Team Cavaleiros agrees with the rule as stated.
Rule Amendments
- Thread starter cIV_khanh93
- Start date
Team Mad Scientists are considering the rule. Guess it would help to notice a vote was in progress. 
The Mad Scientists agree with the events rule.
so with 3 votes that passes....But do we amend it?
Because what about Slavery now? If you think about it, Slavery is a Random Event based on a prior choice. Therefore a Slave revolt is a calculated risk.
In this Case it wouldn't be fair to Have Kaz suffer through thier most recent event as we didn't know the Seed was in the game. But now everyone does.
If you run slavery, you run the risk. Making the choice is up to you as a Team, not the RE generator.
Because what about Slavery now? If you think about it, Slavery is a Random Event based on a prior choice. Therefore a Slave revolt is a calculated risk.
In this Case it wouldn't be fair to Have Kaz suffer through thier most recent event as we didn't know the Seed was in the game. But now everyone does.
If you run slavery, you run the risk. Making the choice is up to you as a Team, not the RE generator.
No, I would say Slave Revolts can be canceled too. Same as partisans for razing cities. Same as whatever other event; they are all somewhat dependent on your choices. That's how the teams voted and I'd say they should thus ignore these random events too (in fact, I believe slave revolts were already specifically brought up and no one said these should have an exemption). But I'm not sure if we're supposed to discuss on here versus the other thread.
Disclaimer - these are my personal opinions and not the official position of Os Cavaleiros.
Disclaimer - these are my personal opinions and not the official position of Os Cavaleiros.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Personally - I don't think we need to amend the rule. Let's not make it more complicated.
Not that it's necessary, but SANCTA is on track to officially approve this amendment also.
Our poll to approve this amendment doesn't close till tomorrow - but it's currently passing with over 90% of the vote.
Not that it's necessary, but SANCTA is on track to officially approve this amendment also.
Our poll to approve this amendment doesn't close till tomorrow - but it's currently passing with over 90% of the vote.
Wow, how sensible were those words?
Krill
Deity
Must be something to do with the Oracle giving SANCTA a decent view of the future...anyone wanna buy some infomation off us (Caveat Emptor, obviously!)
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Just for the fun of making it officially unanimous:
Can we now have Daveshack update the rules thread?
Team SANCTA officially Approves of the amendment as written.
Can we now have Daveshack update the rules thread?
Finally getting round to doing this after starting that discussion a while ago...
Referring to:
I would like to propose a vote on an amendment to prohibit the changing of tech priorities in-game for the purpose of hiding a team's tech priority from other teams that have enough espionage points to see it.
Much of our previous discussion was around whether this was or was not an exploit and part of the problem with that debate was that we never really defined in Rule 4.3 what exactly constitutes an exploit. So whether we need to discuss if this is or is not an exploit (I firmly believe it is) I don't know, but I do think we should as a group of players decide how we want to play this game, and all agree to play it the same way.
There's already been plenty of discussion about this in the turn discussion thread so I think we may as well just proceed with a discussion and vote on the what the actual rule should be.
Here's my proposal:
Let's first discuss if we're happy with that wording and then vote on it. It's only SANCTA that are using this tactic at the moment but as the game progresses it will become relevant to other teams so we should decide on which way we want to play before we get to that stage.
Referring to:
I would like to propose a vote on an amendment to prohibit the changing of tech priorities in-game for the purpose of hiding a team's tech priority from other teams that have enough espionage points to see it.
Much of our previous discussion was around whether this was or was not an exploit and part of the problem with that debate was that we never really defined in Rule 4.3 what exactly constitutes an exploit. So whether we need to discuss if this is or is not an exploit (I firmly believe it is) I don't know, but I do think we should as a group of players decide how we want to play this game, and all agree to play it the same way.
There's already been plenty of discussion about this in the turn discussion thread so I think we may as well just proceed with a discussion and vote on the what the actual rule should be.
Here's my proposal:
Let's first discuss if we're happy with that wording and then vote on it. It's only SANCTA that are using this tactic at the moment but as the game progresses it will become relevant to other teams so we should decide on which way we want to play before we get to that stage.
Now is a good time to discuss it. 
Ok: So break it down as there are 2 parts above, priority & rate.
1. Teams are prohibited from changing their tech priority....
Clear wording is:
1. Teams are prohibited from changing their tech selection in game after ending turn, until it is thier turn again for the purpose of hiding their real tech goal from other teams.
Reasoning:
2. Teams are prohibited from changing their .....tech rate....
I am having trouble with this one
. Here is some reasons why:
1. I often change the tech rate after ending turn, so I don't forget next turn, this would be more reflective to the team with
2. Gifting away
or getting from another team would affect your potential slider ability
3. Where does this leave us if one team figures out a way to Micro Manage better, possibly with the help of #2 above. An example is easier:
Currently MS is researching Liberalism, they end turn.
Cav suspects MS is getting liberalism and Ask Saturn to invest 100% into MS for 1 turn and see if ineed they are. Saturn do this, also wanting the free tech, and it reveals that MS has 3 turns left on liberalism.
Cav feels great now because they have two turns left.
On MS next turn, SANCTA gifts them gold and MS turn up the slider, and Micromange thier citizens starving them, but maximizing thier
output. MS showed 3 turns but actually discovered Liberalism the next turn (I did this in a PBEM where others could see my reasearch and stole Liberalism BTW).
Does Cav now cry foul that MS wasn't showing thier true research ability?
I am kind of at a loss for wording here, because I understand what Kaleb is trying to do he is trying to prevent this:
What happened in the MTDG
But if that is what we are trying to prevent, then wouldn't clause 1 cover it? We could have put on tech X, we would of been forced to leave our research on tech Y. And due to what I brought up in clause 2, this can get really mucky.
So As Such while it isn't perfect as you can't see exactly when a team is going to finish the tech, you know what thier end goal is:
Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
Ok: So break it down as there are 2 parts above, priority & rate.
1. Teams are prohibited from changing their tech priority....
Clear wording is:
1. Teams are prohibited from changing their tech selection in game after ending turn, until it is thier turn again for the purpose of hiding their real tech goal from other teams.
Reasoning:
Spoiler :
2. Teams are prohibited from changing their .....tech rate....
I am having trouble with this one
. Here is some reasons why:1. I often change the tech rate after ending turn, so I don't forget next turn, this would be more reflective to the team with
2. Gifting away
or getting from another team would affect your potential slider ability3. Where does this leave us if one team figures out a way to Micro Manage better, possibly with the help of #2 above. An example is easier:
Currently MS is researching Liberalism, they end turn.
Cav suspects MS is getting liberalism and Ask Saturn to invest 100%
into MS for 1 turn and see if ineed they are. Saturn do this, also wanting the free tech, and it reveals that MS has 3 turns left on liberalism.Cav feels great now because they have two turns left.
On MS next turn, SANCTA gifts them gold and MS turn up the slider, and Micromange thier citizens starving them, but maximizing thier
output. MS showed 3 turns but actually discovered Liberalism the next turn (I did this in a PBEM where others could see my reasearch and stole Liberalism BTW).Does Cav now cry foul that MS wasn't showing thier true research ability?
I am kind of at a loss for wording here, because I understand what Kaleb is trying to do he is trying to prevent this:What happened in the MTDG
Spoiler :
But if that is what we are trying to prevent, then wouldn't clause 1 cover it? We could have put on tech X, we would of been forced to leave our research on tech Y. And due to what I brought up in clause 2, this can get really mucky.
So As Such while it isn't perfect as you can't see exactly when a team is going to finish the tech, you know what thier end goal is:
Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler :
Thanks for the measured response. I wanted to avoid getting into a discussion about whether people were using exploits or whether teams were inferior because they weren't using certain tactics - so let's keep the discussion like this 
Spoiler :
That actually sounds better. Perhaps we can just put the small caveat in that if a team want to login between turns (e.g. to check how different rates would yield different rates etc for the purpose of taking screenshots/informing the team) they can do so but must leave the rate and priority the same as when they logged in. Would that work?Memphus said:
What if a team receives a tech in trade during another team's turn? At that point they must select another tech.
What if a team genuinely wants to change their tech direction as the result of diplomacy, and they want another team who can see their tech selection to see the change to prove the diplomacy is real? Should they be penalized because another team can also see their tech selection change but misinterprets it as an effort to hide their goal?
There is a much simpler approach. Why not just allow it? Why does it matter that the mechanics are different than PBEM or simultaneous turns? We agreed to play in this format, maybe we should just live with the consequences.
What if a team genuinely wants to change their tech direction as the result of diplomacy, and they want another team who can see their tech selection to see the change to prove the diplomacy is real? Should they be penalized because another team can also see their tech selection change but misinterprets it as an effort to hide their goal?
There is a much simpler approach. Why not just allow it? Why does it matter that the mechanics are different than PBEM or simultaneous turns? We agreed to play in this format, maybe we should just live with the consequences.
Well it will be obvious when this happens, I think an exclusion can easily be made.
That would be a one off. Hiding a tech priority is something that a team would need to do every turn. I think it would be quite clear if a team was changing their priority to hide their real goal as opposed to the two scenarios you've described above.
We could allow it yes, at least we would agree that it's a "legitimate" tactics and all teams would do it then. I just think it's a shame as it removes some of the fun of the espionage part of the game.
They don't have to select another tech until it is their next turn, so I don't see the problem. I personally agree with Memphus' reasoning about the wording. The "purpose" bit really covers all corner cases.
Do law students count?
How about:
Indiansmoke
Deity
Sommers wording seems very good...the spirit of the rule is to prevent teams from switching techs after hitting end turn, just to prevent other teams to see waht they tech trough espionaze.
Sommerswerd's rule proposal is very good indeed.
Similar threads
