Potential Violation of the Rules or at least Spirit of the Rules

[fe3333au]

This morning before I had a coffee ... I switched on computer to see if an e-mail had arrived ...

*BANG* Kentharu
>desparately wanting a chat ... KISS have ambushed me want to talk
>OK ... shall we open a ...

*BANG* Invitation to multi-chat from KISS

And all this before coffee ...

>>>>>>>>>>

Here is the gist ... KISS seem to think that TNT have renamed another city Dancing Banana due to the capitol being razed ...

Here is the AIM log so far ...

You have just entered room "chat13701300204175451992."

Early Saturday and a bit of liquid refreshment session Morning 8.00am
KC Venters: coffee yet?
fe3333au: Bloody hell guys ... are you skulking in the bushes aouside my front door as well ? ;-)
fe3333au: Not yet waiting for whistle
Skippyshutt: hell yes
KC Venters: no just the neighbors bushes
Kentharu1 has entered the room.
Kentharu1: hi
bawhomp: Tasmania? Yeah we're lurkin' in your hood. lol
fe3333au: My neighbour has a akita japanese fighting dog called buzz be careful
bawhomp: i have two shih tzus so nah nah!
KC Venters: I took two of those today too ;-)


The Facts Mam
KC Venters: fe we know what's going on on the other continent
Skippyshutt: provo's f'n with the rules
bawhomp: We figured out what he did
fe3333au: OK tell me ...
bawhomp: they jumped the capital
KC Venters: ok Whomp take it away
fe3333au: Jumped capital?
bawhomp: yep ... They moved the capital and renamed after the old capital Dancin' Nana
Skippyshutt: brb
fe3333au: So Dancing Banana is now another city?

Logistics of Why
Kentharu1: meaning they would rather be hostile, since that would provide better defense and easier immortal movement
bawhomp: The reason they would do that is so they are away from the coast, easier for immortals to cover ground, maybe more prouduction and closer to Dnut,
Kentharu1: great minds think alike again ;-)

Spirit of the Rules
KC Venters: we just gave you the answers
bawhomp: hence all the discussion in the renaming thread. should we call him out on this?
fe3333au: So answer question ... TNT have renamed another city ... to Dancing Banana?
bawhomp: yep
fe3333au: Against the rules ... also against spirit of the game
bawhomp: correct ... why would the admins allow it?
Kentharu1: maybe they are waiting for us to say something
KC Venters: GA's message is almost begging for a question
bawhomp: ok then i will...re read the city renaming thread ... should i post there and fe posts there too?
Kentharu1: so will i

Action ... Lets get him
fe3333au: I think we collectively should PM or MSM or whatever the admins and hold the game ... this is outrageous ... if you are correct that is ... I am just waking so sorry for cottonwool head
Kentharu1: i won't post though
bawhomp: sorry fe.
fe3333au: Would D-Nuts know?
bawhomp: not that we know of... they still haven't talked to you>
KC Venters: Ginger_ale said that he wouldn't talk about it via PM, and to post a formal thread

My brain still isn't working ... Spell it out
fe3333au: OK could you and only you (Whomp) take me through the logic line please?
bawhomp: OK ... if we want the admins to penalize then yes
fe3333au: I still don't know what 'we' know?
bawhomp: ok sorry
fe3333au: 8.00am ... Saturday hangoverish
bawhomp: Here's the deal

>They popped a settler out of the capital and abadoned the capital.
>hence the loss of 7 tiles.
>however they renamed the capital to the old capital's name Dancing Nana
>remember the new capital would lose its cultural expansion when you jump the capital

What Action should we take
Skippyshutt: we know what they did and why. should we let them know we know?
GeneralW77 has entered the room.
bawhomp: General
bawhomp: Why would they do this?
fe3333au: I will repaste what you just posted Whomp
bawhomp: ok
GeneralW77: (Greetings! I'm just here mostly to lurk)
Skippyshutt: general whou are u?
fe3333au: Its about a suspicion that TNT have changed the name of a city to Banana Dancing because the capitol has taken
>WHOMP's Info repeated>
fe3333au: and then you entered

Reasoning for TNT action
bawhomp: why would they do this?
bawhomp: they would do this to get away from the coast closer to donut
Skippyshutt: to get closer to iron.
bawhomp: shorter distances for immortals to cover
bawhomp: maybe a more productive capital
bawhomp: iron
Skippyshutt: iron within the capital border, close to nuts, they see nuts as ripe for pickin
bawhomp: etc
bawhomp: etc

Strategy Good ... But Renaming Violation
fe3333au: I think the admins should privately confirm or deny this suspicion cos why open a thread with all our reasoning it just gives too much info to others about the analysis process we are both doing
bawhomp: trickery on the name change and Ginger Ale will not discuss by pm only UN rep
bawhomp: how about in the city naming thread?
Skippyshutt: two cities named the same is evil bad

Options
fe3333au: Keep it general ... Ask is there anyone who has renamed a city recently after contact has been made
Skippyshutt: "we know what u did" not addressed to anyone
bawhomp: hypothetically speaking....if we were to say something like...say a bunch of idiots were to decide to jump the palace...would it be ok to name it simpleton again?

Facts List
fe3333au: Keep it general
1. Admin will not talk about it on PM
2. Want it to go to UN

I don't agree ...

Admin SHOULD confirm or deny to us over PM that no rules or spirit of the rules have been broken

If we post anything on UN ... it gives too much info to others on our thinging process

Skippyshutt: admin wants us to take a stand one way or the other

From KISS
fe3333au: Can you send us GA responce and your initial question
Skippyshutt: I didn't see the PM
fe3333au: We have time cos I'm willing to hold up the game for this to be properly addressed
Skippyshutt: we're in no hurry. It was whomp or tubs
fe3333au: But then I'm actually eager to debate it with Provo on UN as well ...

Agreement on Process
fe3333au: But are we agreed that this goes against the spirit of the game?

What and How to Respond
Skippyshutt: in the renaming thread: we know what u did, even though we don't know you. enjoy the iron.
fe3333au: I'm looking at it more as an out of game issue ... Spirit of fairplay
Kentharu1: you must becareful with provo in the UN thread if you intend to do this
Skippyshutt: IMHO, that's been the whole point of the renaming thread. agree ken. that's why we're here
fe3333au: What I propose is that you guys PM me the initial PM to GA and the also his reponse ...
Skippyshutt: whomp ? tubs? I don't have it, they're probably feeding
fe3333au: Agree Skippy .. so wording should not be referrenced to game topic ie Iron
Skippyshutt: k fe, let's make it general. @ general - give a wink every now and then so we know the leader is here

Option
fe3333au: What if we post (on the UN renaming thread) something like this ...

Regarding the renaming of cities issue ... we are all agreed that re-naming cities in order to misrepresent facts is against the spirit of the game and also the rules ...

Skippyshutt: yes ... but they don't know what we think we know

So then are we agreed that renaming another city the same name as a razed city or swapping is a violation of the rules? ... Administrator please confirm

Skippyshutt: yes, violation of the spirit of game
fe3333au: The 3 lines combined and reworded a litter better should be the next posting on the renaming thread and I am happy to do it as it follows the theme of my previous comment ... on that thread

fe3333au: So in the spirit of our own chat ... can I have agreement of all present?
Skippyshutt: agree in spirit. give me verbatim what u r going to post
GeneralW77: I like it. I trust you to re-word, bit it will still be nice to see it.
fe3333au: At this stage I'm just after an indicator from EVERYONE here if this is the way we should procedd ... next step and this will probably invole a bit of to and fro and input from both teams
Skippyshutt: k we're on the boat
fe3333au: in order to get wording correct ... and we hold the save until the issue is dealt with
Skippyshutt: yo whomp and tubs, need some input
fe3333au: so we have time
Skippyshutt: yes

Back to MIA ... Home Sweet Home
fe3333au: I will open a new discussion thread on our site and start debate ...
Skippyshutt: lets adjourn until later
fe3333au: OK but I need your correspondence with GA

Skippyshutt has left the room.

Recap of the UN Renaming Thread

On the re-naming thread this is what happened

Originally Posted by fe3333au

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

This I posted only to clarify ... we had no suspicions and just wanted clarification in order that F-11 could not be changed to confuse

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

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.

[fe3333au]

Here is what KISS sent Ginger_Ale

Originally Posted by Tubby Rower

GA,

So what TNT did to try to hide their palace jump is ok? The reason I didn't post this in the thread is that other teams might not know for 1. and also not to get a rise out of Provolution .

Thanks, Tubby

And the response

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

I wish not to talk about this via PM.

Please post a formal thread in the main forum and I will answer to all. Include the rule you are challenging (much like coach's challenge in NFL).

I don't like this and feel that GA and RM should discuss with us over PM ... or start a UN debate themselves ...

KISS and MIA statinf a UN debate gives too much information to others ...

We should state our concerns and the admins should rule of openly discuss ...

If we are correct ... the TNT did rename a city with a name that has already been 'seen' by everyone ... that is a clear violation of the rules or at the very least spirit of the rules

If we are incorrect and this did not occur ... then a simple YOU ARE WRONG will surfice

If we ARE correct ... then they should open debate or make a ruling ... and either PM KISS and MIA or state on the UN thread that this has ocurred ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Provo's own words about renaming cities

1. No, we should only be able to rename cities PRIOR to having met a Civ, as we rely on making screenies for making planning, and this will just make planning, communication and so on harder. However, unseen cities or in particular before a Civ is met, is fair game, and everyone could do as they please.

>F-11 has clearly shown a number of cities ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My personal thoughts about Admin reaction

>GA should know the reasoning that KISS and now MIA have ... that TNT have given the name Dancing Banana to another city ...
>I strongly disagree that it is upto KISS and MIA to open a debate on the UN ... A formal challenge can only occur if an action has directly affected us ... ie a trade was agreed but not fulfilled ... this issue is about an action that has indirectly affected all teams ...
>Our suspicion is that a spirit of a rule has been broken ... perhaps innocently ... therefore Admins should correct it ... either confirm or deny ...
>If confirm ... then perhaps PM KISS and MIA as well as TNT or make it public over the UN ... either way it is not upto us to open a UN Rule debate

I am also open to the idea of holding up the game until this issue is addressed ...

[fe3333au]

I have PMed both GA and RM for their input

Require your input

Hi RM/GA

Again thanks for all your time and effort in making this a wonderfully exciting and engaging experience ...

We would like your input on the renaming issue that has been raised by KISS ... we at MIA have opened a thread and feel that it is not upto us to begin a debate or challenge a suspicion on the UN ... this is clearly an issue that an administrator should initiate ... or clarify ...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...97#post3107797

Regards

[ybbor]

lots of ideas, bear with me.

1)should we even be knowing this? TNT doesn't exist to us yet. The info shouldn't have crossed our hands.

2)hold the save

3)I'm still a little sketchy on why. what kind of idiot team would abandon a city? now, I'm pretty sure they're telling the truth, but at the same time, somewhere in the back of our minds we should be entertaining the idea that this could be a sting by KISS; have us make baseless accusations.

4)hold the save

5)combination of 1&3. if we bring it up, won't TNT cry foul play about our knowledge?

6)hold the save

7)KISS and d-nuts should have met by now. any word on what they've said to each other?

8)hold the save

9)** I have the perfect opportunity to take the fall. I'm not being re-elected as team captain, and if I be the aggressive one, and a few turns later am rushed out of office, the amount of cover available is enormous. You say I don't represent the wishes of the team-which is why i was ousted-, that its TNT is dealing with MIA- not Provo dealing with Ybbor, and you can apologize so much you can fix my 'mistakes'. I am in a perfect situation to take the fallen as an outgoing UN rep. Say the word, and I'm there

[Ginger_Ale]

In order to retain my objectivity to this issue, I will not comment further in private forums. A thread is now up in the main forum.

[ybbor]

not to sound childish, but that means it happened.

as UN rep
what is our official stance? including what do we think of the violation? what is the penalty we should seek?

my tentative opinions:
"This renaming clearly violated the spirit of the rules. The lack of notification to the other teams shows a lack of respect for the other teams, and no desire to keep a level of good faith with the other teams.

That being said, TNT did not do any actions that severely affected the outcome of the game, and we can be reasonable, and understand that this should not be treated outside of the realm of reason. therefore we recommend the very reasonable punishment of [insert punishment here]"

recommended punishment
reprimand
renaming of dancing banana to "Dancing Banana 2"
loss of re-naming privileges of cities until out of the ancient age

requested from TNT:
apology

[Chamnix]

This is an unfortunate situation that was easily avoidable. The intent may not have been to mislead or confuse (the admins can determine that easily from TNT's forums), but it was certainly foreseeable that it would mislead and confuse, and it would have been simple to avoid misleading.

In any case, the problem right now if the penalty for breaking that rule is way too severe for this particular situation, but there is no discretion in the ruleset. I would say that if TNT is found guilty that the ruleset be amended to permit a lesser punishment to avoid unbalancing the game. I want to win, but I want to win by outplaying the other teams, not because of a rules violation.

[Ginger_Ale]

Originally Posted by ybbor

not to sound childish, but that means it happened.
"This renaming clearly violated the spirit of the rules. If the teams were AI opponents they would be aware of the change in capitol. The renaming was clearly done with intent of misleading. The lack of notification to the other teams shows a lack of respect for the teams, and clearly demonstrates that TNT sought to confuse the other teams.

That being said, TNT did not do any actions that severely affected the outcome of the game, and we can be reasonable, and understand that this should not be treated outside of the realm of reason. therefore we recommend the very reasonable punishment of [insert punishment here]"

recommended punishment
1 missed turn.
renamming of dancing banana to "Dancing Bananna 2"
loss of re-naming privilages of cities until out of the ancient age
5-day expulsion of the member who firstproposed the idea

How would the AI know of the change in capital without having known the team's map area, and not via F4 since the names stayed the same?

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

How would the AI know of the change in capital without having known the team's map area, and not via F4 since the names stayed the same?

The AI can see the whole map in the first place, and using its intrinsic AI-ness could recognize that the city was not the same as was previously referred to before

[Ginger_Ale]

So we should switch maps and give everyone capability to see every city??

The way the AI is programmed it HAS to cheat and get advantages. In a PBEM, humans do not get the same advantage. AIs also see all resources. Using their "AI-ness", should all humans know where all resources are?

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Chamnix

This is an unfortunate situation that was easily avoidable. The intent may not have been to mislead or confuse (the admins can determine that easily from TNT's forums), but it was certainly foreseeable that it would mislead and confuse, and it would have been simple to avoid misleading.

as much I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, it's not applicable here. They should/would have said something I.e. 'just so you know, the new city dancing banana refers to a different city than was visible in the F11 screen before.

also, it's possible they didn't loose a city at all, but abandoned the first one to both move the capital and put their first city in a more desirable location.

[Rik Meleet]

Moderator Action: I remind everyone who is planning on responding to this to do it without trolling, flaming, namecalling or other ways which is against CFC's forum rules.

For your comfort Here are the forum-rules

So far no posts have been spotted in this thread which are against the forum rules; please keep it that way.

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

So we should switch maps and give everyone capability to see every city??

The way the AI is programmed it HAS to cheat and get advantages. In a PBEM, humans do not get the same advantage. AIs also see all resources. Using their "AI-ness", should all humans know where all resources are?

no, but names of cities doesn't affect the AI. It would be able to see the difference in cities just looking at the F11 screen. The idea behind PBEM is that you match the strategy of humans with the strategy of humans; nothing more, no unfair advantages; and the use of this does something that clearly was not in the intention of the devolpers.

The purpose of renaming cities was for fun and personality, not as a stragy tactic. This clearly violates the spirit of the game, and the rules.

offending sentance stricken from the draft.

@Rik: If this is coming off as aggresive, it's not meant to be this is purely a discussion of game mechanics.

[Ginger_Ale]

The priority strategy tactic was the moving of the palace, not renaming the cities. That was for aesthetical purposes mainly.

Nothing in the current rules says you cannot move palaces. The renaming of the cities was not for trickery as I can understand it (because I have access to both pure POVs).

Please, define "spirit of the game" for me (this goes to everyone)...I just want to see how people view it.

[Rik Meleet]

I was under the false impression this thread was in the open section of the forum. That was my main reason of the preemptive reminder. If I'd realised this thread was in MIA's private forum, I wouldn't have posted it.

I was not addressing in-game mechanics (Ginger's and Regent's department) but general CFC-forum behaviour.

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

Please, define "spirit of the game" for me (this goes to everyone)...I just want to see how people view it.

that which was clearly the intent to be covered in the rules- even if not explicitly stated- or would obviously have been accepted had it been included in the constitution at ratification, but was not stated for reasons such as not thinking of it or not thought necessary.

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

The priority strategy tactic was the moving of the palace, not renaming the cities. That was for aesthetical purposes mainly.

if that's the case, I don't have much of a problem, but it would have been nice to get a notification. I will drop some requested punishments and change the language.

[fe3333au]

Moving a palace doesn't mean renaming a city ... it should have been called something different and I would use Provos own words against any other argument ... see my top thread

[Ginger_Ale]

What your proposed punishments are now is more of what I had in mind, give or take a bit. I am more for out of game changes than in game, but there needs to be a balance. I think explusion for a legal tactic that could be found out in game is a bit harsh, even for a turn.

[ybbor]

Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale

What your proposed punishments are now is more of what I had in mind, give or take a bit. I am more for out of game changes than in game, but there needs to be a balance. I think explusion for a legal tactic that could be found out in game is a bit harsh, even for a turn.

well before I wasn't aware of the situation as you were.

any input fe3333au?