It is after midnight and this is probably nuts, but I have a possible partial compromise (or at least partial point of agreement) with Keath. I haven't changed my opposition to reloading, but after further thought I'm wondering if it may not be a good idea to consider opening a thread and/or even a secondary competition for "Non-1st Attempt Games."
Here is the case: One thing that consistently gives me pause about the xOTM competitions is how easy it is for players to fudge the rules by pre-veiwing (or even "dry-running") the games on computers other than their own. Long time players of the xOTM will remember at least several times in the past when it has become obvious even from posts in the pre-game threads that some players have probably fudged the bit in the rules about "
You may not reload the game from any previous save file or an autosave file, including the Start file, in order to replay and change any events that occur in the game. Reloading gives you an artificial knowledge of future events..." (
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/games/1st_visit.php#rules). The fact is that peaking into the game on a public computer or some other untraceable platform is easy to do, and sometimes the xOTM awards get uncomfortably close to looking more like "best possible game" awards than "best played games under conditions of uncertainty" awards. Of course, when pre-game posters reveal knowledge about map characteristics that should be unknowable to anyone playing by the rules it is a dead giveaway of something going wrong on this point, but maybe there is a better way to deal with this kind of thing.
For one thing, I think many players are curious about and find it interesting to know what the "best possible" way to play a game is. Okay, Civ is not Chess -- let's get that absolutely straight. There have been a lot of inappropriate comparisons between the two games thrown around these boards lately. Simply put, Chess is "bounded," or "logically perfect," in a way that Civ is not and never can be. One simply cannot know what the "correct" move in Civ "should have been" in the same way that one can know it (or "approach it") in chess. The "correct" move in Civ (as in Chess) is the one that wins... but winning Civ battles depends on probabilities in ways that NEVER apply to ANY battle in Chess... not even a tiny little bit. Still, Civ players, I think, would like to know what the fastest possible conquest or space race victory on a given map would be. Put that together with the lure of winning an award and, presto, you have the temptation in place to lure players into "peeking" into maps and/or replaying starting saves on different computers in order to get "more perfect" results.
Although I confess to being somewhat put out by these kinds of submissions, I don't actually hate them. The fact is that it IS interesting to know how the "perfect" (or "more perfect") game might be played on a given map. Still, I am also very much interested in the "romantic" style of competition that comes with a first-time experience of any given map -- the kind of competition that the xOTM is actually advertised to be. (And at least partially the kind of competition that I think Keath is longing for too.) Many, if not most of best xOTM players do appear to live by these rules and make the xOTM the experience it was intended to be. The surprising thing is that most months it actually does seem to work out as advertised. But wouldn't it be better to honor both kinds of endeavors with separate sets of awards?
Why not have two sets of awards, one for "first-time" games and one that honors an infinite number of starting save reloads? (Still no reloads in the middle of the game though.) Participation might be increased by encouraging players to submit games in the "Non-1st-Attempt Game" category even after their first (second, or third) gamble went wrong without damaging the "1st-Time" competitive results. In fact, the xOTM awards might be cleaner for giving "replay" players a way to show their solutions without contaminating the "1st-Timer" competition results. Perhaps creative names could be dreamed up for each category, like "Classic xOTM" and "Reflective xOTM" (or "Analytic xOTM"). That way you could have both a "Classic Fastest Domination" and a "Reflective/Analytic Fastest Domination" award. By providing both types of games with awards and asking players who have had any kind of pre-knowlege of the map to restrict their submissions to the "Reflective/Analytic" category it might both keep the "Classic" submission category cleaner and at the same time encourage more total submissions and overall participation. In fact, players could even submit a game in each category if they wanted -- which would increase the overall number of submissions significantly right away. It also would continue to help new players break the "reload habit" by not allowing any reloads except the repeated "starting save" reloads. Midgame reloads would still be Taboo and, more importantly, would be consistently enforceable through checking via the HOF mod. Participation in the spoilers might also be enhanced by opening a "Reflective/Analytic" thread for players to comment about replayed games and alternative strategies that could be attempted again and again to fully explore the possibilities of interesting games and situations. In fact, I can recall several times when excellent players have already asked for such a thread to be opened for discussions like this in past xOTMs. Surely that kind of high quality discussion would be good for the community as a whole too?
Okay, maybe it is a crazy idea... but if Keath can get away with raising all kinds of wild-eyed ideas here then I guess I should be able to go a little nuts too.
Time for bed...
)
Maybe there is a better way to have Adventurers play the same game save if that is desirable. 
but there are some parallels - both are turn based and equal thinking time is one key to a fair competition. Time constraints could be the best handicap for tougher competition. 
hi Alan 
what do you think of an Ironman category and an Open category with or without time constraints?
It would be interesting to compare the game clocks between fast and slow computers.
