Ruleset Discussion

[ruff_hi]

Originally Posted by r_rolo1

Well, technically you posted them so I can do that Do you prefer "aggregated by ruff" to be more formal ?

that is acceptable.

Spoiler:

Where is the belly laughing smilie?

[Bowsling]

Representing Team CFC and acknowledging the 72 hour deadline, here is the Team CFC official position on the current ruleset:

We agree to the current ruleset, as compiled by ruff from several rule suggestions (thanks ruff), with the exception of the "shuffle" rules (aka 3c, 3d, and 3e) that we wish to remove/replace. The alternatives we suggest for the rules we wish to remove are (pick one):

1. Remove the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) and ask the mapmaker to give every Civ Oil in their Capital, or;

2. Remove the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) and replace them with a single rule clause that simply states "You cannot fully restore a resource improvement the same turn it's been destroyed", or;

3. As a last resort, if these the rules (3c, 3d, 3e) are voted through we ask for this added clause (to effect all the rules as they are written now): "A Team may only ask for a turn order shuffle after first being deprived of a strategic resource for 5 consecutive turns via the second half timer advantage."

[mzprox]

Apolyton has no objection to the current proposed ruleset, we are eager to start the game.

personal note: I think we are talking about a situation which has an extrmely low chance to occur, and even if it does I don't think teams would give up complete turns just to shuffle turn order.
IMO: asking to switch turn order to move in the second half of the turn is ok ONLY if you are deprived a strategic resource which could you secure otherwise AND you pay the price by allowing the other team one double move. There should not be any other reason to manipulate turn order.

also what about we just delay the decision on this rule and start the game? we won't have oil based warfare until a year or so.

[2metraninja]

IMO: asking to switch turn order to move in the second half of the turn is ok ONLY if you are deprived a strategic resource which could you secure otherwise AND you pay the price by allowing the other team one double move. There should not be any other reason to manipulate turn order.

Absolutely agree!

Maybe Apolyton supports the rule:

"A Team may only ask for a turn order shuffle after first being deprived of a strategic resource for 5 consecutive turns via the second half timer advantage."

[mzprox]

again, this is just personal opinion: I don't agree making the condition to 5 consecutive turns. 4 turns w/o resource then allowing 1 turn is just as bad. As a compomise 2 consecutive turns should be enough to call the rule. I'm quite sure we wouldn't see a single turn swapping request anyway, but we would have this rule just in case.

[Magno_uy]

Spanish apoly also agree with this rules sets and that rolo take the last word on those itmes not resolved

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I was directed here to post my concerns. The ruleset may be great or flawed in various and sundry ways, but I have mostly ignored the setup discussion to this point because it has been too long, too heated, and often too mundane for me to take interest. But this particular provision struck me as uniquely problematic:

f. Game Rules - Rules can be changed by 2/3 majority of teams with admin consent or by 100% majority of teams (regardless of admin consent) or by admin ruling.

Any scenario where less than a unanimous consent of teams can change the game rules is rife with far too many possibilities for manipulation. Even with the caveat that the game admin has final authority, there are too many scenarios where greater than 2/3s of the teams are aligned in a coalition and thus gain free reign to manipulate the rule set in ways that favor their side of the coalition. It is simply human nature that the teams will not be able to vote objectively on rule changes which would affect their own status in the game. I believe the only way the agreed rules should be changed is by a unanimous consent of all teams.

As for the ability of the admin to unilaterally modify the rule set, I have far less objection to that aspect. Everyone here seems to have great faith in r_rolo and I have no reason to doubt his ability to admin this game fairly. But speaking as someone who admin'd a large scale, closely followed Pitboss game, I think the provision is problematic because any decision made that negatively affects a team, even if made in the most objective manner possible, can still lead to charges of bias. And as soon as teams stop regarding the game admin as unbiased, it becomes increasingly difficult to admin and make decisions which are respected by all teams in the game.

If any exploit or gap in the rule set is truly gamebreaking, then all teams should be able to agree to fix it. But once the game starts, the difference between using the rules to one's advantage and exploiting the rules simply becomes a matter of perspective, and for that reason alone, leaving the rules in a state as malleable as the current provision allows is quite dangerous.

[Magno_uy]

Spanish forum think thats time to finnish discusion about rules, take this proposal and let Rolo_1 let define whats not yet defined and start the game this weekend...

go go go go!!!!

[Hercules90]

Quoted by Ruff_hi in post 347 rules update feedback discussion and subsequently in final Rule set proposal.

Quote:
Under section (05), subsection (e), what is voting? It is not explained or outlined elsewhere in the document, and as such the subsection is confusing.

Need to include rule outlining how vote decisions can be changed and how rules can be changed ... suggestion follows:

Quote:
05e. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes.

05f. Game Rules - Rules can be changed by 2/3 majority of teams with admin consent or by 100% majority of teams (regardless of admin consent) or by admin ruling.

Note 05f becomes 05g Game Reloads.

Speaking personally, I don't think this issue should stall the starting of the game. But Gold_Ergo_Sum makes a reasonable point.

The orginial combined rules proposal for discussion posted by Ruff_hi,(post 329) suggested rule change only by unanimous vote and Admin consent, then this suggestion was put forward for section 5 Admin.

I can't find the post re 5f quoted above by Ruff_hi (post 347), but it seems to take note of comments in posts, 55, 146, and 318.

Most attention was focused on point 3c and war rules that this change to admin section 5 passed relatively unnoticed.

First observation: it should refer to 'remaining' civs in the game as opposed to all civs starting the game. (There is a difference, for example where one civ team passes all control to another civ - is that 2 teams or 1 team?)

Secondly, voting should be explictedly be defined as 1 vote per 'remaining' civ still in the game.

Thirdly a successful 5f vote could actually lead to changing rule 5e.

Lastly, I did not see a lot of teams (as opposed to posters) arguing against unanimous voting with regard to rule change mechanism.

So apart from this possibly unresolved change mechanism, congratulations on drawing the rule set together.

[Magno_uy]

[ruff_hi]

Originally Posted by Hercules90

Speaking personally, I don't think this issue should stall the starting of the game. But Gold_Ergo_Sum makes a reasonable point.

The orginial combined rules proposal for discussion posted by Ruff_hi,(post 329) suggested rule change only by unanimous vote and Admin consent, then this suggestion was put forward for section 5 Admin.

I can't find the post re 5f quoted above by Ruff_hi (post 347), but it seems to take note of comments in posts, 55, 146, and 318.

First observation: it should refer to 'remaining' civs in the game as opposed to all civs starting the game. (There is a difference, for example where one civ team passes all control to another civ - is that 2 teams or 1 team?)

Secondly, voting should be explictedly be defined as 1 vote per 'remaining' civ still in the game.

Thirdly a successful 5f vote could actually lead to changing rule 5e.

Lastly, I did not see a lot of teams (as opposed to posters) arguing against unanimous voting with regard to rule change mechanism.

So apart from this possibly unresolved change mechanism, congratulations on drawing the rule set together.

GES and Herc - good posts and points.

Section 5 updated (only showing altered sections) ...

05 - Administration
e. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes. This rule cannot be changed by 05f.

f. Game Rules - Rules (with the exception of 05e) can only be changed by unanimous decision of all remaining teams in the game (1 vote per team) or by admin ruling.

Spoiler for My nic is Ruff and I endorse this message:

Please Note: This post is posted while wearing my official 'RB Rule Discussion' hat. The views, opinions and comments expressed in this post represent my views while wearing said hat. I am not authorized to bind RB to any decision, conclusion, concession or agreement that I might endorse while acting in this particular role. I am authorized to push forward the rule discussion.

[ruff_hi]

Originally Posted by r_rolo1

Moderator Action: So, I give 72h from this moment to end the discussions on the ruleset.

Jul 02, 2012, 02:26 PM to Jul 05, 2012, 02:55 PM is 72.5h ... yay - rule set discussion ends ...

[2metraninja]

Now we wait for the Admin to presents us the rule-set and we are ready.

Going to PM all the team captains and the host that the game is starting shortly!

[r_rolo1]

Moderator Action: Ok, for all that matters and until I or the teams decide otherwise, this is the ruleset ( preamble omitted for brevity ):

01. Rule Infringing
a. Infringing on the rules is not allowed.

b. When an allegation of rule infringement has been leveled at one or more teams by one or more teams, the game will be paused.

c. Each side of the alleged rule infringement will appoint a spokesperson. 'Prosecutor' for the alleging team or teams, 'Defender' for the alleged rule infringer.

c. Evidence of alleged rule infringement will be collected and forwarded to the Game Admin together with any accompanying explanatory text by the Prosecutor.

d. The Game Admin will forward this information to the Defender and ask for feedback.

e. Upon receiving feedback (or after a reasonable amount of time at the Game Admin's discretion), the Game Admin will rule on the alleged infringement, determine the penalty (if any), the resolution (if any) and those determinations will be acted upon.

f. The Game Admin should start a thread that communicates allegations of rule infringements, parties involved, rule(s) allegedly infringed, evidence of infringement (providing proprietary information is not disclosed) and Game Admin ruling.

g. All rulings under this rule by the Game Admin are final.


02. In Game Actions
a. The following in-game action rules apply at all times.

b. Suicide Training - Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is not allowed.

c. City Gifting - Conquest, culture flip, UN resolution, and AP resolution are the only permitted methods of city transfer.

d. Unit Gifting, Unlock Building - Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for the Heroic Epic is not allowed. Gifting a unit with experience that would remove the unit experience restriction for West Point is not allowed.

e. Unit Gifting, war ally support - A team can only gift units to a war ally during the war ally's portion of the turn.

f. Bugs and Exploits - The use of any bug or exploit is not allowed. The decision about exactly what constitutes a bug or exploit rests solely with the admin. Consult with the admin if any action you are considering may be a bug or exploit.

g. In-Game Pausing - Any Team may pause the game. Any team encountering a paused game should consult the CFC based turn-tracker thread. If a team has not requested a pause in that thread, the game may be unpaused.

h. Abusing Pauses - No team should abuse the game pause rule.


03. In Game Actions (war edition)
a. Civilizations that are at war must observe turn order. Turn order is automatically fixed by the APT Mod on the first turn of war.

b. Teams must also observe turn order on the turn immediately prior to the first turn of War.

b1. Declarer Desires First Half Example: If the declarer desires to move first during the war phase turns, they must move before their 'target' in the turn preceding their war declaration.

b2. Declarer Desires Second Half Example: If the declarer desires to move second during the war phase turns, they must move after their 'target' in the war declaration turn.

c. Turn Order Shuffle to later slot - All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to a later slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for a later position goes to the team that is currently earlier in the turn. The team moving ‘down’ the order acknowledges that they are giving the team moving ‘up’ a double move against them.

d. Turn Order Shuffle to earlier slot – All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to an earlier slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for an earlier position goes to the team that is currently later in the turn.

e. Turn Order Appeals – A team can appeal to the Game Admin that the shuffle order is unfair and that the Game Admin can adjust the shuffle order at his discretion.

f. Joining an existing war - Teams will exercise care so as to avoid any double move when joining an ally in an existing war.

g. Care should be exercised on the war declaration turn so that the mod can correctly assign war turn order. This means that teams should not leave the game without finishing the turn on the turn that they declare war or the team being declared on should not enter the game until the declarer has finished their turn.

h. Teams can't declare war on a team that is currently online. Teams cannot permanently stay online just to avoid being declared on.


04. Out of Game Actions
a. Team Espionage - All external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams are not allowed.
Non-exhaustive list of example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads.

b. Game / Pitboss / Save Manipulation or Disruption - Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Intentionally disrupting access to the Pitboss host server is not allowed. Intentionally opening Diplomacy screens and then pausing, intending to lock teams out of playing their turn is not allowed.

c. Pre In-Game Contact - Teams making diplomatic contact before they have met in-game is not allowed. Non-exhaustive list of example: meeting privately to discuss in-game actions, game-related deals, in-game agreements, etc.). Note that teams meeting to discuss rules, ramifications of the impact of votes or rules are allowed.

d. Sharing of Map Images – Map images / screenshots cannot be shared outside of the game until it is possible to share maps in-game.

e. Game Pause Requests - Any team may request a pause by posting in the CFC turn-tracker thread. The purpose of the pause must be included in the pause request.

f. Abusing Pause Requests - No team should abuse the Game Pause Requests rule.


05 - Administration
a. Game Administrator - r_rolo1 has sole authority as game administrator. Replacement of the game administrator must be agreed to by all teams.

b. Victory - The winner of the game is the first team recognized as winner by in-game victory dialog.

c. Defeated Teams - Player on teams that are eliminated are permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team.

e. Game Setup Votes - Items determined during the voting phase of the game cannot be changed by rules or subsequent team votes. This rule cannot be changed by 05f.

f. Game Rules - Rules (with the exception of 05e) can only be changed by unanimous decision of all remaining teams in the game (1 vote per team) or by admin ruling.

g. Game Reloads - All game reloads will trigger an automatic game pause (game admin will post such in game pause thread) for a minimum of 24 hours or until each team that logged in to the game after the reload point has stated in the game pause thread that they are ready to continue.

Basically, the ruleset proposed by ruff with the change he suggested today.

I'll just wait for Sommerswerd to post it in the final ruleset/settings thread ( just to make sure he knows about it ... I could obviously edit it in his pre-prepared post ) and for everyone being ready to go ... I would like to see this puppy start this weekend too

[Sommerswerd]

Done.

[fluffyflyingpig]

Wait a second guys. Just a week ago we all agreed letting teams moving second request a double move every 3rd turn was a terrible idea. No one actually ever advocated letting people move up in turn order to double move someone. Yet somehow no one objected and we let rule 3d make it into the ruleset. Can we all quickly agree letting anyone request a doublemove during wartime is a really bad idea and delete rule 3d?

3 d. Turn Order Shuffle to earlier slot – All teams at war have the right to request an order shuffle to an earlier slot providing at least 3 turns have elapsed since the declaration of war or the last order shuffle. If order requests conflict, the priority for an earlier position goes to the team that is currently later in the turn.

Unless I am missing how this could be implemented without a doublemove...

[2metraninja]

Can we all quickly agree letting anyone request a doublemove during wartime is a really bad idea and delete rule 3d?

Agree. Lets hope The Admin sees the common sense and removes this from the final ruleset.

[plako]

Should I put the map forward i.e. is this game ready to start or do we need to wait something.

[2metraninja]

I think nothing map-related is left to be done. Maybe the civ order? Was it randomized?

[plako]

Originally Posted by 2metraninja

I think nothing map-related is left to be done. Maybe the civ order? Was it randomized?

r_rolo did randomize starting positions long time ago.