Indiansmoke
Deity
No worries Sommer, your pen is strong enough to cover your in game clumpsiness 
When do we allow reloads for mistakes?
- Thread starter Robi D
- Start date
GOTM has a rule and you can choose to play under it or not play. After I wasted a couple hundred hours playing them and either having my kids whack the keyboard badly enough to ruin my results or my old boat anchor of a system crashing (with a rigid policy that wouldn't let me grab an autosave), I just decided not to play GOTM any more.
GOTM is not like this type of game. If an individual screws up, they've only messed up their own game. A SGOTM is a little closer to this type of game, but even in SGOTM it only affects a handful of people who are all experts.
In a demogame, you might have 10-20 people on a team whose experience is ruined, and half of them (or more) might not be opening the game at all. And because it's a MP game, a mistake that blows away a team hurts everyone else too. What would happen if a team retired to AI right now? Some teams might get a lot more benefit than other teams.
A disaster could hit the MTDG. Do we want to just give up if it happens, or do we want to correct it and move on?
I'm still not sure I see how this reasoning warrants the inclusion of a reload opportunity for every team at the, relative, drop of a hat. On the same coin then, presumably there are numerous players who are quite good at this game, why is it just the so called 'bad' players which will ragequit? Presumably it can get annoying for those 'better' players to have to constantly pander to the necessity for baby steps for those concerned. Therefore, there surely there is also the chance they all get bored for the exact same reason and then leave the game, leaving an AI team with more teams liable to benefit.
I think you're treating this too much as a traditional demogame where everyone has to be lead through everything, demogame as in the cfc pallava, those playing aren't children and if they are tend to have a basic intelligence/maturity to play civ 4 so why shouldn't there also be basic standards that have to be met?
A disaster could indeed hit the MTDG but accidently clicking for a war does not count as a disaster in my book, especially as this is a bit harder to do in MP, nor is doing something accidental with a GP. A team still receives a benefit from its misuse so it is hardly like it is the end of the world. Now this game also had a rule, which on the face of it only allowed reloads for intentional DM's, that was the only reload rule I believed was in play when i signed up to play. Obviously there must be exceptions in some circumstances, perhaps sommers kid going to town on his laptop is one of them but in my view is that this is an exceptional circumstance and only really appropriate because it is so early in the game, lets not forget that by founding the city in the wrong place the team would still receive a city but perhaps it is just not as good as it could possibly be.
On topic, regarding "when do we allow reloads for mistakes":
I'm just going to state my view on what I see as the only viable rule:
If all the teams and the ref agree (to anything -- even altering the map, or deciding to play tiddlywinks instead) then it can be done. If not, stick to the game mechanics laid down by the game itself.
Any other rule is going to be open to varying judgments ("was that settler misplaced enough", "did another team have an outstanding enough turn that they shouldn't have to redo it", etc). And varying judgments means there's always going to be dissent from the team that loses out. We'd end up with a rule that's a lot less straightforward than the off-side rule that has football fans regularly shouting "we was robbed".
I'm just going to state my view on what I see as the only viable rule:
If all the teams and the ref agree (to anything -- even altering the map, or deciding to play tiddlywinks instead) then it can be done. If not, stick to the game mechanics laid down by the game itself.
Any other rule is going to be open to varying judgments ("was that settler misplaced enough", "did another team have an outstanding enough turn that they shouldn't have to redo it", etc). And varying judgments means there's always going to be dissent from the team that loses out. We'd end up with a rule that's a lot less straightforward than the off-side rule that has football fans regularly shouting "we was robbed".
Why assume it will happen more than once? And how can having the admins decide whether it is "game changing" be considered to be "drop of a hat"?
There is a big difference between being annoyed at having a 24 hour delay and having your civ's entire future go down the drain. I'm stipulating that in order to be worth a reload it's a game destroying event. And don't even try to say that a badly placed city isn't potentially game destroying, this early in the game, when the compound interest effect of missing out on half the potential hammers or commerce runs into the tens of thousands over the projected length of the game. This early a single badly placed city can mean the difference between winning and last place. Why else would we take so long choosing where to put it?
So you have a difference of opinion about what could be disasterous? Those are just examples of things that might be viewed by some as potentially significant. I don't really know to be honest -- in case you haven't been paying attention I'm a very poor civ player. My contribution in posting a proposed rule is to move the process of debating it forward. It's not even really a proposed rule, it's an informal starting point for discussion.
I'm 100% certain that there is a vast difference between building an acadmey or shrine vs settling a super specialist. Once again, thousands or even tens of thousands of difference in the total benefit over the lifetime of the game, counting compound interest.
This is precisely why I'm suggesting that it be solely the admin's decision for any future events. If it is destructive to the game, then it must be dealt with. And I trust the admin to deny the request if it's not destructive. IMO we don't need anything more complicated than that.
Indiansmoke
Deity
This is a matter of how we want to play the game really, problem is there is no we as we all have different opinions!
For example I see it as a competition. In competitions players who make serious mistakes lose, simple as that! Micromanagement and turn player actions are a part of the game, a serious part IMO and mistakes in that department should count!
And in regards to Sommer's question whether the whole team should be punished my answer is of course yes. I don't see why not. You could say that it was a mistake of the team to appoint a clumpsy turn player and I don't see why they should get away with it.
For example maybe we appointed the wrong diplomat or the wrong king and now we face a grave situation. Did we ask for a reload? I don't see why decisions that teams take on who should handle what should not cost them or why micromanagement errors should be rectified by reloads while diplo errors cannot!
All that about babies stepping on keyboards, I do sympathize, but it is not my problem! I am not pleasant I know, but it is a cruel world and as we are treated with cruelty in game I will treat matters like that with the same cruelty.
Of course others see it like a friendly gathering were we all are pleasant and we do not let mistakes of turnplayers decide things, so that as not to spoil the atmosphere....
I am not to say who is right and who is wrong
For example I see it as a competition. In competitions players who make serious mistakes lose, simple as that! Micromanagement and turn player actions are a part of the game, a serious part IMO and mistakes in that department should count!
And in regards to Sommer's question whether the whole team should be punished my answer is of course yes. I don't see why not. You could say that it was a mistake of the team to appoint a clumpsy turn player and I don't see why they should get away with it.
For example maybe we appointed the wrong diplomat or the wrong king and now we face a grave situation. Did we ask for a reload? I don't see why decisions that teams take on who should handle what should not cost them or why micromanagement errors should be rectified by reloads while diplo errors cannot!
All that about babies stepping on keyboards, I do sympathize, but it is not my problem! I am not pleasant I know, but it is a cruel world and as we are treated with cruelty in game I will treat matters like that with the same cruelty.
Of course others see it like a friendly gathering were we all are pleasant and we do not let mistakes of turnplayers decide things, so that as not to spoil the atmosphere....
I am not to say who is right and who is wrong
Because the parameters you have submitted are 'drop of a hat', accidental declerations of war are easily fixed via diplomacy and later game especially the use of great people will more than likely be very often. Therefore why even contemplate a reload for them.
Where has this 24 hours come from? I honestly fail to see why you take so long to decide to place a city but that is largely irrelevant. A badly placed city on a map such as this would be relatively hard, most possible locations are still reasonable so of course I am going to say that it isn't game destroying. Game destroying is being at war and deleting all your units, badly placing a city is only stupid and hampering.
Indeed, which was why I proposed otherwise at which point you seemed to jump on it without offering a reasonable explanation as to why. A debate does not have to entail everyone agreeing with you, my disagreement can still constitute a part of the debate. I doubt you are as poor as you make out Dave, we don't give out forums at CDZ to just anyone!
Indeed but you are still receiving a benefit from either one. Therefore they are not losing anything, other than a possibility, of something they did not already have. Obviously there is the counterargument to that debate with each one having different potential bonuses which can be used but I feel in this discussion it is probably not worthwhile going into.
I agree, as stated previously, in essence with the proposal however i believe that the only possible reload should be allowed for misplaced cities and therefore that should be the only thing able to go before an admin.
Finally, IS does make a valid point with regards to mistakes by the turnplayer, why should the rest of the team not suffer? it was their decision to allow that person to take the turns and presumably they will accept the positives of their actions should there be any, why should they not accept the negatives also.
The reason why, IMO is because who is turnplayer often is a matter of necessity. Whereas the diplomat is a matter of choice. Let me explain...
You MUST play the turn in order to play the game, but you DO NOT have to engage in diplomacy to play the game. Since you MUST play the turn... if the only person currently able/willing to play the turn is clumsy Sommerswerd, then you are stuck with that person as the turnplayer. You did not APPOINT Sommerswerd to be the turnplayer, it just happens that Sommerswerd is the only one who can play the turns at the moment.
Contrast that with diplomacy... You NEVER have to send any diplomatic emails, PMs etc. You can just make all your request in-game, in the diplomacy window, or you can just ignore diplomacy entirely and just try to win via superior Micromanagement and tactics. If you choose to have a diplomat... that is an actual choice, rather than just a necessity of moving the turns along. That is why it is different, and that is why it is arguably more fair to punish a team for poor diplomacy, than for an accident in turn-play.
Also, while there might be a goof in diplomacy (i.e. sending a poorly worded letter or making an agreement that the team did not want), a goof in diplo can not be fixed with a reload, it must be fixed through diplomacy (i.e. sending a retraction, etc.). For that reason I respectfully disagree that the "wrong diplomat" situation can be compared to the "wrong turnplayer" one. The two situations are totally different, at least in terms of their relevance to this discussion about reloads. Poor diplo has nothing to do with reloads, and can not be remedied by reloads. Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense
.Of course there might be an accidental acceptance of, for example, an offer of a peace treaty in exchange for a gifted city, or all the team's cities
(or some other offer in-game, via the diplomacy window). Now if the turnplayer accidentally accepts, when the team had no intention or desire of ending the war, I would call that a turnplayer error, rather than a diplomat error. In any case, I would say that that situation should warrant a reload... Do you disagree? Now team Merlot is particullary well suited to avoid turnplayer accidents, because of the way the team is structured, so I can appreciate your point entirely, in wanting to benefit from the intelligent way that your team is designed. However, I hope you can at least see the distinction that I am making between diplomats and turnplayers in the area of reloads.
As I said above, there is no "decision" made to allow someone to play the turn when there is ONLY ONE person available/willing to take a turn or set of turns. Do you see what I mean?
One way to look at a turnplayer is the elected representative of the team, which is how I think you and Indiansmoke are looking at it. The argument, as I understand it, is that since the turnplayer is elected/appointed by the team, the team should be held responsible for any errors the turnplayer makes. However, not every team has the luxury of electing their turnplayer.
Some teams might only have one person available to play at any given time, so another way to look at the turnplayer is merely the vehicle through which the wishes of the team are expressed. If it is clearly demonstrable that the turnplayer failed to execute the turn according to the mandate of the team, and the error is easily corrected without damaging any of the other teams, I would be in favor of the reload.
Your comment about 'accepting the positives but not the negatives' misses the point, because it is not about positive results versus negative results. It is about DOING what the team decided to do, or NOT DOING what the team decided to do, regardless of the positive or negative results of the action.
Going a little into the 'straw-man' weeds... One hypothetical situation that I can imagine that could apply to your 'negatives versus positives' comment is where the team elects NOT to attack, and the turnplayer accidentally attacks anyway, but wins a miraculous low odds victory. In that case, I'm sure the team would just accept the result
even though the turnplayer technically erred in the move. However, I seriously doubt that anyone would favor any reloads related to combat, or reloads that could possibly influence combat results... which is why I referred to that example as a straw-man.IMO, this is how all ruleset deviations should be done. Admins are in the best position to decide objectively whether a reload or other amendment should be allowed. Players opinion on the matter can be affected by the in-game situation and could vote for what they think benefits their team the most.
Also if these things are decided by a majority of team votes, it is theoretically possible that a change that the majority of the players oppose. If in four teams have only a small majority of player voting for the change but two remaining vote agains by large majority we could potentially have similar situation than in US presidential elections where the country can get a president that the most voters did not vote for. Since no ruleset is perfect there may come unforeseeable issues during the game (as now with the misclick) I personally believe that deviations to the rules can be done, but only people who I would trust the judgement to are the admins.
Also, while there might be a goof in diplomacy (i.e. sending a poorly worded letter or making an agreement that the team did not want), a goof in diplo can not be fixed with a reload, it must be fixed through diplomacy (i.e. sending a retraction, etc.). For that reason I respectfully disagree that the "wrong diplomat" situation can be compared to the "wrong turnplayer" one. The two situations are totally different, at least in terms of their relevance to this discussion about reloads. Poor diplo has nothing to do with reloads, and can not be remedied by reloads. Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense
Poor play should not be remedied by reloads either. I'll address the rest of the points in the part directed towards me.
Of course there might be an accidental acceptance of, for example, an offer of a peace treaty in exchange for a gifted city, or all the team's cities
Wholeheartedly. It is the error of the team and the team should accept the consequences, why should the rest of the game have to suffer because someone cannot control there fingers?
No-one is elected for CDZ, everyone is quite free to play the turn. I'm always a little mystified when people are forbidden from playing the turns. I see what you imply but perhaps you should remedy that situation within your team, if you feel you are not adequate enough to play the turns perhaps bring that to the attention of the admins or recruit outside players to play the game. It is not the fault of the other teams that your team does not posses enough players to play the turn, this is disregarding that three players at least appear to be able to log in from your team.
Indeed, i believe that both IS and I admit that the turnplayer is the vehicle by which the team plays the actual game rather than playing it for his/herself but poor play should not warrant a reload. As previously expressed it is the teams decision to allow that player to play the turns so why should they not accept the consequences?
Your comment about 'accepting the positives but not the negatives' misses the point, because it is not about positive results versus negative results. It is about DOING what the team decided to do, or NOT DOING what the team decided to do, regardless of the positive or negative results of the action.
Going a little into the 'straw-man' weeds... One hypothetical situation that I can imagine that could apply to your 'negatives versus positives' comment is where the team elects NOT to attack, and the turnplayer accidentally attacks anyway, but wins a miraculous low odds victory. In that case, I'm sure the team would just accept the result
It doesn't miss the point, what you've done is merely rephrase what I've said. I don't think your hypothetical does anything but support my argument but no matter. The positive results of a turnplayers actions can be seen as the turnplayer repeating the actions given to them by the team, the negative where the turnplayer goes off piste. The turnplayer has been appointed/allowed/begged/leftintheunenviablepositionofbeingtheonlyoneleft but they are the ones to play it and the team should accept the consequences of doing so.
With regards to your position, it can be seen that it was a team decision to not have anyone else to play the turn in 48 hours. However, you completely miss the point in that my post is not aimed at any individual turnplayer but merely the principle that turnplayers should be responsible for their own actions, regardless if there is anyone left, being the only one left has nothing to do with it.
@Aivo, I do think most people are capable of objectively justifying their opinions. For instance, from CDZ's point of view the fact we have been on the other side of most debates on the ruleset will have absolutely no bearing on the end result of any ingame actions.
It seems that alot of what you said was a repeat of what you already said, so I will just agree to disagree
with you on that stuff rather than re-repeat what I already repeated
...
However, there are two things you said that I want to highlight:
Go with me on this... A mistake in diplo CAN BE FIXED, but NOT with a reload... it just does not make any sense. A reload does nothing to fix a diplo error. Converseley a turnplayer error CAN BE fixed, but some turnplayer errors can ONLY be fixed with a reload.
I was pointing this out to say one thing, and one thing only... That Indiansmoke's analogy... comparing a poor choice in diplomat to a poor choice in turnplayer... had no relevance to the discussion about reloading turns, because diplomatic error has NOTHING to do with reloads. So all I was saying was that turnplayer error and diplomat error are different (in the sense that one can be fixed by reloads, and one cannot), and cant be compared for the purposes of this discussion on reloads. Can we at least agree on this?
It seems that you are saying that if someone on CDZ (or any team for that matter) logged into the turn and the diplo screen was up, and there was an offer for them to gift ALL their cities, and a piece of drywall fell off their ceiling and hit the keyboard, causing them to accept, then you would oppose a reload. Is this what you are saying?
If so... then I respectfully disagree, and I am curious whether anyone else shares this draconian view of turnplayer responsibility
Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to change your mind. As you correctly stated, the purpose of debate is not to have everybody agree with your point of view. I just want to make sure that you understood my point of view, and that your point of view, which IMO seems a little on the extreme side
is presented accurately.(Smilies added for dramatic effect.)
with you on that stuff rather than re-repeat what I already repeated...However, there are two things you said that I want to highlight:
The statement that I made, and which you were responding to with the above comment was not intended to change your mind, or to assert that poor play was more entitled to remedy than poor diplomacy. In fact by saying "reloads either" you make me feel pretty stongly that you missed my point, because you notice I did not say that poor diplo should not be remedied by reloads... I said that poor diplo COULD NOT be remedied by reloads.
Go with me on this... A mistake in diplo CAN BE FIXED, but NOT with a reload... it just does not make any sense. A reload does nothing to fix a diplo error. Converseley a turnplayer error CAN BE fixed, but some turnplayer errors can ONLY be fixed with a reload.
I was pointing this out to say one thing, and one thing only... That Indiansmoke's analogy... comparing a poor choice in diplomat to a poor choice in turnplayer... had no relevance to the discussion about reloading turns, because diplomatic error has NOTHING to do with reloads. So all I was saying was that turnplayer error and diplomat error are different (in the sense that one can be fixed by reloads, and one cannot), and cant be compared for the purposes of this discussion on reloads. Can we at least agree on this?
Just to make sure I completely understand, and am not mis-stating your position (although I was really asking Indiansmoke the question), let me raise a straw-man again...
It seems that you are saying that if someone on CDZ (or any team for that matter) logged into the turn and the diplo screen was up, and there was an offer for them to gift ALL their cities, and a piece of drywall fell off their ceiling and hit the keyboard, causing them to accept, then you would oppose a reload. Is this what you are saying?
If so... then I respectfully disagree, and I am curious whether anyone else shares this draconian view of turnplayer responsibility Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to change your mind. As you correctly stated, the purpose of debate is not to have everybody agree with your point of view. I just want to make sure that you understood my point of view, and that your point of view, which IMO seems a little on the extreme side
is presented accurately.(Smilies added for dramatic effect.)
So in principle we are quite close. You think that city placement is the only possible game destroying event, while I believe it is possible there could be another kind of game destroying event but can't name one offhand. But I think you might agree that if one occurs it will be immediately obvious to even the casual observer, aka the admin. So just take the sample events out of the proposal, since they're what seem to cause the disagreement.
Reload requests go to the admins, who verify that the reload is for a significant (game-changing), and unintended event. The admins can request a pause to gather information, which does not count in any team's timeout limit; grant the reload using available information without requesting a pause; deny the reload without requesting a pause.
Explanation
- By not listing any event types, we do not give implied consent to a reload for those events. Everything is case by case.
- If the admins requested a pause and then charged a timeout, they would have to reveal why. The game is better off without those discussions, so instead it's just an admin's timeout
Re: 24 hours. In reply to a statement I might paraphrase as "these experienced players will get upset by all the delay and quit" I was trying to say that seeing a couple of 24 hour delays over the course of the game is nothing compared to seeing your team's chances of winning go from good to none. Would anyone really get bored and quit just because one reload happens?
Umm, you're creeping me out here. A couple of houses ago, a piece of drywall did fall off my ceiling.
Thankfully it was not anywhere near the computer.In my current situation, it would be one of the kids' toys comes sailing through the doorway and hits the keyboard. I lock the door, but they're both old enough to know how to unlock it now.
Indiansmoke
Deity
My analogy with diplomatic goofs was not made to find ways for diplomatic reloads, but rather to show that there are various aspects of the game that a team can be strong on. Turnplaying is one, diplomacy another, strategy another etc...So by rectifying turnplaying errors by reloads, you are actually giving a team an advantage...or more precicely taking the advantage away from the team that is strong in the turnplaying aspect of the game.
This is another issue and we actually had this in previous diplo game, when team Sancta was sending stupid diplo in game requests one after the other (like stupid ammount of techs for peace etc). We made no mistake to accept, no ceilings fell, they stopped after a few turns and that was that. But if a team is trying to force you into missclicks by stupid diplo screens then that is foul play and reload might be in order.
Aivo I agree as well that Admins should decide and no team vote should happen, but this discussion had to happen first because the admins rushed what seemed an obvious case to them, but was not so obvious to some of us and second so that the person/persons who decide, if another case shows up, are aware of what everyone thinks regarding reloading.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
Firstly I still say that if a team has gained valuable information they shouldn't have through a mistake they shouldn't get a reload because they then get an advantage from a mistake.
Secondly they shouldn't get a reload if it affects another teams actions that turn or in cases of battles where it could affect the results.
Also i don't think it hurts to say that if a team is regularly asking for reloads might stop getting them even if their case looks to be fairly strong.
Finally, trying to leave the framework completely open just makes it really vague and no better off then where we are now, the framework should be written out as clearly as possible so all teams know where they stand, and so the game admins don't have to deal with unnecessary requests. I would also think they would like a firm set of guidelines to fall back on so they can give clear explaination to teams why/why not a reload was/wasn't given. Leaving it completely open just leaves open the possibility of conflicting views about judgements made
Since resolving this topic is important to me, I've made an effort to summarise the conditions for a reload (as mentioned by you in the thread) and the situations where a reload may be allowed (as mentioned by you in the thread). Similar points that are differently phrased are grouped together.
Hope this helps keeping the discussion focussed.
Conditions
Situations
Anything missing on the lists ?
If not: please agree or disagree on the (individual) conditions and the (individual) situations.
Hope this helps keeping the discussion focussed.
Conditions
- Serious matter / game destroying event.
- It can be verified.
- It doesnt affect another team.
- It is not a regular occurrence / (un)limited reloads per team.
- Request must be immediate.
- Error has not given any / important benefits.
- Request made anonymous
- Admin decision or admin veto
- Caused by an out of game incident
Situations
- Settlement error.
- Deleting / misusing a Great Person.
- Rage quit.
- Unintentional war declaration.
Anything missing on the lists ?
If not: please agree or disagree on the (individual) conditions and the (individual) situations.
Spoiler example :
Indiansmoke
Deity
My proposal is.
No reloads allowed for mistakes/missclicks by turnplayers unless the admins believe it is foul play that caused the mistake.
Fould play includes someone from team doing the mistake on purpose (rage quit), another team forcing the mistake by continuous diplo screen offers and an opponent crashing the game by exiting to desktop or something while you are in game causing lag that forces the mistake.
No reloads allowed for mistakes/missclicks by turnplayers unless the admins believe it is foul play that caused the mistake.
Fould play includes someone from team doing the mistake on purpose (rage quit), another team forcing the mistake by continuous diplo screen offers and an opponent crashing the game by exiting to desktop or something while you are in game causing lag that forces the mistake.
Robi D
Minister of (Dis)Order
I agree with Rik's suggestion
Excellent suggestion by Rik.
CharlemagneXLII
Prince
I agree with Rik's suggestion, I would like to add a suggestion that a team be charged their timeout if there is no reload granted. (Otherwise it would just be an admin timeout.)
Similar threads
- Locked
