Ruleset Discussion

[Ginger_Ale]

The most dreaded part of this pre-game has arrived! It's time we come up with a ruleset, and this time, I don't just want to copy and paste one from the ISDG. This one needs to be short, simple, and concrete - AKA, to the point. It should say what you cannot do and what will happen if you do. We also need to overhaul the punishment section (perhaps we should just leave all punishments up the admins? It's sort of hard to just write down a one-size-fits-all punishment for every violation).

Most importantly: allow breaking of in-game treaties. It's your reputation. The admins don't care what happens to it.

So, for those that want to see it, here is the old ruleset.


I think we can keep all the exploits in sections 1, 2, and 3 (unless you have comments). However, let's just keep a description of what they are. No need for a "description, definition, purpose, verdict, punishment". Let's make it simple - have a category of "Disallowed Exploits", and then just simply list them and their description. After that, there's just some game-related stuff, like posting in the turn tracker thread, sending the save to the admins, playing within 24 hours, etc.

What we need to discuss:

• Refugees (can they share spoiler information or not?)
• "Spirit of the Game" - just eliminate this altogether?
• Others?

If you guys don't have much to say, I'll just whip up a quick ruleset (similar to the Civ4 MTDG one, very basic) and we'll go from there.


CURRENT VERSION OF RULESET:

1.0 - Game Information
1.1 - The Save
All teams are required to play the save within 24 hours, unless they request an extension in the Turn Tracker thread. After playing the save, they must send it to the next team via email. Additionally, the turnplayer must post in the Turn Tracker thread to indicate the save has been sent. The next team's 24 hours begins after said post.

1.2 - Battle Logs
Teams are required to send a battle log to the team(s) they attack during their turn, indicating what units attacked, and what the result was. This includes bombardments as well. A sample line could read: "4HP Rifleman attacks 3HP Mustketman - Rifleman wins, still 4HP".

1.3 - Punishment
The game administrators are responsible for handing out punishment after a violation of a rule. Punishment may be limited to one single player or the team, but it will not be overly harsh or cruel. It could include forced anarchy, forced payment of gold, removal from the team forum for a period of time, or other actions. If a team feels it is unfair, they may appeal the decision.

1.4 - Clarifications
If a team would like to ask the administrator's approval for an action they want to undertake to see if it is against the rules or not, they may PM the administrators and get their interpretation. It is advised that if a team is in doubt, they ask the administrators and get a clarification.

1.5 - Refugees
After a team has been eliminated from the game, its members may apply to become members of another team still active. They are free to share any information they have with their new team.

1.6 - Acceptable Utilities
The following out-of-game utilities are allowed: CivAssist II (v2.0.2387) and MapStat (v2.11.0). When using these programs, please use the latest version. If you would like to use a utility that is not on those list, or a new version of an approved utility, please contact the administrators.

1.7 - Turnplayer Preferences
Turnplayers for a team must have "Always Renegotiate Deals" off in their preferences.

2.0 - Banned Exploits
2.1 - Coordinated Capturing of Units
It is prohibited for teams to capture and recapture each turn units such as workers, catapults, and other non-combat units for the intent of using them twice in a turn against another team.

2.2 - Leader Sacrifices
Teams are not allowed to intentionally provide another team with units for the purpose of generating a Military Great Leader.

2.3 - Contact Trading
Contact trading in-game is allowed at Writing. While a team may send emails to any discovered teams, regardless of whether or not they have Writing, out-of-game contact between undiscovered teams may not occur unless they meet in-game or another team (with Writing) sells the contact to another team.

2.4 - Map Trading
Screenshots and visual maps cannot be traded between teams until Map Making is researched. After that, teams are free to trade screenshots as a normal trade item. Verbal maps (descriptions of the terrain, however detailed, as long as no images are involved) are allowed without any prerequisite.

2.5 - City Trading and Misleading Naming
Teams are not permitted to trade cities with the intent of teleporting units. Teams cannot name or rename cities or units with the names of technologies, resources, maps, units, or gold, nor can they rename units to pass them off as another unit type to confuse the other teams. If in doubt, teams should contact the administrators about their proposed name.

2.6 - Reloading
Reloading the save because of unfavorable outcomes or events is not allowed. If you are playing the save and the game crashes on you, it is permitted to load the save again, but please notify the administrators as well.

2.7 - Save Manipulation
Using any utility for the purpose of altering the game save or a game event is prohibited.

2.8 - Build Sequence
Teams cannot break into the build sequence to change anything, including actions such as hurrying production of a building/unit, changing prebuilds to the desired build, changing city laborers around to prevent a riot, and changing any build to another build (say, from a factory to a rifleman due to nearby enemy units). Instead of taking these actions during the build sequence before your turn, please make these changes during your turn. If a team is wondering whether something would be considered breaking into the build sequence, please contact the administrators.

2.9 - Ships' Visibility
It is not allowed to use up all of a ship's movement points and then press Fortify All, which will fortify not only the units in the boat, but also the boat itself, giving increased visibility on the next turn.

2.10 - Auto Go-To
Units can get double movement (as the second turn of movement happens earlier than it should) if the auto go-to command is used for distances over 1 turn. Do not use go-to commands for over 1 turn of distance.

2.11 - Negative Spending
Teams may not have a negative income when they end their turn which would put their treasury below zero gold, at the expense of just a few units or buildings, in order to gain advantages, such as running full science, which they could not normally afford with their regular income. Although having a negative income is permissible, perhaps to finish research of a technology one turn quicker, exploiting the game in the aforementioned manner, in a way that the disbanding of units and buildings does not make up for the commercial gains, is not allowed. If a team does end with a negative income and gets the in-game pop-up saying buildings/units have been disbanded, they should let the administrators know.

2.12 - Civil Engineer Exploits
It is not allowed for a team to use civil engineers to contribute shields to the construction of a building, and then rush that building and switch to a unit, as the shields from the civil engineers will carry over when they should not. Additionally, teams cannot partly build a city improvement, rush it, and then switch production to another building and continue this process, as the civil engineers' shields will be counted once for each rush, providing a false number of shields.

 

[dutchfire]

What was wrong with official treaties?

 

[Chamnix]

I definitely agree with keeping it simpler and abandoning the colored punishment system (especially since it was ignored last game anyway ).

One thing I would like to see added – I think last game the admins ruled that trading workers was illegal. I think the teams need to decide in advance whether slave trades will be allowed or not. I don't have a strong opinion, I just think we should make a decision before the game begins.

Also, although we should keep the rule about no map exchanges until map trading is allowed in game, personally I would prefer that map trading be moved up (and moved to a required tech since nobody will ever research Navigation). If people think Map Making is too early to trade maps, then maybe at Astronomy? (The specific tech is not really part of the ruleset, but it occurred to me now, and I don't think it is completely out of place here).

 

[Ginger_Ale]

dutchfire: Nothing was wrong, it's just there was confusion last about whether or not breaking a treaty was prohibited in the rules, not just "morally" wrong.

Chamnix: I don't remember saying anything about trading slaves - you are free to trade workers (via Diplomacy, when they're in your capital), regardless whether they are native or foreign. Is there something I'm missing?

I'm also open to moving map trading up; it would certainly make the early game more interesting. I should start a thread on custom rule changes...I'll do that now.

 

[Niklas]

I must say I was quite surprised at a number of items deemed exploits.

1.7: Why would it not be allowed to trade with another civ for "directions" to its neighbors? Immediate contact trading should of course not be allowed, but AFAIU wouldn't even be possible. But why not asking for directions? That sounds rather ridiculous to me. Sure, you can argue it's against the rules set by the game itself, but that would more likely be because such a feature would be well-nigh impossible to implement. Between teams, I definitely think it should be allowed, as it would add another dimension to the early game trade table.

1.9: Is this at all possible in C3C?

3.2: I just don't see why you should not be able to switch your build queues on the pre-turn. 3.3 is given of course, that's a clear exploit, but 3.2?

3.8: This seems a rather silly restriction. If no fighting takes place, then WW will automatically decrease over time anyway. And if you really don't want to have peaceful relations with another civ, why should you be forced to?

As for your questions, I think refugees should be allowed to say whatever they would, it will just make the game less fun for them if they couldn't talk. And the "spirit of the game" is to not use any exploits specifically listed as such. Any other use of the term is ab-use. I also think in response to Chamnix that slave trade should definitely be allowed. I just don't see the point in disallowing it.

 

[greekguy]

personally, i think we should to let refugees tell their new teams whatever info they want. the rule stopping me from telling MIA all i knew really frustrated me, and seemed too constricting. think of refugees as "spoils of war" who can help you defeat a common enemy.

 

[Chamnix]

I thought I read in either Doughnuts’ or KISS’ forum that they wanted to exchange workers, but the admins nixed the idea. There is no way I’m going to find it again, so if I misunderstood, just forget I brought it up. I don’t have a problem with trading workers – I’m just trying to think back to things that may have been disputed last game.

The whole directions thing before map trading is very difficult to define. Realistically, the “green line” agreement between KISS and MIA probably should have been illegal last game. Unless we ban all directional words from everyone’s vocabulary until maps are discovered, there is going to be a very large grey area where it is difficult to know if someone has gone too far.

I don’t think it is possible to rush wonders with an MGL either.

I kind of like 3.2 for a multiplayer game. When I was turnplayer last game at least, I always opened the save at least once to look around before I played for real. One of the examples given in 3.2 is building walls – it is definitely an exploit to check the save, see where enemy troops are, then when you play for real, adjust builds accordingly in the pre-turn. You could make a rule that all builds to be changed during the build sequence must be decided upon before any team member opens the save or something like that, but it just seems cleaner to ban breaking into the build sequence at all. I don’t see it as a big deal – you just must plan your prebuilds to complete the turn after a research project instead of the turn of. Of course, I would also ban scrolling ahead to prevent riots – whatever you left on your last turn is what you get this turn. The simplest rule - no breaking into the build sequence – 3.2 and 3.3 combined.

For 3.8, I agree with Niklas.

I agree that if refugees are allowed to join another team, then they should be able to say anything they want but not bring screenshots or similar information with them – they must rely solely on their memories. Although I liked the refugees MIA picked up last game, I think I would really prefer refugees just be eliminated from the game – one team per customer.

 

[Niklas]

Hmm, I also wonder about 6.3.1. Why not simply post the save in the team forum?

 

[CommandoBob]

Refugees
Let the refugees talk and squawk. Just because they say something doesn't mean it will be believed.

Go back to WWII. Jewish refugees told of the horrors of the Holocaust but their information was not believed. They talked and nothing happened.

After WWII, German geeks went to both the US and USSR. Rockets, satelllites and the Space Race occured. They talked and something happened.

This 'talking' was not allowed in MTDG I. It should be in MTDG II.

Utilities
Specify in the Ruleset what, if any, utilities can be used (MapStat, CivAssist etc). Another thread is discussing this; just include their verdict into the rules.

Something nice
A Multi Team version of these two tools that only show the player's info, with limited or no foreign information. Easy to suggest, but a burden to the programmers. I would be willing to help.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I must say I was quite surprised at a number of items deemed exploits.

We (RM and myself) did not make this list, we copied it from another inter-site game.

1.7: Why would it not be allowed to trade with another civ for "directions" to its neighbors? Immediate contact trading should of course not be allowed, but AFAIU wouldn't even be possible. But why not asking for directions? That sounds rather ridiculous to me. Sure, you can argue it's against the rules set by the game itself, but that would more likely be because such a feature would be well-nigh impossible to implement. Between teams, I definitely think it should be allowed, as it would add another dimension to the early game trade table.

Directions have to do more with maps than contacts, but even still, I think it's best if map/contact trading is left to their requisite techs. However, we can move those requisite techs around, so if we want to move contact/map trading to Writing/Map Making respectively, we can do that. I think that'll help alleviate this problem.

1.9: Is this at all possible in C3C?

No, it's not...

3.2: I just don't see why you should not be able to switch your build queues on the pre-turn. 3.3 is given of course, that's a clear exploit, but 3.2?

Yes, I think that's pretty fair, so I think it's allowable.

3.8: This seems a rather silly restriction. If no fighting takes place, then WW will automatically decrease over time anyway. And if you really don't want to have peaceful relations with another civ, why should you be forced to?

Fair enough.

As for your questions, I think refugees should be allowed to say whatever they would, it will just make the game less fun for them if they couldn't talk. And the "spirit of the game" is to not use any exploits specifically listed as such. Any other use of the term is ab-use. I also think in response to Chamnix that slave trade should definitely be allowed. I just don't see the point in disallowing it.

As I said already, I can't remember every saying slave trade wasn't allowed. In any case, letting refugees talk is fine with me I guess. Teams will be fighting over refugees now, just to get information!

BTW, thanks for your comments. You've illustrated the bad quality and wordiness of that last ruleset!


edit:

Hmm, I also wonder about 6.3.1. Why not simply post the save in the team forum?

Yeah, actually, this was an old rule from the Inter-Site Demogame between CFC and other civ-sites, where the leader of the team would send it to everyone on the team. Now, everyone can just go to their team's GMail account to download the save, so yes, this can be eliminated. There's a lot of out-of-game stuff that needs to be corrected for the ruleset.

 

[Robi D]

@ Chamnix, we were allowed to trade workers and Doughnuts and KISS did. The problem to begin with was that you can only do that when both teams have a city on the same continent, which we didn't when the idea was first raised.

One thing that came up is a message sent in error to the wrong team. This happened on a couple of occasions in the last game were one team sent a message to the wrong team, but that team wasn't allowed to use it because it was against the rules. To me that rewards incompetence, if you send a message to the wrong team they should be allowed to see it and use it to their advantage.

I agree with moving the availability of trading maps forward. I think this was moved back because it was to easy for a human player to get them from the AI so there was never a need to explore. Also being able to sell comunication to another team could be moved forward too.

As far as refugees go, they should be allowed to tell their new team any relavent info but they should be allowed to bring over discussions and things that have been posted, it should be only what they remember.

As for treaties, admins should only be able to tell other teams if a team has broken or kept their word in treaties that have been signed. Other then that the loss of reputation to a team breaking their word is more than enough.

 

[fe3333au]

I think that Refugees should be allowed to 'talk' ... however I would like the vanquished team's forum to be locked. That way you don't have the refugees going back to their old forum and sifting specific information like how many tiles away a resource or city is located or at turn XXX we were informed that Team Y were AVERAGE Strength compared to Team Z.
Let the refugees rely on their memory.

Swapping Maps should not be allowed until a specific technology is discovered, but general directions should be OK.

Regarding Treaties, I think that it is upto individual teams to decide how honourable they are ... however maybe if a treaty has been broken or a team feels slighted, an option could be for a team to post something in the UN. After all we are all informed when a Wonder is completed, whether we have met a team or not.

 

[gmaharriet]

IIRC, the problem with slave trading was the idea that two teams could agree to trade almost ALL their workers to save maintenance cost. At the end of the treaty period, each team's workers would be returned to them. That was what was nixed.

 

[Robi D]

IIRC, the problem with slave trading was the idea that two teams could agree to trade almost ALL their workers to save maintenance cost. At the end of the treaty period, each team's workers would be returned to them. That was what was nixed.

Ahh i had forgetten about that. Yes the idea was to swap all the workers but that was deemed exploitive, but otherwise worker trades were allowed

 

[Paul#42]

3.7 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a Civ then immediately declaring war
This also sounds strange to me - ww decreases slowly during peacetimes (though not applicated) and if war is declared immediately it is back at the old level - is that different in multiplayer game?

4.4 Battle Log
Is the condition of the winning attacker before and after the battle also subject to report? Should all be reported that a player in a singleplayer game would see? bypassing units etc.?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

3.7 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a Civ then immediately declaring war
This also sounds strange to me - ww decreases slowly during peacetimes (though not applicated) and if war is declared immediately it is back at the old extent - is that different in multiplayer game?

Yeah, I think this one is weird too. We can get rid of it.

4.4 Battle Log
Is the condition of the winning attacker before and after the battle also subject to report? Should all be reported that a player in a singleplayer game would see? bypassing units etc.?

Right, you have to report attacking units (even winners), somehow like this:
4/4 Med. Inf. vs. 3/3 Pike -> wins, now 2/4

 

[SimpleMonkey]

I was initiallly against allowing refugees to spill their guts to the teams they flee to, as it could result in folks getting access to info that they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to. However, there's really nothing to say that info provided is going to be accurate, is there? I agree now with locking forums and allowing refugees to say whatever they want. Without screenshots or other such supporting evidence, the adopting team is going to have to take their new member's word for the accuracy of their information. Unless the admins want to prohibit refugees from providing deliberately misleading information. That might be too spy-like to be in the spirit of the game.

 

[Paul#42]

I don't know why refugees are allowed at all...

I once was member of a club that had a (informal) rule: "membership expires upon death".
(Actually the club died before me...)

But maybe that's part of the pbem spirit I still seem to be lacking...

 

[Chamnix]

the idea was to swap all the workers but that was deemed exploitive, but otherwise worker trades were allowed

I think this needs to be clarified then. How many is too many?

 

[greekguy]

I think that Refugees should be allowed to 'talk' ... however I would like the vanquished team's forum to be locked. That way you don't have the refugees going back to their old forum and sifting specific information like how many tiles away a resource or city is located or at turn XXX we were informed that Team Y were AVERAGE Strength compared to Team Z.
Let the refugees rely on their memory.

Swapping Maps should not be allowed until a specific technology is discovered, but general directions should be OK.

Regarding Treaties, I think that it is upto individual teams to decide how honourable they are ... however maybe if a treaty has been broken or a team feels slighted, an option could be for a team to post something in the UN. After all we are all informed when a Wonder is completed, whether we have met a team or not.

i agree with everything in this post. it sums up my views on these 3 issues quite nicely.