Rule Amendments
- Thread starter cIV_khanh93
- Start date
I prefer the wording by Memphus as well. The intent of hiding the goal/progress from espionage is the actual violation. If the team just changes research goals or percentages with no intent to circumvent espionage then it should not be a violation.
How do we verify the intent of the change? For example... I say "I changed the tech because I intended for Machinery to be our new tech." Then someone else changes it to Feudalism and says "well I intended the tech to be Feud" how do we determine what is the team's true intent?
I would say we verify the purpose of the temporary tech change, by the actions after the change. If the player who changed the tech immediately changes the tech back before logging out, we know that the purpose of the tech change was to investigate possibilities. If not, then we know that there was some other purpose, which would violate the rule... just my thoughts... Frankly, I don't see any probem with the SANCTA tech-hiding method, other than the fact that other teams were apparently unaware of it and thus were wasting espy points...
Are we saying that teams can't change their mind between turns, or from turn-to-turn, about what they intend to tech? Surely that is not what we want... That's why I think it is better to have a rule about what we can do rather than a rule about what we can intend...
I would say we verify the purpose of the temporary tech change, by the actions after the change. If the player who changed the tech immediately changes the tech back before logging out, we know that the purpose of the tech change was to investigate possibilities. If not, then we know that there was some other purpose, which would violate the rule... just my thoughts... Frankly, I don't see any probem with the SANCTA tech-hiding method, other than the fact that other teams were apparently unaware of it and thus were wasting espy points...
Are we saying that teams can't change their mind between turns, or from turn-to-turn, about what they intend to tech? Surely that is not what we want... That's why I think it is better to have a rule about what we can do rather than a rule about what we can intend...
I think it's obvious that's not what we're discussing. To properly hide your tech objective you need to change your tech priority repeatedly. And the point is that you change your choice and then change it back to something else before ending turn. If a team started to tech X ended turn, changed priority to Y, and then on it's turn put it back to X and then Y after ending turn that's hardly a team just changing their mind. We're not going to be arguing about a single change of tech priority here or even an occasional change but rather a consistent changing of techs every turn. Or even just removing your tech choice altogether after ending turn.
But do we then need to think of every scenario that could arise in order to permit it?
I think its obvious that you must not have completely read my post, because immediately after the rhetorical question that you quoted, I stated very clearly that I did not think that we wanted to restrict tech changes in that way.
See? At any rate, there really is no point in arguing about this... You prefer Memphus' wording, as you already stated. Your last post was really just a lengthy re-statement of what everyone already knows... You prefer Memphus wording. AND as I have already said, my wording was just a suggestion... I was just trying to help. I don't think we need any rule at all TBH... Everyone can just start using the SANCTA tech hiding method.
yes let's all do that...no rule.
As Kaleb stated you need to do it all the time...or do you?
To effectively "hide your tech" you want your opponent to believe they know what you are researching. To do this you get techs they except and don't hide it. then all of a sudden blamo, it comes out of no where when you do do it. So in itself it is a complete strategy.
but if we are continuing on the rule we need to get to one we can at least vote on...or maybe that should be step 1, vote if we even want the rule then worry about wording?
As Kaleb stated you need to do it all the time...or do you?
To effectively "hide your tech" you want your opponent to believe they know what you are researching. To do this you get techs they except and don't hide it. then all of a sudden blamo, it comes out of no where when you do do it. So in itself it is a complete strategy.but if we are continuing on the rule we need to get to one we can at least vote on...or maybe that should be step 1, vote if we even want the rule then worry about wording?
I agree that the need for the rule should be voted on, before wording is haggled over. How do we vote? As teams? OK let's go then.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Edit...bahhh
If you happen to have the right kind of GP, you can surprise someone by researching something completely different without ever touching the tech choice or slider.
On the question of how to detect intent, someone has to complain and then an admin needs to look in the forum. I don't actually want an admin to have to do that. It's easier than it was in the ISDG given that all the forums are right here, but it could be quite a bit of work to read through everything.
You can't use a team getting a tech suddenly as the only way to tell they're doing this, given the ability to bulb.
On the question of how to detect intent, someone has to complain and then an admin needs to look in the forum. I don't actually want an admin to have to do that. It's easier than it was in the ISDG given that all the forums are right here, but it could be quite a bit of work to read through everything.
You can't use a team getting a tech suddenly as the only way to tell they're doing this, given the ability to bulb.
Bulbs aren't really surprised to those who pay half an eye to the event log.
I guess someone could for example pop a GS then settle him instead of bulbing and then researching philo with their real research while keeping their research targeting some other tech, however that would be just as much "cheating" as using a proxy (or similar) to make a duplicate forum account then join another team with that account and read their forum. As long as we agree on the rules I am sure people will stick to them. That people can't switch what tech they are researching while it is not their turn works fine.
I guess someone could for example pop a GS then settle him instead of bulbing and then researching philo with their real research while keeping their research targeting some other tech, however that would be just as much "cheating" as using a proxy (or similar) to make a duplicate forum account then join another team with that account and read their forum. As long as we agree on the rules I am sure people will stick to them. That people can't switch what tech they are researching while it is not their turn works fine.
I think Memphus is probably right that we should first agree on if we want a rule and then decide on wording. That will be easiest.
Regarding enforcement: first of all we already have at least one rule that is totally unenforceable so it's not mandatory that a rule must be easy to police for it to be a rule. But it certainly helps!
Secondly, teams are required to log what they do each turn and should be taking screenshots. It won't take an admin long at all to see that what one team is actually teching differs to what another team can see they are teching (if they have enough ESP).
Finally - I agree with oyzar. I think just having a rule will be enough. I don't think anyone here wants to cheat or break any rules.
Regarding enforcement: first of all we already have at least one rule that is totally unenforceable so it's not mandatory that a rule must be easy to police for it to be a rule. But it certainly helps!
Secondly, teams are required to log what they do each turn and should be taking screenshots. It won't take an admin long at all to see that what one team is actually teching differs to what another team can see they are teching (if they have enough ESP).
Finally - I agree with oyzar. I think just having a rule will be enough. I don't think anyone here wants to cheat or break any rules.
Indiansmoke
Deity
We had this discussion on whether we want a rule or not in the other thread a month ago. We concluded that a wording should be proposed by Kaleb and it would be put to team vote.
The spirit of the rule is obvious, whether we use Sommer's wording or Mempus or whatever..no point in discussing this further and repeating things we have already discussed.
An admin should step up, conclude on a final wording, and lets put it to team vote. Any team that does not want the rule regardless of the wording can vote no anyway.
The spirit of the rule is obvious, whether we use Sommer's wording or Mempus or whatever..no point in discussing this further and repeating things we have already discussed.
An admin should step up, conclude on a final wording, and lets put it to team vote. Any team that does not want the rule regardless of the wording can vote no anyway.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Silence....I guess no admin wants to step up.
Ronnie1
Deity
I think we should NOT over-legislate. Unless there is a GREAT reason to have a rule, changes to the ORIGINAL rule set should be avoided IMO.
KingMorgan
Deity
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=332072
I think we can agree anyone using the above would be caught - so we agree not to use it?
I think we can agree anyone using the above would be caught - so we agree not to use it?
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
well, it would certainly make the race more interesting....
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
yes it would - I hope it was obvious that I was just kidding? in case it's not, I'm perfectly fine with banning it
Proposed Amendment:
The "select multiple free techs" bug is an exploit and banned from use in the MTDG.
I'll go out on a limb and say MS votes yes.
The "select multiple free techs" bug is an exploit and banned from use in the MTDG.
I'll go out on a limb and say MS votes yes.
Similar threads
