Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

We signed an in game contract whereby one player pledged votes in exchange for tech.  That contract was part of a broader agreement between the players.  The broader agreement seems to have ended.  The player who pledged the votes feels entitled to pledge his votes to a third party.  The player who gave the tech feels this would be in violation of house rule 39.  So... what do the rules say on this?

The intent of that rule is to prevent an exploit in the game code that allows you to pledge votes to several different people at once (in reality only to the last one). If you did not receive the
Give me

• Stuff

and I'll

• give you all my votes at the next election

message (after 4966) , the rule is not in effect, no matter how much was promised over the PM (that's just backroom politics).

[mainiac]

The proposal in question was received in 4967.

[Karlito]

The intent of the rule does seem to be that votes pledged via the diplomacy screen should be unchangeable for 10 years. I don't really like that, but we did all agree to the house rules before the game started. I think, in general, we should avoid using the diplomacy screen to request votes, for exactly this reason.

[a1s]

turn sent.

[Ghazkull]

From my viewpoint out i can do with my votes as i will, Maniac doesn't fulfill his end so i am not in any way forced to fulfill mine...

[mainiac]

Did you notice I avoided mentioning which party was which in my post? 

[a1s]

Did you notice I avoided mentioning which party was which in my post? 

Have you done this with 2 parties then? 

[mainiac]

Anyway, can we get a judgement here?  I take it from your previous post that you would say the rule is in effect if the offer deal was made on 4967?  Karlito seems to be saying that a vote pledged in the diplomacy screen is unchangable for 10 years.  Am I correct in understanding that you two agree that he is not allowed to change his vote in the next election?

[a1s]

Anyway, can we get a judgement here?  I take it from your previous post that you would say the rule is in effect if the offer deal was made on 4967?  Karlito seems to be saying that a vote pledged in the diplomacy screen is unchangable for 10 years.  Am I correct in understanding that you two agree that he is not allowed to change his vote in the next election?

Can we get some info on what you've actually agreed on? Ghazkull's claim that you weren't holding up your end of the bargain is very important to this issue. And uh... not me being curious about your shady deals- that has nothing to do with it, yup.

[Karlito]

Anyway, can we get a judgement here?  I take it from your previous post that you would say the rule is in effect if the offer deal was made on 4967?  Karlito seems to be saying that a vote pledged in the diplomacy screen is unchangable for 10 years.  Am I correct in understanding that you two agree that he is not allowed to change his vote in the next election?

I'm still not entirely comfortable with that, but I don't really have an alternative and it does seem like trades made by the in-game diplomacy screen should be inviolate. The fact that there was a larger agreement in play does seem to complicate things.

EDIT: I think I've sorted out my thoughts on the issue. For multiplayer games like this, I would generally prefer the game mechanics themselves to be only rules that player have to follow. EFS is a notable exception because it's game mechanics allow many kinds of cheap exploits, which is why we have the house rules in addition to the rules imposed by the game mechanics. In the perfect-remake-of-EFS-that-only-exists-in-my-head, the game mechanics wouldn't allow you to change your votes once you'd pledged them to someone through the diplomacy screen, because then having them as an option on the diplomacy screen would be pretty meaningless in the first place. Sometimes that'll lead to players getting screwed over, but that's how the game goes. Scepters are the most important resource a player has; they shouldn't be traded away casually.
(Also, turn sent)

[Ghazkull]

Agreement was the following:

Tech for me speaking out against something we had earlier...some discussion or agreement i dont know anymore
and
Freighter against my Votes...

what maniac tries to achieve via this rule enforcement is to still get my votes and not give me that freighter...

[mainiac]

Can we get some info on what you've actually agreed on? Ghazkull's claim that you weren't holding up your end of the bargain is very important to this issue. And uh... not me being curious about your shady deals- that has nothing to do with it, yup.

We agreed on a two part deal:
Part 1: I give him tech, he gives me votes.  This took place immediately.
Part 2: He gives me services that shall for now remain undisclosed.  I give him a reward that shall likewise remain undisclosed.  The payment was to come later.

I feel like he has not followed through on his promise of services and is in fact doing the exact opposite of what he promised so I feel it would be foolish to deliver the promised payment.  He feels as if he has rendered the services and is now free to change his course of action.  We unfortunately did not specify an exact time frame at which his services would be considered finished however the period of his compliance has been less then a complete game round.  As such we both consider each other to be in violation of the second part of the deal and it appears to be null.

Ghazkul feels that since the second part of the deal is null he is freed from his obligations in the first part.  I however feel that the house rule specifically prohibits him from changing his votes once pledged.  "A future favor" was not one of the terms agreed to in our in game deal.  As such I feel that the rules of the game prohibit him from changing his vote regardless of whatever the diplomatic situation between us is.  Even if I were to declare war on him the house rules require him to honor his promise.

[Ghazkull]

You know what? FINE. This is a pointless discussion. Since you are so concentrated on my few votes HAVE THEM. I dont care anymore. take it dont take it. But i promise you one thing. I get my freighter no matter what.

[mainiac]

Well the easy way for you to get the damn freighter you wanted would be to have followed through on your end of the agreement!

[a1s]

Well the easy way for you to get the damn freighter you wanted would be to have followed through on your end of the agreement!

You will find that people who make deals with you are more often found fighting random wars then getting what they bargained for. I'm not saying it's your fault, but you are the common denominator.