Ruleset Vote!

Should this ruleset be approved?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

General_W

Councilor & Merlot Noble
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
8,198
Location
Washington State (GMT -8)
Hey everyone! It's time to vote on a ruleset for this game. :thumbsup:

Please read these rules carefully, as we'll all be bound to play by them.
Hopefully everything is self-explanatory, but if not - please ask your question before voting.

Note: If this ruleset passes: everyone is bound to honor it - even if you voted to reject! ;)

1 Out of Game Actions
1.1 -- Team Espionage
Using external forms of intelligence gathering against opposing teams is forbidden.
example: Entering Team Forums, joining multiple teams using different accounts, actively petitioning other players for information, looking around on the CFC (or a 3rd party website) image database for screenshots and save uploads, or anything else deemed as deliberate espionage is not tolerated will be harshly dealt with.

1.2 -- Screenshot Trading
Screenshots taken in-game of a city, minimap, or anything else may only be given, traded, or exchanged to other teams once one of the pair knows paper.

1.3 -- Save Manipulation
Editing the save file (with or without a utility) is not allowed. Any actions that would allow you to edit or view the save file of another team is not allowed.


2 In Game Actions
2.1 -- Suicide Training
Knowingly sacrificing a unit to an ally in order to yield experience points to the victorious unit is forbidden.


3 In Game Gifts
3.1 –- Military Unit Gifting
Gifting/receiving units for the purpose of fighting an enemy while in an ally's territory who isn't at war with them, and then gifting it back to avoid it being killed is prohibited.
Great People are excepted from this rule, and may be gifted at any time.

3.2 -– Naval Unit Gifting
A team may never gift units loaded in a naval vessel to another team, nor may they gift a loaded naval vessel.

3.3 –- Double Move Gifting
Units that have attacked in a turn are not allowed to be gifted to any other civilization.

3.4 –- City Gifting
Gifting a city to an ally when it is about to be taken in war, or to somehow gain an advantage is prohibited. Gifting cities are only allowed as gifts of goodwill and should not be abused to deny right of conquest or to keep a civilization alive indefinitely and out of the hands of an aggressor.


4 Game Procedure
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 “continue sooner” 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.

4.2 -- Awareness
If you discover a rules violation it is your duty to inform all participants (via Game Forum) of the violation or the solicitation thereof by any player.

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.

4.4 -- Voting
After the game has commenced votes are tallied by team, not by individuals within the teams. Three-fifths (3/5) Majority.

4.5 -- Punishments for Violations
Violations of these rules will be dealt with through the use of various in-game sanctions decided upon by Team Vote. Possible punishments include: Gold Payment, exclusion of a team member for a certain amount of turns, a formal warning, or anything else deemed appropriate by a majority vote. A Team Member has the right not to be tried twice for the same infraction (i.e. double jeopardy).

4.6 -- Defeated Teams
If a team is defeated, any player on that team is permitted to join another team. These "refugee" players are free to share any information from their old team with their new team. This includes any images or screenshots or treaty documents that they "salvaged upon fleeing from the burning rubble of their last city." They may NOT engage in team espionage by reporting information on their new team to any other team. Additionally, defeated players may opt out of the remainder of the game.

Here's to fun and orderly game! :beer:
 
Clarification Requested:

Since this is Pitboss Sequential, do we have to worry about double-moves? If a go-to order is set for a swordsman to enter a forest on the following turn, will the next team to open the save see the sword in the forest? If Yes, then perhaps we should insert a no got orders clause, with an exception for units that may only defend (like workers, scouts, settlers, explorers, missionaries, GP, &cet)
 
No need to worry about double moves - in BtS (and in Vanilla Civ) all units move as a part of your turn, no extra inter-turn nonsense like in Civ3. :thumbsup:
 
Fix vassal states, if it is on...
 
Are you sure that's still the case with BtS, GW?

I thought the problem with double moves arises due to Pitboss - it's certainly an issue with simultaneous; it's sequential that I'm unclear about.

:blush: it seems like we spent weeks discussing this - why can't I find the thread?
 
From what I've read most people agree that running Pitboss using a Sequential Turn Timer fixes the problem of double moves. However, since it may not even be an issue, I don't see any problem with creating a rule banning double-moves during wartime. This even covers us if someone discovers a new exploit during the course of the game. Seems prudent to add it as 2.2 In Game Actions, to me.
 
I disagree with the barring of city gifting to prevent capture or to maintain a civilization. There are historical precedents for both of these types of things occurring. In the case of the former a good example would be the transfer of facilities in Iceland and Greenland from Denmark to the United Kingdom for safe-keeping at the outbreak of WWII, and then the further transfer of those facilities to the United States when it became clear the UK had its hands full. A good example of the latter would be the Free French government in exile, Vichy France was cooperating with the Germans, but De'Gaulle (who is even in the game!) maintained a seperate, legitimate government being hosted by England. In my opinion, if one team has a trustworthy ally they wish to take the risk with it should be permitted, particularly because it may mean they have to go to war with said ally themselves to get it back if that ally proves less than trustworthy. Also if someone wishes to offer an ally a way to survive and feels it is in their best interests to sacrifice use of a city to see that happen why the heck not?
 
So you think gifting a city to a party not at war with the guy you are at war with just to bump his troops out is fine?
 
I'm a little unclear on what's meant by 3.1. Can someone clarify?
 
If say Civ A is fighting civ B in civ C's territory, and neither civ A nor civ B are at war with civ C, either civ can attack the other(for simplicity lets assume A attacks B), and then gift the unit to civ C so civ B can't kill it.
 
Thanks. :)
 
Frankly Oyzar it seems pretty darn unlikely that anyone would make use of a city loan option. They have no guarantee they would get it back, and with only five teams doesn't it seem most likely that everyone will be going for the throat rather than cooperating? It would add a layer of nuance and depth that would be very interesting in addition to have a basis in reality and history. As far as for fighting in a third party's territory and gifting a unit to protect it, the same thing applies. Isn't it more likely than not that the third party would just keep it? This would give civilizations that aren't doing so well an out when faced with annihilation by a stronger power. The concept of giving a city to a semi-friendly rival to spite the person about to take it has appeal, and ultimately saying it is unfair to the big guy about to overrun the city isn't persuasive to me.
 
Sadly - this ruleset will never make everyone happy.

I am pleased to see that it's passing with overwhelming margins so far. The best we're ever going to be able to hope for is a ruleset that is broadly acceptable to the vast majority of people.

Hopefully your disagreement about one (realistically minor) point of the rules, won't prevent you from playing and enjoying this game, Purple Turtle! :)
 
The biggest issue is still the vassal issue to me, though if they are off that is basically a non-issue anyways...
 
Blah. Why ask people to vote if they are not going to be given a chance to suggest changes and have those suggestions weighed and taken seriously?
 
Blah. Why ask people to vote if they are not going to be given a chance to suggest changes and have those suggestions weighed and taken seriously?

The point is most people really don't agree with you that it should be possible to use such exploit in the rules to do things that are normally not allowed by the gamerules.
 
@PurpleTurtle, Please understand that just because you don't get your way, doesn't mean you weren't taken seriously.

I apologize if I've given you the impression of ignoring you. But this is not a new debate. This discussion happened in the first MTDG, and you make a similar case to the ones I heard back then. The language for rule 3.4 came right out of the original MTDG ruleset.

Your position is totally valid (obviously) - but many people, like myself, believe the game is more fun for everyone involved when there are no city-trading shenanigans.
Our position is also valid - and that's why we're having a vote.
If the ruleset fails, we'll go back to the drawing board, and if rule 3.4 is why people voted against it - we'll take it out!
 
Top Bottom