RBP4 [SPOILERS] - Shaka of Zulu (sunrise089, regoarrarr, and friends)

[regoarrarr]

And in one last post (because clearly I can't shut up), I will say that any ruling which has as its effect (or side effect or unintended consequence) game players being reticent in posting things to their lurker threads is unfortunate.

It's something that I first learned of with Krill as admin vs. Spullla in PB2. I do not condone cheating nor would I cheat, but if there was something that I felt was within the rules but that might be interpreted otherwise (such as this), it makes me very hesitant to post anything about it in my thread.

As such, I am placing myself on a 2-turn turn posting ban.

[sunrise089]

I leave all further arguments to "bad cop" sunrise089

Here goes...

I'm going to assume you aren't serious.

I'm completely serious. Unit gifting, as opposed to unit buying is a payment in exchange for goodwill given either in advance or after the fact. Unit gifting might, for example, go from a civ not at war to a civ at war, ultimately doomed, to try to allow that civ to hang on a bit longer, with the gifting civ possibly being less than wholly altruistic since not only do they get to "help a friend" but also delay a potential enemy some spoils of war.

There's nothing fundamentally different here with this proposed worker gift. I'm certainly aware that there are different interpretation of the "good faith" rule, but I'm also pretty sure gifting units that don't have prereqs, don't help create a building, etc, isn't something the players of this game overlooked and now need a ruling on. On the contrary, we accepted a ruleset that banned certain specific types of gifts that allowed a clear advantage in net hammers or beakers to be leveraged, like gifting cities to Exp civs to build granaries. Gifting workers so civ 1 looses two workers and civ 2 gains two workers is zero sum, and we have no bans on zero sum gifts (gifting cities to avoid capture isn't zero sum between attacker and defender, as there is no way to delete your own cities). It's ludicrous to think that Plako would gain these workers through skill if Zululand didn't exist.

I like you Gold, and much like Krill in RBP2 I think you're doing the best you can to rule fairly within your own biases, preferences, and beliefs. Like RBP2 though I don't see any need for a self-appointed all-powerful ex-post game modifier. The players in this game decided on gifting rules, and the last subrule wasn't "any other unit Gold thinks shouldn't be gifted, just delete those units instead."

EDIT: "Self-appointed" may read harsh. We certainly knew we were getting a game admin, and we agreed to (and regoarrarr and I are accepting, even when we think things have gone too far) abide by your decisions. But I don't think most people intended player discussed and accepted rules to be unilaterally expanded, especially (as regoarrarr says) without a player complaint.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

1) He was gifting you workers he had no use for to deny them to plako.

2) You did nothing to "earn" those workers. You weren't long term allies. You didn't assist him in the slightest in fighting off plako. This wasn't some situation where you had been mutual allies in some long term battle against a common enemy. You just happened to be WK's neighbor and have the self interest to ask for workers.

3) Would the other civs in the game feel the gift was appropriate? I venture the answer is definitely no. I venture this because the response in the lurker thread when this idea was discussed was pretty much unilaterally against allowing the gift.

I almost didn't say anything. I thought pretty long and hard about it.

The presentation I got from your thread and from discussion with WK is that the workers were simply gifted because you requested them. If you have evidence that there was an actual bargaining of a city spot for workers, I am more than willing to re-evaluate the situation. But given that your plan is to knock the city down ASAP, and there was no mention of any such bargaining prior to this in your thread, I am skeptical that that is anything other than an ex post facto attempt to explain the worker gift.

You aren't bad people for pushing for it. I'm not judging you. And no one is remotely surprised that someone as clever as Rego would find a way to swing such a favorable transaction. It is one of the reasons we all respect his play. But I have a hard time believing that if the shoe was on the other foot that you wouldn't think the gift of four free, unearned workers was "artificial" and "unbalanced." For instance, if WK had decided he was dead and gifted four free workers to Lord Parkin in exchange for apparently nothing in return, how would you have felt if those extra worker turns went on to have a critical effect on an opponent's victory? Would you feel that was fair to you?

I have unfortunately had to interject myself into this game more than I ever wanted to. If you want to keep things to yourself for fear of an adverse ruling, I cannot stop that.

I also am annoyed by a moderator pre-emptively making decisions that no player has complained about.

You say that no players have complained. In this situation, no other players in the game COULD possibly complain. How would anyone ever know? Have you gone around and advertised your good fortune? It seems you intentionally avoided DoW'ing WK for the possible diplo ramifications with plako. If you want, we could post this matter in the UN Thread and let the other nine civs vote if they think the gift of workers is appropriate. If they say it is fine, I cede to that for sure. But otherwise, THE ONLY people who can oversee this type of situation are myself and other lurkers.

I'm completely serious. Unit gifting, as opposed to unit buying is a payment in exchange for goodwill given either in advance or after the fact. Unit gifting might, for example, go from a civ not at war to a civ at war, ultimately doomed, to try to allow that civ to hang on a bit longer, with the gifting civ possibly being less than wholly altruistic since not only do they get to "help a friend" but also delay a potential enemy some spoils of war.

When gifting units at war, it is almost always without fail, to the benefit of the civ who gifted the units. What is WK's benefit of gifting you the workers?

[Profane]

Workers are civilians. WK being the benevolent leader he is, is just trying his best to ensure that his people that aren't directly part of the war effort (non-military) survive while his nation isn't going to.

In the real world, I think we don't really refuse war refugees and send them back to be dealt with by the new tyrant in their homeland, do we?

Of course, the diplomatic consequences of accepting war refugees also do exist in the real world, and I sunrise & co. taking this risk makes it fair game, IMO.

Since no other player knows about this, I think we should wait till after the game and ask their opinion on such things, only then decide if this should or should not be banned in future games.

If the rest of the world has no way to know, well... this is during the ancient times; we don't have spy satellites in space or the Internet or Radio to find out about these things
Maybe WK or sunrise & co. can make a vague public statement about war refugees (only if they feel like doing so), but personally I think the onus is on plako (or his allies) to find out about this.

So, I feel that if any action is to be taken, let it be that sunrise & co. forfeit the legitimacy of complaining about other teams doing the same in the future, and I think that is good enough.

[Rowain]

My PoV:

a) What makes it a bad move is the fact that Rego plans to destroy WK in a few turns anyway so he gets free workers for nothing.
I would be absolutly ok with it if Rego would really save WK (like Bob did with Sareln in FFH1)

b) The other side is that nobody would know about it without rego's posting. So they get punished because they entertain lurkers and post about their plans.

Given that worker-gifting was not forbidden per se and the possible sideeffects of a ruling I think this trade should be allowed (also I'm not happy with it)

[Krill]

"5) Gifting: Teams should act in good faith when gifting units, cities, techs, and/or gold to one another. Gifting and re-gifting back cities (to build a unique building) and units (for Heroic Epic purposes) is strictly prohibited. Gifting cities away as part of a peace treaty is allowable, but gifting cities away to third parties to prevent capture in war is forbidden.

Not a much of a difference from cities to workers...

[Ilios]

Maybe you should have a lottery with the other players of the game. The winner takes the Workers!

[zakalwe]

Yeah, given that the phrasing used earlier in that bullet when talking about good faith is the broadly inclusive "units, cities, techs, and/or gold", it seems natural to also include workers in the "to prevent capture" part. As always, the exact wording could be more accurate, but that's why you even have a "good faith" clause to begin with.

To me, "good faith" means that you should try to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. I'm not saying Rego did not act in good faith, just saying that generally, if you actively look for loopholes in the specific wording of rules, you're not really acting in good faith IMO.

This specific case is a very thin line to walk though. For example, if Rego had allowed WK to escape with a settler and all his workers into his back lines, and then subsequently told him "gimme all your workers or I'll kill you", there would be no (rules) issue. What is the difference between asking and extorting?

[fluffyflyingpig]

This specific case is a very thin line to walk though. For example, if Rego had allowed WK to escape with a settler and all his workers into his back lines, and then subsequently told him "gimme all your workers or I'll kill you", there would be no (rules) issue. What is the difference between asking and extorting?

WK would have a chance to delete everything out of spite in the face of blackmail. A Reggo wardec to capture the workers by surprise would reveal to the world that Reggo is a naked opportunist and possibly give WK a chance to accuse Reggo in the UN thread.

[Profane]

Not a much of a difference from cities to workers...

If I recall correctly (which may not be the case), the main reason gifting cities was initially objectionable was that when someone moved an invasion force next to a city, it could be gifted away to a 3rd party, thus denying a rightful conquest of said city.
In the case of workers the same thing cannot be done without moving the said workers into the territory of a 3rd party and gifting them.
Of course if they are captured by troops from a 3rd party declaring war, especially if in the territory of the gifting party, the diplomatic consequences would be sufficient a penalty already, IMO.

If workers could be upgraded into military units, i'd say gifting should not be permissible, but since they serve no direct militaristic significance, i'm of the opinion that it's permissible.