Rule Amendments

[Provolution]

4.3 -- New Exploits
If you discover a new exploit it is your duty to inform all participants (via Game Forum). Amendments for banning newly discovered exploits will require a majority vote.

I agree, mid-game rulechanges for perceived "exploits" would require an unanimous or at the minimum 4 out 5 teams to agree. Otherwise we get tricky machiavellian debates out here, which are being spinned closely to forum rules and what more. Let us keep this clean, and play by the rules presented here, and the rules not presented here, are not rules, or should not be rules at all. We also need to make sure the rules we have can only be interpreted in a very particular way, so we will not see the impressionable moderators being forced to pick sides by the more verbally aggressive/persuasive side.

So, new rules should be unanimous, or at the minimum, require 4 out of 5 votes (maybe the latter would be better, since a certain action may kill diplomacy too).

I think we may need an article A) for the team that informs the other teams first about an exploit would require 4/5 votes to pass the new rule and B) a team picking on another team for what they see as an exploit, would require unanimous vote. This way, we reduce the risk that this rule is to be used as a tool for libel and negative campaigning.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I think we may need an article A) for the team that informs the other teams first about an exploit would require 4/5 votes to pass the new rule and B) a team picking on another team for what they see as an exploit, would require unanimous vote. This way, we reduce the risk that this rule is to be used as a tool for libel and negative campaigning.

Um... to me it appears that A) and B) are exactly the same case written in different words, except one requires a unanimous vote and one a non-unanimous vote. That seems more confusing to me than just working things out as we go.

Besides, a team that is being investigated for an exploit that they feel innocent of will never vote against the exploit. So I don't see the point of setting these things in stone before we know what the context of the situations are.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Team Saturn unanimously votes to approve these three rule amendments.

1.4
Teams may not contact each other until they have met in-game. Meta-game conversations in the UN are exempted (such as votes on rule-set amendments )

Recreating actions after a reload

In the event the game is reloaded to a previous point in time for any reason, each team must faithfully recreate any in-game actions they took after that point, to the best of their ability. Teams are encouraged to keep an explicit log of actions taken to facilitate the best recreation possible.

1.5 Teams are not allowed to play ahead on a downloaded version of the current save (that includes any and all actions).

 

[Niklas]

Team Cavaleiros unanimously approves the amendments listed by Lord Parkin in the post above.

 

[oyzar]

Did this get anywhere? can the teams please come to an agreement on this?

 

[HUSch]

Note to 4.6 of the rules
The refugee can only choose a team which is known ingame. That is a restrict for the beginning, in most times not necessary.

 

[Krill]

The rules don't state that, so if anyone feels that that clause is required in the rules they would have to propose an alteration to the rules after the current voting session.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

SANCTA approves the amendments

 

[oyzar]

Seeing all this discussion on reloading it might be good to include something on it in the rules(either allow it or disallow it), personally i hate misclicks so i would be more than fine with having reloads in the rules... If nothing else something about ginger ale deciding wether there should be a reload or not in each case...

 

[Krill]

Actually rule 2.2 states that:

2.2
In the event the game is reloaded to a previous point in time for any reason, each team must faithfully recreate any in-game actions they took after that point, to the best of their ability. Teams are encouraged to keep an explicit log of actions taken to facilitate the best recreation possible.

So technically G_A gave Kaz the right to ignore that rule for this turn.

 

[Niklas]

I don't think we should make a big deal out of it. This is why we have an impartial moderator after all, to handle the cases that we don't have a case for already.

 

[Krill]

So we either make a rule regarding lag, or we make a rule stating that in each case of "lag" that affects gameplay that we refer it to a game admin.

 

[DaveShack]

Actually rule 2.2 states that:

<snip> to the best of their ability </snip>

So technically G_A gave Kaz the right to ignore that rule for this turn.

I'd say not. I very carefully wrote the rule proposal to handle just this case. It won't be possible to recreate the mistake created by the lag. The best that can be done is to try to recreate the intended moves.

Now let's stay away from the .

 

[Lord Parkin]

Okay, so I guess an impartial moderator ruling on whether or not a "misclick" is worth a reload is fair. Do we want to write that into the rules?

 

[DaveShack]

For discussion:

4.7 - Pausing
If a situation arises which requires an administrator's ruling prior to proceeding in-game, the game will be paused until the administrator's decision is posted. If a player finds the game paused, the turn tracker thread must be checked for a possible ruling request or delay request before unpausing.

 

[Kaleb]

If we put a clause in like that we should make it like calling for Eagle Eye in Tennis. ie. each team is only allowed to make such a call so many times in a given time period, or even in the whole game. And we, Team Kazakhstan, would have already used one up

 

[Krill]

4.1 -- Turn Timer
The PitBoss server will give each team 24 hours in which to play the save and pass it on to the next team. If a team is unable to play in time, they may post a request for an extension in the turn-tracker thread, and state the reason they believe it should be granted. AFTER the extension request and rational have been posted in the turn tracker, that team may then pause the game.
The game may remain paused up to 120 hours, at which point any team may un-pause the game so play may resume.
An official vote to &#8220;continue sooner&#8221; may be posted by any team in the turn-tracker thread. Each such vote by a team will reduce the 120 hour extension by 24 hours.

We should edit this rule with a section about requesting an admin decision; because if we were using the rule daveshack posted above then if a team wanted more time all they would have to do to gain more time to discuss a turn all they would have to do is ask an admin to rule on something insignificant, thus leading to an extra pause in the game.

Something along the lines of frivolous requests for rulings shall lead to a time penalisation would be appropriate, ideally spread over a few turns so that the game is kept on the track and the offending team isn't completely screwed over by an out of proportion punishment.

Also, a list of game admins would be appropriate, as would a requirement of X amount of game admins to rule on something, if we have more than one game admin. This is because as different game admins can and do think differently about suitable rulings in different scenarios, if a team knows the inclinations of one admin they could choose to ask that admin for a ruling, thus gaming to admins into giving a ruling that is amenable to that team. (Seen it done on other forums unfortunately).

 

[HUSch]

Krill
It should be clear: "No turn discussion during tme out"
Every member can read there, but nothing post about the turn. GA can controll this very easy.

So the difference between a prolongation for turn discussion or the deciding on game matters is clear.

 

[Krill]

And that rule is written...where? If it's not written down and the teams haven't agreed with it it is binding...how? It isn't listed in the rules agreed on prior to the game start, so your statement is false; it isn't clear, it very much isn't clear...

And even if that is the case, it isn't enforceable, as teams can just use IMs to communicate about the game.

 

[HUSch]

For the first: It is for me fair play and that is the central rule!
For the second: That is trust.

Here the winner get only fun; it's a olympic game, participation is all.
I (for my person) get fun from the game allways, that I hope for all.

btw
I don't hope that any team lost because they haven't enough time for turn discussion.