Amendment: Renaming and Fairness Pledge (Team TNT Vote)

[Ginger_Ale]

Do you agree to the following amendments to the rules:

Old 2.4:

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

New 2.4:

2.4 - Renaming Units and Cities

Description: Teams are permitted to rename their units and cities as they please.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely. For this reason, we encourage teams to formally write out their trade proposals and submit it to the admins to prevent this from happening.

Old 4.3:

4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to adhere not only to the written rules, but also to the unwritten, spirit of the rules. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

New 4.3:

4.3 - Fairness Pledge

Every team must agree to the fairness pledge before the game starts:

“I pledge to compete fairly and within the rules of the game. I pledge to not tamper with the game itself, to not unfairly gain access to secret information from other teams, and to follow these rules to the best of my ability. I understand that failure to live up to this pledge may result in penalties for me and my team.”

Please vote yes/no.

-----

As requested by Provo, feel free to discuss.

 

[Provolution]

I think me and Donsig and several others agrees we need a more liberal ruleset.

This has some risks of course, as we may be subject to "trickery". However, we are not daft people, as made evident within this private forum on how we play the game, how we discuss, we are quite civic and harmonious in here. I would say we got the long end of the stick in terms on who is on our team, so I am very happy with that.

We already captured Iroqi Women, tricked Doughnut to ease down, got them to raze a city, won against the legalese onslaught from the other continents shamans by breaking their crystal balls and finally got our nation in lead.

That also means we stand more to earn from a liberal ruleset, where we cannot tamper with the save itself, or the game engine playing the save, or use banned utilities in witnessing the save. However, we are allowed to use all the presentation technology we can apply (tribal music mp3 format, pictures, desktop publishing and so on), which makes it a creative and fun game. Of course, we need to watch contracts with other teams carefully, and we need to limit our changes in city names. Because now the sanctions come from the other teams themselves, as our reputation must be cared for.

However, this does not need we have to bend over to the likes as Admiral Kutzow, Fe3333au and others from a specific crowds improper requests for us submitting intel, when they can keep theirs. The key principle is that diplomacy cannot start before civs met, and Ybbor and others cannot coerce us to give in to demands in exchange for scant goodwill, goodwill that may be gone with the wind if they can get a chance like we did at Cruller.

Let us not forget this is not a Junior United Nations game in political correctness, but a fierce iron-age empire builder strategy game, taking place in a time where massacres was a common occurence, and the Geneva Convention yet to be invented.

Also ignore the Crocodile tears in tbe other teams in the last case we won, they tried to get their reward, our punishment in advance - by strongarming us.
Since we stood strong, kept our cool and said nothing, they got very little out of us.

However, they abused the legal system to force the admins to concede we switched names, and possibly also forced them to concede we switched palaces.
However, that does not help them much, since Iroq is soon gone, and we will take them one at a time, diplomacy or not.

So I urge you to vote a resounding YES to this excellent proposal crafted by Ginger Ale

 

[Provolution]

Ginger Ale

We (Team TNT) support both amendments it seems, but may like to run amendment 4.3 separately in a new poll, as MIA supports it, then we can work out 2.4 in a new proposal.

I think 2.4 can be agreed on with no city-namechanges allowed after civilizations have met, but fair play prior to that, and all namechanges conducted after that time must be notified to the met nations. This will divide met- and unmet civilizations, and I think we can get a majority behind that.
I respect MIAs and KISS's point about planning and intelligence, but disrespect their craving for respect and intelligence BEFORE teams have met.

I think the real compromise in the naming law must be AFTER two civilizations have met, and bilateral notification of all cities that EVER showed up in the F11 screen, AFTER the civilizations met. I think everyone can live with that except Fe3333au, which seemed very adamant in the discussion thread.


We may also like a law stating that changing unit names is not allowed after they are given to a unit.

That is three separate laws.

 

[Provolution]

Existing Rule:

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to. Units can be renamed to other units and appear to be something else entirely.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

New Proposal:

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming cities

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a city with the intent of misleading or confusing met opponents in diplomatic interaction.

Any renamed city should be reported to the met civilization(-s), within two (2) turns after the renaming took place.

Definition: Cities can be renamed to names of tech or sums of gold or anything else in an effort to not trade what that opponent agreed to.

Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game renaming of cities during diplomacy.

Verdict: Using this 'feature' or any other feature or exploit that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Red (5-Expulsion and forfeiture of double what was not legally traded)

and 2.4. A).

(to be polled separately).

2.4 - Misleading through Renaming Units

Description: No team or individual is permitted to rename a military unit with the intent of misleading or confusing any met opponent. (Settlers and workers are excempt from this rule)

Any renamed unit should be reported to the met civilization(-s), within two (2) turns after the renaming took place.

Definition: Units can be renamed to lose its official military label used for reference in battle reports, or switched in order to divert attention from one unit to another.


Purpose: To prevent the misleading or confusion of another team through malicious use of in-game renaming of units during in-game interaction.

Verdict: Using this renaming 'feature' that allows misleading or confusing another team is a violation of this rule.

Punishment Level: Once – Yellow (Lose 1-3 turns passed at Admins discretion)