[GS] If you have 17 points, will you win a diplomatic victory after voting yourself down?

[Ownsya]

Speaking of people making stuff up and starting rumors, you know how many times it was mentioned that you could win with 17 DV points in the diplomatic victory thread? ZERO. I just went back and read through the whole thread, and not a single person made that claim. The only person attempting to start this rumor seems to be... you. To argue with yourself, I guess?

"Hey, my sources are from others you cannot identify, you shall not blame me", says Lily.

dude, what are you saying, he already admitted that he said it:

You wouldn't win with 17, I assumed that wrong

and it was in this thread, which is also where this feud between @Lily_Lancer and @leandrombraz seems to have started:

So if you start this congress with 17 points, you gonna get +3 and win the game before the 3 you lost can be subtract. To put it simple, you got 3 guaranteed points in the first post-modern congress, which mean all you need is 17 points to win as soon as it comes up, doesn't matter how much Civs you have in your game.

And the feud is getting old fast.
@Lily_Lancer, it's good that you have corrected this rumor but might I make a suggestion that could help improve relations in the future? Something called Hanlon's Razor: Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained adequately by carelessness.

He already explained that he had assumed it can be won by 17 due to behavior seen from winning at 18 or 19. Yes, technically he may have started a rumor but I doubt this was intentional. To say

this is their goal.

would be attributing malice and a failure to use Hanlon's razor. Let's all try to get along.

 

[bengalryan9]

dude, what are you saying, he already admitted that he said it:

Maybe he did say it, but he (or anybody else) didn't say it in the Diplomatic Victory thread where you would think it would be most likely to come up. Considering how confrontational Lily's been in that thread I figured that's what ultimately lead to this one. You would think if anybody genuinely believed 17 votes was enough it would've come up in that thread, but it didn't, and that suggests to me that Lily might just be overexaggerating a bit to manufacture some outrage. Big shock, I know.

At the very least this doesn't strike me as a thread designed to put down a "rumor", it comes across more as a "Gotcha!" thread to point out a simple mistake someone made. Petty.

 

[leandrombraz]

This should have stopped a long time ago, so I'll say one last thing on this to defend myself and then let this slide, as requested by the mods. I was corrected yesterday by Victoria, which was done in a direct and polite manner. Before that nobody corrected what I posted there, nobody. If it was known, why not just say it directly? A simple "you're wrong on this, the victory doesn't trigger if you have 17, only 18-19, that was discussed/tested before" would suffice, as it did now. If you know something is a misinformation and don't correct it, you're no better than the person who posted it. You don't care if people are being mislead or not, you're letting it spread. Instead of a direct correction, this is what I got:

By your words I understand the reason why you consider T219 as "fast victory time", and cannot understand why a typical victory time shall be T170, if not earlier.

You really shall enlarge your sight of view, try to look at things differently.

More Elitism. I admit I let myself be affected by Lily's mockery and I got more confrontational than I should, I apologize to everyone for that, elitism affect me more than I like. I should've kept my cool, for Civfanatics sake. At this point I wasn't helping, so I made myself just as guilt as him. I should've dealt with this whole situation better.

Civ is a complex game, there's a lot of nuances that a player can get wrong and everyone is susceptible to making wrong assumptions about how something works. Unless you have time to run tests and enjoy doing it, you inevitably rely on others to fully understand how the game works. There's a lot to cover.

Lily, you often exaggerate on how good/bad something is to make your point of view look better, downplaying what you don't like or going for best case scenarios to make what you're defending look better without pointing out the flaws, often ignoring "details" that doesn't favor what you're defending, so don't pretend you're the paladin of accurate information now, your exaggeration is just as misleading as a wrong assumption. I trust fully anything someone like Victoria says, because I know Victoria is trustworthy, you have a tendency to exaggerate and be defensive of your ideas, so I can't help but second-guess you. I'll take this situation as an opportunity to look at myself, improve the way I deal with things and be more careful with assumptions, you might want to get off of your high horse and do the same.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Civ is a complex game, there's a lot of nuances that a player can get wrong and everyone is susceptible to making wrong assumptions about how something works. Unless you have time to run tests and enjoy doing it, you inevitably rely on others to fully understand how the game works. There's a lot to cover.

I always feel like this game is precise or formulaic.
I can't do what these guys do cause they use math and stuff.
Some youtubers get into city planning and placing pins all over the place.
They know if they put this district here and next to this farm and mine and this district it will equal so many bonuses.
I don't know any of that stuff.
I just put stuff down and hope to warmonger eventually.
I think my main problem is the game makes me want to play faster and faster.
As your empire grows I find myself just wanting to click everything as fast as possible to get to the next turn.
I tend to forget everything I know in the way of formula.
Personally I think I have OCD or some other brain problem cause the game does seem to change me as it moves forward.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Although I do agree there are a lot of bad, unsubstantiated, and somewhat outlandish statements flying around, and yes, I DO feel like those do a disservice to newer players, I also do think assuming malicious intentions (to do what really?) is excessive and honestly some of you really need to improve your diplomatic skills (not in civ).

I will say that despite the questionable tone of some posts, that I do find certain info from some posters to be readily accurate and very useful to improving my game even if I should reject the mindset behind it. And certainly, I do respect those that are willing to back up their statements with actual evidence so when say Victoria shows a screenshot from the game files instead, then I just know I am receiving good arguments and not just memes. And likewise, I generally try to deliver rather specific statements that are hard to refute, and more importantly not influenced by my skill (or lack thereof) or preferences.

I understand that there is a massive skill gap in this discussion here.

But I will remind you that winning this argument does not award you any diplomatic point, but will just generate grievances. Ironically the system makes more sense than you think, because the world doesn't really care who started it, but rather the effects caused during said conflict! In any case, do we really need like 4 discussions on the most useless win condition in the game?

 

[Eurritz]

I got to the first modern world congress with 17 points and can confirm that it's not possible to DV even voting against myself. I suppose each resolution counts separately, thats why it's possible to win with 18 or 19 but not with 17 points.

 

[Pietato]

I really dislike rumor makers. They're really misleading. They have a pattern that

1: Their sources are not from their own experiences. I doubt whether they have any own experiences.
2: They continue spreading rumors which mislead everyone, this is their goal.
3: If nobody points out their rumor, they continue spreading them. When there are enough people believing in their rumors, the real fact becomes "rumor" and they start to blame people who follows facts.
4: If someone points out their rumor, they just defend with "Hey, my sources are from others you cannot identify(e.g. Chinese forum players, Reddit players), you shall not blame me."

As one who follows facts I really don't want to see people being misled by rumors.

Anyone want to know the definition of irony?