When do we allow reloads for mistakes?

[Robi D]

Taking Riks advice here is a new thread for discussing reloads for mistakes

We have 2 proposed rules

1. A reload for a mistakenly placed city may be granted by the Game Admin(s) given that;
a. It can be verified that the city is incorrectly placed via discussions and screenshots in the team forum prior to city being placed

b. It doesn't effect another teams placement of a city on that turn

c. It has not been a regular occurrence

d. A request must be made on the turn of settling or the immediate turn after if that team was the last team to play.

For a reload to be granted it must meet the following criteria:

1. The mistake is of a serious nature, and can not be easily rectified, resulting in serious long term consequences
2. The request for a reload is made promptly
3. It can be demonstrated that the move in question was not intended, through prior team discussions and pre-planning.
4. The team making the mistake has not gained usable information through their mistake

A request for a reload may be rejected even if it meets the above criteria if it is determined that the impact on the game would be too severe, for any reason.

From the other thread

I'll admit that the most likely situation that would require a reload is a settlement error, and you've developed a decent ruleset for that situation. I can imagine a few less critical, and less likely situations which I personally would allow a reload on as long as doing so wouldn't greatly impact other teams. For example, accidental deletion of a great person. Until we discuss such a situation we won't know where the majority's opinion lies.

To accidently delete a GP is serious however i wouldn't vote for a reload because whenever you delete a unit you are asked for confirmation, so you'd have to misclick twice in a row which for me would be carelaessness rather than an accident

 

[grant2004]

I just wanted to copy in some more of one of my earlier posts for easy reference.

I trust the people on this forum. While individuals may behave in dishonorable ways from time to time, when a majority decision is made it is generally a just decision. Therefore, I believe it's best to leave situations like this in the player's hands rather than craft a rule which will constrain the use of our reasoning.

I'll admit that the most likely situation that would require a reload is a settlement error, and you've developed a decent ruleset for that situation. I can imagine a few less critical, and less likely situations which I personally would allow a reload on as long as doing so wouldn't greatly impact other teams. For example, accidental deletion of a great person. Until we discuss such a situation we won't know where the majority's opinion lies.

It's also possible that an individual who became disgrunteled would log in and perform a series of unauthorized and self destructive moves before leaving the game in a huff. Mass unit deletions, attacks on allies, mass whipping/drafting. I don't think we'd want to continue with the consequences of such an attack. I don't think such a thing is likely to happen, but it is possible, and thus I'd feel a whole lot safer with a rule that allows us to use our judgement about what a 'serious' case is rather than one which narrowly defines what 'serious' is.

Even if everyone agrees that a deleted special unit isn't enough of a big deal for a restart, a rage quit should be. I imagine there may be other circumstances that we may not be thinking of. I would hate for one of those situations to arise and for us to be told 'nope sorry, the restart rule ONLY covers settlers' With how infrequent these requests should be, I don't think it's unreasonable to take 24 hours to sort them out on a case by case basis. How we handeled this case apears to have worked very well.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Even if everyone agrees that a deleted special unit isn't enough of a big deal for a restart, a rage quit should be. I imagine there may be other circumstances that we may not be thinking of. I would hate for one of those situations to arise and for us to be told 'nope sorry, the restart rule ONLY covers settlers' With how infrequent these requests should be, I don't think it's unreasonable to take 24 hours to sort them out on a case by case basis. How we handeled this case apears to have worked very well.

I think Robi makes a good point about the deletion of units requiring confirmation first. I hadn't thought of that. But as you say, grant2004, there may well be situations that we are not able to think about right now that arise. I believe that your worry is unfounded because I believe a rule/amendment can be added or changed with consent of the teams as happened with this reload. So we can go ahead and add specific rules like Robi and BCLG have proposed and also add any others we can think of. If there comes a situation arises that we had not foreseen, we can do the same thing again. Pause, deliberate, come to a consensus and if people agree that it is cause for a reload we can write a new rule. I understand wanting to make the rule more inclusive, and if we can think of other valid reasons for reloading we should by all means include those in the proposed rule, but if we cannot think of any further additions at the moment we can always add them later. It is not going to be the case that if we don't think of a possibility right now, that it will just be a "Sorry, you're out of luck" scenario.

I agree that any obvious rage-quitting would be a justifiable reason for a reload, so we can include that. If we can think of any others why not add them right now.

 

[ash88]

4 points I think we should consider:

1) Annonymity
When a reload is requested there is no reason for the name of the requesting team to be made public knowledge. A moderator can be contacted who can put the question out there and without the name known there is less cause for bias. The name of the requesting team can be released after the veto vote.

The hope here of course is to minimize the amount of in-game politics effecting what should be out-of-game decision.

2) Veto
The reload shouldn't simply happen because TEAMA wants it at the forfeiture of TEAMB's success.

Any team should be allowed to Veto the reload because of the exceptional successes that they had during the turn (and a game moderator would have to verify those successes).

Consider later in the game that other teams may have experienced excellent results or have some exceptional successes in a turn, and then a reload is requested. A reload at this point would cause a lot of ticked off people on that team. The results of another teams turn may even outweigh the "misstep" that the requesting team took. Even if it doesn't, in those cases why should another team be at a disadvantage because of the misclick of their opponents?

3) Limit per game.
Requesting a reload should count as one of your two "timeout" counts. There are misplaced citys and then there are misplaced citys. If a team accidentally misplaces a city and it is still in a reasonable spot then the team should be encouraged to play it out. However, if it is in a really poor spot, or if it is early in the game, and the team feels so strongly about it that it is willing to give up one of its time outs then that sacrifice demonstrates the seriousness of their desire.

By virtue of the timeout limit a team can only have 2 reloads each game. Reloading twice would mean that they have no timeouts in the game.

If the action is Veto'd then they shouldn't lose their timeout.

4) Rage quits.
Again, use the timeout count as the limiter. If the team is willing to sacrifice one of its timeouts then they are more likely to temper their rage. If we reload after any rage quit then we offer too much freedom for people to rage all over our game whenever they are having a bad day.

Apart from that I think that reloading will make for a better game where teams are more focused on "bringing their A-Game" rather then trying to limp along and recover from a completely messed up misclick. I would like to think that the community is more interested in a good game then a quick game.

 

[Robi D]

To address grants concern that there might be a situation we missed here is a amended proposal along with one more issue that was brought up within CDZ

1. A reload for a mistakenly placed city may be granted by the Game Admin(s) given that;
a. It can be verified that the city is incorrectly placed via discussions and screenshots in the team forum prior to city being placed.
b. It doesn't effect another teams placement of a city on that turn.
c. It has not been a regular occurrence.
d. The request is made on the turn of settling or the immediate turn after if that team was the last team to play.
e. No important knowledge was gained by the mistake that could give that team an advantage.

2. If a Team feels a serious error has been made they can contact the Game Admin(s) given that;
a. It can be verified that it was an error from discussions, screenshots and agreed decisions in that teams forum prior to the error occuring.
b. It doesn't effect another teams play/moves on that turn.
c. It has not been a regular occurrence.
d. The request is made on the turn of the error or the immediate turn after if that team was the last team to play.
e. No important knowledge was gained by the mistake that could give that team an advantage.

If the Game Admin(s) agree that it is a serious error they may put it to the remaining Teams for a vote on whether or not a reload is granted.

This way we do not have to discuss or vote on settling errors since the majority agreed on allowing it to happen within certain critera. With other requests for a reload due to serious error, trival request will be rejected by the admins before a vote or if deemed legitimate enough put to the teams to discuss and vote.

An example for unimportant/important knowledge. Team A settle in the wrong spot by error and the new borders push back the fog to reveal a couple of empty ocean tiles is unimportant, where as if a iron deposit is revealed that is important.

@ash88- Although i'm not against anonymity in principle in a lot of cases anonymity is not possible due to the information available in game and civstats or for the fact that teams might need more info about the exact nature of the request.

 

[whb]

To accidently delete a GP is serious however i wouldn't vote for a reload because whenever you delete a unit you are asked for confirmation, so you'd have to misclick twice in a row which for me would be carelaessness rather than an accident

Or misclick sending your about-to-build-a-wonder or about-to-discover-a-tech-giving-a-religion GP next to a lion. (Even just accidentally settling the GP would have serious ramifications).

 

[Indiansmoke]

So did the reload happen? If yes who decided?

 

[mgsmuhammad]

Yes, I believe so.

3 other teams voted yes.

You, my liege, were, through no fault of your own, not available at the time to assert our stance on the issue, and so I believe we essentially abstained.

 

[Earthling]

Quatronia, Sirius, and at least some third team (if not fourth) voted to approve - Dave had been monitoring the team forums I guess and went ahead with the reload before we'd officially reported our votes, but it seems there were clear majority decisions.

While if we want to spell out the city-settling situation that's ok, I personally like the second ruleset here, but I'd add one thing

1. The mistake is of a serious nature, and can not be easily rectified, resulting in serious long term consequences
2. The request for a reload is made promptly
3. It can be demonstrated that the move in question was not intended, through prior team discussions and pre-planning.
4. The team making the mistake has not gained usable information through their mistake

5. If reloading a turn significantly affects another teams actions and results (basically, inevitable with combat) then it won't be reloaded, regardless of severity of mistake.

 

[Indiansmoke]

So did the reload happen? If yes who decided?

Ignore me, I just saw all he discussion happened in the turn thread.

 

[DaveShack]

My personal opinion on this is that we should allow unlimited reloads for any (verifiable) unintended actions. I just don't get the mentality of requiring absolute perfection on the part of the people who touch the game. If the outcome had some real world consequences it would be different. I wouldn't allow an olympic athlete a do over, because someone is going to win or lose a real medal over the result. But this is just a game, at least for me.

I don't think lots of reloads would be requested. I know of one publicly known event where there could have been a reload but none was requested, and there have probably been other non-public incidents. The first hurdle to a reload is the individual or team asking for one. I think it's safe to say that nobody is going to even ask for one if the mistake is short lived or minor impact. No, if a reload is requested it probably means the team is better off retiring from the game if it's not granted.

I'm not going to be responsible for a team getting eliminated because a reload request was denied. So you can count on me for an instant yes vote.

 

[Robi D]

My personal opinion on this is that we should allow unlimited reloads for any (verifiable) unintended actions. I just don't get the mentality of requiring absolute perfection on the part of the people who touch the game. If the outcome had some real world consequences it would be different. I wouldn't allow an olympic athlete a do over, because someone is going to win or lose a real medal over the result. But this is just a game, at least for me.

I don't think lots of reloads would be requested. I know of one publicly known event where there could have been a reload but none was requested, and there have probably been other non-public incidents. The first hurdle to a reload is the individual or team asking for one. I think it's safe to say that nobody is going to even ask for one if the mistake is short lived or minor impact. No, if a reload is requested it probably means the team is better off retiring from the game if it's not granted.

I'm not going to be responsible for a team getting eliminated because a reload request was denied. So you can count on me for an instant yes vote.

I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from on this point as not once has anyone suggested that a specific number be put on the number of reloads a team can request. The only thing i can see is this

1. A reload for a mistakenly placed city may be granted by the Game Admin(s) given that;[...]
c. It has not been a regular occurrence [...]

I do not see how its unreasonable to say that if there was team is regularly asking for reloads due to errors that we say enough is enough. No one is asking for perfection but there has to be some accountability and onus on a turnplayer to make the right moves.

And finally what if due to a mistake a team gained important knowledge that gives them an advantage would you still say yes to a reload?

 

[Indiansmoke]

My personal opinion on this is that we should allow unlimited reloads for any (verifiable) unintended actions. I just don't get the mentality of requiring absolute perfection on the part of the people who touch the game. If the outcome had some real world consequences it would be different. I wouldn't allow an olympic athlete a do over, because someone is going to win or lose a real medal over the result. But this is just a game, at least for me.

You could also say that it is just a game, live with your mistake and play on!

It is not like you would lose Olympic gold

 

[Indiansmoke]

On the ruleset, my opinion is that we must allow for a veto vote. Otherwise if we allow such decisions by majority in game alliances will rule the out of game decisions as well.

There should be no ruleset on such things. When something happens and a team wants a reload, they ask and if ALL other teams approve it we do it.

Obviously this was not done in this case since our game admin rushed a decision without hearing from all teams first!

 

[Rik Meleet]

I, as forum moderator, am against reloads for the sole reason that discussing them creates turmoil and an unwanted mood in the forum in which debates can get too fierce and too personal. Votes and vetoes only increase this risk and I will not have the mood in my forum deterioate.

The game admin DaveMcW allowed this 1-time reload because of the mouseclick was done accidently (possibly even by the baby's foot) and the team-forum proved that city was never meant to be build there. These circumstances do not happen often and it is the turnplayer's responsibility to reduce the risk of misclicks. Opening the saved game without your finger on the left-mouse button might be enough to avoid unwanted mouseclicks and many 'large' uncorrectable errors require 2 mouseclicks. Be very careful and cautious and misclick-errors will not happen. A turn can last up to 24 hours so no turnplayer is under time-pressure playing his turn.

My suggestion for when to allow reloads for mistakes:

* Never
* Exception: A game-changing event (well documented in your forum) due to an event outside the turnplayer's responsibility (servercrash or gamecrash, hardware defect or fall of mouse/laptop, sabotage/foul play). Decision by the game-admins.

 

[Krill]

I, as forum moderator, am against reloads for the sole reason that discussing them creates turmoil and an unwanted mood in the forum in which debates can get too fierce and too personal. Votes and vetoes only increase this risk and I will not have the mood in my forum deterioate.

I don't think you really matter here though, for the game rules. The game has it's own admins in DaveMcW and classical_hero. Let them get blamed for everything

The forum stuff, obviously, it's never nice to have to wade through flame wars.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I don't think you really matter here though, for the game rules. The game has it's own admins in DaveMcW and classical_hero. Let them get blamed for everything
.

Don't worry your time to get the share of the flame you deserve for the creation/aproval of this map is not far

 

[DaveMcW]

I suggest game admins get veto power over reloads.

I think this rule covers rage-quit already:

1.1 -- Team Espionage
... anything else deemed as deliberate espionage is not tolerated will be harshly dealt with.

 

[Earthling]

I am strongly opposed to teams themselves having vote OR veto powers in the future. The conditions for a reload should be clear and I'd rather let the admins handle it than any sort of future vote, if we are to have reloads at all.

Somebody asked who was discussing "limits" on reloads and I'd point out several people made various suggestions to tie it to the limited "timeout" system. I also oppose that.

Also, I found the suggestion about moderation completely out of left field and if not annoyingly patronizing, not something I would want to consider. I've never seen anything like that suggestion in dozens of other cfc subforums (don't think I've ever seen the rules on a forum games game set or posters barred from participating by the moderators, even if one would want that, it just isn't consistent with anything I've ever seen) and I'd do whatever I could to keep this game/discussion running elsewhere if needed.

 

[DaveShack]

DaveMcW -- that rule covers what to do about the player who rage-quits, but not what to do with the game.

Rik -- good point about avoiding discussion that ruins the spirit of the game.

I would prefer that the rules do not place any arbitrary limits on either pauses or reloads. As I've said before, if a pause or reload is necessary, then it's necessary. We should trust the teams to only request one when they really need it, and the admins to grant them when needed and deny when not.

The game should not be decided, even indirectly, by an out of game incident. Someone's kid bumping the keyboard or a team's only currently available turnplayer getting sick with a couple of hours left on the clock should not be allowed to kill the game.

Edit: It's not just a mouse click problem. The game does have keyboard shortcuts and there are numerous bad things that can happen from an object banging the keyboard. Also laptops with touch pads are notorious for spurious clicks at the slightest brush.