DISCUSSION: * Renaming units & cities

[Nikodemus]

The question we must ask ourselves (as players) is do we want or need a rule that guarantees fair trading practices among teams?

Sorry for my cluelessness, but isn't this exactly what the current vote is trying to find out?

My personal opinion (which as far as I know doesn't represent the opinion of my team in any way ) is that the ability to pass for example a warrior as 34 gpt is a serious flaw in the playing interface. In reality or if the interface was a little better thought out, there'd be no way you could ever mistake a warrior for 34 gold per turn. I don't see how it's any different from for example loading and re-playing the turn until you get the optimal result. The interface (in a little broader sense of the word) allows for that too. In my opinion this game should be about who can master the diplomacy and the game mechanics the best, not about who can abuse the flaws in the game the most.

 

[donsig]

Sorry for my cluelessness, but isn't this exactly what the current vote is trying to find out?

My personal opinion (which as far as I know doesn't represent the opinion of my team in any way ) is that the ability to pass for example a warrior as 34 gpt is a serious flaw in the playing interface. In reality or if the interface was a little better thought out, there'd be no way you could ever mistake a warrior for 34 gold per turn. I don't see how it's any different from for example loading and re-playing the turn until you get the optimal result. The interface (in a little broader sense of the word) allows for that too. In my opinion this game should be about who can master the diplomacy and the game mechanics the best, not about who can abuse the flaws in the game the most.

No, the vote was about a specific rulechange. The proposed rule was voted down. I do not know why it was voted down as there are numerous reasons for doing so. It seems the two biggest issues here are A) fair trading practices and B) renaming practices. I've pointed out elsewhere that these are two distinct things and rules can be written about either without totally changing the other.

Nikodemus you seem to be more interested in guaranteeing A. I'm more interested in not restricting B. If you all want a rule that guarantees fair trading I'd be happy to write a proposal but I'd prefer to leave renaming out of it. If, however, you're all so dead set on totally restricting renaming and tying that to fair trading then I'm not wasting my time helping to write that rule.

 

[Whomp]

Donsig make it two separate proposals then. If fairness is guaranteed then I don't think most players care how things are renamed.

 

[DaveShack]

Speaking as myself and not the doughnut rep...

To those who are hung up on renaming a warrior as Steam Power or somesuch, you can never trade something which wouldn't normally be tradeable. Warriors cannot be traded...

I would like to point out something which a lot of people seem to have totally overlooked. Renaming is currently allowed by the rules, as long as you don't use the name of something else which is tradeable, in conjunction with a trade!

[edit]snipped info on trading cities, just realized that MP is a push mechanism not pull, so one team can offer the other team a city the other team hasn't seen yet[/edit]

It comes down to this, just causing confusion by itself is not prohibited and should not be. The current rule already does an adequate job of preventing unfair trading practices, at least at the level of misuse of the game interface. There is nothing to prevent one team from stabbing another in the back, and this is also how it should be -- however there is also nothing to prevent Team B from telling Team C that Team A is untrustworthy, whether that statement is true or false. Deception is part of the game, that is why human vs human is so much more interesting than human vs computer.

 

[donsig]

Donsig make it two separate proposals then. If fairness is guaranteed then I don't think most players care how things are renamed.

If most players don't care how things are renamed then we don't need two proposals. All we need to do is rewrite 2.4 so that fair trades are guaranteed without restricting renaming.

I would like to point out something which a lot of people seem to have totally overlooked. Renaming is currently allowed by the rules, as long as you don't use the name of something else which is tradeable, in conjunction with a trade!

True, BUT 2.4 also allows for one team to cry *FOUL* if something is renamed and someone just happens to get (or claims to be so as to use the cry of *FOUL* to pass info from one team to another via our unwitting admins). This has already happened which is why we're having this silly discussion in the first place.

Rule 2.4 is badly written and should be fixed ASAP.

It comes down to this, just causing confusion by itself is not prohibited and should not be.

You are wrong DaveShack. Rule 2.4 as currently written broadly prohibits confusing other teams and not just pertaining to trades. We've seen it invoked already over the F11 screen which has nothing whatsoever to do with trades. I agree that confusion shouldn't be prohibited but as the rules stand now it is prohibited. The sixty-four dollar question is how much do we want to allow in this game? It sounds as though we want to do away with any hanky-panky in trades and peace treaties. How about gifts? How much confusion are we allowed to generate outside the scope of these in-game methods of passing things between civs? Will we be able to publish aerial views of our cities? They show what improvements are in a city. Are we supposed to keep that sort of thing confidential because It isn't a normal in-game feature? The rules are about what we can and can't do. Are we to assume that if you can't do it in single player civ you can't do it here?

 

[Daghdha]

This is directed to the gamer Donsig, not the person behind

True, BUT 2.4 also allows for one team to cry *FOUL* if something is renamed and someone just happens to get (or claims to be so as to use the cry of *FOUL* to pass info from one team to another via our unwitting admins). This has already happened which is why we're having this silly discussion in the first place.

Nice try Donsig, but it won't work . Besides, the real Idiots of KISS are not posting. We keep them busy singing and playing in our clubhouse. The ones that you could have had banned for posting a very colourful and profane reply to this neverending whining about "trickery" are just p.r.e.t.e.n.d.i.n.g. to be Idiots.

Stop trying to miscredit KISS. Ask admins for the facts on that *FOUL*-matter if that would stop your whining. One of your team members got a sincere and honest explanation from me personally, ask him/her, or it was just a waste of time writing it. If you keep trying to provoke others by throwing insults we will quickly adapt.
I also wonder why this persistant nagging is showing up at all. If it were true that we used the admins to pass info. to others, one could say we're just having fun by our own mesaures and enjoying the flexibility within the rule set and that is what you and other experienced pbem-players would like us SG'ers to do by the looks of some posts.

 

[Whomp]

Please bear with me but I'm old and confused . I start nodding off when I read all these paragraphs. Maybe an executive summary with some examples would help.

What exactly is being suggested? Can I get an example for renaming and trading that would be construed as fair trickery vs. unfair?

 

[donsig]

2.4 - Fair trades and peace treaties; unit transparency

Description: No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent what is offered in trades or peace treaties. No team or individual is permitted to misrepresent unit types.

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 of another team through malicious use of in-game features.

Verdict: Using the renaming 'feature' to name a city after a tech or sum of gold is a violation of this rule. Using the renaming 'feature' to name a unit after another type of unit is a violation of this rule.

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

Above is a first draft of a new proposal for for rule 2.4. It needs work but I just threw it together quickly using the existing frame work.

@ Whomp: I don't think examples of renaming combined with fair trickery are useful - for one thing I doubt the situation would ever come up. Rule 2.4 tries to ensure that when a team clicks *accept* and agrees to a trade on the trade screen the team knows exactly what they are accepting. As pointed out 2.4 does just that but (as also pointed out) it has also been construed so as to place unreasonable limits on city naming and renaming.

@ Daghdha: You miss the point of my post entirely. I'm not trying to miscredit K.I.S.S. My dig was not so much at the attemp to pass info via a cry of FOUL but at the *unwitting admins* who actually facilitated the transfer of said info despite my team's pleas not to do so. Perhaps you should get all the facts from the admins. The *nagging* persists because the rule that allowed this metagaming is still in place. Once the rule is gone said *nagging* will like wise disappear.

@ everyone: How about some feedback on the new rule proposal? The one flaw I see is that I'm not quite sure how to legislate the trick of swapping city names in order to make an unfair trade. I'm still inclined to use a mechanism with a reviewable and enforceable outside the game contract. We could rewrite 2.4 to deal solely with the naming and renaming of units and write 2.41 to deal with fair trades and peace treaties. There are many trading possibilities that exist between humans that don't exist between humans and AI - and these are not addressed in the rules as far as I know. One example is Team A could pay to investigate a city belonging to Team B and take a screenshot. When playing against the AI that's the end of it. But in PBEM Team A could then sell the information gathered to Team C. Now there's no way to do that in game. But Team A can send a screenie to Team C and Team C can give gold or whatever in-game. Is this sort of thing against the spirit of the game? What about when war comes and two or more teams ally? Humans can cooperate in many more ways than the AI can. Are the ways we deal with our allies to be restricted to only what is possible within the game? If we have info that would help our ally are we to withhold it from them because we can't transmit it in game? Are these *trades* that fall under rule 2.4?

 

[Provolution]

yes, we cannot have rules where feigned indignation, like "fallen" soccer stars give pay-off-

 

[Tubby Rower]

Is this discussion still going on???? I thought that the ammendment got shot down 3-1. Is this going to be like the European constitution where someone said "We'll give putting it to a vote until it passes"?

I unsubscribed to this thread ages ago back when the discussion got boring and monotonous.

 

[Daghdha]

yes, we cannot have rules where feigned indignation, like "fallen" soccer stars give pay-off-

Then I suggest the soccer stars stops filming. This one post, which you may interpret as feigned indignation, came out of frustration. Frustration because you (meaning team TNT) still keeps going on about the alledged attempt at sneaking out info. in an incorrect way, and doing so despite the fact that admins easily, by checking our forum, can confirm that no such thing was planned in any way. This one post is to be compared to the numerous posts by TNT, almost from day one, that has screamed of feigned indignation bordering on paranoia. Please don't make me look them all up!
What other facts that I perhaps should get are you reffering to Donsig? The fact that you asked admins. not to post doesn't change anything in my critique now does it. I do see your point in the post and that the main thing was not to sling mud in our direction, but nonetheless you deliberately did and it's spelled out in the qoute. That was where my dig was at and I still think you're approach is confusing. First you rage about our "clever trick", then you hold the opinion that everything that is not explicitly forbidden should be allowed and then you finally state that the rule has to be changed because what we did was by all means within it..? This lacks basic coherence.

About your rule propousal I, personally, think it's ok and has not much interest in elaborating further. If the spirit of the game cannot be decided upon (I agree that that is a hard task, albeit not impossible) then we will have to live with a rule set that is as long as a lying lawyer's tounge is black and trade treaties that span X number of pages. I also think that your examples of trades that are possible btw humans are prefectly allright, but then again you will have to draw up a much more detailed rule so as to cover possible trickery regarding all those kinds of deals. We could, for example, guarantee that our TNT ambassador will see to it that you get steam power next turn but later claim that what we called "TNT ambassador" was in fact my cat and that she, sadly enough, has failed in doing her duties. Ridicoulus indeed, but perfectly doable if we don't cover that move in the rules.
Conclusion: I think you did wrong by making an example out of a situation that, I believed, was sorted out once and for all. I have no objections to your new rule propousal. I believe that this discussion, and the following rule, could become silly beyond comprehension.

​

 

[Provolution]

I think we can clearly make some strict rule on in-game contracts, that is fair to me, as long as we keep it liberal on the city renaming.

 

[Daghdha]

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. First of all we could use a clear cut definition of "in-game"- and "out-game"-contracts. Until now my definition of an in-game contract was that it was, well....in-game, and thus regulated by the game mechanics. No need for man made rules there. But that seems to be a poor definition so lets state a new one. Without it I can't see how the rule could ever be strict.

Siden note: Just for the record, 18 and still counting, here's the last one:

We are certainly not seeing teams asking admins for a conveniently timed complaint on a non-described or ill-defined "Spirit" violation.

 

[donsig]

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. First of all we could use a clear cut definition of "in-game"- and "out-game"-contracts. Until now my definition of an in-game contract was that it was, well....in-game, and thus regulated by the game mechanics. No need for man made rules there. But that seems to be a poor definition so lets state a new one. Without it I can't see how the rule could ever be strict.

*In-game* means within the Civ (Conquests) game itself. Yes, it is regulated by game mechanics. Rule 2.4 is part of a larger section of the rules that prohibits exploits. We all agree that there are some *in-game* things - things that are part of the game mechanics - that we shouldn't be doing. (Things like using *go to* to move units farther than they are supposed to be able to move, etc.) I think we all agree on the definition of *in-game*. We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit.

*Out-of-game* stuff really isn't covered all that much in the ruleset. We are a very imaginative group of Civ Fanatics playing this game and I'm sure we'll come up with lots of ideas of things we can do outside of the actual *in-game* mechanics. I gave one example earlier of *selling* a city screenshot to another team. This can't be done *in-game* but could have it's uses in our multiplayer demogame. This rule discussion is a good time to lay some ground rules for this sort of thing - we might save a lot of bickering down the road.

*Out-of-game* contracts would simply be an agreement between two or more teams written in plain English. Such agreements would be enforceable by the game admins. If a team feels they got stiffed in a trade they could tell the admins who could then review the *out-of-game* contract to see if all parties lived up to the agreement. If one team renigged then the admins could take appropriate action to remedy the situation. (And all this could be done without restricting renaming in any way.)

Can we agree that *in-game* refers to Conquests game mechanics (which do need man made rules to govern the use of exploits) and that *out-of-game* refers to things teams can do outside of Conquests game mechanics but within the framework of the multiplayer demogame? If we can agree on these definitions then what's the next step we need to take? Deciding if renaming is an exploit?

 

[Daghdha]

I think the next step would be to ponder the question about whether an action can be demed illegal based solely on topography and, thus, out of the context of function. This is basically a philosphical question stemming from Kant's view on the "moral imperative". As you might have guessed I don't share the old farts opinion on that, i.e. "We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit" in my view is an unsolvable problem for as long as we cannot agree on ackowledging the role of context.

 

[DaveShack]

"We do not seem to be able to agree on whether or not renaming units and cities is an actual exploit" in my view is an unsolvable problem for as long as we cannot agree on ackowledging the role of context.

On the contrary, we have an agreement on the role of context.

0.0.1 - Definitions

Intent: Many of the below rulings are based on the intent of a team or individual. Intent is determined by the Game Staff and is only decided after investigation.
​

So, let's make this clear

• The admins are impartial
• The admins have visibility to everything which occurs within the forum
• The admins have already conclueded, for specific past incidents, that there was no intent to cheat / break the rules / act in an unfair manner
• For any future incidents, the admins will use intent as a contributing factor in analyzing the incident and deciding what, if anything, should be done.

The past is past. The rule is clear -- renaming with intent to obtain an advantage within the in-game interface is forbidden. If there is no intent, then there is no infraction.

Now, does this discussion really need to continue?

 

[donsig]

Yes, it does have to continue DaveShack, if only for you to enlighten my poor feeble mind. Please answer this: is it then ok to rename something and get an advantage within the in-game interface just as long as there was no intent to gain said advantage?

 

[Daghdha]

Thanks Dave for bringing up the 0.0.1. , I missed that one. The role of context is noted there obviously, but maybe we don't have an agreement about how it should be applied? The post following yours point in that direction. And besides, how much easier is it for admins to decide the "intention" of an action compared to decide whether it was "in the spirit of the game"?

Gentlemen, I appreciate your efforts to shape the rule set in a way that is non-arbitrary, clear cut, intelligible and covers the lot. I've decided I have not more to contribute (I believe you all garee on that ) and bid farwell. As a friendly gift I offer this recycled propousal originally posted by Ginger Ale:

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.

This might be considered a heavily restriction on the building of "team culture", but not by K.I.S.S. it isn't. The Celtic culture is based on another foundation than renaming we'll come back to that later.
Oh, and have you heard what actually happend? The Russians, when faced by a stack of German tanks, changed the sign posts from "Stalingrad" to "Rimini". That's why the Germans took off thier clothes and froze to death. Maybe we should allow renaming with intent to trick opponents anyway? Just to make the game more like real human vs. human interaction.

 

[DaveShack]

Yes, it does have to continue DaveShack, if only for you to enlighten my poor feeble mind. Please answer this: is it then ok to rename something and get an advantage within the in-game interface just as long as there was no intent to gain said advantage?

I left off a word, it should be unfair advantage.

The unfair advantage examples are pretty darn obvious and relate mostly to trading, such as renaming a city the same as a technology, tradeable resource, or gold, or switching names of cities around prior to a trade involving them.

AFAIK we also have an explicit rule requiring renaming units with a name which includes the actual unit type, to prevent disguising units of different types in stacks.

To answer the question about unintended advantage (notice I leave unfair off here) it's hard for me to think of an example which is not intended to gain an advantage but actually does. I think getting faked out in such a way, if it is even possible, would be a statement on survival of the fittest.

As to an unintended unfair advantage, I don't think this combination is possible. If we follow the standard precept that not knowing the rule is not an excuse, therefore everyone is assumed to know the rule, it seems painfully obvious to me that it is impossible to do one of the things which is unfair (and thus forbidden) unknowingly and therefore without intent.

 

[donsig]

Oh, and have you heard what actually happend? The Russians, when faced by a stack of German tanks, changed the sign posts from "Stalingrad" to "Rimini". That's why the Germans took off thier clothes and froze to death. Maybe we should allow renaming with intent to trick opponents anyway? Just to make the game more like real human vs. human interaction.

That's what was proposed and voted down. If your proposal is serious we can put the proposal up for a team vote again.

AFAIK we also have an explicit rule requiring renaming units with a name which includes the actual unit type, to prevent disguising units of different types in stacks.

Is it really possible to disguise a unit? When I look at a stack in single player games I see not only the unit type but the attack/defend/movement numbers as well. It seems to me that if I renamed a tank 'warrior' the tank's numbers would still be there. Is multiplayer / PBEM different?

As to an unintended unfair advantage, I don't think this combination is possible. If we follow the standard precept that not knowing the rule is not an excuse, therefore everyone is assumed to know the rule, it seems painfully obvious to me that it is impossible to do one of the things which is unfair (and thus forbidden) unknowingly and therefore without intent.

Agreed, ignorance of the rule is no excuse. But how about ignorance of the unfair advantage? The rule as written leaves this as a plausible defense. Basing a rule on intent is folly. If an action gives an unfair advantage it should be against the rules irregardless of the intent behind the action.