ISDG ~ Ruleset

If the teams are to rotate between here and Civforum (ie: CFC team, Civforum team, CFC, Civforum), the presaves require the previous team being prepared to pass one on, then if CFC teams aren't prepared to make presaves and don't want them then it effectively kills presaves.
 
You can use you your fantasy, too. You can also use a "Sandkasten". I myself am used to use html-tables.



Cause this is fun. :)
I like to think myself and don't let the computer do the funny part.

You are too much fond of your own way to see things. Other peoples opinions should also count.

@Cyc: Don't leave, sir. :salute: Just lean back until the game starts and let's have some fun then.

I am going to try to speed up things on civforum.

Interestingly Lenina, one of the civforum mods, also finds that their members are not very willing to come to a compromise.

And I myself stated several times, that neither pre-saves nor CAII should be points of that much discussion.

I do not really care for both of them. Use them, use them not. Whatever...
 
One of the main differences I see in a CFC MTDG and a CivForum MTDG is that the Player of the saves is using a saves that has been opened many times, according to recent posts. And this is a Multi-Team DG, just as much as an ISDG.

Standard Operating Procedure for CFC MTDG is the save is sent to an email account (a secure location). This secure location may be accessed by all team members, just as the save is accessible to all team members. There is no need to constantly open (or reload) the save, as CivForum players do. If someone wants a screenshot, they download the save and make it themselves. If the Foreign minister needs to check on situations, that can also be done. Trade screen? By all means, yes. It's all available to each individual team member by downloading the save. As long as everyone stays within the parameters set out by the rules, there will be no problem. When the player actually plays the save, a fresh copy of the emailed save is used. At least that's the way I'm accustomed to playing.

With CivForum, it seems the SOP is for the Player to download the save from the LemBot page, open it, then immediately save it as a presave (which means clicking on the little blue and orange flashing football-shaped thingy). This would end the turn and set up the screen for the next player to access. Then you would, of course, close this out and start over with the same save. So you've already started twice with the same save. This time, and apparently several others, would be used for screenshot requests, discussions, dinner breaks, going to bed, whatever. Constatnatly opening the same save until the last time you open it to officially play the turn. For me, this is way too much use of the official save. Officially playing the turn should be done with a fresh copy of the save. A fresh copy of the save (just in case you didn't get it the first time). This way no additional information can be lost by claiming excessive opening of the save. No mistaken moves can be done and forgotten on a prior opening. No excuses to put it bluntly.

I understand our two sites have different playing styles. We have different approaches for safegaurding the operational aspect of our games. I don't have a problem with differences, especially if they originate from different international cultures. As long as they are open and honest, and easily examined and justified.

So I would like to make a couple of points, if I have not already nailed these to the wall several times.

Repeatedly opening the same save for your administravtive purposes is not a good idea, if you are going to use that same save for officially playing the turn. You are asking for trouble if you don't use a fresh copy of the save each time. Especially if you use that save for making a "presave".

Because you use this method of repeatedly opening the save, a utility, such as CA2, can actually document the turn numbers and years for easy evaluation. It also allows for easy turn countdown of building projects and technologies. It also gives information disclosing the cause of any delay, interruption, or speeding up of a process being monitored. How do the two subjects converge? How are CA2 and your repeatedly opening the save to include a "presave" relate? There's one good example right there.

CA2 not only gives quick information totals to the user, but it also documents the year and turn number. These two things can change independantly of one another during the course of the game. Any number of things can happen with Civilization. It is full of idiosyncrasies, that can affect a game for good or bad.

By opening a save, closing the turn out to presave, then repeatedly re-opening the save, you are setting yourself up for these possible "strange things" to happen. By documenting every turn with a utility, your are decreasing the chance of the idiosyncracies going unnoticed and/or unrecorded.

I know, I've just made a post that is way too long. So, in closing, I realize we have different methods of plodding through a long game. I just want to reduce the possibility of things going wrong, intentionally or innocently.
 
Repeatedly opening the same save for your administravtive purposes is not a good idea, if you are going to use that same save for officially playing the turn. You are asking for trouble if you don't use a fresh copy of the save each time.

Why should this be a problem? It does not matter how often you open a save, does it?
This method has proven in years of dg-experience.

Because you use this method of repeatedly opening the save, a utility, such as CA2, can actually document the turn numbers and years for easy evaluation. It also allows for easy turn countdown of building projects and technologies. It also gives information disclosing the cause of any delay, interruption, or speeding up of a process being monitored. How do the two subjects converge? How are CA2 and your repeatedly opening the save to include a "presave" relate? There's one good example right there.

CA2 not only gives quick information totals to the user, but it also documents the year and turn number. These two things can change independantly of one another during the course of the game. Any number of things can happen with Civilization. It is full of idiosyncrasies, that can affect a game for good or bad.

By opening a save, closing the turn out to presave, then repeatedly re-opening the save, you are setting yourself up for these possible "strange things" to happen. By documenting every turn with a utility, your are decreasing the chance of the idiosyncracies going unnoticed and/or unrecorded.

I know, I've just made a post that is way too long. So, in closing, I realize we have different methods of plodding through a long game. I just want to reduce the possibility of things going wrong, intentionally or innocently.

I don't understand what you mean. can somebody translate it?
 
Cyc, we're honestly trying to understand what you want to say over at the civforum, but we are probably lacking some background knowledge to do so. Can you please rephrase what you said in a simpler way?

When the player actually plays the save, a fresh copy of the emailed save is used.
Okay, I understand how you are used to play, but I don't get the difference between

1. One player opens the save ten times to make screenshots and finally makes the turn with that save.
2. Nine players open a private copy of the save once to make screenshots, then another player opens another copy of the save to make the turn.
3. One player opens the save nine times to make screenshots, then opens a fresh copy of the save to make the turn.

Isn't the outcome of all of this the same?

With CivForum, it seems the SOP is for the Player to download the save from the LemBot page, open it,
No, anybody is allowed to download the save, open it and look at the details to their hearts' content, *but* only the "SOP" is allowed to do anny irrevocable moved in the save (unless that job has somehow been delegated to somebody else). It's the teams' duty to make sure that only one player does new irrevocable moves with the save at any time. Of course, after irrevocable actions have been documented in public, all other members of the team are allowed to repeat these irrevocable actions already played in exactly the same order.

then immediately save it as a presave (which means clicking on the little blue and orange flashing football-shaped thingy). This would end the turn and set up the screen for the next player to access. Then you would, of course, close this out and start over with the same save.
Well, in out last DG, we wouldn't have bothered about making presave unless the team that wants one specifically asked for one. But you got the basic procedure right.

This time, and apparently several others, would be used for screenshot requests, discussions, dinner breaks, going to bed, whatever.
Yes. As parts of the save analysis take a lot of time or is done by multiple players, it is often not possible to do everything in one run. For example, analysis of the F11 screen can be extremely time consuming.

Officially playing the turn should be done with a fresh copy of the save. A fresh copy of the save (just in case you didn't get it the first time). This way no additional information can be lost by claiming excessive opening of the save.
Are you suggesting that the save can be damaged by loading? :confused:

No mistaken moves can be done and forgotten on a prior opening. No excuses to put it bluntly.
Excuses for what? What do you mean with "mistaken moves" that could be forgotten?

Repeatedly opening the same save for your administravtive purposes is not a good idea, if you are going to use that same save for officially playing the turn. You are asking for trouble if you don't use a fresh copy of the save each time.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think so. :confused:

Because you use this method of repeatedly opening the save, a utility, such as CA2, can actually document the turn numbers and years for easy evaluation. It also allows for easy turn countdown of building projects and technologies.
Are you saying that loading a save multiple times breaks CivAssist II?

Any number of things can happen with Civilization. It is full of idiosyncrasies, that can affect a game for good or bad.
Are you saying a save can "break" because of loading?

By opening a save, closing the turn out to presave, then repeatedly re-opening the save, you are setting yourself up for these possible "strange things" to happen.
I've no idea what these "strange things" could be. :dunno:

By documenting every turn with a utility, your are decreasing the chance of the idiosyncracies going unnoticed and/or unrecorded.
You mean, if a save breaks, CivAssist II would help to detect that?

--

Please try to rephrase what you wrote to help us understand it (and do be blunt is that helps).
 
2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

This is something new I don´t understand. I think Contact Trading normally is allowed with Printing Press.
To my opinion, in MP it´s worthy NOT to trade contacts. For as long as my rivals do not contact, I may exclusively trade with both of them.
 
In Vanilla war Kontakte tauschen noch an Schrift gekoppelt. Hier hat es sich eingebürgert, diese Regel auch später noch zu nutzen. Ist wie beim Kartentausch mit Karthografie/Navigation.
 
Everybody away here?

I want to remind to what d7 has asked for. Still don't know what Cyc is talking about.
 
Cyc waits for the LemBot page. Is it taking Lemmings too long to re-program the bot to have the clock triggered only when a save is attached, and not just a text post? I understand how another site may have taken his webpage or something to that effect, but it takes 10 minutes to set another one up. I've notice that CivForum is busy-busy. We wait on you.

Don't forget it was justanick who wanted to put things off for a couple of weeks. I imagine CFC is just trying to accomodate him.
 
Cyc waits for the LemBot page. Is it taking Lemmings too long to re-program the bot to have the clock triggered only when a save is attached, and not just a text post? I understand how another site may have taken his webpage or something to that effect, but it takes 10 minutes to set another one up. I've notice that CivForum is busy-busy. We wait on you.

Don't forget it was justanick who wanted to put things off for a couple of weeks. I imagine CFC is just trying to accomodate him.

I don't know why you are talking of you in third person, but I don't wanna ask :D
But again you are talking about sending a Text post via the Turn Clock. Please tell me, why you think anyone will do this. The Clock is for uploading, hosting and posting Saves and for calculating the time for the teams. For nothing else. If there happens a mistake and someone upload a wrong file, then a referee have to correct the clock and the save have to change the team via ambassador or just in the forum. Do you think some "kids" gonna sabotage our game?

Our questions means we really don't understand your long post from sunday. D7 already revealed the possible misunderstandings.

What are you waiting for? For the clock eing online again. We too :D
We have to wait for Lemming giving us his (!) programm and have to install it on "our" server, so there are different people involved who aren't part of the small german civ3-community at the civforum.

What do you mean with your last passage? What do accomodate mean?
 
Sorry, i misspelled the word accommodate. Would you stil like me to define the word?

Sabotage has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You CivForum people are showing your paranoid side. I'm talking about dependability of the system. You boast about how great your LemBot is. About how it would trump the feeble email system we use. About how secure it is. Well, then show us! Prove to us how great your system is. And stop the paranoia about sabotage. Try talking operational feasibility. Let us examine your greatness. Try a little transparency. Not cleverness.

EDIT: Reviewing my post, I noticed that I misspelled the word still. I only had 1 l instead of two. Would you like me to define what I meant by that word?
 
Sorry, i misspelled the word accommodate. Would you stil like me to define the word?

Sabotage has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You CivForum people are showing your paranoid side. I'm talking about dependability of the system. You boast about how great your LemBot is. About how it would trump the feeble email system we use. About how secure it is. Well, then show us! Prove to us how great your system is. And stop the paranoia about sabotage. Try talking operational feasibility. Let us examine your greatness. Try a little transparency. Not cleverness.

EDIT: Reviewing my post, I noticed that I misspelled the word still. I only had 1 l instead of two. Would you like me to define what I meant by that word?

My translator (dict.leo.org) gave me no suggestion for accomodate respectively I was incompetent to find it and I never heard this word before, so it was impossible for me to understand you. There is no need for flaming. Now the translation works but I still don't understand you. Like in some other parts too.

Okay you are pissed of because of some discussions last week, I can understand this, but not every civforum-player is a character like d7 or justanick, who you maybe first have to know a bit, till you don't always have the feeling of being bashed by them with every post. (Hope you understand me).
The civforum is no individuum, many different people are coming together, everyone with a different background and a different behavior, so please don't generalize, this is not very constructive.
And the most important thing, remember english is a forign language for most of us. Some guys are out of school since many many years, never talked english in the last time. Missunderstandings especially in the possible connotation can and (I'm sure in that) will always happen, so I think everyone have to act a bit cooler than else.
 
My apologies, then.

Having to repeat myself so often, or reword in a different fashion over and over is frustrating. I'm sure you can understand. If others (or maybe even you) at CivForum would remove the paranoia about cheating and look at sercurity as a normal process, I think things would go a lot smoother.

I realize what "The Clock" is. As you say, it "is for uploading, hosting and posting Saves and for calculating the time for the teams". Duh, easily understood. No problems comprehending what the Clock is, why you use it, it's primary and secondary functions, on and on.

This is what you apparently are not understanding - CivForum's security of the save depends on the player password in the game, right? As anyone can access the LemBot page, all they would have to do is get beyond your first stage of security. This does not involve cheating (although I imagine you could look at it that way), it involves the integrity of the save. As some of the players on CivForum have suggested, someone not even related to the game could do some "evil prank". OK? Are you with me so far? Are we on the same page?

Good. Now. If the saves are passed through emails, then automatically a second stage of security is setup with the password for the email account. Not to mention that only "Game Players" will have the email address. If we combine your LemBot system with the email system, it's a win/win situation.

Emailing gives the save and any diplomacy and Battle Logs additional security. By posting a Got, Played, Sent text message on the LemBot page, the Clock could be activated and function in the way you are accustomed to. We get our emails, and we all benefit from your LemBot. Just as we all benefit from the added security. That is what I am trying to say. Not that you are cheating.

If I am wrong about the LemBot, show me. Get a page up that we can examine. That's all I am saying.
 
If the saves are passed through emails, then automatically a second stage of security is setup with the password for the email account. Not to mention that only "Game Players" will have the email address. If we combine your LemBot system with the email system, it's a win/win situation.

So "evil prank" will simply join a team. This second stage means effectivly only a loss of comfort and increased frustration. Easy access is more important in a dg.
 
Well, in my eyes that's multiplying zero security with a factor of two. I can live with that if need be, but I foresee this game becoming a pain in the rear because everything that would make it comfortable for any player of both forums is going to be forbidden.
 
My apologies, then.

Having to repeat myself so often, or reword in a different fashion over and over is frustrating. I'm sure you can understand. If others (or maybe even you) at CivForum would remove the paranoia about cheating and look at sercurity as a normal process, I think things would go a lot smoother.

I realize what "The Clock" is. As you say, it "is for uploading, hosting and posting Saves and for calculating the time for the teams". Duh, easily understood. No problems comprehending what the Clock is, why you use it, it's primary and secondary functions, on and on.

This is what you apparently are not understanding - CivForum's security of the save depends on the player password in the game, right? As anyone can access the LemBot page, all they would have to do is get beyond your first stage of security. This does not involve cheating (although I imagine you could look at it that way), it involves the integrity of the save. As some of the players on CivForum have suggested, someone not even related to the game could do some "evil prank". OK? Are you with me so far? Are we on the same page?

Good. Now. If the saves are passed through emails, then automatically a second stage of security is setup with the password for the email account. Not to mention that only "Game Players" will have the email address. If we combine your LemBot system with the email system, it's a win/win situation.

Emailing gives the save and any diplomacy and Battle Logs additional security. By posting a Got, Played, Sent text message on the LemBot page, the Clock could be activated and function in the way you are accustomed to. We get our emails, and we all benefit from your LemBot. Just as we all benefit from the added security. That is what I am trying to say. Not that you are cheating.

If I am wrong about the LemBot, show me. Get a page up that we can examine. That's all I am saying.

Finally we come back to talk together. I'm glad about this. I mean it was you who started this with me here at Fanatics, so you are an important part of the success of this "project".
Now I understand what you want to do with the Lembot and it took really this long. I would never have expected, that discussing in english would be that complicated. :)
Your idea of using email for saves and the lembot for clock calculating is imo not the most comfortable one, but if you need the save to be saved by two passwords than I would go with you and propose it to the others at the civforum.

One last thing: Still don't really understand what you mean with "remove the paranoia about cheating". I don't see any paranoia, neither by me nor by any other civforumplayer. I think there is a very big missunderstanding between you and "us". Perhaps you can explain me once more what you want me to remove, or an other one can give me a hint, I really want to understand.
Or is "the paranoia about cheating" to be find at yourself? Then I don't know how I can remove this. I think you played more than one PBEM and perhaps often against players you didn't know before. You wouldn't do this, if you are always thinking about the cheat-possibilities of the game.

@d7: It is really hard for you being calm for a moment, when others started to pour oil on troubled water, isn't it? (Nice adage btw, much better than "die Wogen glätten" :D)
 
Briefly kleinerheldt, I just don't understand. :dunno: Can we get someone to translate? :cool:

I have been on your website for a while now. i have read the broken-English translations night after night. You are the Super-Mod over there, right? You can check on this.

The team naming threads are quite cute. They remind me of days gone by. They are a nice change for your fora. There is no sense of wanting transparency at Civforums, though. You don't want to give anything up in terms of negotiation. You are stonewalling. (I know... you need a translation - even though you have a user named Stone Wall Jackson, or something like that) There may be good reason for you to do this, but all you are really accomplishing is to set up firewalls with the people you want to communicate with. There is also a cloud of paranoia about cheating at CivForums. Apparently you've have problems with this in recent DGs, and you're wanting to curtail it in this MTDG. I can undestand that. I have one word for you. Securtiy (Sicherheit?).

You do have some people who post rationally at CivForum. And I enjoy reading their posts. We here at CFC play an open and honest format for our Multi-Team games. But we do secure them. That only makes sense with two or more human players. If you look at all of our Civ3 Demogames, where our human team played all AI, everything was posted openly in the forums, including the saves. There was nothing to worry about. The AI wasn't capable of coming in and looking at our game. Human against AI Demogames have always been open and transparent for all to read. That's why I like them so much. But human against human is a totaly different story. Very few, if any, CFCers are as stupid as the AI. One must protect one's game. You know this. But you claim adding a password to protect correspondence is a major inconvenience. Come on... you're breakin' my heart here. Typing a password is a major stance for the CivForums? Is this a major concession you are actually willing to give up in negotiations? Well,... that certainly clears the path for future negotiations. :rolleyes:

You can go into self denial and push the paranoia off on me. I don't care. Whatever. I'm here looking for some transparency. Some willingness to be unafraid. Can you do that?
 
Top Bottom