Dominions 3 Middle Age "GROGHAMMER" game [running]

[claes]

I'll bump the gameclock up to late Monday night Pacific Standard time (96 hours) in case Claes isn't able to get back in time to do a turn Sunday night feasibly (and then of course work Monday).

Thanks again for your consideration.  I have returned worse for wear and dehydration, but I had a lovely 20 mile hike.  I had originally planned on hiking with my sister but she couldn't get off of work.  So I spent the first 5 miles with Socrates, and the next 5 with Seneca.  I spent the last 10 with Epicurus, but then he is that kind of philosopher.

Turn sent.  Thanks again.  Back to my ibuprofen.

[Huw the Poo]

Glad you're back safe and sound!

[elitesix]

Jason, we're doing simple trades as binding right? (as in, in the rare case a player "cheats" another, a simple trade exchange deal will be enforced outside of the game by the moderator - my understanding that this is the practice on desura). If not, it's not the end of the world, but it would be nice!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A messenger arrives from Atlantis.

"To any nation with nature gems that wishes to gain more water gems, Azag, God of Gods, Patron of Languages, the Unforgiving God, the Guide of Heroes, offers the following exchange:

An exchange of 30 of Atlantis's Water Gems for 30 Nature Gems. We are not interested in any trades exchanges of less than 20 water gems for 20 nature gems."

[Philippe]

So I spent the first 5 miles with Socrates, and the next 5 with Seneca.  I spent the last 10 with Epicurus, but then he is that kind of philosopher.

Ten miles with Lucretius could be amusing -- Aeneadum genetrix is pretty catchy and has a good beat.  Ten miles with Epicurus would be a hard slog (too many cryptic footnotes).  Plato was a better writer than Socrates (Socrates really didn't write much and the first sentence of Plato's Republic may be the most perfect piece of introductry prose  in the Greek language).  As for Seneca, you've gotta love somebody who does a piece about the ruler of the known world turning into a pumpkin.

So maybe you should have spent more time with Seneca (even though Lucretius is a better writer).

Just go easy on the mushrooms.

[claes]

So I spent the first 5 miles with Socrates, and the next 5 with Seneca.  I spent the last 10 with Epicurus, but then he is that kind of philosopher.

Ten miles with Lucretius could be amusing -- Aeneadum genetrix is pretty catchy and has a good beat.  Ten miles with Epicurus would be a hard slog (too many cryptic footnotes).  Plato was a better writer than Socrates (Socrates really didn't write much and the first sentence of Plato's Republic may be the most perfect piece of introductry prose  in the Greek language).  As for Seneca, you've gotta love somebody who does a piece about the ruler of the known world turning into a pumpkin.

So maybe you should have spent more time with Seneca (even though Lucretius is a better writer).

Just go easy on the mushrooms.

Lol.  You misunderstand, and it is my fault for writing it as such.  I just ran dialogues in my head.  It was a hard hike and I go into my own little world.  The night before I had been reading philosophy and so I started talking to Socrates when I set off, which was pretty interesting.  He was a lively little man.  The five miles went by like nothing.  At mile 5 my dialogue became circular and so I switched off and began talking to Seneca.  He is an interesting fellow as well, and I do enjoy his writing.

It took the last 10 miles with Epicurus not because I was reading as I was walking, but because I kept challenging him to present this godawful hike I was on (it had begun to hurt and the heat was sweltering) as something pleasurable and necessary for my enjoyment of life ;).  Eventually he was able to near the end, but I think it had more to do with the fact that I was nearing camp and I had caught a waft of the smell of food and a sense of impending conviviality than it did with the fact that he had successfully and logically proven that my hike was actually part of a happy and healthy life.  I intend to bring it up with him again next time ;)

[elitesix]

No need to worry claes, shrooming in nature is a beautifully spiritual experience. There are no narcs here man :). Glad you enjoyed yourself!!

[JasonPratt]

Elitesix,

Diplomacy Policy: None; do as you wish, keeping in mind consequences in future games, as well as later in that game (if you stab someone early, any alliance later in that game is likely to prove less trustworthy). Trades should be fulfilled.

i.e, the question of trade fulfillment == diplomatic policy. No enforcement from above. Non-fufillment of trade would be regarded as diplomatic treachery, and could be used by the victim as public diplomacy by censuring the violator publicly. By the same token, someone could lie about another player violating trade proposals!

As there is no way for the admin to investigate what objectively happened or didn't happen, I have chosen not to enforce trade agreements, any more than I would enforce diplomatic policy. Besides which it tends to run against the spirit of the game -- if the pretenders were appealing to a higher authority to arbitrate disputes, they wouldn't be jockeying with each other to be the highest authority!

(This was also Ysk's house rule for the other two games, and seems most reasonable to me under the circumstances, thus I followed suit.)

Buyer beware, and trader beware. My personal recommendation is to trade only with provenly committed allies.


Note that as this is a relative newbie game, I did make the provision that someone gaming the barter system to afflict their opponents would be liable to admin censure under special circumstances: make agreed reparations or be booted to AI. This involves a rare technical game exploit however, not normal trade.

[Ogaburan]

As there is no way for the admin to investigate what objectively happened or didn't happen, I have chosen not to enforce trade agreements, any more than I would enforce diplomatic policy. Besides which it tends to run against the spirit of the game -- if the pretenders were appealing to a higher authority to arbitrate disputes, they wouldn't be jockeying with each other to be the highest authority!

I think you confuse the spirit of the game, with the limitation of the game.

In "reality" trade wont be done by an archaic messaging system, rather two parties showing up with the goods agreed upon and only then the trade finalized.

//start rant
I actually gave it some thought, and reached the conclusion the current system is just bad.
And the solution would be a revised system, to only allow trade if certain criteria are met.
Somewhat similar to how the mercenary system works.

Example,
I send to Patla 30 Erath gems if I get 300 gold.
If i did not get the 300 gold, the 30 earth gems wont be sent.

This will be a perfect system for "simple" trades, and will keep some of the backstabbing elements if you choose to trade in Items.
//end rant

As for policing the "world economy", cant blame you for not wanting the job!

My 2 cents,
Oga

[JasonPratt]

As there is no way for the admin to investigate what objectively happened or didn't happen, I have chosen not to enforce trade agreements, any more than I would enforce diplomatic policy. Besides which it tends to run against the spirit of the game -- if the pretenders were appealing to a higher authority to arbitrate disputes, they wouldn't be jockeying with each other to be the highest authority!

I think you confuse the spirit of the game, with the limitation of the game.

You mean pretenders aren't supposed to be jockeying with each other to be the highest authority in this game?!

I obviously recognize there is a limitation of the game engine, or I wouldn't have pointed out that the admin has no way to investigate breaches of trade agreement; and if the game itself enforced this, the question wouldn't be asked of the admin at all. This is not the same as confusing a limitation of the game engine with the spirit of the game (which by coincidence happens to inadvertently parallel the game engine limitation.)

Anyway, it isn't a question of whether I want to or not -- I literally cannot police it in any actually competent way. What am I supposed to do, threaten to boot someone to AI on the mere accusation of trade forfeit?

(Hey, Atlantis broke a trade agreement with me! -- he agreed to hand over all his territories if I let him live as my lackey! Since he broke our agreement, I'm going to boot him from the game; but since we don't want an AI if possible, I'll have to find someone else to play his position. I volunteer! That was easy, whew; proceed!  ;D What, Atlantis denies we even ever had such an agreement? Well of course he'd deny it, he broke the agreement.)

How about this? If someone voluntarily admits publicly to breaching a trade agreement, I will threaten to boot them to AI unless they comply with the trade agreement, which both parties must agree to in detail publicly (before or after the fact). It isn't like I can confirm or deny they actually broke a trade agreement otherwise! How many people agree to that, raise their hands? ;) Now, how many people will voluntarily admit in public they broke a trade agreement, if they choose to break it, raise their hands!


I agree the trade system is broke (strictly speaking), but I kind of like the ballsiness of it. These mages aren't really supposed to be trading with one another, so any diplomacy has to be worked out by the players ad hoc, and that includes trade.

[elitesix]

A solid way to allow for enforceable simple trades is to:

(1) have both players come to an agreement, "atlantis and oceania agree to the following exchange: atlantis sends 10 water gems at the end of turn 10. oceania sends 10 astral gems at the end of turn 10." (This alone is unenforceable)
(2) have both players commit to their agreement over saved private messages (this perhaps is enforceable with screenshots or copy/paste but messy)
(3) have both players private message the moderator, you Jason, with their agreement. both players should agree on the wording in private and then copy and past that in their message to Jason so you get basically a copy of the agreement from both players (basically foolproof enforceability).

The only downside is that if for some reason people continue to not trust each other trade after trade, you'd be getting a lot of private messages. But in practice, after one significant trade where they PM'ed you, most people are just gonna trust and not worry about making their agreements enforceable in practice. Similarly, if you read a trade that you deem not simple (atlantis gives 10 gems to oceania, for 30 gems from oceania 10 turns from now), you can just let the parties know that its unenforceable.

Just an option!

[byrdman57]

Eriu promises to enforce any trade agreements that are broken by BURNING YOUR HOUSES DOWN!!!!!

[elitesix]

I found a trading partner. Thanks all!:)

[claes]

I found a trading partner. Thanks all!:)

I'll trade you your trading partner with my trades original trader if you want to trade?

[undercovergeek]

If it happened to me personally I would come and pull your arms off but I love the idea that you could easily agree to trade x for y, take y and not deliver x and say so what? Now I'm coming to stomp you - surely the essence of machiavellian trade and piratical pretenders - this is more game of thrones than dick and jane play baddies - let the lies commence!!!!

[Vlam]

Hello!
I'll be able to play turn with the wifi :) .

Let the mighty statues rules!