Revisiting democracy government & diplomacy assumptions

[REM018]

To me, it is quite simple: There is no option to ignore diplomacy. You either accept or you chose "I dont have time". Those are your 2 options.

All of you that talk about "ignoring" diplomacy are talking about a glitch. Due to your inactivity the request goes away unanswered. That is MP exception handling to prevent freezes. It is not intended for you to circumvent game mechanics. Now you can say that this is my interpretation, but please make a valid case that this is not circumventing game mechanics.

If you are in democracy and you chose to respond to the diplo request, you will always be forced to peace. Even if you say "I dont have time", the game will force you to peace - that is all you need to know. Plain and simple.

Now having said that, there is one situation where ignoring is morally OK IMO, since your opponent is exploiting MP game mechanics that were not handled properly:
- If your opponent attacks and asks for peace immediately within the same turn. Or even worse, does it multiple times within the same turn and messes with the timer/diplo requests and renders you virtually helpless, then that in my opinion is glitching as well. But that is just my opinion. If an opponent calls you a cheater for ignoring diplo in that situation, he/she is technically right. At some point there will be window of opportunity for you to switch out of demo. Feel free to call your opponent a glitcher/cheater as well :-)

In terms of democracy in MP, we have a patch and a developer statement that says that it is supposed to work like that. Nobody states anywhere that letting a request time out to prevent being forced to peace is intended game play and I do not think anybody can make a case that it is.

Regarding the "I was going to switch governments anyways" point:
If you drop off units into enemy cultural borders while in democracy, you are running the risk of having them teleported out of there if your opponent asks for peace. That is the way it is! If you do that, switch out of demo before and you are safe. If you are not doing it, then that is just bad tactics.

[Pedal2Metal]

Since the civlopedia says nothing about it, it doesn't support either side of the argument! .

Which is PRECISELY why it's treated as a "don't care" just like an "x" in a Karnaugh map. You might want to look this up. There's probably a laymen's description of karnaugh maps on the web & how don't cares are treated.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Straight from Civilopedia:
"Democracy: Gameplay
Players that adopt Democracy will increase their trade output, but will be unable to initiate wars. They may of course defend themselves if attacked."

That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Anyone using diplomacy requests within a turn they have attacked to prevent someone who is in Democracy from defending themselves is simply trying to circumvent gameplay as Democracies are allowed to defend themselves. So in that scenario, it's completely acceptable to ignore the request as the diplomacy spamming is violating the letter & spirit of the game, which the patch does not invalidate. I think we can all agree the developers didn't expect/intend for people to start spamming requests to prevent democracies from defending themselves which is precisely why people do it.

In other cases where there is no attack, I'll always accept & this is congruous with the developer patch intent.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[REM018]

In general I agree with that ignoring diplo b/c your opponent abuses other game mechanics is morally OK. But again you are asking people to use a glitch to circumvent game mechanics. And again, the civilopedia does not cover all possible cases that occur within a game. Similar to the great wall documentation.

- Does the statement mean that they never have to accept peace if war was declared upon them by the other party?
- What if you declared war before switching to democracy? Does that mean you get the benefit of being in democracy and being at war with somebody? So no drawbacks to being in democracy at all, but you are getting all the benefits?!
- What does defend themselves if attacked mean? Same turn, one turn, 10 turns? That is very vague and cannot be interpreted reliably.

The statement you quoted does not cover these areas at all. But yet the game mechanics show that there is more to it than just being able to initiate war and what is stated in the civpedia.

[Pedal2Metal]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Who's in democracy, you or your opponent? If you're actually attacking him while in democracy and ignoring peace requests then that's obviously wrong. If he's the one in democracy then you don't need to accept the diplomacy requests at all.

I get the distinct feeling you aren't actually reading the thread postings carefully.

Did you read the very first posting in this thread? That answered your AI SP question & it was months ago.
How about where I listed the 4 pieces of data to draw from? That listed them out for you.
When I said "when I attack a Democracy I don't ask for peace until I'm done with my offensive" I think that's pretty clear. I'm doing the attacking & the opponent is in Democracy. So what I'm saying is I don't do the "dickhead" thing of spamming dipomacy after each separate attack. Why? because Democracies have the right to defend themselves when attacked per Civilopedia quote I posted just above. That's all I was pointing out as an example of good attacking etiquette. Do diplomacy at the beginning & end of a turn max, not all through the turn. Follow the rules & allow the democracy player to defend himself/herself as those are the rules of the game in gameplay.

I guess not many people read Civilopedia. Oh well...

BTW, yes I'm not a big fan of those who are in Democracy trapzing through my culture when they haven't been attacked in that turn. At the same time, the AI does this (read the first posting) & can do it for multiple turns too (ignore your diplomacy requests).

Yes, I agree that human options in SP are more indicative. However, if we want to use that example, you can always defend yourself against the AI if they attack you while you are in democracy. You always get at least the turn they attack as a counter as they don't do the war/peace in the same turn. In fact, you can attack them until they request diplomacy.

So I think that gameplay behavior along with the clear statement from Civilopedia makes it obvious that Democracies can defend themselves when attacked & the diplomacyy spamming to avoid being countered is simply wrong. I'm fairly certain the Firaxis development team would agree with this sentiment even with the patch. So there is no justification for it if that's what people are looking for in this thread. It's very simple:

Attack a democracy & allow for a counter in the same turn. If no counter comes, declare peace at the end of the turn or the beginning of the next turn. Very simple & just how SP plays too. Basic gameplay in a nutshell.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

In general I agree with that ignoring diplo b/c your opponent abuses other game mechanics is morally OK. But again you are asking people to use a glitch to circumvent game mechanics. And again, the civilopedia does not cover all possible cases that occur within a game. Similar to the great wall documentation.

- Does the statement mean that they never have to accept peace if war was declared upon them by the other party?
- What if you declared war before switching to democracy? Does that mean you get the benefit of being in democracy and being at war with somebody? So no drawbacks to being in democracy at all, but you are getting all the benefits?!
- What does defend themselves if attacked mean? Same turn, one turn, 10 turns? That is very vague and cannot be interpreted reliably.

The statement you quoted does not cover these areas at all. But yet the game mechanics show that there is more to it than just being able to initiate war and what is stated in the civpedia.

Just look at how SP plays as the topic in Civilopedia is captioned "Gameplay".

People here (yourself included) have argued that you can't refuse an AI diplomacy request. Fine.
However, the AI also doesn't declare war & peace in the same turn. So follow the entire behavior consistently, not just the part that suits your position. If everyone does that, I'm sure there won't be any major issues as it's just common sense: If you declare war this turn, you'll need to wait to the next turn to declare peace (or the very end of this turn if it's obvious no counter is coming).

I don't think we need to split hairs. Just do what makes sense based on the gameplay & the reasonable model is obvious. This is why I always allow for a counter when I'm attacking a Democracy because that's exactly what occurs in SP as the AI declares war on 1 turn & peace on the next (or whatever later turn it decides). So do the same in MP & everybody is happy.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[REM018]

Just look at how SP plays as the topic in Civilopedia is captioned "Gameplay".
People here (yourself included) have argued that you can't refuse an AI diplomacy request. Fine.

I do not think I ever referred to not being able to refuse AI diplomacy requests. But yet again, this discussion has been going on for a while and there was a long break.

I agree that declaring war and then asking for peace in the same turn is not intended. I stated that multiple times. I do not do it, but you cannot blame people that do it. Just switch out of democracy if you want to counter. Problem solved.

The only problem is that if you accepted the diplo request within the same turn and not glitched, it would still force you to peace. Even in the same turn. So this is more of a "gentleman's agreement" rather than fact and you are glitching because of your personal interpretation of how the game should be played.

The bottom line stays the same: Letting diplo requests time out is glitching. Nobody has made a reasonable argument yet against that and I do not think it is possible to do so. So avoiding diplo when you are in democracy is glitching. No matter how you put it.

Whether you find that morally OK in certain situations or not, is a different story and up to interpretation. Therefore will always cause controversy. But you cannot blame somebody for calling you a glitcher/cheater, if you are in demo and ignore diplo requests just so your units will not be teleported back. If it is not aboout teleporting units, then switch to anarchy and attack,if you only need one counter attack. If you need more turns to counter, then based on what I heard so far, you would be switching out of demo anyways which makes the whole argument kind of obsolete anyways.

Are we really arguing about 1 turn of anarchy?

[HydroDragon]

Straight from Civilopedia:
"Democracy: Gameplay
Players that adopt Democracy will increase their trade output, but will be unable to initiate wars. They may of course defend themselves if attacked."

That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Anyone using diplomacy requests within a turn they have attacked to prevent someone who is in Democracy from defending themselves is simply trying to circumvent gameplay as Democracies are allowed to defend themselves. So in that scenario, it's completely acceptable to ignore the request as the diplomacy spamming is violating the letter & spirit of the game, which the patch does not invalidate. I think we can all agree the developers didn't expect/intend for people to start spamming requests to prevent democracies from defending themselves which is precisely why people do it.

I agree with this. I re-read the civilopedia a few days ago and it's clear that you should be allowed a turn of war when attacked while in democracy. However, this is in a 'each player has their own turn' scenario, which multiplayer is not. Which is why I suggested that you can only force peace once per turn, whenever you want, after allowing for immediate counters. I think that's reasonable.

Did you read the very first posting in this thread? That answered your AI SP question & it was months ago.
How about where I listed the 4 pieces of data to draw from? That listed them out for you.
When I said "when I attack a Democracy I don't ask for peace until I'm done with my offensive" I think that's pretty clear. I'm doing the attacking & the opponent is in Democracy. So what I'm saying is I don't do the "dickhead" thing of spamming dipomacy after each separate attack. Why? because Democracies have the right to defend themselves when attacked per Civilopedia quote I posted just above. That's all I was pointing out as an example of good attacking etiquette. Do diplomacy at the beginning & end of a turn max, not all through the turn. Follow the rules & allow the democracy player to defend himself/herself as those are the rules of the game in gameplay

Ah, that completely went over my head that you were talking about the reverse scenario and how you would play it, that's my fault. As you can see from my post I was assuming that the other player was sending diplo reqeusts, not you. For the record, that's how I would play it too.

As for not reading the entire thread, I did read it when it was first posted and skimmed over it recently. The reason I asked the question about the A.I ignoring diplo is because I'm skeptical about it, having never experienced it. But the A.I does so many glitchy/cheaty things that I do believe it happens, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm arguing semantics with you here. We're practically on the same wavelength when we apply our views to an actual game. We're just compromising from different directions to the same common sense solution.

BTW, yes I'm not a big fan of those who are in Democracy trapzing through my culture when they haven't been attacked in that turn. At the same time, the AI does this (read the first posting) & can do it for multiple turns too (ignore your diplomacy requests).

Yes, I agree that human options in SP are more indicative. However, if we want to use that example, you can always defend yourself against the AI if they attack you while you are in democracy. You always get at least the turn they attack as a counter as they don't do the war/peace in the same turn. In fact, you can attack them until they request diplomacy.

So I think that gameplay behavior along with the clear statement from Civilopedia makes it obvious that Democracies can defend themselves when attacked & the diplomacyy spamming to avoid being countered is simply wrong. I'm fairly certain the Firaxis development team would agree with this sentiment even with the patch. So there is no justification for it if that's what people are looking for in this thread. It's very simple:

Attack a democracy & allow for a counter in the same turn. If no counter comes, declare peace at the end of the turn or the beginning of the next turn. Very simple & just how SP plays too. Basic gameplay in a nutshell.

Just look at how SP plays as the topic in Civilopedia is captioned "Gameplay".

People here (yourself included) have argued that you can't refuse an AI diplomacy request. Fine.
However, the AI also doesn't declare war & peace in the same turn. So follow the entire behavior consistently, not just the part that suits your position. If everyone does that, I'm sure there won't be any major issues as it's just common sense: If you declare war this turn, you'll need to wait to the next turn to declare peace (or the very end of this turn if it's obvious no counter is coming).

I don't think we need to split hairs. Just do what makes sense based on the gameplay & the reasonable model is obvious. This is why I always allow for a counter when I'm attacking a Democracy because that's exactly what occurs in SP as the AI declares war on 1 turn & peace on the next (or whatever later turn it decides). So do the same in MP & everybody is happy.

There we are, I think it's more or less resolved now. I agree with everything you say here. In fact the very first thing I suggested was that you should only get one 'force peace' per turn which is what you're getting at with your comparison to single player.

The only thing I'd dispute is that since each player takes their turn at the same time in multiplayer, you could argue that I get to choose exactly when I want to force peace.

Just a thought, but would it be such a bad thing (if I'm only allowed one request per turn) to just accept every diplomacy request? Of course I'd allow time for a reasonable counter (involving the city under attack, say) but I could force peace before you rained down on my city with your knights or whatever. As you say, you should switch governments before a full on attack anyway.

[elthrasher]

Just a thought, but would it be such a bad thing (if I'm only allowed one request per turn) to just accept every diplomacy request?

That's what I do and it has NEVER EVER made me lose. Not ever. You guys can argue fairness and Civilopedia all you want. The game is a little messed up and inconsistent, but it's clearly against designer intent to allow prompts to time out. They are there to be responded to, otherwise there'd be an "ignore" option. So yes, I do let my opponent gain this advantage if that's what he really wants to do. Then I beat him anyway. It's not that hard. I've never seen anyone who is actually any good at all that needs to demo-glitch or diplo-spam.

There's some wiggle room here for the Great Wall as letting the request time out is the only way you can actually ensure it will work. But if I'm playing somebody I trust or somebody I think I can beat regardless, I'll respond to those as well and give him the opportunity to glitch if he feels like it.

[sdu754]

Which is PRECISELY why it's treated as a "don't care" just like an "x" in a Karnaugh map. You might want to look this up. There's probably a laymen's description of karnaugh maps on the web & how don't cares are treated.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

This same exact argument could be made for freezing and goodie stealing. Your basic assertion is since the civlopedia doesn't discuss it, then it's fine to do it.

Straight from Civilopedia:
"Democracy: Gameplay
Players that adopt Democracy will increase their trade output, but will be unable to initiate wars. They may of course defend themselves if attacked."

That's about as clear as it can possibly be.

I don't see how this statement is clear at all. It doesn't say anything what so ever about being able to stay at war or ignoring request. You're basically interpeting how democracies can defend oneself in the way that you see fit. It's possible defend onself could have meant that your allowed to keep units inside your city that have to be defeated. I could say "you attacked me while I'm in Democracy so I'm just going to defend myself by taking half you cities so you won't be able to attack me again"

Further. since the civlopedia isn't clear, the developers clarified thier position when they released the patch.

Just look at how SP plays as the topic in Civilopedia is captioned "Gameplay".

People here (yourself included) have argued that you can't refuse an AI diplomacy request. Fine.
However, the AI also doesn't declare war & peace in the same turn. So follow the entire behavior consistently, not just the part that suits your position. If everyone does that, I'm sure there won't be any major issues as it's just common sense: If you declare war this turn, you'll need to wait to the next turn to declare peace (or the very end of this turn if it's obvious no counter is coming).

I don't think we need to split hairs. Just do what makes sense based on the gameplay & the reasonable model is obvious. This is why I always allow for a counter when I'm attacking a Democracy because that's exactly what occurs in SP as the AI declares war on 1 turn & peace on the next (or whatever later turn it decides). So do the same in MP & everybody is happy.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Just because the AI doesn't do something, it doesn't mean that it is illegal to do it. There are a lot of cleaver things that the AI doesn't do.

While I'll agree that allowing for counters on the same or next turn is the "gentlemans way" to play the game, I am arguing that the civlopedia and regular gameplay doesn't support it. If the developers wanted you to be able to stay at war while in Democracy, they would allow you to select it from the diplomacy window or to select go away i'm busy without forcing peace. By arguing that it is supported in the civlopedia to demo-glitch, you're making it alright in all situations. Once again "I'm defending myself by eliminating or reducing your capacity to make war by taking your cities"

[Pedal2Metal]

Sdu,
I understand both sides of this discussion. It's clear that you do not and/or do not want to.

You refuse to look at all the evidence while arbitrarily deciding what evidence is meaningful & what isn't while making specious nonsensical comparisons & calling them "equivalent" which they aren't. It echos of a similar specious argument on a different topic but that's another thread. I guess you guys share notes or something. Do you even listen to your argument trying to equate freezing with the desire to have a turn of counter?!? Good grief... Similarly, it's complete utter specious nonsense. Geez, does anyone here actually have any color & balance to them or are we all raving lunatics?!?

You aren't self-consistent within your own argumentation: You say the player can't refuse the AI request which "proves" your case but completely ignore the fact that the player never has to worry about the AI doing war/peace in the same turn which "proves" my case for allowing a counter so you conveniently ignore it (again, must be sharing notes). Then you say there's no gameplay model to work from & intimate that SP & MP are completely different games like Call of Duty is to CivRev. Again, specious & nonsense.

You purposely add confusion to what is otherwise fairly straightforward to understand in any natural reading of the Civilopedia. What part of "they can of course defend themselves" do you not understand? Why do you think they added the 2 words "of course"? To emphasize how absurd it would be to NOT allow them to defend themselves! Do you think you defend yourself by letting someone just beat on you, then give you a hug, beat/hug, beat/hug continuously?!? Really?!? Now THAT'S confusing! I've never equated someone attacking me then hugging me with my ability to defend myself which in all cases I've taken to mean I get to respond with equal force to force that you use against me. How "self-defense" is not clear is because you want to split hairs rather than simply take the statement as it was written. I'm not sure where this confusion comes from but it's not from the Civilopedia.

Lastly, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge there is even the possibility of a different interpretation of the entire body of evidence & data other than the one you propose & simply keep repeating the same things over & over. I've had similar experiences as well in other threads with similar lunatics where people want to dictate my thoughts to me & make a mandate on how people should think because it's "immoral" to think differently than they do (sharing notes again). Good grief! Quit trying to dictate & mandate to others how they are supposed to interpret the data on this topic.

It's simply not clear interpretively. Obviously, if it was clear, we wouldn't be discussing it! At the end of the day, I don't think this discussion has cleared anything up because it ISN'T clear & there ISN'T consensus. Just look how old this thread is & it's STILL just as controversial.

You don't understand because you don't want to understand. Hmmm, that's odd. Are you sure you only have 1 ID on the forums? There is no consensus & there is no obvious "righteous" path here. There is only common sense & courtesy & mutual compromise. I think it's clear what that path of compromise is:

1. Don't diplomacy spam. Wait until the end of the turn/beginning of the next turn.
&
2. Don't avoid diplomacy requests when there's nothing going on just because you can.
&
3. When going on the offensive warpath, switch out of democracy.

If everyone does those things, I think that will work for the vast majority of folks, although it clearly won't satisfy everyone. I doubt those that choose otherwise are going to feel guilty regardless. Why should they?!? It ISN'T clear for crying out loud!

If that's not good enough for you, so be it, but I'm done talking with you on this topic as it's clearly a complete waste of time.

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ScottieX]

heh such a big argument with, as elthrasher points out, so little actual practical disagreement..
Good to see we have (i think) a fairly useable consensus that is what i want from this anyway.

[elthrasher]

I understand both sides of this discussion. It's clear that you do not and/or do not want to.

You refuse to look at all the evidence while arbitrarily deciding what evidence is meaningful & what isn't while making specious nonsensical comparisons & calling them "equivalent" which they aren't.

...

You don't understand because you don't want to understand. Hmmm, that's odd. Are you sure you only have 1 ID on the forums?

...

If that's not good enough for you, so be it, but I'm done talking with you on this topic as it's clearly a complete waste of time.

Man, you are such a jerk some times. You just have no class. I don't give a crap about the points you're trying to make. This is plain rude. I've never seen sdu take this tone. What's the matter with you? It's one thing to go off in our little sandbox of Zef's insane thread, but to be so deliberately insulting and overbearing in a thread about actual game discussion with somebody who just happens to disagree is too much!

Also thanks for cribbing my rules and passing them off as yours.

[sdu754]

Man, you are such a jerk some times. You just have no class. I don't give a crap about the points you're trying to make. This is plain rude. I've never seen sdu take this tone. What's the matter with you? It's one thing to go off in our little sandbox of Zef's insane thread, but to be so deliberately insulting and overbearing in a thread about actual game discussion with somebody who just happens to disagree is too much!

Also thanks for cribbing my rules and passing them off as yours.

Thanks for the back up. I do wonder what other name I supposably post? And I assume it's the future important thread you are speaking of.

[sdu754]

Do you even listen to your argument trying to equate freezing with the desire to have a turn of counter?!?

At no point did I say freezing is equal to demo glitching. I was responding to the following post by you.

No. Civilopedia says nothing. As a result you can't argue logically from the absence of information. So that means it's a don't care as far as Civilopedia is concerned. However, it DOES say that you can't declare war when in Democracy. Conclusion: It is perfectly acceptable to not accept peace requests once somone else declares war. Just like a Karnaugh Map of "x" in logic design. Either a 1 or a 0 is 100% acceptable.

Basically what you are saying here is that since the Civlopedia doesn't cover it then it is acceptable behavior. So I just pointed out the the Civlopedia doesn't cover freezing or goodie stealing. Does that mean goodie stealing is OK? But in another thread you posted:

I agree that freezing is worse but it's all "escalatory" & "cheating" behavior. Someone gets the GW & starts using it powerfully which is perfectly allowed by the game. The other guy gets angry & decides to glitch the GW (escalation/cheating). The GW guy gets angry & decides to freeze the game (escalation/cheating). It's all dysfunctional behavior IMO. I don't agree with any of it but to try & justify stealing because murder is worse isn't reasonable. It's all unacceptable.

People here (yourself included) have argued that you can't refuse an AI diplomacy request. Fine.
However, the AI also doesn't declare war & peace in the same turn.

The AI only asks for peace when your inside thier Cultural borders or within striking distance of a city. I played an SP game recently where the AI did declare war on me (for no forseable reason) as I was preparing an attack. I then moved my 2 horsearmies beside thier capital (same turn) and they requested peace. So if you threaten them the right way the AI will do war/peace in one turn.

Straight from Civilopedia:
"Democracy: Gameplay
Players that adopt Democracy will increase their trade output, but will be unable to initiate wars. They may of course defend themselves if attacked."

That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Anyone using diplomacy requests within a turn they have attacked to prevent someone who is in Democracy from defending themselves is simply trying to circumvent gameplay as Democracies are allowed to defend themselves. So in that scenario, it's completely acceptable to ignore the request as the diplomacy spamming is violating the letter & spirit of the game, which the patch does not invalidate. I think we can all agree the developers didn't expect/intend for people to start spamming requests to prevent democracies from defending themselves which is precisely why people do it.

I think the following two post will shed a little light on the subject:

I'm pretty sure the civlopedia only states that while in Democracy that you can't declare war, it doesn't say that you have to accept peace.

The attack/peace/attack/peace strat should obviosly fall under dirty play, because I can't see how the creaters of the game saw this as the way the game should be played. Like I said a set rules of ettiqutte could be set up, where this type of strat would be considered bad ettiquette.

This is correct. However, a direct & more-recent quote from the Manufacturer always supercedes any manual. So this means it's cheating in MP.

I don't see it this way. I see it as the intrinsic risk/tradeoff for being in Democracy & good tactics from my opponent. If I can't afford the tradeoff, I simply switch governments.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I also think the following Quote bears repeating:

Now consider what you're saying/implying. Firaxis specifically put in a player prompt for the GW with the express intent that it could be ignored as a counter to the GW being leveraged maximally just like in SP. Are you kidding me?!? Just think about that for even 1 nano-second & it's patently absurd. Simply ludicrous! A player-prompt so it can be ignored?!? Why not just disable the GW in the first place like in Teams?!? People could deal with that but the glitching thing is obviously NOT what the designers intended.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

To the following:

Everyone here assumes that the designers didn't put the ability to ignor diplomacy into the game purposely. I'm sure that the idea behind democracy is that you're supposed to get pounded into the ground mercilessly by your opponents with your only recourse being to change your government.

It seems pretty obvious to me the downside of Democracy is that you can't be aggressive, not that you get pounded on by everyone. In fact the AI doesn't always just give you peace when they're in Democracy. The idea of the Great wall is that you can avoid war, not pound everyone else into the ground. It is possible the designers tested the game and never thought of the attack/peace strat

What I'm saying is that the attack/peace strat & avoiding diplomacy are both poor sportsmanship. I think both things are flaws in the game.

You answered:

Regarding the prompting, the prompt is to allow a player to choose either to accept diplomacy or reject diplomacy, not ignore the request. Direct answer from Firaxis means it's not an assumption, it's a stated fact per the manufacturer. Doesn't get more certain than that.

I hear you & understand the "spirit" of what you are saying & would be fine playing against you with these agreed-upon rules.

However, for those people that want otherwise, Firaxis has explicitly stated that Diplomacy requests are not to be ignored in MP. The wonders are supposed to work identically in SP & MP (all of them do except GW due to prompting glitch).

So changing your government is the tradeoff for Democracy in MP & "pounding everyone else into the ground" is acceptable for the GW usage, both in SP & MP.

The following quotes all came out of the current thread and the following on:

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ht=demo+glitch

So what changed?