Teams are starting to discuss within their own private fora whether the renaming of units and cities are allowed or not. And if so, under what conditions.

Let's first check the rules on renaming:
2.4 - Misleading through Renaming

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)
This only talks about renaming units & cities to get creative tradedeals. It doesn't talk about renaming cities or units in a normal way.

So; to start the discussions:
1 - What do the teams think about being allowed to rename a city as often as the team that owns the city likes ??
2 - What do the teams think about under which conditions a unit can be renamed? (standard PBEM good conduct is to keep units identifyable for unit-type).
3a - Does a renamed city or unit have to have a "renamed"-identifier in its name ?
3b - If so, must that identifier display the previous name ?

Any other thoughts on this ?

Here we go, by brothers and sisters.

These are personal opinions only.

1. As long as the intent is not to confuse other teams, I don't see any reason to limit it.

2. Again, as long as the intent is not to confuse other teams, why not? Unit type needs to be identifiable, and we don't want to disrupt battle reporting, but otherwise I see no reason not to rename units.

3. Shouldn't need a "renamed" identifier, nor the previous name.

Additional suggestion:

We could have each team send a record of renames to the admins, and if any team has a question about another team's rename they can send the question to the admins, who can sort it out. This way neither the renaming team nor the team who sees the rename needs to reveal knowledge the other teams might not have.

Another suggestion:

In the interest of good sportsmanship, I don't think teams should be allowed to do renames with the purpose of offending another team. For example we should not allow team 3 to capture a team 4 city and rename it "loserville" or something worse.

This opinion is not personal and represents full or partial consensus on this matter by Team MIA, I am posting as a UN rep- not an indvidual

1 - What do the teams think about being allowed to rename a city as often as the team that owns the city likes ??

MIA is against city renaming for various reasons, including for the sake of a smooth discussion process, regarding plans such as using the city as a landmark in exploration, or using the city in a trade route, among other uses. We feel that there is one exception: conquest, where the original name will be in brackets. In cases where the 23 charecter limit prohibits this, we feel that the teams should still attempt to make some indication of a previous name. {for example "Istanbul (Constantinople)" Could Become "Istanbul (Constntinopl)"} Name Calling should be prohibited in the re-naming of cities (i.e. no "Team MIA Stinks! (Athens)"

2 - What do the teams think about under which conditions a unit can be renamed? (standard PBEM good conduct is to keep units identifyable for unit-type).

Units should retain their normal name/Class – but you can add anything else a team would like. (ie "Worker – OurSlave1" or "Warrior – CapitalDefence3")
Units should NOT be allowed to change their names once named.

Except when being upgraded and then only their class would change

Spearman - Fred would change to Pikeman - Fred when upgraded

3a - Does a renamed city or unit have to have a "renamed"-identifier in its name ?

no, the city name in brackets serves as an identifier (i.e. no need for "Istanbul (r.n.-Constantinople)"

I prefer to allow citys to be renamed. Renaming things is a civilizations right, Don't take that away from us. to quote my freind Hex "If its in the game...." (he created this saying while lagging my computer by giving me heaps of location bleps which he new froze my computer while simutanouly attacking me in aoe2

Just curious has anything been decided?

Well, it's my personal opinion that renaming your units (only once) and cities (as often as you want) is okay. However, naming a city "The Wheel" and trying to pass it off as the technology or naming a group of swords "Warrior" is against the rules. Of course, if any team has trouble figuring out what's in a stack, they have the right to ask the stack's owner what's in it, a perfect reason to ask for an extension.

Ginger_Ale might have his own interpretation/feelings, so I'll see what he posts before we make an official ruling.

Agreed with above, any sort of use of renaming for trickery is strictly prohibited.

Here we go, by brothers and sisters.

This only talks about renaming units & cities to get creative tradedeals. It doesn't talk about renaming cities or units in a normal way.


@rik -we're not "normal"

we have minimal objections to renaming cities (anything anyone wants to rename after a famous idiot or stooge is okay by us)

the misleading dogpoop is a :nono:

I think the timer for activation of the trickery clause would be after diplomacy is initiated.
If two civs never met, this clause is void and irrelevant. Except for the case where city names changes to send messages to other civs. For example to a ship sailing by.


We're idiots and can't understand big words. WTF does this mean?

It means it doesn't matter what you name and rename something if it is unseen.

@ tim - thank you

How do you know it has not been seen ...

land unit with more than one movement point or a naval unit or even an aerial unit ... all these can pop in and have a good look around and then disappear again ...

Here we go, by brothers and sisters.

Not sure what you mean ... but in future could you be a little less aggressive or provocative with your commentary !!!

Here we go, by brothers and sisters.

Provolution, those 15 Mounted Warriors on your doorstep might not give you a chance to enter into any agreements. Sorry for the spam. On topic, I dont have any preference on city/unit renaming since any trickery would easily be spotted by the higher powers.

Sorry now your comments are totally unrelated to the thread topic ... I was simply pointing out scenarios where a city's name may be viewed by a team without the owner being aware ...

So please stop spamming the thread !!!

Here we go, by brothers and sisters.

the simple people of TeamKISS have designated the more talkative of us to speak formally in future diplomacies. however, being anarchists, we're too disorganized to limit discussion when not in formal negotiations. therefore we present a worst case scenario to open discussion - active stupid people with long memories. :)

Having little sense of etiquette, we've been renaming right and left (both cities and units) Except for our 4 horse SOD, we don't have stacks out so nobody will feel threatened. our intent is not to deceive and trick our way to the top. Our cities are renamed in keeping with the choices of our stupid people. They will not be intentionally renamed after building (so sayeth the complete idiot - yo kiss take notes) we'll also watch what we do with the units.

Igor wishes to associate himself with the posts of ybbor, regentman, daveshack, fe3333au, nobody, killercane and GA (long time no see, what's up?) a special thanks to tim for explaining things to us. By extension these comments will become part of our simple lore.

BTW our horseman are out of :beer: anybody else got some ponies to get together for a :band: SoD?

Agreed with above, any sort of use of renaming for trickery is strictly prohibited.
So is this the ruling on this topic..... We never received a clear-cut answer. If so, could "trickery" be defined please.

Renaming units or cities in order to use them in diplomacy as something else, or to make them seem like something they aren't (trading a city as a peace deal, but instead of the city you wanted, you renamed an artic city that to confuse them) or making it so at a quick glance a stack appears to be only "Warriors" when in fact they are "Spearmen" by renaming all Spearman to "Warrior". So when renaming units, you don't need to say "Curragh - HMS Bounty", you can just say "HMS Bounty", but if you rename it to "Galley" or "Galley - HMS Bounty" when it's a curragh, that is against the rules.

Let me know if you have a question.

I also assume that swapping city names with another is also prohibited ...

If someone is trying to challenge anothers' actions, please post a thread about it.

Swapping city names with no benefit for the team other than confusion from other teams is not allowed.

I suggest that the brilliant legalists in the various teams coin out a new rule here for FUTURE reference, instead of seeking to pin Team TNT on the rule we did not break.
A petty defamation campaign it is to reduce our diplomatic options, now, come with a constructive proposal in place of defamation on future rules for city naming.

My constuctive proposal is we wait to see what admins come up with and while doing that enjoy our weekends. My simple contribution is to share the seal of one of Team K.I.S.S.'s stoopid departments. Finished it today actually :D

I suggest that the brilliant legalists in the various teams coin out a new rule here for FUTURE reference, instead of seeking to pin Team TNT on the rule we did not break.
A petty defamation campaign it is to reduce our diplomatic options, now, come with a constructive proposal in place of defamation on future rules for city naming.
not a barrister, but i slept at holiday inn express last night

I will put up a new thread soon Provo, a thread related to the verdict which will hopefully be up in under 24 hours (most likely).

This seemed to have been started with my innocent query about renaming ... knowing that F-11 was an option that all teams would be utilizing to gather intel and being familiar with pbem ... I am very aware of the naming conventions and 'Spirit of the Game' issues ...

It is a pity that this opportunity was not used to clarify things prior to the recent issue erupting ...

>>>>

Post 4 resulted from a team discussion by MIA ... where all issues were discused and evaluated ... I suggest that this is, if not adopted ... at least used as a starting point for rule modification and clarification discussions ...

Speaking as an individual, I can't see any reason why normal naming of cities is anyone's business other than the team owning the city, with the exception I previously stated about offensive or taunting names.

Deceptive renaming (units named with another unit type, cities named like resources or technologies) should still be illegal, there is no need to change that part of the rule.

Point is F-11 gives you a glimpse of other teams cities and the scenario i brought up before about a curragh (for strategy purposes) keeping hidden has the ability to ... move in -> view city -> move out

We are willing to discuss rules on fair grounds, and Team MIAs is a fair template.

However, TEAM TNT is not fully aware of PBEM conventions and so on in particular subsets of Civ3 communties, so bear over with us for that. We barely observe the F11 screen at all, as we consider that a waste of time. We tend to divert our resources into other areas. However, for many of us, do not consider the F11 as the key thing here.

We consider the time Civs have actually met, that duties on informing changes of city names and so on should be kept. This would be consistent and coherent with the similar rules for trading maps or communications, which require map making and public press technologies. Spirit in the game is also a question of "realistic" immersion, and the F11 screen is sort of an exploit in this regard. We may be very limited and shortsighted in our team, but we are not using civ utilities or F11 cities in general.

However, I now see that F11 can be used/misused to influence diplomacy by commenting/analyzing own findings to other teams, possibly using a case as an alternative media outlet or as a source of new intel.

The solution to this, would be to limit city naming duties to MET civilizations, not UNMET civilizations. That would be the most fair thing to do, since when no relation is established, how could a leader of a nation know a city name, to stay in character.

Colombus had never heard about Mexico, or Tenochtitlan when he set over the Atlantic 1492. Colombus had not the F11 button to press. Colombus even mistook the size of the Earth, and thought he would end up in Asia. Possibly, Colombus may have liked to complain this lack of information on future conquests to God, and forced the Aztecs to send a canoe filled with city names and other data across the Atlantic in punishment. Yet, Colombus was some of the more resourceful men of that era, and he figured something out. Anyways, we are at 2320 BC now, and our people are not that advanced and sophisticated, and I think we can keep the innocence a little bit longer till our civs meet, and take it from there.

Right now, all this cause a situation where wrongfully wresting new information from other teams, or even forcing them to comply with unwritten laws is the order of the day. I am fine with the other unmet teams changing names on their cities, as long as one communicate all the namechanges to MET neighbors.

Unit names should never be changed, except for workers to fit into planning name models, as workers are captured. Conquered cities are also fair game once.

However, we are open for new interpretations and new laws. WE can for example scrap the requisite for map making for trading maps and so on, if we are not to stay in character.

I agree with F-11 ... unfortunately it cannot be turned off and is available for all ... so how is this for an in-game explanation ...

Since there are barbarians in the world ... both friendly and unfriendly ... I put to you that F-11 is simply the rumours and whispers heard and retold over camp fires ...

Therefore once 'seen or heard about' (F-11) a city should not be re-named unless the brackets method is used ... NEW NAME (OLD NAME) ... this is kept for a number of turns and then the old name is removed ... or maybe keep a '*' there to indicate a renaming ...

This would address the F-11 issue

But what about the secret peek ... more difficult to adresss ... maybe have brackets untill the situation below ...

Of course all of this is not an issue as soon as we have all officially met ... because then any renaming of a city is simply announced in the UN

Good, barbarian whispers and rumors were not that reliable, still being in character, so the lack of reliability is emulated by the option to change city names. We should also ban public thread commentaries on the F11 screen in order to isolate shared intelligence resources of UNMET civilizations. WE felt the spirit of the game was violated as well, even some persons seeking to strongarm us into changing OUR names according to THEIR whims. Therefore, F11 should be left out, and when we met, we can observe namechanges on the map itself. El Dorado was never found, Timbuktu took centuries to find for white men, and Alexandria Eschates was long a myth, until it was found in the Fergana Valley. I can give more examples. F11 is not something to be counted on.

I agree with Daveshack on the tradepart. I am surprised that Team Doughnut seems to agree with Team TNT here, I thought all three teams were ganging up on us in this case. So we can all fairly say we come from different civ traditions, and should respect each other for that.

I am mostly concerned about the unit naming, since battle reports analysis for intel is a key aspect of realism for the game. Formations could be named the same for centuries, as military tradition required that. Unit names must be fixed and locked.

But good to have a constructive dialogue going.

I agree with the dialogue becoming constuctive :thumbsup:

I'm not sure about the F-11 being dismissed as incorrect information ... perhaps the admins can comment on that ... I (and this is personal as I am not the UN rep) would prefer our prefered city naming convention as this also addresses the sneak peak ability of horse and sea units ...

As to the military units ... do people feel that as long as the unit type appears in the name everything is OK ...

EDIT - This could also add to the role playing element as team MIA places a bounty on the head of the Exploding Warrior Donut Kissers for commiting crimes against ... blah blah blah ;)

Armies of course can be called anything ...

One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.

But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.

as long as the unit type appears in the name everything is OK ...

we agree with this

One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.

But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.

Good call, this will end transoceanic diplomatic infringement in ruledebates and other activities before diplomats meet. Not having teams fish for confirmation on their analyses in public thread court litigations and so on.

However, we can set a quota on 3 namechanges per city or something. I think the need for freedom in domestic planning and identity building overrides one continents interest in unfairly leveraging F11 in order to influence another continents domestic and diplomatic development. Diplomatic contact is the only objective criteria that can be used here. The sneek peek with curraughs is not an issue here, as we can see all namechanges on the map, by comparing turns. I never had any problems with people changing names on their cities, but then again, I am not that easily confused.

What is your problem buddy ... if your aim is too ruin the game for people just keep it up !!!

How many warnings do you need from the administrators before you pull your head in ???

If this comment results in a banning then so be it ... I have joined this game in order to have fun and not debate with an egotist ... Learn some manners ...

I am not egotist, this F11 thing should be kept in the quiet, and not be part of communications before civs have met. I am not seeking to ruin anything, but to keep rule discussions and cases separate, and to contain public thread debates to rule specifics only before civs have met. There are more of us at TNT meaning this.

Obviously, there is a divide between KISS and MIA one side in this discussion, and TNT and partly Doughnut on the other. We just have to be candid about that. I think no team without diplomatic contact should have the right to request information on other teams actions until they have met, which is a pretty key principle. No need to be defensive here. For that matter, all cases involving separate team in-game actions should be handled discreetly before teams met, such as in other team demogames.

This is where the F11 key plays in. Some want to keep F11 as a key component to their planning before Civs met, others want to sustain a civilizations right to organize themselves internally. This seems to be a very contentious issue, but must be handled, and no need to get overtly emotional here. What I do not want, is untimely questions of team actions before civs have met in public threads.

However,, if that is in the spirit of the game it is ok, we may just readily adapt to that. same applies to trading map before map making and so on. As long as rules are agreed on and written, we are fair with that. This is also an issue, what is the spirit of the game? Is it decided unilaterally by some "veterans", or reached on in consensus?

But to boil it down into components, the renaming, we can organize it this way.

City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (all cities)
City for use in the mapscreen (only seen cities)
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (only seen cities)
City naming for early comparison (F11)

Unit renaming for confusion purposes
Unit renaming for identity purposes
Unit renaming for organization purposes

One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.

But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.

What does this mean ???

One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.
I don't understand what you are alluding to. Can we get a clarification on this?

this F11 thing should be kept in the quiet, and not be part of communications before civs have met.
Admins disagree with you

I am not seeking to ruin anything
I would hope not but can't you see that your sentence structure and wording choices are doing just that ?

and to contain public thread debates to rule specifics only before civs have met. There are more of us at TNT meaning this.
Disagree F-11 is a legitimate part of the game ... if your team chooses not to evaluate this information then bad luck ... the rules should be there to ease game play not to confuse ... F-11 is part of game therefore cities should not be renamed ...

Obviously, there is a divide between KISS and MIA one side in this discussion, and TNT and partly Doughnut on the other.
You assume a lot ... KISS and MIA and some D-Nuts disagree with what you did does not mean that we are plotting together ...

We just have to be candid about that. I think no team without diplomatic contact should have the right to request information on other teams actions until they have met, which is a pretty key principle.
F-11 gives us information call it rumours, travellers tales or bloody crystal balls ... we only want for clear rules on renaming ... if you had named it neo-Dancing Banana or something equally as distinctive it would not have been an issue ... however renaming the name of a previous city seemed to the outside as a deliberate ploy to disguise the F-11 information ... and hence against the spirit of fairplay ...

No need to be defensive here. For that matter, all cases involving separate team in-game actions should be handled discreetly before teams met, such as in other team demogames. I am unfamiliar with demogames and if handled discretely means asking administrators for a ruling on a perceived violation then this is exactly what we did and apparently what KISS did as well ...

This is where the F11 key plays in. Some want to keep F11 as a key component to their planning before Civs met, others want to sustain a civilizations right to organize themselves internally. This seems to be a very contentious issue, but must be handled, and no need to get overtly emotional here. What I do not want, is untimely questions of team actions before civs have met in public threads.
I agree ... it is something that administrator should rule on one way or the other ... I feel that is the only way to finally bury this issue ;)

However,, if that is in the spirit of the game it is ok, we may just readily adapt to that. same applies to trading map before map making and so on. As long as rules are agreed on and written, we are fair with that.
I totally support this ...

This is also an issue, what is the spirit of the game? Is it decided unilaterally by some "veterans", or reached on in consensus?
Surely spirit of the game is an attitude to not try to mislead using game engine loopholes

But to boil it down into components, the renaming, we can organize it this way.

City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (all cities)
City for use in the mapscreen (only seen cities)
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (only seen cities)
City naming for early comparison (F11)

Unit renaming for confusion purposes
Unit renaming for identity purposes
Unit renaming for organization purposes
Diplomatic screen is only contains your teams info ... you no longer see the rivals cities, techs, gold, etc

If what you are suggestng that you can only re-name a city that has not been disclosed by the game engine to other rivals ... I would whole heartedly agree ... but if you want to rename a known city then you have to make it clear to all

fe3333au

I understand your position very well, and I partly emphatize with it. I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not. Bringing this into a public thread was the worst thing to do. That raised tensions that should not be there, it also allowed the less diciplinary elements of Team KISS a presentation stage for their analytical assessments and attempts to coerce, unjustly as the case proved, coerce us to concede information they would not otherwise have access to, or forcibly push us to give an undeserved apology.

Communications such as concessions, apologies, acknowledgements, confirmations, submissions, namechanges, analytical feedback and so on are all components to formal diplomacy, and all this should have been kept in check. In my opinion, fine, read the F11 as much as you can, probably a science to some of you. But DO NOT bring case-specific issues to the public forum, which is a de facto attempt to influence vulnerable diplomatic discussions among other teams.

I feel I can have a more constructive dialogue with Team Doiughnut and Team MIA on the issue, as well as certain elements of Team KISS, and hopefully we can bridge some gaps and agree on something.

One way to handle namechanges, would be to communicate namechanges to met neighbors, and let unmet neighbors figure it out for themselves. Another would be to let the Admins have a list of F11 known cities in the public thread, with the foundation year and a list of which dates they changed and to which new names. This would be fair and transparent to everyone. I can live with a neutral Admin list on this issue.

One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.
What this means:

Civ A and Civ B are negotiating a peace treaty. Civ B wants the city of "Button" from Civ A, a very important city, as it contains the pyramids. Civ A agrees, but on the turn before, renames a tundra city "Button" and trades it away.

I have no problem with city renaming, and I trust that the teams are mature enough to not rename them every turn. Teams should rename because of a typo, mistake, or symbolic value, not just for the sake of renaming.

I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not. This is exactly what we did and the admins brought it public.

I feel I can have a more constructive dialogue with Team Doiughnut and Team MIA on the issue, as well as certain elements of Team KISS, and hopefully we can bridge some gaps and agree on something. Please refrain from this type of talk out of game, I beg you. We have handled it within our team and someone from yours should do the same with certain elements of your team.

One way to handle namechanges, would be to communicate namechanges to met neighbors, and let unmet neighbors figure it out for themselves. Another would be to let the Admins have a list of F11 known cities in the public thread, with the foundation year and a list of which dates they changed and to which new names. This would be fair and transparent to everyone. I can live with a neutral Admin list on this issue. Good ideas.

Team TNT will support this law, as this is what we consider "Spirit of the Game".
We even made an internal collage, called "Spirit of the Game".

Sorry, there is no way to keep track of how many times a city has been renamed without a thread. The 3 limit rule would not work without a thread.

I suggest a two tiered way to do this, to stay in character with the game.

Before all civs have met, UNMET civilization has no right to question city name changes. However, a civ must inform all met neighbors on their city namechanges, all inclusive.

However, after all Civilizations have met, or one civilization met all other civilizations, we put up a public city naming thread. This will protect early and critical internal decisions against probes, as well as giving fair, equal and transparent access to information. Additionally, it saves the admins work in the early phase, which is tricky enough.

This will be a compromise between the internal organizers and the F11 dependents I guess.

:goodjob:

Will put up a discussion with several options to see which one is more popular, then I will put up a poll with that option.

I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not.This is exactly what we did and the admins brought it public.

Ditto. We were discussing it with admins, and they refused to talk about it privately, and told us it should be discussed in the UN, which it was. If you think this was a bad idea, blame the admins, not us.

Then I truly apologize for our suspicions of why it was brought public.
If this is the case, then the Admins did a mistake, as this case involved a fourth party and non-complainant. However, understand from our perspective it could be observed diffrently, in particular with the strong opening salvos of Admiral Kutzow, which was key in galvanizing our opinion on the issue. Probably that was the main trigger.

However, when this is all over, the entire game, and our threads will be made public, you will all see we had a totally different situation than you may think. However, I will not complain to the Admins for this, as they could not foresee how the situation became that unruly. That is, it is wrong to demand apologies, concessions, confirmations, namechanges and what have you until proven guilty or innocent in the charge. I also apologize for getting a bit tempered in a couple of posts, a couple of times justifiably irritated.

Team TNT was not ready to give an appetizer, and to give in to demands bordering diplomacy. For the future, we would do the same, and give no concessions until found guilty in violating a rule, and we will be the last to break one.

Arrr :clap: the calm atmosphere of rationality has descended ... which will now allow us to discuss generic rules for a great expansion to game play ...

And now back to the game where our various teams vie against the others in the spirit of fair gameplay ... and also the thrill of annihilating all trace of the rivals from the face of Meleet's World ... :D


>>>>>>>>>>>

Renaming ...

I don't see how swapping an inventory of cities with the first diplomatic meeting will work ... it is giving away too much info to another team ...

As far as I am aware there is no way bar map swapping for a rival to know exactly how many cities another team has built ... one can estimate on the available intelegence but you cannot be absolutely sure ... so I'm against automatic swapping ...

I think that this discussion requires a list of the ways of seeing a city ... this will enable all methods to be addressed ... even if some are dismissed ...

Without Contact
F-11 the Top 5 Cities ... which change positions and can jump on and off the list ... gives you the name of a city in a civilization and also provides population intel, but not the physical location.
Sneak and Peak ... which allows the name and physical location of the city to be viewed by a unit with movement greater than 1 which jumps in and out of the rival's view area ... and therefore it is possible for the rival not to be aware that this information has been observed.
Goody Hut Map ... it is possible for a city to be viewed and named when a map is given by a friendly tribe ... again the other team has no knowledge that this information has been obtained.

With Contact
F-6 Wonder Building ... lists a city that is building the wonder, requires contact, but not necessarily a knowledge of the physical location nor the name of the city
Build Embassy ... give the location of the Capital, requires contact with the other team (and if renaming is allowed, then no prior knowledge of the name is necessarily available)
Espionage Screen ... requires an embassy to have been built and will allow Map stealing which will give you all civilization's city names and locations.
Wandering Tourist ... where a unit physically views a city's location and hence name ... this will lead to contact.

So in order to ensure that all the above are covered either have no renaming or a convention which is followed until everyone has met which could be as we suggest NEW NAME (OLD NAME) ...

Also I would say that swapping names or rebirthing an old name can lead to confusion and therefore should not be allowed ...

The reason I originally brought this up was the clause about renaming in order to decieve during trade ... Team A may have viewed or monitored city X possibly without the knowledge of Team B and are eager to have it ... and then trade for it and discover that they get another city ... however I think it has gone beyond that now ...

I want the ability to rename captured cities :evil:

Well, most likely, this rule discussion and agreement will be complete when we meet, so the F11 city renaming issue will be resolved i part by then. However,I think it will suffice with a public thread with all the citynames observed in F11 from the date of all civs met. This will level the playing field, which is key here. Once again, I am against the announcing of renames before civs have met, as it is not in OUR "spirit of the game" from TNTs side. Since that is YOUR preference, but not necessarily everyones preference, we need to acknowledge the fact we got different ideas on this.

Well Mr. fe3333au, you can't have it all, I mean all your points 100 % your way. So we may find a way ALL teams are satisfied. I can say as much that Team TNT has almost an unanimous position on this, as we have discussed and polled the late cases.
We will have another discussion and poll on this as well. I guess you want a ruleset customized to your specialized intelligence gathering techniques where you can excel and others be left behind, or force teams to have ugly renaming conventions with brackets and so on. Well, for us to swallow that, we may like to see if we stand to gain anything from this rule. Again, I have posted a two tiered proposal, which will cover the early stages as well as the midgame and endgame stages, which is another way to see it. I can say you that much, that TNT is not likely to support a ruleset tailor made for some unilateral interpretation of "Spirit of the Game", but a common ruleset. Right now I agree with Ginger Ale, Regentman and Daveshack, as well as a few others, and I think Team Doughnut, Team TNT and the admins got some common idea about this.

Conquered cities can be renamed in whatever format the victor likes, once.

Unit names should be fixed and locked, and I would urge all teams to agree on posting battle logs in the public forum when all civs have met. This will be in the character of the game, and will provide an entertaining taste of the game. These battle logs should be complete with unit names, strengths, promotions and great leaders, as well as hitpoint reductions. This works very well in the Apolyton mirror multiteam demogame, where I am at the Blood Oath Horde.

So,, to sum it up, A NO to be obliged to inform other teams before we diplomatically met, since such contact should be limited to the diplomacy period of the game.
Also, F11 shall be subject to the same rules as other ways to see cities for namechanges. More so, a fix and lock on unit names. Yes to a one-time renaming of conquered cities and workers.

However,I think it will suffice with a public thread with all the citynames observed in F11 from the date of all civs met. This will level the playing field, which is key here.
This will make it impossible for a team to hide the existence of a city ... nowhere in the game engine does this happen ... so why introduce something that takes away an element of the game ???

Since that is YOUR preference, but not necessarily everyones preference, we need to acknowledge the fact we got different ideas on this.
This certainly is obvious and acknowledged ... and becoming repetitive ...

Well Mr. fe3333au, you can't have it all, I mean all your points 100 % your way. So we may find a way ALL teams are satisfied.
Why the condescending attitude ??? ... There really is no need for this ... I am getting sick and tired of YOUR tone ... if you would read my comments they have always been polite ... but YOU constantly go just that little bit further :rolleyes: ... what is your problem ??? ... are you blind to what you are doing ??? ... YOU are forming a rift which will affect gameplay ... and yet you continue even when you have been constantly warned by administrators and moderators for you behaviour ... you continue on this banal one-upmanship ...

There is a certain etiquette that should be observed in these threads (which I fear I may be crossing) and Provolution, you have proven again and again that you seem to lack the slightest ability to be civil ... Are you really so insecure that you need to create such an aggressive VR personality ? ...

We (MIA) thought you (TNT) were wrong with what you did ... the administrators wanted a public debate ... they have ruled that there is no violation ... We submit to the verdict ... GET OVER IT and RELAX !!! ... we are here to discuss alterations of the rules and use this thread to calmly debate without goading ...

So,, to sum it up, A NO to be obliged to inform other teams before we diplomatically met, since such contact should be limited to the diplomacy period of the game.
So you simply ignore the examples I mentioned where information is presented in the game ???

You are constantly sprouting your opinion about restricting discussions and interactions of teams prior to official contact in game ... well if this is the case why did YOU send us this image along with the save early on in the game ??? ...

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/tnt1.jpg

and yes before you say ... we did in fact enjoy the present but why was it sent ? ... It smells like double standards to me ...

In regards to the naming conventions ...
I am simply attempting to outline ALL the factors so that a proper and informed debate can occur ... we all now know YOUR opinion about F-11 ... Good ... But at least allow everyone to make their own decision without soapboxing the issue and haranguing those who present an alternative point of view ...

Unfortunately due to proven and repeated behaviour patterns, I think we may have reached an impasse ... so if it does come to a vote ... I would suggest that a secret ballot with ALL players be used ...

Hope I'm not sanctioned ... however I understand if I am ... (and would hope I'm not the only one) ... as usual I am not speaking officially for anyone but myself ...

My closing comment is how long must we put up with this behaviour and blantant disregard for everyone's opinion but his own ...

I think we disagree both ways, and I think we heavily disagree on the pre-diplomacy thing. About the pic, it is also in the public threads, so it had no real message, it could as well have been the wording TNT, it is one of our 3 logos on the Team Info.
You are welcome to attach your logos as well in your mails without violating any rule

I think you should quit referring to my persona here, it is unwarranted - I can assure you I am like this both here and in real life, and there is not too much insecurity here.

I think we have pointed out our positions. What I meant you cannot have it your way 100 %, means you need to make some concessions as well. I have presented 4-5 different proposals, and you still present the same over and over again. I understand you badly want the renaming to end, and the only way we can settle this score, is to let the admins rule on this, or have an open Team Vote. If the other 3 teams agree against Team TNT on the renaming part, we will submit, but not before that.

Other than that, we can use the law which exists right now, or we can reach a compromise. I will be calm and rational here, and read through a complete proposal you make, that you think will be palatable to all parties, not just yours. Right now we are restating preferences and getting nowhere. But we will consider a compromise proposal, if you are willing to present one. I do know I have a very direct and no nonsense style, which is why I am not conducting any diplomacy here. This is strictly a rule technical discussion.

Please see my post in the Spirit of the Game thread.

Sorry - can't figure out how to post a link - might be able to include it later.

Igor feels things should kept simple, once a city has a name, another city may never have that name

You are welcome to attach your logos as well in your mails without violating any rule thank you

Well, two teams have voted against the proposed renaming amendment. I wasn't a math major but that seems enough to kill the amendment. The dead amendment leaves us with the original (and I dare say bad) rule in place. So, do we try again or just leave 2.4 in place?

Rule 2.4 declares that No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents. This rule is in the Metagame Tricks section of the ruleset. This rule can reasonably be interpreted to allow for a wide range of renaming possibilities. The focus of the rule is to prevent one team from cheating another team in a trade by renaming a city or unit and substituting the renamed object in the trade. For example Team A offers to buy the tech computers for 34 gold per turn and then renames a left over warrior '34 gold per turn' in effect trying to get computers for a warrior. The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams? If we do then we should rewrite 2.4 to specifically pertain to trades (and peace treaties). If not, then rule 2.4 should be scrapped.

I don't see the need or desirability to enforce fair trading or peace making practices. If my team got stiffed in a trade or peace treaty then I'd urge my teammates to take appropriate in game actions. In other words, the offending team would have to make good on the original terms or suffer the consequences. These consequences could include no more trading with the offending team until appropriate compensation for the bad trade was made; war; and/or informing the other teams of the offending teams trading practices (assuming in game contact, of course).

I'd certainly like to hear from those teams who voted no to the amendment. Did you vote no because you want fair trading enforced or for other reasons?

I think the vote is 2-1 still. The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams?Personally my answer would be yes to this. Many players on our team come from a world of LKendter's rules and Sirian's prohibited dastardly acts. There is something about honoring your word that seems to be missing in these treaties. However, we are learning this style of gameplay and maybe we need to adjust our game for these types of dastardly human acts. If we do then we should rewrite 2.4 to specifically pertain to trades (and peace treaties). If not, then rule 2.4 should be scrapped. Can you draw it up? You seem a way with words Donsig.

The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams?
Sorry for my cluelessness, but isn't this exactly what the current vote is trying to find out?

My personal opinion (which as far as I know doesn't represent the opinion of my team in any way :)) is that the ability to pass for example a warrior as 34 gpt is a serious flaw in the playing interface. In reality or if the interface was a little better thought out, there'd be no way you could ever mistake a warrior for 34 gold per turn. I don't see how it's any different from for example loading and re-playing the turn until you get the optimal result. The interface (in a little broader sense of the word) allows for that too. In my opinion this game should be about who can master the diplomacy and the game mechanics the best, not about who can abuse the flaws in the game the most.

Sorry for my cluelessness, but isn't this exactly what the current vote is trying to find out?

My personal opinion (which as far as I know doesn't represent the opinion of my team in any way :)) is that the ability to pass for example a warrior as 34 gpt is a serious flaw in the playing interface. In reality or if the interface was a little better thought out, there'd be no way you could ever mistake a warrior for 34 gold per turn. I don't see how it's any different from for example loading and re-playing the turn until you get the optimal result. The interface (in a little broader sense of the word) allows for that too. In my opinion this game should be about who can master the diplomacy and the game mechanics the best, not about who can abuse the flaws in the game the most.

No, the vote was about a specific rulechange. The proposed rule was voted down. I do not know why it was voted down as there are numerous reasons for doing so. It seems the two biggest issues here are A) fair trading practices and B) renaming practices. I've pointed out elsewhere that these are two distinct things and rules can be written about either without totally changing the other.

Nikodemus you seem to be more interested in guaranteeing A. I'm more interested in not restricting B. If you all want a rule that guarantees fair trading I'd be happy to write a proposal but I'd prefer to leave renaming out of it. If, however, you're all so dead set on totally restricting renaming and tying that to fair trading then I'm not wasting my time helping to write that rule.

Donsig make it two separate proposals then. If fairness is guaranteed then I don't think most players care how things are renamed.

Speaking as myself and not the doughnut rep...

To those who are hung up on renaming a warrior as Steam Power or somesuch, you can never trade something which wouldn't normally be tradeable. Warriors cannot be traded... :p

I would like to point out something which a lot of people seem to have totally overlooked. Renaming is currently allowed by the rules, as long as you don't use the name of something else which is tradeable, in conjunction with a trade!

snipped info on trading cities, just realized that MP is a push mechanism not pull, so one team can offer the other team a city the other team hasn't seen yet

It comes down to this, just causing confusion by itself is not prohibited and should not be. The current rule already does an adequate job of preventing unfair trading practices, at least at the level of misuse of the game interface. There is nothing to prevent one team from stabbing another in the back, and this is also how it should be -- however there is also nothing to prevent Team B from telling Team C that Team A is untrustworthy, whether that statement is true or false. Deception is part of the game, that is why human vs human is so much more interesting than human vs computer. :D

Donsig make it two separate proposals then. If fairness is guaranteed then I don't think most players care how things are renamed.

If most players don't care how things are renamed then we don't need two proposals. All we need to do is rewrite 2.4 so that fair trades are guaranteed without restricting renaming.

I would like to point out something which a lot of people seem to have totally overlooked. Renaming is currently allowed by the rules, as long as you don't use the name of something else which is tradeable, in conjunction with a trade!

True, BUT 2.4 also allows for one team to cry *FOUL* if something is renamed and someone just happens to get :confused: (or claims to be :confused: so as to use the cry of *FOUL* to pass info from one team to another via our unwitting admins). This has already happened which is why we're having this silly discussion in the first place.

Rule 2.4 is badly written and should be fixed ASAP.

It comes down to this, just causing confusion by itself is not prohibited and should not be.

You are wrong DaveShack. Rule 2.4 as currently written broadly prohibits confusing other teams and not just pertaining to trades. We've seen it invoked already over the F11 screen which has nothing whatsoever to do with trades. I agree that confusion shouldn't be prohibited but as the rules stand now it is prohibited. The sixty-four dollar question is how much :confused: do we want to allow in this game? It sounds as though we want to do away with any hanky-panky in trades and peace treaties. How about gifts? How much confusion are we allowed to generate outside the scope of these in-game methods of passing things between civs? Will we be able to publish aerial views of our cities? They show what improvements are in a city. Are we supposed to keep that sort of thing confidential because It isn't a normal in-game feature? The rules are about what we can and can't do. Are we to assume that if you can't do it in single player civ you can't do it here?

This is directed to the gamer Donsig, not the person behind ;)
True, BUT 2.4 also allows for one team to cry *FOUL* if something is renamed and someone just happens to get (or claims to be so as to use the cry of *FOUL* to pass info from one team to another via our unwitting admins). This has already happened which is why we're having this silly discussion in the first place.
Nice try Donsig, but it won't work :nono:. Besides, the real Idiots of KISS are not posting. We keep them busy singing and playing in our clubhouse. The ones that you could have had banned for posting a very colourful and profane reply to this neverending whining about "trickery" are just p.r.e.t.e.n.d.i.n.g. to be Idiots.

Stop trying to miscredit KISS. Ask admins for the facts on that *FOUL*-matter if that would stop your whining. One of your team members got a sincere and honest explanation from me personally, ask him/her, or it was just a waste of time writing it. If you keep trying to provoke others by throwing insults we will quickly adapt.
I also wonder why this persistant nagging is showing up at all. If it were true that we used the admins to pass info. to others, one could say we're just having fun by our own mesaures and enjoying the flexibility within the rule set and that is what you and other experienced pbem-players would like us SG'ers to do by the looks of some posts.

Please bear with me but I'm old and confused . I start nodding off when I read all these paragraphs. Maybe an executive summary with some examples would help.

What exactly is being suggested? Can I get an example for renaming and trading that would be construed as fair trickery vs. unfair?

2.4 - Fair trades and peace treaties; unit transparency

Description: No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent what is offered in trades or peace treaties. No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent unit types.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using the renaming 'feature' to name a city after a tech or sum of gold is a violation of this rule. Using the renaming 'feature' to name a unit after another type of unit is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

Above is a first draft of a new proposal for for rule 2.4. It needs work but I just threw it together quickly using the existing frame work.

@ Whomp: I don't think examples of renaming combined with fair trickery are useful - for one thing I doubt the situation would ever come up. Rule 2.4 tries to ensure that when a team clicks *accept* and agrees to a trade on the trade screen the team knows exactly what they are accepting. As pointed out 2.4 does just that but (as also pointed out) it has also been construed so as to place unreasonable limits on city naming and renaming.

@ Daghdha: You miss the point of my post entirely. I'm not trying to miscredit K.I.S.S. My dig was not so much at the attemp to pass info via a cry of FOUL but at the *unwitting admins* who actually facilitated the transfer of said info despite my team's pleas not to do so. Perhaps you should get all the facts from the admins. The *nagging* persists because the rule that allowed this metagaming is still in place. Once the rule is gone said *nagging* will like wise disappear.

@ everyone: How about some feedback on the new rule proposal? The one flaw I see is that I'm not quite sure how to legislate the trick of swapping city names in order to make an unfair trade. I'm still inclined to use a mechanism with a reviewable and enforceable outside the game contract. We could rewrite 2.4 to deal solely with the naming and renaming of units and write 2.41 to deal with fair trades and peace treaties. There are many trading possibilities that exist between humans that don't exist between humans and AI - and these are not addressed in the rules as far as I know. One example is Team A could pay to investigate a city belonging to Team B and take a screenshot. When playing against the AI that's the end of it. But in PBEM Team A could then sell the information gathered to Team C. Now there's no way to do that in game. But Team A can send a screenie to Team C and Team C can give gold or whatever in-game. Is this sort of thing against the spirit of the game? What about when war comes and two or more teams ally? Humans can cooperate in many more ways than the AI can. Are the ways we deal with our allies to be restricted to only what is possible within the game? If we have info that would help our ally are we to withhold it from them because we can't transmit it in game? Are these *trades* that fall under rule 2.4?

yes, we cannot have rules where feigned indignation, like "fallen" soccer stars give pay-off-

Is this discussion still going on???? I thought that the ammendment got shot down 3-1. Is this going to be like the European constitution where someone said "We'll give putting it to a vote until it passes"?

I unsubscribed to this thread ages ago back when the discussion got boring and monotonous.

yes, we cannot have rules where feigned indignation, like "fallen" soccer stars give pay-off- Then I suggest the soccer stars stops filming. This one post, which you may interpret as feigned indignation, came out of frustration. Frustration because you (meaning team TNT) still keeps going on about the alledged attempt at sneaking out info. in an incorrect way, and doing so despite the fact that admins easily, by checking our forum, can confirm that no such thing was planned in any way. This one post is to be compared to the numerous posts by TNT, almost from day one, that has screamed of feigned indignation bordering on paranoia. Please don't make me look them all up!
What other facts that I perhaps should get are you reffering to Donsig? The fact that you asked admins. not to post doesn't change anything in my critique now does it. I do see your point in the post and that the main thing was not to sling mud in our direction, but nonetheless you deliberately did and it's spelled out in the qoute. That was where my dig was at and I still think you're approach is confusing. First you rage about our "clever trick", then you hold the opinion that everything that is not explicitly forbidden should be allowed and then you finally state that the rule has to be changed because what we did was by all means within it..? This lacks basic coherence.

About your rule propousal I, personally, think it's ok and has not much interest in elaborating further. If the spirit of the game cannot be decided upon (I agree that that is a hard task, albeit not impossible) then we will have to live with a rule set that is as long as a lying lawyer's tounge is black and trade treaties that span X number of pages. I also think that your examples of trades that are possible btw humans are prefectly allright, but then again you will have to draw up a much more detailed rule so as to cover possible trickery regarding all those kinds of deals. We could, for example, guarantee that our TNT ambassador will see to it that you get steam power next turn but later claim that what we called "TNT ambassador" was in fact my cat and that she, sadly enough, has failed in doing her duties. Ridicoulus indeed, but perfectly doable if we don't cover that move in the rules.
Conclusion: I think you did wrong by making an example out of a situation that, I believed, was sorted out once and for all. I have no objections to your new rule propousal. I believe that this discussion, and the following rule, could become silly beyond comprehension.

:crazyeye:

I think we can clearly make some strict rule on in-game contracts, that is fair to me, as long as we keep it liberal on the city renaming.

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. First of all we could use a clear cut definition of "in-game"- and "out-game"-contracts. Until now my definition of an in-game contract was that it was, well....in-game, and thus regulated by the game mechanics. No need for man made rules there. But that seems to be a poor definition so lets state a new one. Without it I can't see how the rule could ever be strict.

Siden note: Just for the record, 18 and still counting, here's the last one: We are certainly not seeing teams asking admins for a conveniently timed complaint on a non-described or ill-defined "Spirit" violation.

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. First of all we could use a clear cut definition of "in-game"- and "out-game"-contracts. Until now my definition of an in-game contract was that it was, well....in-game, and thus regulated by the game mechanics. No need for man made rules there. But that seems to be a poor definition so lets state a new one. Without it I can't see how the rule could ever be strict.

*In-game* means within the Civ (Conquests) game itself. Yes, it is regulated by game mechanics. Rule 2.4 is part of a larger section of the rules that prohibits exploits. We all agree that there are some *in-game* things - things that are part of the game mechanics - that we shouldn't be doing. (Things like using *go to* to move units farther than they are supposed to be able to move, etc.) I think we all agree on the definition of *in-game*. We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit.

*Out-of-game* stuff really isn't covered all that much in the ruleset. We are a very imaginative group of Civ Fanatics playing this game and I'm sure we'll come up with lots of ideas of things we can do outside of the actual *in-game* mechanics. I gave one example earlier of *selling* a city screenshot to another team. This can't be done *in-game* but could have it's uses in our multiplayer demogame. This rule discussion is a good time to lay some ground rules for this sort of thing - we might save a lot of bickering down the road.

*Out-of-game* contracts would simply be an agreement between two or more teams written in plain English. Such agreements would be enforceable by the game admins. If a team feels they got stiffed in a trade they could tell the admins who could then review the *out-of-game* contract to see if all parties lived up to the agreement. If one team renigged then the admins could take appropriate action to remedy the situation. (And all this could be done without restricting renaming in any way.)

Can we agree that *in-game* refers to Conquests game mechanics (which do need man made rules to govern the use of exploits) and that *out-of-game* refers to things teams can do outside of Conquests game mechanics but within the framework of the multiplayer demogame? If we can agree on these definitions then what's the next step we need to take? Deciding if renaming is an exploit?

I think the next step would be to ponder the question about whether an action can be demed illegal based solely on topography and, thus, out of the context of function. This is basically a philosphical question stemming from Kant's view on the "moral imperative". As you might have guessed I don't share the old farts opinion on that, i.e. "We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit" in my view is an unsolvable problem for as long as we cannot agree on ackowledging the role of context.

"We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit" in my view is an unsolvable problem for as long as we cannot agree on ackowledging the role of context.

On the contrary, we have an agreement on the role of context.


0.0.1 - Definitions

Intent: Many of the below rulings are based on the intent of a team or individual. Intent is determined by the Game Staff and is only decided after investigation.


So, let's make this clear

The admins are impartial
The admins have visibility to everything which occurs within the forum
The admins have already conclueded, for specific past incidents, that there was no intent to cheat / break the rules / act in an unfair manner
For any future incidents, the admins will use intent as a contributing factor in analyzing the incident and deciding what, if anything, should be done.


The past is past. The rule is clear -- renaming with intent to obtain an advantage within the in-game interface is forbidden. If there is no intent, then there is no infraction.

Now, does this discussion really need to continue?

Yes, it does have to continue DaveShack, if only for you to enlighten my poor feeble mind. Please answer this: is it then ok to rename something and get an advantage within the in-game interface just as long as there was no intent to gain said advantage?

Thanks Dave for bringing up the 0.0.1. , I missed that one. The role of context is noted there obviously, but maybe we don't have an agreement about how it should be applied? The post following yours point in that direction. And besides, how much easier is it for admins to decide the "intention" of an action compared to decide whether it was "in the spirit of the game"?

Gentlemen, I appreciate your efforts to shape the rule set in a way that is non-arbitrary, clear cut, intelligible and covers the lot. I've decided I have not more to contribute (I believe you all garee on that ;) ) and bid farwell. As a friendly gift I offer this recycled propousal originally posted by Ginger Ale: One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy. This might be considered a heavily restriction on the building of "team culture", but not by K.I.S.S. it isn't. The Celtic culture is based on another foundation than renaming we'll come back to that later.
Oh, and have you heard what actually happend? The Russians, when faced by a stack of German tanks, changed the sign posts from "Stalingrad" to "Rimini". That's why the Germans took off thier clothes and froze to death. Maybe we should allow renaming with intent to trick opponents anyway? Just to make the game more like real human vs. human interaction.

Yes, it does have to continue DaveShack, if only for you to enlighten my poor feeble mind. Please answer this: is it then ok to rename something and get an advantage within the in-game interface just as long as there was no intent to gain said advantage?

I left off a word, it should be unfair advantage.

The unfair advantage examples are pretty darn obvious and relate mostly to trading, such as renaming a city the same as a technology, tradeable resource, or gold, or switching names of cities around prior to a trade involving them.

AFAIK we also have an explicit rule requiring renaming units with a name which includes the actual unit type, to prevent disguising units of different types in stacks.

To answer the question about unintended advantage (notice I leave unfair off here) it's hard for me to think of an example which is not intended to gain an advantage but actually does. I think getting faked out in such a way, if it is even possible, would be a statement on survival of the fittest.

As to an unintended unfair advantage, I don't think this combination is possible. If we follow the standard precept that not knowing the rule is not an excuse, therefore everyone is assumed to know the rule, it seems painfully obvious to me that it is impossible to do one of the things which is unfair (and thus forbidden) unknowingly and therefore without intent.

Oh, and have you heard what actually happend? The Russians, when faced by a stack of German tanks, changed the sign posts from "Stalingrad" to "Rimini". That's why the Germans took off thier clothes and froze to death. Maybe we should allow renaming with intent to trick opponents anyway? Just to make the game more like real human vs. human interaction.

That's what was proposed and voted down. If your proposal is serious we can put the proposal up for a team vote again.

AFAIK we also have an explicit rule requiring renaming units with a name which includes the actual unit type, to prevent disguising units of different types in stacks.

Is it really possible to disguise a unit? When I look at a stack in single player games I see not only the unit type but the attack/defend/movement numbers as well. It seems to me that if I renamed a tank 'warrior' the tank's numbers would still be there. Is multiplayer / PBEM different?

As to an unintended unfair advantage, I don't think this combination is possible. If we follow the standard precept that not knowing the rule is not an excuse, therefore everyone is assumed to know the rule, it seems painfully obvious to me that it is impossible to do one of the things which is unfair (and thus forbidden) unknowingly and therefore without intent.

Agreed, ignorance of the rule is no excuse. But how about ignorance of the unfair advantage? The rule as written leaves this as a plausible defense. Basing a rule on intent is folly. If an action gives an unfair advantage it should be against the rules irregardless of the intent behind the action.

Basing a rule on intent is folly Thanks for stating it so firm and clear. This position is what post #75 was all about. "The contex of function" is a matter of intent and without it we would not see the difference between manslaughter and murder. Kant would have said that killing is wrong no matter what , that it's imperative not to kill. My law book is stuffed with that, and I wouldn't, without hesitation, call it "folly".
Sorry for not being able to keep out of this discussion. I'll give it a nother try...:crazyeye:

"The contex of function" is a matter of intent and without it we would not see the difference between manslaughter and murder. Kant would have said that killing is wrong no matter what , that it's imperative not to kill.

It's too bad you're not part of this discussion any more. I'd really like to know if we agree on this or not. I'm with Kant on this one and I'd have to say, so is the law. Whether it is murder or manslaughter they are both illegal. There's also negligent homicide. Isn't that where someone kills someone else without intending to? Still illegal.

0.0.1 - Definitions

Intent: Many of the below rulings are based on the intent of a team or individual. Intent is determined by the Game Staff and is only decided after investigation.


DaveShack, this refers to the next section in the rules which is about punishment for breaking the rules. Yes, it's appropriate to take intent into consideration when deciding upon punishment. That's why the law recognizes so many variations from negligent homicide to murder one. But behind every variant lies the imperative not to kill.

Translating this over to our game and ruleset we're trying to write rules with the imperative that no person or team is allowed an unfair advantage. The current rule (2.4) does this. Unfortunately it also allows teams to invoke the rule in a way that gives them an unfair advantage (whether intended or not). This should be changed.

I have made a specific proposal for a rule change. No one has suggested any modifications to it so I now ask that this proposal be put to a team vote:

2.4 - Fair trades and peace treaties; unit transparency

Description: No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent what is offered in trades or peace treaties. No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent unit types.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using the renaming 'feature' to name a city after a tech or sum of gold is a violation of this rule. Using the renaming 'feature' to name a unit after another type of unit is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

Ahhw, bummer :D. We cannot in a meaningful way separate the verdict from the punishment. The verdict is not sensitive to intent, but the punishment is indeed. The value of the rule is related to the magnitude of the punishment. The lesser the punishment, the less valuable the rule. What I mean is the law and the consequenses that follows breaking it is inseparable, thus, the law/punishment deal with intent. If we said that the punishment for breaking the rule was that the team had to post "sorry", then we wouldn't care that much about how the rule was stated. If the punishment was immediate exclusion from MTDG it would be very interesting how the rule was formulated.
Kant doesn't deal with intent because he thought it was irrelevant. The law book does.
Don't know if i contribute or just bug :lol: .

Link to the amendment thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=131404). Please keep that thread clear of discussion and continue to debate the amendment here.

comment withdrawn, I was on page 2 of the thread and not page 3, and overlooked that the comment quoted was very old. apologies to anyone who saw what was in this post momentarily.