The NON-ISSUE!

[Illuminatus]

I certainly do not think so. This is really troublesome indeed, since we do not want Hive to endure such fate.

[Snowflake]

Let us ask another ruling from tass. It is actually hard to say which result is more favorable for the Hive since I haven't seen the other turn. I raised my opposition at the time simply based on my understanding of the principles of a demo game.

[t_ras]

the replay was NOT becouse of some mistake in move.
there was a decition he ignored!

we could use hes turn (which i recognise i dont exactly know)
but, regardless the concequences (eather good or bad) we're a team and we're going to replay in sake fo the respaect for team paying and desitions.
i dont see what would we gain from blindly playing the team desitions. we do not replay to chack if we have a better option and didnt do it. we're replaying to do what we ment to do from the begining.

I hope you can respect that.

[Nubclear]

As I understand it, this turn was not approved by anybody within the Hive. This is my ruling:

IF the turn was approved, but a mistake was noticed: Then the first turn must be used.
IF not: Then the replay may be used.

[Maniac]

Since Mead was/is the official turnplayer, I can only assume him playing the turn at first was approved of. From what I know I get the impression it's only after Mead played the turn and made some mistakes, that Mead was suddenly no longer approved of. So I don't see the reason why a replay was allowed.

[Jamski]

Not "making mistakes", but completely changing our forgien policy without asking anyone You would ask for a replay if your turnplayer broke pact and destroyed 6 uni bases, for example (ok, its not that bad, just an example of the kind of thing, but you would be pissed) without asking the team.

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Again, Maniac, it was not mistakes. I know I should hold my tongue but just trying to get you to understand: Basically lets say the plans for the entire turn is called plan A and plan B. CMC chairman ordered: Plan A should not be used. Turnplayer: Ok I'm going to log off and do A. Other players: Stop! Don't do A. Turn player: Ok A is done. So it's really not a mistake and it's not after the mistake is discovered then Mead gets to be not approved of.

[Arnelos]

Mead's turn was not different in terms of mistakes/non-mistakes unless you want to include massive changes in foreign policy within the realm of mere "mistakes". Frankly, the team is divided over which save they like better, but which save we like better has NOTHING to do with this.

The matter is that one policy was given official approval beforehand and another completely different one was followed. Tass's ruling has been that a turnplayer can't just make decisions like that on their own in violation of an official decision by the team. It doesn't even matter if the team, in retrospect, would like the altered policy more. We're stuck with the policy that was approved beforehand since basing our policy on the results of another policy would clearly be wrong.

As HongHu has said, CPU is within their rights to appeal this decision. Of course, they have absolutely no way of knowing unless we were to tell them which save would be more or less favorable to their interests. For all CPU knows, a successful appeal could actually screw them over.

Suffice it to be said, however, that REGARLDLESS of whether we remain stuck with the current turn (as the team approved and Tass ruled, so we SHOULD be stuck with it - Tass made the correct ruling), this need not have too much bearing on future policy. The team retains the ability to change course for future turns, should the team decide to do so.

[Maniac]

My worry here is the following: the difference between "a mere mistake" that cannot be replayed and "a change of policy" that can be replayed is purely subjective. So who's to decide what it is? This will always lead to heavy discussions. The only way to prevent this and to create stability in the game is to all agree on a strict rule that the first played turn by the official turnplayer is the definite one. Yet now one faction ignores that rule and the turn played by the turnplayer is suddenly no longer the official one. This has happened once, so there is no guarantuee for other factions this won't happen a second time if the turnplayer remains the same. But you aren't even sure yet you will replace the current turnplayer who is the cause of the problem. That's just a slap in the face of all other factions who do respect the rules. So therefore I repeat once again my opinion: the first played turn by the official turnplayer should be the official one, and if that turnplayer doesn't follow the orders, you should simply replace your turnplayer instead of requesting a replay.

[Snowflake]

Looks like you are more concerned about whether the Hive will change its turnplayer in the future. I understand your concern, although I do believe this is a matter than should be discussed and decided in the Hive. We have spend the last two days following the incident discussing this issue, simply because we consider this an important issue, an issue that carries great impact on the players and the team and cannot be treated lightly.

As for the turn itself, I believe the Hive members have already tried our best to explain without giving out information that should not be known to other factions. I would like to repeat my suggestion to Function Maniac, that you should appeal to the gods, and the Hive will be happy to abid whatever rulings the gods have.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar , Repeated for both Maniacs and Honghus benefit
As I understand it, this turn was not approved by anybody within the Hive. This is my ruling:

IF the turn was approved, but a mistake was noticed: Then the first turn must be used.
IF not: Then the replay may be used.

[Arnelos]

Funny, Maniac brought up pretty much the exact same objections that I did when arguing with Tassadar in chat.

I was informed that this game works this way and this has been Tassadar's ruling. Mead was not empowered to change team policy of his own accord when an official decision had just been made by the team.

When I brought up the problem that Maniac is citing, I was informed by Tassadar that if that became a problem, a turnplayer who abused this rule could simply be banned from the game.

Personally, that's an acceptable check on the abuse of this rule for me. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I have conceded that Tassadar had an equally good point about the problem which arises from a turnplayer directly violating what was mandated by the team. Since the save had not yet been SENT to the University, we paused and asked Tassadar to adjudciate and Tassadar told us we had to send the save that obeyed the official decision of the team rather than the one that violated it.

[jtsisyoda]

If the turnplayer directly contradicts the directives of the team in a major way, I wouldn't have a problem with replaying according to what the team wanted. That's only if it's very clear (as judged by Googlie/Tass from private forum threads) what the team wanted. This would not apply to small improvisations a turnplayer has the right and duty to make, if the team disapproves after the fact.

Common sense says the team and the turnplayer should definitely take a close look at why that happened and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Maybe next time they'll be out of luck.

[Nubclear]

I'm tempted to close this thread.
However, since I'm on break, I'll wait a few days to see i if its not just a broken record

[Skanky Burns]

One wonders why the Hive would want to continue using a turnplayer that made major changes without asking them.

[Jamski]

We probably won't continue with Mead. We havn't had a chance to play another turn yet and find out though.

-Jam

[Maniac]

Originally posted by HongHu
Looks like you are more concerned about whether the Hive will change its turnplayer in the future.

No I am more concerned about your continuing inability to create any form of decent organization within the Hive. This case is just another example of to what problems this leads.

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar , Repeated for both Maniacs and Honghus benefit
As I understand it, this turn was not approved by anybody within the Hive. This is my ruling:

IF the turn was approved, but a mistake was noticed: Then the first turn must be used.
IF not: Then the replay may be used.

Originally posted by Maniac, repeated for Tassadars benefit
Since Mead was/is the official turnplayer, I can only assume him playing the turn at first was approved of. From what I know I get the impression it's only after Mead played the turn and made some mistakes, that Mead was suddenly no longer approved of. So I don't see the reason why a replay was allowed.

When is a turn considered "approved"? If I make a little former mistake that wasn't in the orders, and as a consequence people do not approve of the turn, would I then be allowed to replay?? If yes, that's just allowing an unlimited amount of reloads. If no, why not?

[Nubclear]

Well, a former error is one thing, but completly diverging off course from what everyone on your team says is another

[Illuminatus]

What if everyone else disagrees with former movement? We certainly do disagree when Maniac makes an error

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Well, a former error is one thing, but completly diverging off course from what everyone on your team says is another

That brings us back to one of my previous posts:
(repeat mode) The difference between what is a "normal error" and "completely diverging of course" is a completely subjective decision. And to prevent many arguments and discussions subjective decisions should be avoided as much as possible. The best way to do that is simply state that the first played turn of the official turnplayer is the definite one.

[Nubclear]

True, towards the middle there is ambiguity as to what isn't completly diverging and what is....But when you get to the two ends, there is a clear different

And if you want to prevent many arguements, you should accept my ruling!

[Enigma_Nova]

The Hive.
Are they constantly in riots or something?
Do they even want to get out of riots?

They can't create a political system to save their asses. Democracy doesn't work because it stifles people and said people will cause revolt.

The numbers of active people (LESS THAN 20) would make it practical for all people to be benefitted. I saw no selfish behaviour within The Hive, save for some self-righteousness, so this is possible.
They even have HongHu, who should be okayish at interpersonal matters.

I even propose a system of mutual understanding and benefit and was working on making the system to the people.
So what happens? The sheep stick with the tried-and-failed ways and boot the man who is frustrated at the errors and wants to do something to fix them.

With that kind of attitude, they're either going to devolve into mindless conformism (a la western society) or keep infighting.
Neither system seems very stable.
On aftersight, I should have joined the PUT.

[Impaler[WrG]]

IT seems we need to deside what constitutes a "mistake" vs a "unilateral Policy Shift". The Former cant be replayed the latter can be. It would seem this is just something to be left up to the gods, moving a former in the wrong direction is rather obviously a mistake in most situations as the optimum correct action to have taken us usaly obvious. A major change in Policy usaly deals with forign policy and will also need to be judged by the Gods. Their is ofcorse potential for some messy grey areas to emerge though but I hope that will be avoided.

[t_ras]

I'm sorry to say that,but i find it a litle dificult to keep playing a game where i'm not trusted. a game is just a game and it is for fun. if we told what ever we had told was the reason for replaying and CMN accepts it it should be ok.
i'm a (at least) liltle older then most people here and
I DO NOT LIKE TO BE TREATED AS A CHEATER OR A LAYER!!
i dont find this behabior by other factions neither constructive not amusing, it rather degrades the game waistes time.

just accept the ruling of CMN and lets keep playing.

[Nubclear]

Let's keep this discussion calm, or this thread gets closed.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by t_ras
I DO NOT LIKE TO BE TREATED AS A CHEATER OR A LAYER!!

Nobody is treating you or accusing of cheating, t_ras. As far as it looks to me this is just a discussion to ensure a set of rules here in case something alike happens again. It is, since I entered the ACDG, the second time a turn was posted (from different factions) which needs closer examination. Besides, their is no request running for a delay of further turns ATM, thus IOW, we're busy to keep on playing.

[Jamski]

Believe us - the turn played by Mead was so far off course it can't be described.

Example :

Faction says "We DO NOT break our pact and drop planet busters on Miriam"

Turn player : "I just broke our pact and PBed Mim, is that ok?"

Faction says "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF!!!!"

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
The Hive.
Are they constantly in riots or something?
Do they even want to get out of riots?

They can't create a political system to save their asses. Democracy doesn't work because it stifles people and said people will cause revolt.

The numbers of active people (LESS THAN 20) would make it practical for all people to be benefitted. I saw no selfish behaviour within The Hive, save for some self-righteousness, so this is possible.
They even have HongHu, who should be okayish at interpersonal matters.

I even propose a system of mutual understanding and benefit and was working on making the system to the people.
So what happens? The sheep stick with the tried-and-failed ways and boot the man who is frustrated at the errors and wants to do something to fix them.

With that kind of attitude, they're either going to devolve into mindless conformism (a la western society) or keep infighting.
Neither system seems very stable.
On aftersight, I should have joined the PUT.

You are very right dear Enigma. I will try again and push for a stable government structure inside the Hive. (We did had one government official other than the Chairman himself, but he resigned too. ) The Hive will not work further based on persons, it has to be set on basis of a basic rules and an simply system.

[GeoModder]

Did the Chairman resigne?!

/me is shocked

How can we prosecute him then?!?!

But for off roleplay

We posted our PUT turn, so we're going on, for better or worse...

[Maniac]

Originally posted by t_ras
I DO NOT LIKE TO BE TREATED AS A CHEATER OR A LAYER!!

We're not doing that. I just hope we can agree on some rules in case this happens again, and also hope the Hive can make sure this won't ever happen again so those rules wouldn't have to be executed.

Originally posted by HongHu
I will try again and push for a stable government structure inside the Hive.

May I suggest you copy the CPU society model and government system, and start a democratization? I think the CPU model has repeatedly proved itself as the most stable of all factions.