[No players] Big epic lurking - PB74

[Zed-F]

The burnt relationship was caused by Plemo, not Comm. Certainly Comm is not the only person Plemo annoyed with his manner of play, and it has been a factor others have expressly noticed in their threads.

The resulting war is Comm’s choice in response to the burnt relationship. He’s the only one who decided to start a PYFT war over Plemo’s play patterns.

I didn’t originally use the word ‘fault’ as assigning blame isn’t really productive. My previous post envisioned a world where Plemo did not annoy his neighbors with his play style. A lot of things might have been different, including but not limited to the war with Comm.

[Mjmd]

I don't think Commodore would have lost that many settling opportunities if he had spent say 8 turns (approx time galleons traveling to former Tarkeel island and back; whips ect) focusing on Plemo in the first war. But instead he both attacked AND spent lots of resources expanding thus insuring his attack didn't work. I'm not sure how many island cities would have been lost in a short delay, but he could have gained 3 Plemo ones and I doubt he would have lost more than 4 island cities. Instead he had to deal with Plemo again at tech parity where Plemo had a lot of ports to cause trouble, which probably cost Commodore more in delays.

[Qgqqqqq]

I find Gavagai's analysis weird.

He declared on Commodore (twice - even if there was some aggressive peace actions beforehand), did significant damage and was thrown back. He notes that 10t of peace would give him time to industrialise and get a half era ahead in naval tech, and that he's at a naval disadvantage in the meantime. He knows he's the frontrunner, with clear opportunities to expand on land.

...why is he confused about Commodore fighting him? What does he think Commodore will gain from peace?

[scooter]

I find Gavagai's analysis weird.

He declared on Commodore (twice - even if there was some aggressive peace actions beforehand), did significant damage and was thrown back. He notes that 10t of peace would give him time to industrialise and get a half era ahead in naval tech, and that he's at a naval disadvantage in the meantime. He knows he's the frontrunner, with clear opportunities to expand on land.

...why is he confused about Commodore fighting him? What does he think Commodore will gain from peace?

Was thinking this earlier. What did he expect? He seems to be mad that Commodore is not going to let him simply Always Peace his way to a tap-in Space win right after he prevented Commodore from attempting the same? Then getting mad that Commodore did not login to play his turn until, according to PBSpy, 6pm in his timezone which is a very normal time to play?


In general everyone is extremely whiny right now, which is how you know we're in the late stages.

[Amicalola]

I have gathered that I'm in the minority, but I can understand each of gavs points even if I don't agree. Point one being that Commodore fighting Gav weakens them both at the advantage of Mig (I disagree, but I get it). Point 2 being that Commodore has been extremely vocal about turnpace, so it is frustrating when he misses his usual spot and delays the game without comment (again I disagree in this case, 6pm is a reasonable time, but I can see where the frustration is coming from).

And yes, definitely agreed with scooters last sentence.

In general I think that if Commodore and plemos positions and actions were reversed this game, the lurker consensus would be very different. One of my biggest frustrations with this format is that lurker bias is evident in many disputes.

[Mjmd]

Ya I'm also confused why Gav is confused that Commodore might not want him running away with the game. I'm assuming Commodores peace treaty is so he can go kill Plemo.

Pretty sure if I was Gav I wouldn't have used my oops just to get an extra round of drafting in, but his call /shrug.

[Qgqqqqq]

I think lurker bias can be a thing, but I'm not sure it is here. I genuinely think Gavs doing a better job of reporting this game.

Also, I agree I understand where his frustrations are coming from. But I think it's odd not to comprehend the point of view. I see the same with Superdeath - Gav seems to have spilt a genuine amount of blood up there for extremely limited strategic benefit.

Really really surprised that he wants a reload for this, and wouldn't normally grant it. But based on the oopsie rule I guess we have to.

[Amicalola]

I am talking about lurker bias in regards to the Commodore-Plemo wars and dialogue. I haven't noticed much with the Gav-Commodore stuff, probably because they're both long-term stalwarts of the forum.

Also surprised Gav used his oops on such a small thing. Let's hope he doesn't make any big mistakes down the track.

[xist10]

In general I think that if Commodore and plemos positions and actions were reversed this game, the lurker consensus would be very different. One of my biggest frustrations with this format is that lurker bias is evident in many disputes.

Lurker bias is something that can't necessarily be prevented - and to be honest, it's something that the Council might solve better than our referee rules.
However, it's a bit difficult that many of the lurkers are still semi-active players and therefore need a council decision themselves later on.

And especially with the Plemo thing, I see a bias against Plemo here in the comments - I can't remember any "unfair" decisions, but one or two comments ? On the other hand, I have to say that I myself have a bias in favour of Plemo.

[Amicalola]

I actually have a bias against Plemo (partly because its annoying that he wins so often, and partly because linguistic barrier just creates inherent bias), and I still think he's been very hard-done-by in the comments here. People with better-written threads are shown massive favouritism on this forum in general, and the Germans will always struggle with that in English through no fault of their own.