Xeo's Pitboss Server

[xeophist]

Hello everyone! I fixed the uploader so it is working now . Johnhs, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, however I see that you already managed to register for England in civstats. Is there anything else I could do?

Btw. TELawrence has asked me to switch him to AI, but now I'm not sure if this is still actual? I'll switch him to AI if he doesn't react in a couple of days.

Cheers

 

[namliaM]

Dan,

You double turned on me, which you know to have a BIG impact.

This is not very sportsman like of you to do this. Please remove your units from my land which should not be there!

Greets

namliaM

 

[ptpan]

Dan,

You double turned on me, which you know to have a BIG impact.

This is not very sportsman like of you to do this. Please remove your units from my land which should not be there!

Greets

namliaM

=============
I am surprised to see the very player who reminded us all about the illegal use of double-turn committing the offence himself this time, especially when he is in war mode ! There must be an good and clear explanation for this, besides the excuse of forgetting to check civstat before his move.

Please refer to page 10, second post down to see the first incident, and all that entailed.

In civ games, it is normal to have war, and in war, there is unavoidable winners and losers. No matter which face of the coin you end up with, I hope all players keep the spirit of fgentleman/fairplay and the fact that this is just a friendly game, not your real life career

In the last complaint, fair compensation was offered to the satisfaction of the complainer (no more dispute, total silence/acceptance afterward). I hope the offender should keep the same practice to show we are all nice & mature players in this game.

Cheers,
ptpan

 

[Dandridge]

LOL boys, this game is getting more and more fun . I was 100% sure you would accuse me of a double move I understand well that you're quite pissed off by this endless war, but please don't make any unfounded accusations (and even in public without any clear arguments).

So here's the story. I'm sorry it's quite long, but this is because I just hate ungrounded accusations without facts.

First a log from civstats (the times are probably my local time):

- 11/17/06 5:49 pm DanDRidge Finished turn (1090 AD)
- 11/17/06 8:48 pm namliam Finished turn (1090 AD)
- 11/18/06 12:10 pm namliam Finished turn (1100 AD)
- 11/19/06 9:45 am DanDRidge Finished turn (1100 AD)
- 11/19/06 12:49 pm DanDRidge Finished turn (1110 AD)
- 11/19/06 2:20 pm namliam Finished turn (1110 AD)

And then an explanation:

As you can see, on turns 1090 AD - 1100 AD you made a double move and by that move you FORCED me make a double move, too. However I don't consider none of these DM's to be actually so called "dirty" double moves where someone makes an irreversible advantage by attacking or pillageing something.

The thing is just that if I hadn't evened out our moves (on turn 1110 AD) YOU would have received an irreversable advantage on that turn just because you made a double move the PREVIOUS turn (1100 AD). By irreversable advantage I mean that you would have tried (and propably even succeeded) to sink my Galley with the units in it.

In addition to this I saw that your score decreased (from 796 points to 782 points) when you were logged in DURING your own double move turn (1100 AD). These were the facts and the next is just my (enlightened) speculation. You whipped something on your double move turn (1100 AD) and there is very high probability that it was a Galley you whipped just in the city I was sailing towards (there was a Galley IN the city when I arrived there in 1110 AD). In your double move turn you saw my Galley getting close to your borders. You were afraid that I would pillage those Clams again and you needed another Galley to sink my Galley. Since I knew you potentially made this, it was really not possible for me to let you PROSPECTIVELY ABUSE your double move. Of course I don't accuse you exploiting your double move on purpose, since I can't prove anything, but there was a clear enough evidence that you COULD have made it.

So what we have here is 2 double moves, but not really forbidden "dirty" ones. No-one attacked anybody or pillaged anything during these turns. I was NOT the first one to make a DM, but it was you who made the first DM in this incident and that just forced me to make a DM, too. I had really no choice there after your DM.

You might still argue that I am wrong here, but please think clearly what really happened there and what were your and my choices during turns 1090 - 1110 AD. Think deeply and I'm sure you understand this. I really don't like me accused without any facts, but I think your accusation is more a reflection of your own quite cardinal mistake there.

Anyway I must say I enjoy this game a lot although I was doomed already in the start because of my bad position. Many thanks to you my mighty opponents. So let's just go on and not make any double moves (at least not dirty ones!). I'm sure this will be fun for you, too (untill you destroy me for good ). No hard feelings

DanDRidge

 

[namliaM]

For this to be clear I will use full names, not using Me you and stuff to much (or atleast try to)... This way it is clearest to everyone I think.

If you are going to quote facts get them straight.... So lets get them straight!
Fact 0) Publicity
It is you who started (way back when) with this public stuff, when you accused PTPan of double turning on you on this forum. I am just following suit.

Fact 0.5) unfounded accusations
I didnt think it would be needed, as it is (as you are saying yourself) quite clear and as you say it was 100% sure I would appeal, if only because this gives you a quite a big advantage... tho I think you are mostly dead allready... Just dont like the prospect of losing a city which is not needed.
Also if I recall your foundation for the double turn call on PTPan was not very detailed.... BUT if we want facts... here we go!

Fact 1) Turn order
Since the beginning of our war(s) our turn order has been: namliaM, Dan, PTPan.
I think both PTPan and even Dan must agree that this was our turn order, if not I can drag up (maybe even request) more turn order logs from Civstats to make this an objective fact rather than "my word vs yours"

Fact 2) Who breaks what?
As you can see from this bit of log from CivStats (with great thanks to OverloadUT ) it was in fact Dan who broke the turn order back in 1090 AD.
I did not include PTPan's turns as the dispute is between Dan and Me.

Time Player Event 
11/19/06  3:30 pm DanDRidge Score increased to 423 
11/19/06  1:21 pm namliam   Logged out 
11/19/06  1:20 pm namliam   Finished turn 
11/19/06  1:18 pm namliam   Score decreased to 780 
11/19/06  1:16 pm namliam   Score decreased to 794 
11/19/06  1:12 pm namliam   Score increased to 808 
11/19/06  1:11 pm namliam   Score decreased to 801 
11/19/06  1:09 pm namliam   Score increased to 815 
11/19/06  1:08 pm namliam   Logged in 
11/19/06 11:50 am DanDRidge Logged out 
11/19/06 11:49 am DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/19/06 11:46 am DanDRidge Logged in [b]Dan's BIG double turn :mad: [/b]
11/19/06 11:41 am namliam   Score increased to 796 
[b]11/19/06 11:41 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 1110 AD [/b]
11/19/06 8:47 am DanDRidge Logged out 
11/19/06 8:45 am DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/19/06 8:40 am DanDRidge Logged in 
11/18/06 11:14 am namliam  Logged out 
11/18/06 11:10 am namliam  Finished turn 
11/18/06 10:57 am namliam  Score decreased to 782 [b]=> Whipped Galley[/b]
11/18/06 10:55 am namliam  Logged in [b] namliaM's alledge double turn :cry: [/b]
11/18/06 9:53 am namliam   Score increased to 796 
[b]11/18/06 9:53 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 1100 AD [/b]
11/17/06 7:51 pm namliam   Logged out 
11/17/06 7:48 pm namliam   Finished turn 
11/17/06 7:46 pm namliam   Score increased to 789 
11/17/06 7:44 pm namliam   Logged in 
11/17/06 4:49 pm DanDRidge Logged out 
11/17/06 4:49 pm DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/17/06 4:43 pm DanDRidge Score increased to 377 
11/17/06 4:42 pm DanDRidge Logged in [b] Dan's breaking turn :sad: [/b]
11/17/06 7:42 am namliam   Score increased to 762 
[b]11/17/06 7:41 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 1090 AD [/b]
11/16/06 5:29 pm DanDRidge Logged out 
11/16/06 5:27 pm DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/16/06 5:23 pm DanDRidge Logged in 
11/16/06 7:22 am namliam   Logged out 
11/16/06 7:15 am namliam   Finished turn 
11/16/06 7:01 am namliam   Logged in 
[b]11/16/06 3:55 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 1080 AD [/b]
11/15/06 9:13 pm namliam   Logged out 
11/15/06 8:56 pm namliam   Logged in 
11/15/06 4:36 pm DanDRidge Logged out 
11/15/06 4:35 pm DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/15/06 4:31 pm DanDRidge Logged in 
11/15/06 7:21 am namliam   Score increased to 748 
11/15/06 6:48 am namliam   Logged out 
11/15/06 6:46 am namliam   Finished turn 
11/15/06 6:40 am namliam   Logged in 
11/15/06 12:13 am namliam Score increased to 715 
[b]11/15/06 12:13 am  A new turn has begun. It is now 1070 AD [/b]
11/14/06 8:22 pm namliam   Logged out 
11/14/06 8:17 pm namliam   Logged in 
11/13/06 10:05 pm DanDRidge Logged out 
11/13/06 10:02 pm DanDRidge Finished turn 
11/13/06 9:56 pm DanDRidge Logged in 
11/14/06 6:54 am namliam   Logged out 
11/14/06 6:51 am namliam   Finished turn 
11/14/06 6:48 am namliam   Logged in 
11/13/06 9:13 pm namliam   Logged out 
[b]11/13/06 9:00 pm  A new turn has begun. It is now 1060 AD [/b]

Alltho I was late doing my turn that day, Dan was way earlier than the accepted 12 hours to allow for a person to do his turn. I dismissed this as beeing Dan had a busy day and needed to take his turn early for the year 1090 AD... I then simply reclamed my place in the turn order the turn after (1100 AD)

Fact 3) Damaging double move?
As shown by fact 2 I didnt double turn. Furthermore, IF I did... there was no inherent advantage to me by doing so. I was mearly reclaming my spot in the "natural" order of things, restoring the Double turn Dan took in 1090AD.
Also in 1100 AD Dan did not take his turn untill 3 hours before the timer expired, with (what now looks like) allready appearent and clear intend to double turn.

Fact 4) Whipping and Sinking the Galley

Your last double turn show in Orange, as you can clearly see from this image (with a little Imagination)... I had NO prior visual of the Galley as it was hidden in the Fog of War (FoW).
My galley's original positions are routed (back) in Red. The right most was inside Bagdad (you guessed right indeed whipped the turn before).
The Left most galley was west of the Northern most Clams.
From where the Galley were, one could have attacked your galley (at low odds) the other from Bagdad would have been unable to reach your galley.
The best I could have done was to block your route using the Yellow path I made.

Fact 4.5) The whipped galley
The galley was intended for transportation purposes, not for defensive purpose. I had forgotten to whip it the turn before, so it was a turn late. But this whipped galley was intended to travel allong with the first galley...

Fact 5) Dirty Double Moves
Our PREVIOUS exchange where [you (Dan) broke the order and I restored it. Those were "clean" double moves, which is why niether of us cried wolf.
This double move of yours however IS dirty giving you a clear advantage which you should not have, tho at the time you may not even have known about the 2 galleys I had near. Your sole purpose of this double turn was not to "correct" anything. It was a clear exploitive move on your part to make sure your units were able to land.

Fact 6) Mistakes
Yes it was/is unsmart of me to have such a light defence... But any more should not be needed.
I am sure I made many more mistakes which unfortunatly (directly or Indirectly) lead to the fact that you (Dan) are still alive and kicking.
Also I am sure Dan, that you made some mistakes that lead to this long war where you should/could have taken the upper hand....

Fact 7) Double turn definition
While I think this is not set in stone, I think this means something like:
You shall not take advantage of taking two turns right after another.

This is, the previous exchange of double turns... No one had any inherent advantage => No problems
This time however your "repair" IS giving you a clear advantage...

There were many turns in the past where I had clear and easy opportunity to double turn and RAZE a city, which would have made this war WAY shorter.
I did not do this however, because it is exploitive and is in the friendly "sportsman" ways I like to (try to) play.

Fact 8) Fun
Yes this game is fun and I have learned a thing or two which I will take to my next game(s).

Fact 9) "might argue that Dan is wrong"
Nothing might... And nothing to argue about. I will speak up and dont need to argue... the facts are clear enough without further arguments from me.
You (Dan) are wrong, period, as per above FACTS which can be gotten from CivStats by anyone anytime... What we have is not 2 double turns but 3 double turns.
It is you who broke the "natural" way of things, me who repaired it. Both without "problems" and now you are clearly the one at fault (having a clear advantage). Not me!

Reparations)
I think all this can be repaired alltho still to my disadvantage (delaying stuff) not even thinking about the whipping the wall in Bagdad for nothing!
Load up your units and move back to 1W 1SW of your current position where your galley should have been before the "second part of your double turn", I will then move my 2 galleys to my "yellow" point.
You can still land your units in my lands, alltho not right next to the city, because you cannot use my culture to travel on ocean... And this is as it SHOULD be.

Factualy yours,

The Mailman

Edit: Added in facts 0 and 0.5, also corrected some typo's

 

[Dandridge]

LOL namliaM, I somehow guessed you would claim that your double move gave you no advantage. But in addition to that your "facts" have some mistakes that must be corrected. (I hope they are just mistakes by accident and not mistakes made on purpose). Well actually, I don't think anyone else has interest in reading all these long explanations except me and you, but here it goes anyway.

First of all I repeat the basic fact that it was your double move on turn 1100 AD that gave the advantage to you and that's why I had to make my double move. All turns BEFORE that had really NO RELEVANCE to this current matter. Before your (1100 AD) double turn I didn't even follow who makes moves and when, because it had no relevance to anything. We hadn't even seen each others units for a long time

The Second thing is that no matter how kind I try to be I can't understand how you can accuse me making the double move first. This is really a great mystery to me. You have yourself pasted the civstats logs in your previous post, but you pretend(?) you can't see that you made double turns both in 1080 AD and 1070 AD Then you comment the 1090 AD turn like this: "Dan's breaking turn ". What exactly is breaking or sad there?? That DM has as much (i.e. zero) effect to what happend on turns 1100 - 1110 AD as your previous double turns in 1070 AD and 1080 AD. Actually now that I'm looking more accurately the log you pasted it seems your DM's have been continuing nearly every turn at least from 1070 AD. The only turn you didn't make a DM was turn 1090 AD.

But as I said all that has nothing to do with the current incident. The double move you made on turn 1100 AD was the only decisive one in that it forced a reaction. I try to be patient and explain more, since I somehow feel you still quite don't get it. First about your double turns in 1070 and 1080 AD (which are still as irrelevant as my double move in 1090 AD):

Look at the log you pasted, look it carefully! You made double turns both in 1080 AD and 1070 AD. On both of these turns you have finished your turn before me, BUT then again after me you have returned to the game and made something. I'll ask you, how can anyone know what you have been doing there?? At least I don't know. But by logging in twice you have given yourself a CHANCE to make any unit moves either before or after me. In Civ4 pitboss games it has really NO RELEVANCE when you FINISH your turn, but when you LOG IN to the game. You could for example have made half your turns when you logged in first time and the rest of your moves when you logged into the game second time during the same turn. This is all very basic. You should understand this? If not, read it out again.

And do you understand why your 1100 AD double move was just the desicive one that possibly could have given you irreversable advantage? I won't explain it here right now, since it has so many conditional things in it and I don't have time to write more right now, but just tell me if you still don't understand it and I can later give you a step by step explanation to this thing, too.

There's also one more error in your explanation I'd like to correct. It can be seen in the picture you posted. You said you had no prior visual of my Galley, but it's not true. As everyone knows visibility on coast is exactly 2 squares. My Galley was in the leftmost orange spot you have rightly drawn. And everyone can see that the square is exactly 2 squares from your border i.e. IN your visibility range. Well, the particular orange spot square (below the FoW square) is very visible even in your screenshot

Greets and good luck to your game
DanDRidge

 

[namliaM]

First of all I repeat the basic fact that it was your double move on turn 1100 AD that gave the advantage to you and that's why I had to make my double move. All turns BEFORE that had really NO RELEVANCE to this current matter. Before your (1100 AD) double turn I didn't even follow who makes moves and when, because it had no relevance to anything. We hadn't even seen each others units for a long time

1) This double turn was only due to the fact you double turned FIRST not me...
2) It does have relevants, cause you have the feeling my second "correcting" double turn gives me an advantage which it does not
3) My double turn (1100AD) I could not even see your galley, so why in heavens name would I whip to move against it.

The Second thing is that no matter how kind I try to be I can't understand how you can accuse me making the double move first.

Oh come on! I am not accusing you of DM, I am defending the fact that I did not DM. You broke the order ... GEEZ... How clear can this be?! Someone, anyone please respond to this driffle!

This is really a great mystery to me. You have yourself pasted the civstats logs in your previous post, but you pretend(?) you can't see that you made double turns both in 1080 AD and 1070 AD Then you comment the 1090 AD turn like this: "Dan's breaking turn ". What exactly is breaking or sad there?? That DM has as much (i.e. zero) effect to what happend on turns 1100 - 1110 AD as your previous double turns in 1070 AD and 1080 AD. Actually now that I'm looking more accurately the log you pasted it seems your DM's have been continuing nearly every turn at least from 1070 AD. The only turn you didn't make a DM was turn 1090 AD.

Those 2 turns nothing happened I had some outstanding diplo messages and I logged in to check on them... A DM is 2 seperate moves in 2 seperate turns... Logging on 10 times... does that then constitute a Centinial move?? You are looking for things that are not there.
What happened on those turns you are now involving here?? NOTHING absolutely nothing, that is right... Cause if something had happened you would have been here, just like I am now.

But as I said all that has nothing to do with the current incident. The double move you made on turn 1100 AD was the only decisive one in that it forced a reaction. I try to be patient and explain more, since I somehow feel you still quite don't get it. First about your double turns in 1070 and 1080 AD (which are still as irrelevant as my double move in 1090 AD):

OH! Wait... WHY on earth are we even talking about this? The MAYOR thing you are overlooking is... I didnt know about the galley even before the units landed!

Look at the log you pasted, look it carefully! You made double turns both in 1080 AD and 1070 AD. On both of these turns you have finished your turn before me, BUT then again after me you have returned to the game and made something. I'll ask you, how can anyone know what you have been doing there?? At least I don't know. But by logging in twice you have given yourself a CHANCE to make any unit moves either before or after me. In Civ4 pitboss games it has really NO RELEVANCE when you FINISH your turn, but when you LOG IN to the game. You could for example have made half your turns when you logged in first time and the rest of your moves when you logged into the game second time during the same turn. This is all very basic. You should understand this? If not, read it out again.

Sure this is true, however... like YOU noted yourself... NOTHING has been hapenning between us and NO exchange of units or anything has been going on UNTILL your landing. Those couple of exchanges or "double turns" as you call them dont matter. The one and ONLY one that does matter is your last one.

And do you understand why your 1100 AD double move was just the desicive one that possibly could have given you irreversable advantage? I won't explain it here right now, since it has so many conditional things in it and I don't have time to write more right now, but just tell me if you still don't understand it and I can later give you a step by step explanation to this thing, too.

NOT A DOUBLE TURN...
1) You broke the order
2) I went again first that turn as per "normal"!
3) I at that point DID NOT KNOW about the Galley HOW could I ?? It was hidden by FoW!

There's also one more error in your explanation I'd like to correct. It can be seen in the picture you posted. You said you had no prior visual of my Galley, but it's not true. As everyone knows visibility on coast is exactly 2 squares. My Galley was in the leftmost orange spot you have rightly drawn. And everyone can see that the square is exactly 2 squares from your border i.e. IN your visibility range. Well, the particular orange spot square (below the FoW square) is very visible even in your screenshot

It is now visible due to the Galley that is there. Again you are reading things that are not there.
Notice the tile above it is also Coastal, but I cannot see that eventho the Galley should have (accoording to you) a 2 tile radious.

Point and fact still remain, due to error or otherwize... You accuse me of Double turning on you, while I was mearly "fixing" that which you broke.
Both this, and this also by your admittance, all without true "problems" of anyone causing anyone any ill effects...
What IS causing ill effects is the 4 tile movement of your galley + 1 tile landing.

JUST to prove you are WRONG!

As everyone knows visibility on coast is exactly 2 squares.

This may be true, but everyone = you appearently and again .... YOU .... are .... WRONG.
Just to prove this I went in the game and moved the "visibility creating galley" one east. This is the result...

As you can clearly see... I WAS UNABLE TO SEE THE GALLEY ... FACT!
Fact => You = wrong, me = Right.
This goes for the FoW thing as well as this entire DM thing.... You are trying to make right which is simply WRONG.

Now be the Gentleman gamer that you pretend to be and "repair" that which YOU broke! Load up your units and retreat to the yellow dot...

Offcourse I do not mean to start calling anyone anything... It is in the spirit of the game I hope....

If there is anyone reading this other than Dan and Myself. Please leave a message as well... If only to say you read it.
Also if you have anything to add in Dan's favour or mine... Please do voice that too... It is not really a matter of taking sides... It is more a matter of defining Double turning IMHO.

 

[Dandridge]

OK, since you still claim that you haven't made a decisive double turn in 1100 AD, I'll go to the 3rd, massive and final part of my explanation, which will close the topic for me.

There is one important point that we still don't seem to agree here. Did your 1100 AD double move have a decisive impact to my double move the next turn? Or infact you probably still deny that you had made any double move at all. I think you at least admit by now that my double turn in 1090 AD or your double turns in 1080 AD and 1070 AD didn't have any real impact whatsoever to our units moves in 1100 AD and 1110 AD. (They may have had an impact to your decision to make a double move in 1100 AD, but not to your unit moves).

Before going to the main point I'd like to comment your statements about "the natural order" and me supposedly breaking that order. The thing is I possibly could not break any order in 1090 AD, since there was no order. Why? Since before that turn you logged in BOTH before AND after me to the game How could I possibly have known when you made your actual unit moves? This is why there was no natural order anymore. 1090 AD I made a double turn that had nothing to do with this incident as I've clearly demostarted. 1100 AD you made a double turn, which on the other hand caused all this trouble. 1110 AD I made a double turn to prevent you from getting a possible irreversable advantage of your previous double move. I made my 1110 AD double move ONLY because you made a double move the previous turn. If you hadn't made a DM in 1100 AD, I wouldn't have made a double move either on the next turn! Simple as that.

Now to the step by step explanation why your 1100 AD double move was meaningful to me and my decision to also make a double move as a reaction to your DM. It's got everything to do with making decisions under uncertainty. And because of that I apologize beforehand that this explanation includes a lot of conditional statements.

1090 AD:
1) I moved (or actually stayed) my Galley on the leftmost square where you have drawn an orange point in your 1st screenshot.
2) You made some mysterious movements I don't know about. You said you had forgotten to whip the Galley. If it's true it was a serious and decisive mistake on your part. (We wouldn't even talk here if you really had whipped your 2nd Galley at this phase )

1100 AD:
1) You did NOT let me move my Galley, but you decided to log in before me (although you had made the last move on previous turn) and by doing this you effectively made a double move. You also whipped a Galley (a turn too late as you said). And now comes the decisive moments. No-one except you yourself knew what movements you made during this double move (1090 -1100 AD). The only OBJECTIVE fact is that you COULD have moved any of your units 1, 2, 3 or even 4 squares, since you made a double move. Most importantly no-one can OBJECTIVELY know where your 1st Galley was in the beginning of your double move and how did you move it during your double turn (1090 AD - 1100 AD). For example you could have moved that Galley 4 squares to to the red point in the first screenshot just during this double move. IF this was the case you couldn't have even theoretically blocked my way in 1110 AD IF we both had moved turns 1100-1110 AD without making double moves. Remember here that no-one except you know where you had that 1st Galley before this turn! We have only your word.
2) I moved my Galley to the square NW of the desert hill that you have marked with orange spot. I noticed that you had made a double move and possibly whipped a Galley. I noticed your 1st Galley in the ocean square you have marked with red spot in your 1st screenshot. Again you must understand that I have no idea where your 1st Galley was positioned IN THE BEGINNING OF your double move IN 1090 AD. It could have been positioned there already in 1090 AD or as well you could have moved it there during your 1100 AD double move! There was no way I could have know whether you abused or not your double move.

1110 AD:
1) SINCE in 1100 AD I had realized that you had made a double move AND (possibly) whipped a Galley AND POSSIBLY also moved the other Galley even 4 squares and this way POSSIBLY abused your double turn, I had to log in before you and move my Galley beside your city Baghdad. Do you understand that I had to do this JUST because I didn't know whether you had abused your double turn by whipping a Galley or moving the 1st Galley. Now I know that you at least whipped the Galley. If I had let you make a move before me on turn 1110 AD, you would have sinked my Galley with 2 Galleys. And at least 1 of these Galleys couldn't have attacked me UNLESS you had made the double move on turn 1100 AD. And IF you made a 3 - 4 square move with your 1st Galley during your double move even that Galley couldn't have made any harm to me IF you just had let me make my move first in 1100 AD! You can explain here whatever you want about your unit moves during your double turn, but it still doesn't change the fact that I didn't know what your moves were and that's why I had to take in to account that you possibly had abused your double turn. Is this clear?
2)You got upset, since I had 2 units, you probably didn't knew anything about standing beside Baghdad.

All in all as you can see we both made movements in great uncertainty and there are many IF's and WOULD's and other conditional statements. The basic thing is that it's possible that you moved your 1st Galley even 4 squares during your 1100 AD double turn. You can tell me you didn't, but how do I know it? At least I didn't know it when I made my reactive DM. That's the very decisive matter here.

I also understand your point of view here, which is why I didn't attack your city Baghdad in 1120 AD as I had planned, but made a compromised sidestep move with my units. This is because IF you didn't move your 1st Galley in the attack range of my Galley during your double turn, you could have been able to block or attack my Galley in 1110 AD. And again IF you didn't saw my Galley in 1090 AD, your POSSIBLE double move abuse was probably not intentional in 1100 AD.

Ok, now the case is closed for me. I won't return to it anymore, but do hope that we can continue without further double moves. Actually this case shows that it can be important to keep strict move (i.e. game log in!) orders during wartime even if the enemies are not currently in any contact, since the contact can appear any turn and at that moment the previous possible double turns can matter a lot

Please, namliam, tell me you understand my point here or at least that you understood what I was talking about here or else this whole talk has been just some insane personal excercise for me Thanks for your time

 

[namliaM]

OK, since you still claim that you haven't made a decisive double turn in 1100 AD, I'll go to the 3rd, massive and final part of my explanation, which will close the topic for me.

I dont only claim, it is a fact (you wanted facts right?). Also if we realy realy realy want we can ask for Xeo to have a look at the (auto)saves... Which WILL prove I am right and you are wrong!

There is one important point that we still don't seem to agree here. Did your 1100 AD double move have a decisive impact to my double move the next turn? Or infact you probably still deny that you had made any double move at all. I think you at least admit by now that my double turn in 1090 AD or your double turns in 1080 AD and 1070 AD didn't have any real impact whatsoever to our units moves in 1100 AD and 1110 AD. (They may have had an impact to your decision to make a double move in 1100 AD, but not to your unit moves).

I agree the previous DMs (if you can call em that) have NEAR no impact. The only impact they have is that
1) You moved before me in turn 1090 AD
2) This caused my "DM" in 1100AD by which you feel cheated
3) You never spoke out against my logging in to check Diplo messages, Some other players should be able to confirm we had a diplo exchange during that time, if only they would speak up....

1090 AD Before going to the main point I'd like to comment your statements about "the natural order" and me supposedly breaking that order. The thing is I possibly could not break any order in 1090 AD, since there was no order. Why? Since before that turn you logged in BOTH before AND after me to the game How could I possibly have known when you made your actual unit moves? This is why there was no natural order anymore.

OK I can accept this... but still... then why not atleast leave me a message saying...
"Listen you look like you are doing something you shouldnt be doing"
and I would have stopped. I had some diplo messages that I wanted/needed to check.

1090 AD I made a double turn that had nothing to do with this incident as I've clearly demostarted. 1100 AD you made a double turn, which on the other hand caused all this trouble. 1110 AD I made a double turn to prevent you from getting a possible irreversable advantage of your previous double move. I made my 1110 AD double move ONLY because you made a double move the previous turn. If you hadn't made a DM in 1100 AD, I wouldn't have made a double move either on the next turn! Simple as that.

You demonstrated nada, only (faulty) speculation and educating guessing starting from the (again faulty) premisse that I knew your Galley was there.
I caused zilch, nada... I did nothing against the rules, or not knowingly. YOU on the otherhand KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY and Conciously used the DM to YOUR advantage.
As simple as what? NO freaking way... You are accusing me of something AFTER you "corrected it" had you spoken before DM-ing on me I could have made a screeny that proves that I AM RIGHT, I did not know about your galley. Also I proved this to you by "retreating" my galley and making the 2nd screeny, yes you do not know it... But XEO can check it from the (auto) saves. I send him a PM and an Email on CFC, lets see if he reacts... I will have my name cleared!

Now to the step by step explanation why your 1100 AD double move was meaningful to me and my decision to also make a double move as a reaction to your DM. It's got everything to do with making decisions under uncertainty. And because of that I apologize beforehand that this explanation includes a lot of conditional statements.

This is exactly my point you are guessing and hypothosicing (spelling?), you have N O facts, only your gueswork... anyway here we go (again).

1090 AD:
1) I moved (or actually stayed) my Galley on the leftmost square where you have drawn an orange point in your 1st screenshot.

If I were suspicious of nature, one could say you stayed your galley, wait for an opportunity to DM on me!

2) You made some mysterious movements I don't know about. You said you had forgotten to whip the Galley. If it's true it was a serious and decisive mistake on your part. (We wouldn't even talk here if you really had whipped your 2nd Galley at this phase )

Think about it... Just suppose for a moment that I am telling the truth...
The "Northern" galley is comming all the way around the land I whipped when I did, thinking it was the right time... But it appeared to be one turn late as I forgot for a moment that you can use your own culture as "coastal" water. The goal was to have them go up together which they didnt end up doing.
I dont know if this was a decisive mistake, this would be (again) assuming that I knew your galley was comming, which I demonstrated to you I didnt. Why do you believe your own second guessing and speculations over my presented facts?

1100 AD:
1) You did NOT let me move my Galley, but you decided to log in before me (although you had made the last move on previous turn)

True but 1) you are still assuming I knew about the Galley...
2) I figured you had an early/long day and needed to move early.
3) I had my own time constraints which did not allow me to make my move earlier.
maybe I should have waited on my "DM"... but then again... Maybe you should have let me know you were taking offence to my loging in ALLTHO I didnt do a single thing but check my messages and leave.

and by doing this you effectively made a double move. You also whipped a Galley (a turn too late as you said). And now comes the decisive moments. No-one except you yourself knew what movements you made during this double move (1090 -1100 AD). The only OBJECTIVE fact is that you COULD have moved any of your units 1, 2, 3 or even 4 squares, since you made a double move. Most importantly no-one can OBJECTIVELY know where your 1st Galley was in the beginning of your double move and how did you move it during your double turn (1090 AD - 1100 AD). For example you could have moved that Galley 4 squares to to the red point in the first screenshot just during this double move. IF this was the case you couldn't have even theoretically blocked my way in 1110 AD IF we both had moved turns 1100-1110 AD without making double moves. Remember here that no-one except you know where you had that 1st Galley before this turn! We have only your word.

There are no OBJECTIVE facts here. Yes offcourse any move could have been made in those 2 turns alltho you are SPECULATING! You have NO facts, no prove, nothing... Except for secondary proof where CivStats shows that I did log in after and before you. This would be called a DM, however you still speculate that I did this to get an advantage which I didnt get and wouldnt get. Think about it, why would I DM you and then do something that will have no effect (i.e. I still couldnt sink your galley)

2) I moved my Galley to the square NW of the desert hill that you have marked with orange spot. I noticed that you had made a double move and possibly whipped a Galley. I noticed your 1st Galley in the ocean square you have marked with red spot in your 1st screenshot.

See it was there... and where was it comming from? You are guessing it moved west the previous turn, spotted your galley and went back there? WHY??
If indeed I was doing this WHY would I move my galley there... FACTS... It is doing NO good there... For it to do any good I would have moved it to the "yellow" point where you would have needed to attack me to get past. There is still only speculation and no FACTS from you. Further more you are saying I am doing things that would be STUPID to do if I indeed was doing DM. Tell me WHY would I move that galley there IF it was comming from the spot where you suspect/guess it was?? WHY

Again you must understand that I have no idea where your 1st Galley was positioned IN THE BEGINNING OF your double move IN 1090 AD. It could have been positioned there already in 1090 AD or as well you could have moved it there during your 1100 AD double move! There was no way I could have know whether you abused or not your double move.

Now you are yourself admitting that you have NADA no story, no facts only guesswork and speculation.
I on the other hand have presented cold hard facts to show the contrary of your fictional story...

1110 AD:
1) SINCE in 1100 AD I had realized that you had made a double move AND (possibly) whipped a Galley AND POSSIBLY also moved the other Galley even 4 squares and this way POSSIBLY abused your double turn, I had to log in before you and move my Galley beside your city Baghdad. Do you understand that I had to do this JUST because I didn't know whether you had abused your double turn by whipping a Galley or moving the 1st Galley. Now I know that you at least whipped the Galley. If I had let you make a move before me on turn 1110 AD, you would have sinked my Galley with 2 Galleys. And at least 1 of these Galleys couldn't have attacked me UNLESS you had made the double move on turn 1100 AD.

One of the galleys would allways have been unable to attack you, again you are talking buts and ifs... FACTS...
FACT is the galley in Bagdad could have never reached your galley. This is a FACT not speculation DM or no DM doesnt matter!
The one northern galley would have allways been able to attack your galley because it was simply there... just that... and you yourself said this yourself...

And IF you made a 3 - 4 square move with your 1st Galley during your double move even that Galley couldn't have made any harm to me IF you just had let me make my move first in 1100 AD! You can explain here whatever you want about your unit moves during your double turn, but it still doesn't change the fact that I didn't know what your moves were and that's why I had to take in to account that you possibly had abused your double turn.

Possibly IF, maybe... what else is there to make something not factual?
Lets get factual.
FACT => you spotted the galley on that red dot
and think I may possibly have moved it to its "current" possition, spotted your galley and moved it back?

FACT => What good is the galley going to do me there?? Nada thats right.
So IF indeed I did intend to abuse I would have
a) moved it where it blocks your move or
b) would have tried sinking the Galley.
Instead you would have me put the galley in a position where it does me NO good? Thus assuming
1) I am a cheat
2) I am stuppid
!!! I take offence, sir, to both counts !!!
These facts that I would be making such a stupid cheating move doesnt strike you as odd eventho I am trying to sit here to get LOGIC into your head? What would be the logic for me to put the galley at that spot after seeing your galley? NADA... Come on you gotta give me that.

Is this clear?
2)You got upset, since I had 2 units, you probably didn't knew anything about standing beside Baghdad.

Clear as mud as there is NO logic in what you are saying...
Also I didnt get upset cause of the 2 units, I got upset because of the obvious and clear abuse of the DM. Where earlier in the game you were the one complaining vs PTPan... This dispute was settled quite amicaly IMHO and PTPan proved quite the gentleman in this.

All in all as you can see we both made movements in great uncertainty

I made NO move in great uncertainty as I know what was going on. You are the one that is guessing and speculating (I know I sound like a broken record!).
But it is a fact... You yourself say Think and Guess... You guessed/gambled/maybe even thought you knew when you said: "everyone knows that you could see 2 tiles of the coast, therefor you knew that my galley was there".
I then turned around on your guessing and presented a fact that I was/am unable to see that tile, therefor did not know the galley was there.
Therefor had no incentive to DM (or abuse the DM).

and there are many IF's and WOULD's and other conditional statements. The basic thing is that it's possible that you moved your 1st Galley even 4 squares during your 1100 AD double turn. You can tell me you didn't, but how do I know it? At least I didn't know it when I made my reactive DM. That's the very decisive matter here.

Offcourse I moved that galley 4 tiles in 2 turns. DUH those things have 2 moves per turn... The big difference beeing where to? Well we know it where it ended up, cause you spotted it... On the red dot.
You say I am stupid and moved it to where it could see the galley and back to its current position... If I had been smart on the other hand I would have moved it to block your move... allowing for the whipped galley to be produced and catch up.
I say it came down from the north and never made it outside my culture yet.
Which makes more sence? Yeah I know you are going to say "I dont know", yes we dont currently have facts that can prove one way or another untill maybe Xeo can help us out. Untill such time you only have my word and your commen sence. So TELL ME, if you had made a double move AND if you had spotted the galley what would you have done??

I also understand your point of view here, which is why I didn't attack your city Baghdad in 1120 AD as I had planned, but made a compromised sidestep move with my units. This is because IF you didn't move your 1st Galley in the attack range of my Galley during your double turn, you could have been able to block or attack my Galley in 1110 AD. And again IF you didn't saw my Galley in 1090 AD, your POSSIBLE double move abuse was probably not intentional in 1100 AD.

Again no facts all guesses...
A compromising side step ? HAH! Dan the units should not be there PERIOD.
Your galley with units should be on that orange dot facing my 2 galleys. You would have the opportunity to unload on to that dessert hill or take the chance of facing the 2 galleys.
There is no way they should be next to bagdad... IF I had no galleys in the earea maybe...but (again) the fact is I do...

Ok, now the case is closed for me. I won't return to it anymore, but do hope that we can continue without further double moves. Actually this case shows that it can be important to keep strict move (i.e. game log in!) orders during wartime even if the enemies are not currently in any contact, since the contact can appear any turn and at that moment the previous possible double turns can matter a lot

Please, namliam, tell me you understand my point here or at least that you understood what I was talking about here or else this whole talk has been just some insane personal excercise for me Thanks for your time

I do not understand your point as you fail to make one. Had you made a point when you should have all this would have not been needed.
Instead knowingly and willingly, possibly even planning with staying that galley, you abused the system asuming/guessing/thinking that I did the same. 2 wrongs do not make a right and you know it.
If indeed you had proof or even reasonable doubt you would have spoken. You did not speak out because you have NEITHER.

Your post is one compleet guess this and what if that. NO facts other than "you logged in to many times" to which you did not complain!
Any and all things that even remotely touch ground have been proven factualy or "by making sence" to be wrong on your account. If Xeo does show up and does present further proof to my facts... then you will know for sure (like you can be now) that sir, you are wrong.
(I dont want to use the word I have in my mind.... but it comes down to what I allready said... You knowingly and willingly abused the system...)

 

[Dandridge]

First just a few short comments here.

- I never spoke out against your double moves / double loging to the game. That's right and you can read from my 2nd post above the reason to this: "Before your (1100 AD) double turn I didn't even follow who makes moves and when, because it had no relevance to anything." Now afterwords I can of course see that it seemingly had relevance after all.

- Of course I had to (during my unit moves) and still have to speculate. I didn't have nor don't have any facts of your moves. All the time I've been trying to explain you that this uncertainty and your 1100 AD double move are just the reasons why I made the decision to move 1st in 1110 AD.

- I've only expressed the fact that you made a double move before me in 1100 AD, but I haven't accused you of intentionally abusing your double move. I've just said that when I made my 1100 - 1110 AD DM, I had to take in to account the POSSIBILITY of abuse. When I made my unit move it was impossible for me to know what had happened. This is a fact that doesn't change even if you afterwards prove that you didn't (neither intentionally nor unintentionally) abuse your double turn.

- You are confusing something here. I've never thought you saw my Galley with your Galley. I originally thought you should have seen my Galley, since it was standing exactly 2 squares from your coastal cultural area. I have never speculated that you moved your 1st Galley back and forth from west to the red spot square. Quite the opposite. I've speculated it coming from north-east during your DM. But of course I don't know. It's quite possible that you have kept the Galley in that red spot ocean square even for hundreds of years for some strange reason. But now in your previous post you admited that you really moved it 4 squares! If it's true then you really got irriversible advantage from your double move (but unintentionally if you didn't see my Galley).

Now this next quote of yours is very, very interesting!

Offcourse I moved that galley 4 tiles in 2 turns. DUH those things have 2 moves per turn...
I say it came down from the north and never made it outside my culture yet.

Well, well, well. What do we have here! If this is the case, then it's really true that neither of your Galleys could have blocked or attack my Galley before me unloading them beside Baghdad if you had not made a double move in 1090 - 1100 AD! Good to know. Thank you.

 

[namliaM]

First just a few short comments here.

- I never spoke out against your double moves / double loging to the game. That's right and you can read from my 2nd post above the reason to this: "Before your (1100 AD) double turn I didn't even follow who makes moves and when, because it had no relevance to anything." Now afterwords I can of course see that it seemingly had relevance after all.

More bull hockey... You were claiming your double turn originated from a correction on my double turn. Which came from "lose of control" from you where you felt I was double turning on you... Did you change your mind?

- Of course I had to (during my unit moves) and still have to speculate. I didn't have nor don't have any facts of your moves. All the time I've been trying to explain you that this uncertainty and your 1100 AD double move are just the reasons why I made the decision to move 1st in 1110 AD.

You dont have facts cause you didnt speak up...
On the other hand you have commen sence... Come on US IT... would it be smart for me to park the galley at the point where it was? IF I had known about your galley? No it would not... Therefor it is logic that should give you the facts... Not your second guessing of it...

- I've only expressed the fact that you made a double move before me in 1100 AD, but I haven't accused you of intentionally abusing your double move. I've just said that when I made my 1100 - 1110 AD DM, I had to take in to account the POSSIBILITY of abuse. When I made my unit move it was impossible for me to know what had happened. This is a fact that doesn't change even if you afterwards prove that you didn't (neither intentionally nor unintentionally) abuse your double turn.

Thus accoording to you 1 wrong (yours) and a possible wrong by me, makes a right? WRONG my friend... if you have suspect of faul play... report it, dont correct it by commiting a clear offence your selve...
I can see you standing at a court of law. Yeah judge I think I maybe saw this guy rape my sister, so I killed his sister... Come on!
*Disclamer: Offcourse extreme example and rape or murder are nothing to be joking about.

Had you spoken up about your doubts, I would have given prove that it was not true => Prevent the need for you to suspect foul play => Prevent your foul play?

- You are confusing something here. I've never thought you saw my Galley with your Galley. I originally thought you should have seen my Galley, since it was standing exactly 2 squares from your coastal cultural area. I have never speculated that you moved your 1st Galley back and forth from west to the red spot square. Quite the opposite. I've speculated it coming from north-east during your DM. But of course I don't know. It's quite possible that you have kept the Galley in that red spot ocean square even for hundreds of years for some strange reason. But now in your previous post you admited that you really moved it 4 squares! If it's true then you really got irriversible advantage from your double move (but unintentionally if you didn't see my Galley).

Come on, I am taking 2 turns... weither I am taking them "in time" or out of turn doesnt matter... The galley has 2 moves per turn, each turn you move it 2 tiles. Thus I moved it 4 tiles, which way doesnt even come into account...
I did not get an irriverable advantage, cause I was the one that was supposed to move first anyway! namliaM, Dan, PTPan... that was the order in which we played our turns. Since you claim to not even have payed attention to potential DMs in the turns before, why would you notice I did anyway? I say it is a clear cover up for you to DM yourself.

Now this next quote of yours is very, very interesting!

Well, well, well. What do we have here! If this is the case, then it's really true that neither of your Galleys could have blocked or attack my Galley before me unloading them beside Baghdad if you had not made a double move in 1090 - 1100 AD! Good to know. Thank you.

More bull hockey... You know you were the one that broke the order and I was the one to restore it. After which you blatendly broke the DM rule.
You are trying to use "normal game machenics" i.e. 2 tiles movement for a galley per turn to defend your abuse of the game machenics i.e. move 2 times in seperate turns to do something you otherwise could not do.

Come on get factual... Show me facts where I knowingly and willingly took advantage the way (or even near the way) you did and this is settled.
How ever you have NONE all you have is speculation vs a ton of FACTS from me that you did knowingly and willingly (even by you own admittance) broke the rulez!

Well congratulations on getting a very honorable tittle...

 

[Dandridge]

- Nice, at last we are coming closer to the main point . I repeat myself patiently. I did NOT break any order. As I've clearly argued to you in my post #248 above there had not been any "natural order" for a long time since you logged in the game both before and after me several times! And again repeat: I didn't spoke out against your double loging since I was not following the log, because I didn't think it mattered anything (though it did in turn 1100 AD). Your DM in 1100 AD was as much DM as my DM in 1110 AD. I really don't understand why I should have suddenly made only one move, but you were allowed to double move

- There are at least 3 different kind of double moves.
A) DM's that are either intentional (reactive) or unintentional (passive), but that give no advantage to the offender
B) DM's that unintentionally give irreversible advantage to the offender (passive abuse)
C) DM's that intentionally give irreversible advantage to the offender (active abuse)

Your DM in 1100 AD belongs to category B. You made double move, which (evidently) unintentionally gave you irreversible advantage. I think you were not actively (or directly) seeking to abuse your DM. Your crime was probably not bad intentions, but simply the deed in itself. Anyway the RESULT and CONSEQUENCES of your action was exactly the same for me as "category C double move".

My DM in 1110 AD on the other hand belongs to category A (intentional + reactive). Why? Since it was a reaction to your DM to prevent you from getting an irreversible advantage of your DM.

- If you really moved your 1st Galley 4 tiles from north during your 1090 - 1100 AD double move and whipped the 2nd Galley just in 1100 AD, you couldn't have attacked or blocked my Galley in 1110 AD even theoretically without the double move, since:

1) 1090 AD you moved your 1st Galley 2 tiles towards south from the north (if I've understood your explanations correctly)
2) Next in 1100 AD I would have moved my Galley to the costal tile NW of the desert hill, if you just had let me make my move before you.
3) After that (still in 1100 AD turn) you would have moved your 1st Galley again 2 tiles now ending to the red spot ocean tile (or some other square 2 tiles away from my Galley). In this same turn you would also have whipped your 2nd Galley in Baghdad.
4) In 1110 AD I would have moved my Galley beside Baghdad and unloaded the units

That's it. All these several double moves in series that happened were bad and disturbing although most of them didn't have any direct effect to the incident in 1100 - 1110 AD. What happened was both my and your fault. We just should have followed some strict log in order despite the fact that our units didn't have any contact for a long time.


EDIT: edited just the reference to the post number to be correct.

 

[namliaM]

- Nice, at last we are coming closer to the main point . I repeat myself patiently. I did NOT break any order. As I've clearly argued to you in my post #248 above there had not been any "natural order" for a long time since you logged in the game both before and after me several times! And again repeat: I didn't spoke out against your double loging since I was not following the log, because I didn't think it mattered anything (though it did in turn 1100 AD). Your DM in 1100 AD was as much DM as my DM in 1110 AD. I really don't understand why I should have suddenly made only one move, but you were allowed to double move

Bah humbug! You werent looking at the loging, still you went first??
Appearently it mattered, cause here we are...

- There are at least 3 different kind of double moves.
A) DM's that are either intentional (reactive) or unintentional (passive), but that give no advantage to the offender
B) DM's that unintentionally give irreversible advantage to the offender (passive abuse)
C) DM's that intentionally give irreversible advantage to the offender (active abuse)

Your DM in 1100 AD belongs to category B. You made double move, which (evidently) unintentionally gave you irreversible advantage. I think you were not actively (or directly) seeking to abuse your DM. Your crime was probably not bad intentions, but simply the deed in itself. Anyway the RESULT and CONSEQUENCES of your action was exactly the same for me as "category C double move".

There are 2 kinds of DMs one that have ill effects and other that dont.
My DM if you need to call it that, had no (direct) ill effects. Yours however does.
The fact STILL remains the order was Me, You, PTPan. IF indeed you were not paying attention to the log you SHOULD allways wait for me to finish my turn. Therefor me making the DM was unavoidable, even your original DM which in it self was harmless... is the cause for you now wanting to be first in this order, giving you the advantage of having moved 4 tiles with the galley.

My DM in 1110 AD on the other hand belongs to category A (intentional + reactive). Why? Since it was a reaction to your DM to prevent you from getting an irreversible advantage of your DM.

*Uch* sorry? Your DM was a reaction to what? Come on!
Accept the fact ... Order ... normal order... I go first. This is a fact.
Therefor I feel no fault in going first EVEN if this is so... You did not play your turn untill very late... this in it self negates the DM rule...

- If you really moved your 1st Galley 4 tiles from north during your 1090 - 1100 AD double move and whipped the 2nd Galley just in 1100 AD, you couldn't have attacked or blocked my Galley in 1110 AD even theoretically without the double move, since:

1) 1090 AD you moved your 1st Galley 2 tiles towards south from the north (if I've understood your explanations correctly)
2) Next in 1100 AD I would have moved my Galley to the costal tile NW of the desert hill, if you just had let me make my move before you.
3) After that (still in 1100 AD turn) you would have moved your 1st Galley again 2 tiles now ending to the red spot ocean tile (or some other square 2 tiles away from my Galley). In this same turn you would also have whipped your 2nd Galley in Baghdad.
4) In 1110 AD I would have moved my Galley beside Baghdad and unloaded the units

That's it. All these several double moves in series that happened were bad and disturbing although most of them didn't have any direct effect to the incident in 1100 - 1110 AD. What happened was both my and your fault. We just should have followed some strict log in order despite the fact that our units didn't have any contact for a long time.

It is YOUR fault still. You broke the DM rule once and again. You went first, then feeling like you own the right to go first. This was not the fact. I was going first all along and without a word from you did so... The fact this all was happening is allmost to co-incidental but it is...
The fact still remains that
1) I had no idea about your galley
2) I therefor had nothing to gain from DM
3) I was restoring what was the natural order of things
You keep claiming you were not looking at the log. Still you keep pointing to it after the fact. Had you spoken up, this problem would not excist.
4) You purpously did the DM to take advantage

Me, you, PTpan that is the proper way things were played. So many times during our long war it would have been so much easier had things been different.
It would have been so much easier had either I or PTpan DMed you, we could have razed a city without you even knowing it. And you can be sure you would have been here complaining about it, and rightly so. Now you are complaining to me about doing the same to you.

If you go into your memories, I am sure you will find that I am right. I was allways the one to move first, allways... Therefor without you speaking out, I see no fault in me moving first eventho I indeed was last in the turn before, the turn before by the way you took your turn WAY to early.
The DM rule states that you are not allowed to take your turn before either:
1) your opponent has taken his turn
2) The timer has atleast elapsed 12 hours.
To drag the log back into this (thus facts not conjecture)
11/17/06 4:42 pm DanDRidge Logged in Dan's breaking turn
11/17/06 7:41 am A new turn has begun. It is now 1090 AD
You did your turn atleast 3 hours early. Therefor this entire problem comes from this one turn.
You went "out of synch" on this turn thereby causing all this. Because this happy event leads you to believe that you should be able to land your units near Bagdad.
A seemingly harmless DM on your part as nothing happened... is causing all this. NOT my DM that followed that.

What is more you keep saying you werent following the logs on civstats, but still you also claim that your "break of sequence" was because of me checking my diplo messages (i.e. logging in twice). You are twisting and screaming, trying to make right that which is simply wrong.

 

[Dandridge]

Good. I think we've finally come to the point in this discussion where I have nothing important to add, since I don't want to repeat a single sentence anymore.

We still didn't come to any common agreement, but at least we've heard each other's views. I also believe that we've learned some new aspects about the double move problem in Civ4 pitboss games.

Let's try to keep the strict order we have at the moment as long as Mongolia is still a living civ in this game . Good luck to you, too.

 

[namliaM]

Good. I think we've finally come to the point in this discussion where I have nothing important to add,

You never added anything to this but little evidence and a few random guesses and thoughts...

We still didn't come to any common agreement, but at least we've heard each other's views. I also believe that we've learned some new aspects about the double move problem in Civ4 pitboss games.

I learned nothing new but for one fact... *censor*

Let's try to keep the strict order we have at the moment as long as Mongolia is still a living civ in this game . Good luck to you, too.

If you had stuck to the order this problem wouldnt even excist.... *more censor*

 

[Dandridge]

I learned nothing new but for one fact... *censor*

What a pity. But hey, I'll have you a good advice here

Keeping your mind open can help a lot in learning new things

Greets

DanDRidge

 

[namliaM]

You are one to say "keep an open mind" sure....

With all of the facts presented by me, you never showed any indication of understanding them. I on the other hand tried to understand your logic, eventho you are contradicting yourself.

 

[xeophist]

Ok People I got here quite late to see this issue. I'm sorry but I can't try the saves today, but I promise to look at it tomorrow morning and finally clarify the issue.

One thing I want to clarify right away though: If I see someone doing a no-no, the natural reaction is to ask them: "Hey, why did you do that?". The only reason I can imagine why one would want to correct things by doing a "counter" DM is to try to get away with some advantage gained as well. Honestly, where did the presumption of innocence go? This is why you don't shoot down the lady behind the counter if she accidentally gives you less change than she's ought to. If you really want to solve the issue and not just generate additional shrapnel, then you take the issue out to the light and not try to sneak in some of your own wrongdoings as well. Dan, sorry but even if you're innocent, your way of handling the conflict is totally off! I hope you don't solve issues in real life like this.

Anyway, I won't make any conclusions until I check the evidence. Then we can also think about possible solutions.

 

[namliaM]

Honestly, where did the presumption of innocence go?

Hail our host... these few words are better I think than all my reasoning put together...

Issue I guess is resolved allready, tho not exactly amicaly....

Thank you in advance if you are still going to have a look at the saves... if even just to clear my name!

 

[Dandridge]

Oh god, will this never end...

Anyway good to see someone else commenting this issue . I'd like to point out one basic principle that should be honored in a pitboss game where double moves are forbidden: DOUBLE MOVES (that give irreversible advantage) MUST BE FORBIDDEN WHETHER THEY ARE VISIBLE OR MADE BEHIND FOG OF WAR.

The question for me was, why I should have made only a single move and namliaM would have been allowed to double move when there was no strict order of moves? Especially since no-one even attacked or pillaged anything during any of these turns . It was all the same whether I would have raised the question in 1100 AD or namliaM in 1110 AD as he did. The difference between my and namliaM's double move was that namliaM made it in FoW (out of visibility range of anyone else) and I made my double move from FoW into visibility. And yes yes, I know namliaM still thinks there was some kind of strict order of moves although anyone can see (now afterwords) from the log that it just was not true.

Of cource I could have contacted namliaM when I noticed the situation in 1100 AD, but what would it have actually changed? Absolutely nothing. Excactly this same discussion would have arisen as now. Just one turn earlier and maybe with the exception that namliaM could have received a full advantage of his DM made "behind the curtains". It's really difficult to believe that namliaM would have allowed me to sail beside Baghdad in 1110 AD, since he still after this long discussion doesn't seem to understand that he got irreversable advantage by his own double move the previous turn and couldn't have stopped me without his own double move.

Now after namliaM started the talk about this matter I made a compromised move with my units in 1120 AD and didn't destroy his city Baghdad (although it was completely possible for me). And I gave this full compensation, because both me and namliaM should have kept a strict movement order in the previous turns. Very logical solution.