[PB64] Lurking Randomly

[Psillycyber]

Would anyone object to me posting this in Amica's thread?

I don't necessarily speak for the other lurkers in what I'm about to say, but the way I read the rules, it would have equally been within your rights on T189 to notice the 2 workers suspiciously moving into neutral territory, suspect a settler race, and request a reload of T189 to overrule Nauf's double-move on T189 for that reason (suspected settler race) and to enforce a peacetime turnsplit thereafter for several turns that adhered to the most recent turn order as of T188, which was with you going before Nauf. 

In effect, Nauf is exercising a right that you and him both had on different turns, but that you did not exercise (whether because you didn't realize you had that right due to being in a settler race condition, or because you were just wanting to get the turns moving).  That's how I personally see it.

I don't particularly like this existing system (as I understand it) because it does seem to give players an incentive to hold up turns and ask for reloads if there's even a suspicion of a settler race (and like you pointed out, it wasn't 100% certain those 2 workers were evidence of a settler race because, theoretically, those workers could have been roading to Gavagai), which goes against the principle of PYFT.  I'd propose locking in the wartime turnsplit for the 10-year enforced peace afterwards as well, but that would have to apply to future games. 

I also, by the way, don't think it would be a good idea to go all the way back to T189 now to reload.  If you had the right at that moment to request a reload (and that's more my interpretation), in any case that moment has irrevocably passed.  It would do too much damage to the game to reload multiple turns at this point.  Just something to think about in the future, and for discussion in the pitboss etiquette thread after this game.  I do understand where you are coming from, and I know that it does not feel good to feel like you are being penalized for NOT rules-lawyering in a situation, which is why I think, once again, we should in the future take this out of player discretion altogether so that there is no player incentive to fret about these situations.  Nor can I imagine (this is just my speculation) that it can feel particularly gratifying for Nauf to request a reload.  Nobody likes the feeling of having to ask for a reload.  But you probably can't deny that you might, regardless of the discomfort, feel driven to ask for one in his shoes in this situation. 

[Mjmd]

I think that has some flaws.

The turn to declare a settler race was the turn Fevered Dreams was founded and Amica saw Naufs settler. Amica seeing the two workers going to no where basically on T189 means they have already lost the race, which is why they shouldn't have double played. Again huge flaw to current rule.

[Mjmd]

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.

[Kaiser]

If this is the turn of events (thanks @pindicator for compiling the turn order, I added the settling dates)

t185: Amicalola > Naufrager
t186: Amicalola > Naufrager
t187: Naufrager > Amicalola
t188: Amicalola > Naufrager => Amica settles city
t189: Naufrager > Amicalola
t190: Amicalola > => Amica settles city

Then Naufragar has been as abusive of this rule as possible and I do think that ruling this in his favor, even when the (apparently flawed) rule seems to be interpretable in his favor, is setting a bad precedent for etiquette between players on this forum if this kind of bullying (I am not sure the word is a 100% fit but feel it should be close enough) is waved through.

He tried to change the turn order for the settling of Feverdream (which is fine and for the sake of speed can be done this way) which Amica immediately reversed by re-establishing the original turn order. Naufrager then ignores that Amica went back to the original turn order and tries to change it againg for the settling of Threemosabe and then asks for a ruling when Amica again re-establishes the original turn order.
It seems that there is an understanding like "double moving the turn before settling is fine and my opponents only counter is to write me a PM enforcing the turn split from before", which I personally feel is a slap in the face of every player being on the wrong end of this. Be it due to missing a very easy to overlook indication of a race going on or because they choose the (game speed friendly) option of just reversing the Turn split.
Amica did reverse this change as soon as possible without holding up the game (by double moving back), but apparently he did not write a PM to Naufrager first and is now punished for that?

I do follow why people are arguing that Amica could have realized that there was a settler race, I do not follow why naufrager (as the player changing the turn split) did not have to realize that there is a turn split and consequently would have had to inform Amica of his intention of changing the split.
Correct me if I am wrong, but these are the facts based on which Amica should have asked Naufrager for a turn split:
- Amica had seen a Naufrager Settler on T188 near Feverdream
- there were two Workers roading a hill tile 1 SE of Threemosabe with few explanation why they should be there outside of preparing a city
- there were after-war city sites to be settled
While Naufrager as the player (indirectly) requesting the change of turn split, was not supposed to realize that changing the turn split needs to be communicated via PM so Amica can react to it:
- Amica literally refused to accept a change of turn split the turn before (by double moving him back)
- there were after-war city sites to be settled

I think the sensible thing to do for Naufrager would have been to inform Amica at the end of T188 of his wish to change the turn order because there might be settling race. Then they could have worked it out and it would likely have ended with Amica settling Threemosabe, as he was up first turn player until that point and would likely have refused to change.

@naufrager:
I do think you are a great guy and a funny reporter of these games, please do not take my above post the wrong way. I think you might have been carried away in the moment with the frustration of having signed the peace treaty which you felt was unfavourable for you, you might still have been annyoed by Amica double turning you back to re-establish the original turn order, but I honestly think that just hard forcing a turn split and then beein annoyed/complaining if another player does not accept it is not the way to keep up a healthy gaming environment on this site

It looks like the majority here is in favor of granting the reload, even though I personally do not think that it is that crystal clear just because Amica did not write a PM.
However I do think the way to go forward is to discuss this with naufrager in his thread and ask him if he really wants to enforce the reload considering that this play is setting a very bad incident.

My recommendation for ammendements for the rule would be as a minimum that a player forcing a turn split for any purpose (settler race, war declaration, ... basically everything) outside of just PYFT quickly, is supposed to contact the impacted player with a PM to make him aware of the change and give opportunity for reaction.

[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?

[Psillycyber]

Just out of curiosity, if Nauf had declared on T188 that there was a settler race afoot (which would have made sense because by that point he had evidence that Amica was interested in resettling razed city sites, and Nauf obviously still had an unused settler), and that he, Nauf, would like a stable peacetime turnsplit to be enforced, would Nauf have been able to get a turnsplit where he moved first? Or would the stable peacetime turnsplit have defaulted to what the turnsplit had been during the previous war with Amica going first, in which case Nauf wouldn't have gotten the Threemosabe city site anyways?

I ask because, if the only way Nauf gets that city site is if he raises attention to this issue at a very specific moment (T190, after having double-moved to move first on T189) in order to establish the Nauf > Amica turn order as the "default" (when it was anything but a stable default arrangement), then that seems...unjust. Although I'm still not sure it sways me on how the letter of the current law is to be interpreted in this instance.

[Kaiser]

Just out of curiosity, if Nauf had declared on T188 that there was a settler race afoot (which would have made sense because by that point he had evidence that Amica was interested in resettling razed city sites, and Nauf obviously still had an unused settler), and that he, Nauf, would like a stable peacetime turnsplit to be enforced, would Nauf have been able to get a turnsplit where he moved first?  Or would the stable peacetime turnsplit have defaulted to what the turnsplit had been during the previous war with Amica going first, in which case Nauf wouldn't have gotten the Threemosabe city site anyways? 

I ask because, if the only way Nauf gets that city site is if he raises attention to this issue at a very specific moment (T190, after having double-moved to move first on T189) in order to establish the Nauf > Amica turn order as the "default" (when it was anything but a stable default arrangement), then that seems...unjust.  Although I'm still not sure it sways me on how the letter of the current law is to be interpreted in this instance.

I do not think that Nauf would have had an argument to ask for getting first turn half in T188, as he just double moved Amica in T187 to get first turn and Amica re-established the original turn split. I think he should have accompanied the T187 double move (for the sake of speed) with a PM about the settler race, to which Amica could then have responded by PM (which for the sake of speed might not really be necessary as double moving him back clearly states that Amica did not agree with a change of turn split)
So I think the turn split would have defaulted back to Amica -> Nauf, outside of these two agreeing onto something else in their PM.

Amica would have very likely refused changing (like he did indirectly by re-establshing the original turn split) and insisted on staying first in turn order. Without Amica agreeing to a change to 2nd turn player, there is no way for Nauf to settle Threemosabe first (outside of sending the settler to Threemosabe first instead of trying for Feverdream, but then I do not know where his Settler originally came from and if that would have worked out, so effectively settling before T190).

I disagree that the turn order was not a stable arrangement, my understanding is that this has been the turn order during their war which ended T185, so the only changes to the turn order were when Naufrager tried to change the turn order.
He regretted the peace in T186 already, but that does not change the fact that he played 2nd during the war and that he should have expected Amica to have been interested in re-settling as well and thus should have respected a turn split instead of trying to change the turn split just the turn before settling.

I do think it is unjust of Nauf to expect Amica to be forced into a new turn split just because he refuses to take into account Amica's interest in re-settling this area, while he expects Amica to read his worker movements and the fact that he saw a settler 2 turns ago.
I do think this is an example of poor sportsmanship, as there had been an establsihed turn split, Naufrager changes it and is then offended when this change is not accepted by his counterpart.
I do not think that the current ruling is sufficiently in Naufragers favor, the main question is who is responsible of PMing the other and can Amica's reversal double move be interpreted as a "I want to stay in our previous turn split", meaning Naufrager should have assumed to be in a turn split and avoided double moving Amica in the first place.
I do think this will set a bad precedent of people trying to game turn splits in their favor with minimal reaction opportuntiy for the other side because it is hidden in the complexity of the game and its interface.

Looking back on things is always easier, but Naufrager probably should just have stayed at war with Amica until he had resettled these cities.
He did not and thus needs to accept that playing 2nd means he will loose out on both city sites.

[Mjmd]

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.

[Mjmd]

I do think it is unjust of Nauf to expect Amica to be forced into a new turn split just because he refuses to take into account Amica's interest in re-settling this area, while he expects Amica to read his worker movements and the fact that he saw a settler 2 turns ago.
I do think this is an example of poor sportsmanship, as there had been an establsihed turn split, Naufrager changes it and is then offended when this change is not accepted by his counterpart.
I do not think that the current ruling is sufficiently in Naufragers favor, the main question is who is responsible of PMing the other and can Amica's reversal double move be interpreted as a "I want to stay in our previous turn split", meaning Naufrager should have assumed to be in a turn split and avoided double moving Amica in the first place.
I do think this will set a bad precedent of people trying to game turn splits in their favor with minimal reaction opportuntiy for the other side because it is hidden in the complexity of the game and its interface.

 So again this rule fully rewards double moving into possible contested areas.

You can't prove poor sportsmanship. I've accused Nauf of that mind you, but that was as a player not a lurker. There are 6 players. Double moves are going to be part of the game and the current rule is designed with this in mind. Again, it isn't good, but it is what it is. 

Again, sadly Amica is responsible for PMing.

Again, I'm fully in support of players being able to request continued turn split after a war. I'm fully in support of dice roll when in settler race for turn order. That isn't what we have right now.

[Miguelito]

How do we get out of this?
Offer to toss a coin, if they both accept?