November Folly Poll (ver 2.0)

Rule preferences (chose two)

  • Nay on OTAs (current)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
719
Location
GMT -6, Austin
Proposed Amendments to starting rules (aka 'things I forgot'): Please either post or email your opinions (with a clear 'yea' or 'nay').
Open Trade Agreements: There is a rule in the originally referenced PitBoss rules that disallows 'non-scouting' open border pacts. I don't know the history about this, but it seems like a perfectly acceptable arrangement; however, if one side does decide to scout, then you will obvioulsy have to break the agreement via the game to stop them. Is there something I am missing about these 'open trade' agreements? Is there any reason we should not allow these?
  • Yea to allow OTAs.
  • Nay to restrict limited open borders (current rule).

Without Knowledge rule: If you are the receipient of some action or event that the other players would not know (i.e. you, as player X, saw player Y pop a scout out of a goody hut), you should not discuss this (either in private or in public) event with any other player unless you have made game contact. More seriously, do not announce anything about other player's defenses or positions, unless you have direct contact in the game with the player. If you have contact with another player, behind the scenes negotiations are allowed and any transfer of information you wish. Of course, you can always post whatever you want about yourself, true or not :).
  • Yea to implement WK rule communication limits.
  • Nay to allow all communications (current rule)
 
I'm a little unclear about the first rule so I'll just say i vote for open borders with scouting, military units and all. WK is a nay
 
Yeah, I don't know why you would try to limit agreements like that, but the prohibition against open border agreements that do not allow scouting was in the rule list we referenced in the game start up.
 
Top Bottom