@ TMIT: The settings are very relevant, given the way the rule is defined. You're attempting to add a rule (a "gold exploit" must be optimal for all possible settings) that isn't included in the post I cited and that I don't think was intended in that post. This has nothing to do with whether or not the action in question is effective, and everything to do with whether or not it is a "gold exploit" by definition. Numerous possible strategies would be effective/optimal without being a gold exploit.
The settings are irrelevant; if they are not irrelevant then the end conclusion is that rules are applied differently to each game, and not necessarily with consistency (it would actually be VERY hard to be objective and consistent with your interpretation of this even if someone tried their hardest).
I think most would agree that applying rules differently on a game to game basis is a dark road; it's just the kind of thing that opens up "I think this game should win" or "I don't like this tactic but think that one's ok" and all of a sudden the real competition is undermined by preference.
What you're saying would lead to practice like "declaring war on the AI instantly is only allowed on emperor+" or "you can't sell luxuries for gold on deity but you can do it on other levels". After all, in some cases the tactic can not realistically be done by any definition of "minimal cost". I don't know about you, but I see a lot of potential damage that such a practice could do to the HoF, starting with this gauntlet where potentially valid submissions risk rejection.
but personally i'm glad i don't have to sit and wait for barbs to pillage my resources to have the best possible game, and i'd hope most players agree.
There definitely needs to be some way to police the worst exploits that cheapen the competition, I don't think we've had anyone disagree with that. The problem is a) where you draw the line and b) what basis is used to draw that line. This *needs* to be done in a consistent and predictable way or it becomes difficult to claim winning results are anything short of one person or group's preferences rather than valid competition with a defined rule-set. I know a lot of you think consistency is some personal preference of mine, but the reason I prefer it is that rules that are not applied in a consistent fashion (IE randomly rejecting DoWs by one player for gold but not by the other for a worker because he had a unit nearby) there's no actual base for competition...people get different rules from expected.
either way, i think we just need a hard ruling.
The problem is that for this gauntlet, it's too late. People have already done it deliberately or otherwise. In this case it's hard to do anything but allow it justifiably. However in general, a hard ruling is preferable.
Note that gauntlets in general are an interesting case; they don't carry the same potential burden on the HoF tables as the general submissions and can add a ton of rules on a temporary basis in order to create unique competitions. In that capacity, selectively banning virtually anything isn't really problematic because it is limited to the one instance of competition.
However, this practice is only administered fairly if done so up-front, before people start playing/submitting. Once you start banning things already done, you get into the territory of bias and arbitrary extra rules that exclude potential winning submissions improperly.
To put it another way: how much harm is caused by allowing this "exploit" in G minor III, and how much harm is caused by banning it and rejecting games that have used it?
In allowing it we have a level playing field and something that is going to involve practices reasonably expected in a "kill everyone ASAP" format at low difficulties. It also allows the application of HoF rules to be fair and consistent, something that would be difficult if a tactic that many see as valid gets banned halfway.
Banning it offers a significant hit to the credibility of the HoF rules and potentially cheapens the competition by filtering out some of the skillfully played games. What is the benefit of doing this? How does HoF do better by banning the tactic? By avoiding a tactic that is only *slightly* more abusive than standard play, and only in the circumstance of this gauntlet and not in general? Isn't the whole point of the gauntlets to *adapt* to the situation presented to find the best times within constraints? Why are we considering making up rules halfway?
Edit: People have different preferences. However, when I see a HoF submission, I think "this is what emerged from the best people competing within a given constraint when playing optimally". The more we arbitrarily crimp tactics, the further away we get from optimized play. For things that are expected to changed quickly or are unreasonable a ban is a good thing; but once you start cutting into valid tactics at random a player reading a game summary to get a picture of the strategy and how to play well begins have his understanding of what's truly strong play and what's just someone's preference blurred. I'm more interested in winning submissions that use all options reasonably available at the start of g minor III, not in submissions that won because a 10 turn faster victory was filtered out based on a rule that wasn't even clear at the start of the competition.
In other words, if this DoW for gold is the obvious strongest option in the isolated case of this gauntlet, so what? The entire draw of gauntlets is that they lead you to doing things you wouldn't otherwise. Banning tactics that arise from this kind of undermines the point of the gauntlet.
But there is another combination of ruins that would make him a runaway favorite. 
. I'm starting to think that any mongol approach is better served at a bit higher of a difficulty...
