas.

Amica could have written a PM asking Nauf to stick to the turn split after seeing Naufs double move (T187) to then secure Feverdream with him playing first in T188, establishing a written out (by PM) turn split.

[Kaiser]

I dont mind asking Nauf, either my interpretation of the situation and if he wants to uphold his request or if he would be up for a coin toss (or both)

[Mjmd]

There is a large difference between suspect and know and yes Amica could have PMed Nauf to ask for a turn split and would have won under current rules. I'll just ask Nauf the simple form question I guess.

[Kaiser]

Thanks for asking the question.

It probably is a good idea to change the current set of rules, but probably only after the game.

@naufrager
If you ever have questions about my position, feel free to voice them here or per PM. I do not mean anything said here as an attack on you, I just think that this kind of behaviour is not supportive of a healthy and friendly gaming environment.

[Kaiser]

Re-reading this:

I'll collect a set of guidelines into this first post if anyone suggests them. Here are a few to get you going - and please shoot them down if I've got anything wrong. This is not an exhaustive list. If you think of something not covered here then please Don't Be A Jerk.

1. Play your turn as soon as you can. A fast turn pace is a happy turn pace.
   
2. If you can't play your turn(s) find a sub. Otherwise you might find it hard to get into future games. (Thanks retep)
   
3. The person declaring war can choose which half of the turn timer they get, so long as they didn't move after the victim on the previous turn.
   
4. Don't try to play after another player on a regular basis. If you are trying to prevent them getting the second half when they attack you then you're playing clock games and Krill will find your pathetic civ and crush it. If you are planning to attack them then just drop behind them one or two turns in advance (it's actually less likely to telegraph your intentions). In fact you can play before them the turn before you attack - there is no problem with letting your victim double move you.
   
5. If you are at war with someone don't log in before/after they've played unless they have given you explicit permission. (Edit: Controversy! See thread for details...)
   
6. 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.
   
7. The tech thread is not the place to argue about in-game issues in an AI diplo game - the lurkers should be able to get both points of view and arbitrate without giving spoilers. (If you haven't got many lurkers post in the tech thread asking lurkers to come look at your question).
   
8. Sending in-game messages with numbers and letters (gold and city names) are a grey area - assume they are banned unless the setup specifically allows them edit: with the new ai diplomacy options it seems to make more sense to use gold to send messages, just don't be surprised if someone accepts your deal...
   
9. No naming units with messages for other players. (I really want to play a variant of AI diplo where you are allowed to communicate, but only by gifting named units, but no-one else seams that keen )
   
10. Global lurkers should give no spoilers - even asking what turn someone plans to finish a wonder can tip them off that they have competition...
    
11. Don't hide your research by changing it just before the turn rolls
    
12. Try to only log in once per turn, or play all your moves in one session - this is harder for teams or if you have a surprise or simming to do, but it makes figuring out turn splits easier.
    
13. In the event of a reload forcing you to replay your turn, replay the turn exactly like you originally played it, to the best of your ability. (Thanks novice)
    
14. It is the responsibility of all players to check that the settings are correct once the game is hosted. (Thanks Krill)
    

Amica is summarizing this very well in his thread, Naufrager is trying to gain an advantage in the settler race by double moving Amica the turn before settling. Amica P his FT and implied a refusal of the change of turn split when re-establishing the original turn order in T188. And he tried to do the same in T190 but Naufrager is insisting on it.

Naufrager does not know my argument and cannot reply or act on it, but Don't Be A Jerk is the concept I believe he is breaking by trying to gain an advantage in the settling race by double moving Amica repeatetly.
There is a rule on peace time turn splits, but his only argument for that coud be that he was not aware of a settling race but then we have to judge the turn Naufrager (as Amica did not try to change the turn order) realizes there could be a settling race ongoing with Amica for these spots

For that purpose, I still do not see why seeing a unit (in this case a settler in T188 near feverdream or 2 workers near Threemosabe on T189) is better proof of a settling race taking place than the assumption that Amica wants to resettle the recently razed cities. Especially considering that he succesfully did so on T188 with Feverdream.

I believe it would be worth a try to ask him if he really wants to push for a lurker decision regarding this reload request.

[Mjmd]

You don't have proof Nauf purposefully tried to double play or if so which double play. Again when you think a settler race MAY be occurring and when you actively know are two different things.

Sounds like Amica isn't even willing to settle for a coin flip. Sigh, let me try again.

[Miguelito]

One more observation: nauf had his settler finishing eot 186. He could have had him in Cistercia at the start of t188, settling 189 at the latest. Apparently he chose to send him to contest Feverdream, even though he has started himself that he wouldn't get the spot (Inn the post where he accepted peace).

Apparently Amica isn't inclined to a coinflip, and naufragar only very unenthusiastically. And whoever loses will hate it.
I think we need to salvage this game now before one of the two flips the table. How about giving both a bit of what they want:
Reload to Amica's login, Amica founds NW of banana, and naufragar on the city ruins or north of them? Now nauf's city would be weaker, not claiming any new resources, but does that really matter at this point?

[Mjmd]

You posted at same time I posted to Amica. Its not a bad suggestion. Lets see what Amica says.

[Cornflakes]

It's a game, people. Surely accepting the loss of an indefensible border site is more fun than bickering for days on end, right? Both should yield to the other and move on. There can only be one winner in these games and if you can only have fun by winning then maybe multiplayer civ is not the right passtime.

I've been in favor of coinflip in these situations. It's simultaneous turns after all! In war the double move rule prevents all kinds of abuse. In peace just flip the coin! Or just go by the pitboss-generate turn resolution order if it's possible to preserve that after each turn roll and display it on PBSpy ... or have PBSpy randomize a turn priority each turn for peace-time splits.

As for the situation at hand I don't have any more productive suggestions on how to resolve other than just flipping the coin.