RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[WilliamLP]

The part about Spullla's rants that really rubs me the wrong way is constant criticism of Athlete's "clock games". He has dutifully played every 24 hours for over half a year! So they signed up for a game with a 24 hour timer and they're upset because one player can't consistently play more than once per day? I think giving me a break is warranted here.

Edit: It appears that Sir Bruce and I had the same thought at the same time.

[Twinkletoes89]

I agree with both WilliamLP and Sir Bruce's sentiments about the 'clock games of Athlete' claim by Speaker.

I also echo bob's sentiment about Speaker's rant being totally out of order. They could blow off this steam in chat with each other, or just swallow it and grow up - but displaying it so publicly and immaturely is totally out of order.

They will keep doing it unless someone with the power stands up to them - with Sullla having moderator powers that may be difficult but it should be done.

Slaze got screwed over much more by Athlete than Spullla ever did with the gifted army betrayal, but he did not go throwing personal attacks and insults in his thread like Spullla have done.

[T-hawk]

I also have moderator capability in the Pitboss forums. But I think any intervention would just make things worse. Speaker and Sullla need to vent. Just let them. That's why we have this thread. They'll calm down eventually.

FWIW, I agree with most of the criticism. Sullla particularly doesn't think through the clock situation. If Athlete ends a turn during wartime, then he would miss his 12 hour period on the next turn entirely. Athlete ending turn would not actually speed up the game at all anyway if he only has a window to play once each 24 hours.

As for the gifted cities, that is regrettable but it is the least of evils. Why should a player in a lost situation keep playing at all? Jowy and Athlete just wanted to get out of a lost game. But having the turns go unplayed and cities go unmanaged and undefended is not an answer. Ceding the cities to your attacker is not fair to the rest of the teams. Yes, giving them to your killer's opponent is spiteful -- but come on, you just brutally attacked and killed off players that have put just as much time into the game as you have -- of course they will be spiteful!

[MWIN]

Just comparison, how is gifting cities different from playing the game and do everything you can to help your friend to win?

[novice]

Christ, that's some rant Speaker posted. Someone he respects might want to send him a PM gently encouraging him to edit it before Athlete gets around to reading Spulla's thread. I get that he's real darn angry about unorthodox play in an mp civ game ("Gifting! The nerve!"), but his personal attacks are taking these boards to an ugly place, and must certainly violate the "Spirit of RB", if such a thing ever existed.

It seems within the bounds of acceptable criticism to me. Where is the personal attack? He's criticising Athlete's play.

Nobody objected when Slaze told Athlete "Fuck you. I quit."

Yeah, and the clock complaints are childish, but he's just venting.

[novice]

Sorry, but you have acted like a total scumbag this entire game Kathlete. Your conduct makes me so angry, I don't even know what else to say.

You could say:

You're a fucking cheat and I hope you burn in hell. Fuck you.

[Bobchillingworth]

It seems within the bounds of acceptable criticism to me. Where is the personal attack? He's criticising Athlete's play.

Nobody objected when Slaze told Athlete "Fuck you. I quit."

Yeah, and the clock complaints are childish, but he's just venting.

I'm pretty sure that the "acted like a total scumbag" and the many similar remarks from Spulla's thread descend from the level of simple criticism regarding play style to the personally directed invective.


The difference with what Slaze wrote about Athlete was that his remark was private correspondence that Athlete decided to post in the forums, while Spulla have been airing their petty grievances publically. Right now only we can read it, but eventually (perhaps as soon as two turns from now) Athlete / Kalin / whoever may see it, and Spulla's incendiary commentary will serve no purpose but to encourage bad blood within the community. I'm not asking that everyone keep their language PG or behave like boy scouts- I regularly write whatever the hell I want in my own threads. But does not the RBCiv homepage state to "treat others with respect, whether you agree with them or not" ?

[sunrise089]

Just comparison, how is gifting cities different from playing the game and do everything you can to help your friend to win?

I've thought about this, and it's a good question. As RBP1 lurkers and players know I have a very close relationship with regoarrarr in that game. Fortunately we had the luxury for forming an in-game relationship -> teaming up in a future game, rather than teaming up first in one game and then working together in the next (that created some bad feelings across games when others did it).

Anyways, regoarrarr and I have a NAP, and since I ceded my right to pursue most victory conditions by treaty to other players I'm essentially playing to help regoarrarr win. Now things haven't necessarily been formalized that way, and I certainly reserve the right to pursue my own interests that I haven't contracted away (and I did that during the nuke phase of the game, and would likewise not agree to be eliminated from the game if it meant regoarrarr would win...I'm still RP'ing to a degree), but overall I think I'm vulnerable to some of the same criticisms directed at Jowy->Athlete. In fact, even players in the other bloc in RBP1 have done something of the same thing: Broker gifted space techs to Munro even though he knew Munro would therefore probably beat him to victory. But fortunately, at least in threads I'm allowed to read, I've not been criticized the way some RBP2 players have been. I'm not sure if that's because I've been less underhanded or exploitative in the way I've helped my ally, or because I've been more public in my relationship, but I do take MWIN's point.

I think the central difference is I've not exploited the game system to help my ally. Things like gifting units while protected by a NAP, gifting cities, and teleporting units all seem to abuse the game system a bit more than we're doing in RBP1.

[sunrise089]

Regoarrarr/darrell style:

The only thing I will say to support Selrahc's question is that perhaps after being screwed over once by Jowy's 'cheese gifting' - you could have put out a statement in the public thread when you declared war saying something like "any civ who takes gifted cities from Athlete which they have not taken in combat will be subject to an instant DOW" - I'd be surprised if anyone (besides maybe Nakor) would take them then?

@TT and Selrahc: I've raised this in another thread, but keep in mind that some people take NAPs much more seriously than others. If S+S signed a NAP with Athlete some (read: sunrise089) would say they don't have a right to break it. If they want to be able to break it over gifted cities the time to agree to that was when the NAP was being negotiated.

[Twinkletoes89]

Regoarrarr/darrell style:



@TT and Selrahc: I've raised this in another thread, but keep in mind that some people take NAPs much more seriously than others. If S+S signed a NAP with Athlete some (read: sunrise089) would say they don't have a right to break it. If they want to be able to break it over gifted cities the time to agree to that was when the NAP was being negotiated.

I wasn't talking about the Jowy gifting to Athlete problem.

I said that after being 'burned' by that situation, they could have possibly stopped slaze taking some of athlete's cities by stating what i suggested when they declared against Kathlete.

As far as I am aware, they have no NAP with slaze so it would not break a NAP to DOW slaze for taking ill-gotten cities