DISCUSSION: * Renaming units & cities

Ginger_Ale said:
One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.

But please do not excessively use it...not only is it hard on the other teams, it's hard on you too, you forget all the names. I will put a poll up later.

What does this mean ???
 
Ginger_Ale said:
One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.
I don't understand what you are alluding to. Can we get a clarification on this?
 
Provolution said:
this F11 thing should be kept in the quiet, and not be part of communications before civs have met.
Admins disagree with you

I am not seeking to ruin anything
I would hope not but can't you see that your sentence structure and wording choices are doing just that ?

and to contain public thread debates to rule specifics only before civs have met. There are more of us at TNT meaning this.
Disagree F-11 is a legitimate part of the game ... if your team chooses not to evaluate this information then bad luck ... the rules should be there to ease game play not to confuse ... F-11 is part of game therefore cities should not be renamed ...

Obviously, there is a divide between KISS and MIA one side in this discussion, and TNT and partly Doughnut on the other.
You assume a lot ... KISS and MIA and some D-Nuts disagree with what you did does not mean that we are plotting together ...

We just have to be candid about that. I think no team without diplomatic contact should have the right to request information on other teams actions until they have met, which is a pretty key principle.
F-11 gives us information call it rumours, travellers tales or bloody crystal balls ... we only want for clear rules on renaming ... if you had named it neo-Dancing Banana or something equally as distinctive it would not have been an issue ... however renaming the name of a previous city seemed to the outside as a deliberate ploy to disguise the F-11 information ... and hence against the spirit of fairplay ...

No need to be defensive here. For that matter, all cases involving separate team in-game actions should be handled discreetly before teams met, such as in other team demogames.
I am unfamiliar with demogames and if handled discretely means asking administrators for a ruling on a perceived violation then this is exactly what we did and apparently what KISS did as well ...

This is where the F11 key plays in. Some want to keep F11 as a key component to their planning before Civs met, others want to sustain a civilizations right to organize themselves internally. This seems to be a very contentious issue, but must be handled, and no need to get overtly emotional here. What I do not want, is untimely questions of team actions before civs have met in public threads.
I agree ... it is something that administrator should rule on one way or the other ... I feel that is the only way to finally bury this issue ;)

However,, if that is in the spirit of the game it is ok, we may just readily adapt to that. same applies to trading map before map making and so on. As long as rules are agreed on and written, we are fair with that.
I totally support this ...

This is also an issue, what is the spirit of the game? Is it decided unilaterally by some "veterans", or reached on in consensus?
Surely spirit of the game is an attitude to not try to mislead using game engine loopholes

But to boil it down into components, the renaming, we can organize it this way.

City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (all cities)
City for use in the mapscreen (only seen cities)
City naming for use in the diplomacy screen (only seen cities)
City naming for early comparison (F11)

Unit renaming for confusion purposes
Unit renaming for identity purposes
Unit renaming for organization purposes
Diplomatic screen is only contains your teams info ... you no longer see the rivals cities, techs, gold, etc

If what you are suggestng that you can only re-name a city that has not been disclosed by the game engine to other rivals ... I would whole heartedly agree ... but if you want to rename a known city then you have to make it clear to all
 
fe3333au

I understand your position very well, and I partly emphatize with it. I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not. Bringing this into a public thread was the worst thing to do. That raised tensions that should not be there, it also allowed the less diciplinary elements of Team KISS a presentation stage for their analytical assessments and attempts to coerce, unjustly as the case proved, coerce us to concede information they would not otherwise have access to, or forcibly push us to give an undeserved apology.

Communications such as concessions, apologies, acknowledgements, confirmations, submissions, namechanges, analytical feedback and so on are all components to formal diplomacy, and all this should have been kept in check. In my opinion, fine, read the F11 as much as you can, probably a science to some of you. But DO NOT bring case-specific issues to the public forum, which is a de facto attempt to influence vulnerable diplomatic discussions among other teams.

I feel I can have a more constructive dialogue with Team Doiughnut and Team MIA on the issue, as well as certain elements of Team KISS, and hopefully we can bridge some gaps and agree on something.

One way to handle namechanges, would be to communicate namechanges to met neighbors, and let unmet neighbors figure it out for themselves. Another would be to let the Admins have a list of F11 known cities in the public thread, with the foundation year and a list of which dates they changed and to which new names. This would be fair and transparent to everyone. I can live with a neutral Admin list on this issue.
 
Ginger_Ale said:
One new law change we had in mind: people can change cities as they please as long as it is in no way related to diplomacy.
What this means:

Civ A and Civ B are negotiating a peace treaty. Civ B wants the city of "Button" from Civ A, a very important city, as it contains the pyramids. Civ A agrees, but on the turn before, renames a tundra city "Button" and trades it away.

I have no problem with city renaming, and I trust that the teams are mature enough to not rename them every turn. Teams should rename because of a typo, mistake, or symbolic value, not just for the sake of renaming.
 
Provolution said:
I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not.
This is exactly what we did and the admins brought it public.
Provolution said:
I feel I can have a more constructive dialogue with Team Doiughnut and Team MIA on the issue, as well as certain elements of Team KISS, and hopefully we can bridge some gaps and agree on something.
Please refrain from this type of talk out of game, I beg you. We have handled it within our team and someone from yours should do the same with certain elements of your team.
Provolution said:
One way to handle namechanges, would be to communicate namechanges to met neighbors, and let unmet neighbors figure it out for themselves. Another would be to let the Admins have a list of F11 known cities in the public thread, with the foundation year and a list of which dates they changed and to which new names. This would be fair and transparent to everyone. I can live with a neutral Admin list on this issue.
Good ideas.
 
Team TNT will support this law, as this is what we consider "Spirit of the Game".
We even made an internal collage, called "Spirit of the Game".
 
I suggest a two tiered way to do this, to stay in character with the game.

Before all civs have met, UNMET civilization has no right to question city name changes. However, a civ must inform all met neighbors on their city namechanges, all inclusive.

However, after all Civilizations have met, or one civilization met all other civilizations, we put up a public city naming thread. This will protect early and critical internal decisions against probes, as well as giving fair, equal and transparent access to information. Additionally, it saves the admins work in the early phase, which is tricky enough.

This will be a compromise between the internal organizers and the F11 dependents I guess.
 
Whomp said:
Provolution said:
I think you should merely have asked admins in your private forums if a rule was broken, yes or not.
This is exactly what we did and the admins brought it public.

Ditto. We were discussing it with admins, and they refused to talk about it privately, and told us it should be discussed in the UN, which it was. If you think this was a bad idea, blame the admins, not us.
 
Then I truly apologize for our suspicions of why it was brought public.
If this is the case, then the Admins did a mistake, as this case involved a fourth party and non-complainant. However, understand from our perspective it could be observed diffrently, in particular with the strong opening salvos of Admiral Kutzow, which was key in galvanizing our opinion on the issue. Probably that was the main trigger.

However, when this is all over, the entire game, and our threads will be made public, you will all see we had a totally different situation than you may think. However, I will not complain to the Admins for this, as they could not foresee how the situation became that unruly. That is, it is wrong to demand apologies, concessions, confirmations, namechanges and what have you until proven guilty or innocent in the charge. I also apologize for getting a bit tempered in a couple of posts, a couple of times justifiably irritated.

Team TNT was not ready to give an appetizer, and to give in to demands bordering diplomacy. For the future, we would do the same, and give no concessions until found guilty in violating a rule, and we will be the last to break one.
 
Arrr :clap: the calm atmosphere of rationality has descended ... which will now allow us to discuss generic rules for a great expansion to game play ...

And now back to the game where our various teams vie against the others in the spirit of fair gameplay ... and also the thrill of annihilating all trace of the rivals from the face of Meleet's World ... :D


>>>>>>>>>>>

Renaming ...

I don't see how swapping an inventory of cities with the first diplomatic meeting will work ... it is giving away too much info to another team ...

As far as I am aware there is no way bar map swapping for a rival to know exactly how many cities another team has built ... one can estimate on the available intelegence but you cannot be absolutely sure ... so I'm against automatic swapping ...

I think that this discussion requires a list of the ways of seeing a city ... this will enable all methods to be addressed ... even if some are dismissed ...

Without Contact
F-11 the Top 5 Cities ... which change positions and can jump on and off the list ... gives you the name of a city in a civilization and also provides population intel, but not the physical location.
Sneak and Peak ... which allows the name and physical location of the city to be viewed by a unit with movement greater than 1 which jumps in and out of the rival's view area ... and therefore it is possible for the rival not to be aware that this information has been observed.
Goody Hut Map ... it is possible for a city to be viewed and named when a map is given by a friendly tribe ... again the other team has no knowledge that this information has been obtained.

With Contact
F-6 Wonder Building ... lists a city that is building the wonder, requires contact, but not necessarily a knowledge of the physical location nor the name of the city
Build Embassy ... give the location of the Capital, requires contact with the other team (and if renaming is allowed, then no prior knowledge of the name is necessarily available)
Espionage Screen ... requires an embassy to have been built and will allow Map stealing which will give you all civilization's city names and locations.
Wandering Tourist ... where a unit physically views a city's location and hence name ... this will lead to contact.

So in order to ensure that all the above are covered either have no renaming or a convention which is followed until everyone has met which could be as we suggest NEW NAME (OLD NAME) ...

Also I would say that swapping names or rebirthing an old name can lead to confusion and therefore should not be allowed ...

The reason I originally brought this up was the clause about renaming in order to decieve during trade ... Team A may have viewed or monitored city X possibly without the knowledge of Team B and are eager to have it ... and then trade for it and discover that they get another city ... however I think it has gone beyond that now ...

I want the ability to rename captured cities :evil:
 
Well, most likely, this rule discussion and agreement will be complete when we meet, so the F11 city renaming issue will be resolved i part by then. However,I think it will suffice with a public thread with all the citynames observed in F11 from the date of all civs met. This will level the playing field, which is key here. Once again, I am against the announcing of renames before civs have met, as it is not in OUR "spirit of the game" from TNTs side. Since that is YOUR preference, but not necessarily everyones preference, we need to acknowledge the fact we got different ideas on this.

Well Mr. fe3333au, you can't have it all, I mean all your points 100 % your way. So we may find a way ALL teams are satisfied. I can say as much that Team TNT has almost an unanimous position on this, as we have discussed and polled the late cases.
We will have another discussion and poll on this as well. I guess you want a ruleset customized to your specialized intelligence gathering techniques where you can excel and others be left behind, or force teams to have ugly renaming conventions with brackets and so on. Well, for us to swallow that, we may like to see if we stand to gain anything from this rule. Again, I have posted a two tiered proposal, which will cover the early stages as well as the midgame and endgame stages, which is another way to see it. I can say you that much, that TNT is not likely to support a ruleset tailor made for some unilateral interpretation of "Spirit of the Game", but a common ruleset. Right now I agree with Ginger Ale, Regentman and Daveshack, as well as a few others, and I think Team Doughnut, Team TNT and the admins got some common idea about this.

Conquered cities can be renamed in whatever format the victor likes, once.

Unit names should be fixed and locked, and I would urge all teams to agree on posting battle logs in the public forum when all civs have met. This will be in the character of the game, and will provide an entertaining taste of the game. These battle logs should be complete with unit names, strengths, promotions and great leaders, as well as hitpoint reductions. This works very well in the Apolyton mirror multiteam demogame, where I am at the Blood Oath Horde.

So,, to sum it up, A NO to be obliged to inform other teams before we diplomatically met, since such contact should be limited to the diplomacy period of the game.
Also, F11 shall be subject to the same rules as other ways to see cities for namechanges. More so, a fix and lock on unit names. Yes to a one-time renaming of conquered cities and workers.
 
Provolution said:
However,I think it will suffice with a public thread with all the citynames observed in F11 from the date of all civs met. This will level the playing field, which is key here.
This will make it impossible for a team to hide the existence of a city ... nowhere in the game engine does this happen ... so why introduce something that takes away an element of the game ???

Since that is YOUR preference, but not necessarily everyones preference, we need to acknowledge the fact we got different ideas on this.
This certainly is obvious and acknowledged ... and becoming repetitive ...

Well Mr. fe3333au, you can't have it all, I mean all your points 100 % your way. So we may find a way ALL teams are satisfied.
Why the condescending attitude ??? ... There really is no need for this ... I am getting sick and tired of YOUR tone ... if you would read my comments they have always been polite ... but YOU constantly go just that little bit further :rolleyes: ... what is your problem ??? ... are you blind to what you are doing ??? ... YOU are forming a rift which will affect gameplay ... and yet you continue even when you have been constantly warned by administrators and moderators for you behaviour ... you continue on this banal one-upmanship ...

There is a certain etiquette that should be observed in these threads (which I fear I may be crossing) and Provolution, you have proven again and again that you seem to lack the slightest ability to be civil ... Are you really so insecure that you need to create such an aggressive VR personality ? ...

We (MIA) thought you (TNT) were wrong with what you did ... the administrators wanted a public debate ... they have ruled that there is no violation ... We submit to the verdict ... GET OVER IT and RELAX !!! ... we are here to discuss alterations of the rules and use this thread to calmly debate without goading ...

So,, to sum it up, A NO to be obliged to inform other teams before we diplomatically met, since such contact should be limited to the diplomacy period of the game.
So you simply ignore the examples I mentioned where information is presented in the game ???

You are constantly sprouting your opinion about restricting discussions and interactions of teams prior to official contact in game ... well if this is the case why did YOU send us this image along with the save early on in the game ??? ...



and yes before you say ... we did in fact enjoy the present but why was it sent ? ... It smells like double standards to me ...

In regards to the naming conventions ...
I am simply attempting to outline ALL the factors so that a proper and informed debate can occur ... we all now know YOUR opinion about F-11 ... Good ... But at least allow everyone to make their own decision without soapboxing the issue and haranguing those who present an alternative point of view ...

Unfortunately due to proven and repeated behaviour patterns, I think we may have reached an impasse ... so if it does come to a vote ... I would suggest that a secret ballot with ALL players be used ...

Hope I'm not sanctioned ... however I understand if I am ... (and would hope I'm not the only one) ... as usual I am not speaking officially for anyone but myself ...

My closing comment is how long must we put up with this behaviour and blantant disregard for everyone's opinion but his own ...
 
I think we disagree both ways, and I think we heavily disagree on the pre-diplomacy thing. About the pic, it is also in the public threads, so it had no real message, it could as well have been the wording TNT, it is one of our 3 logos on the Team Info.
You are welcome to attach your logos as well in your mails without violating any rule

I think you should quit referring to my persona here, it is unwarranted - I can assure you I am like this both here and in real life, and there is not too much insecurity here.

I think we have pointed out our positions. What I meant you cannot have it your way 100 %, means you need to make some concessions as well. I have presented 4-5 different proposals, and you still present the same over and over again. I understand you badly want the renaming to end, and the only way we can settle this score, is to let the admins rule on this, or have an open Team Vote. If the other 3 teams agree against Team TNT on the renaming part, we will submit, but not before that.

Other than that, we can use the law which exists right now, or we can reach a compromise. I will be calm and rational here, and read through a complete proposal you make, that you think will be palatable to all parties, not just yours. Right now we are restating preferences and getting nowhere. But we will consider a compromise proposal, if you are willing to present one. I do know I have a very direct and no nonsense style, which is why I am not conducting any diplomacy here. This is strictly a rule technical discussion.
 
Please see my post in the Spirit of the Game thread.

Sorry - can't figure out how to post a link - might be able to include it later.
 
Igor feels things should kept simple, once a city has a name, another city may never have that name

You are welcome to attach your logos as well in your mails without violating any rule
thank you
 
Well, two teams have voted against the proposed renaming amendment. I wasn't a math major but that seems enough to kill the amendment. The dead amendment leaves us with the original (and I dare say bad) rule in place. So, do we try again or just leave 2.4 in place?

Rule 2.4 declares that No team or individual is permitted to rename a unit or city with the intent of misleading or confusing opponents. This rule is in the Metagame Tricks section of the ruleset. This rule can reasonably be interpreted to allow for a wide range of renaming possibilities. The focus of the rule is to prevent one team from cheating another team in a trade by renaming a city or unit and substituting the renamed object in the trade. For example Team A offers to buy the tech computers for 34 gold per turn and then renames a left over warrior '34 gold per turn' in effect trying to get computers for a warrior. The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams? If we do then we should rewrite 2.4 to specifically pertain to trades (and peace treaties). If not, then rule 2.4 should be scrapped.

I don't see the need or desirability to enforce fair trading or peace making practices. If my team got stiffed in a trade or peace treaty then I'd urge my teammates to take appropriate in game actions. In other words, the offending team would have to make good on the original terms or suffer the consequences. These consequences could include no more trading with the offending team until appropriate compensation for the bad trade was made; war; and/or informing the other teams of the offending teams trading practices (assuming in game contact, of course).

I'd certainly like to hear from those teams who voted no to the amendment. Did you vote no because you want fair trading enforced or for other reasons?
 
I think the vote is 2-1 still.
Donsig said:
The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams?
Personally my answer would be yes to this. Many players on our team come from a world of LKendter's rules and Sirian's prohibited dastardly acts. There is something about honoring your word that seems to be missing in these treaties. However, we are learning this style of gameplay and maybe we need to adjust our game for these types of dastardly human acts.
Donsig said:
If we do then we should rewrite 2.4 to specifically pertain to trades (and peace treaties). If not, then rule 2.4 should be scrapped.
Can you draw it up? You seem a way with words Donsig.
 
Top Bottom